Wars and ConflictsÌý permalink
Russian Empire gave rise to Israel
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Ìý
Posted by Nick-Rowan (U2517576) on Monday, 30th January 2006
David Ben-Gurion
He was born as David Grün in Płońsk, Poland which was then part of the Russian Empire. His father, Avigdor Grün was a lawyer and a leader in the Hovevei Zion organization. His mother, Scheindel died when Ben-Gurion was 11 years old.
In part because of his father's interests, but also shocked by the pogroms and rampant anti-Semitism that plagued Jewish life in Eastern Europe, he became an ardent Zionist and socialist and moved to Palestine in 1906.
Shimon Peres
Simon Persky was born in Wieniawa, Poland (now Vishniev in Belarus). In 1934, as a child, he moved with his family to Tel Aviv in what is now Israel (then part of the British Mandate of Palestine.) He was educated in the Geula School in Tel Aviv and the agricultural school of Ben Shemen.
In 1947, he was conscripted into the Haganah (predecessor of the Israeli Defense Forces) and was appointed by David Ben-Gurion to be responsible for personnel and arms purchases.
Ariel Sharon
Sharon was born Ariel Scheinermann February 27, 1928 to Shmuel and Dvora (formerly Vera), immigrants from Russia. They arrived in the Second Aliyah and settled in a socialist and secular community, where they were known to be contrarians against the prevailing community consensus: -
Message 2
Posted by Nick-Rowan (U2517576) on Monday, 30th January 2006
History update. The pogroms in Russia, which everybody have hears of, started in the 1880, and let to many millions immigrating in the following years, primarily to The United States. What fewer have heard off, is that it was the assasination of the czar, Alexander II by a jew in 1881, which led his son, Alexander III to clamp exeptionally hard down on all jews in 'The Pale of Settlements', the borderarea to the west, where all jews had been compelled to live since 1791, when Catherina II made them to. Here they were compelled to live in villages without the right to hold land. They could not live in towns. The misery and poverty and backwardness that was the result was to lead to the establishment in Israel as one result, integration in America as another result, involving similar number of people.
Anybody can decide for himself, which he thinks is the most succesfull integration into the wider world, and which have benefitted peace the most. -
Message 3
Posted by Nick-Rowan (U2517576) on Monday, 30th January 2006
During the cold war the worlds attention was elsewhere, as much more severe things could happen in other theatres. Therefore the palestinians and the extent to which they had their human rights spat on, was ignored. Not until the intifada began in 1987 did the world come to grips with this, and this together with the end of the cold war, changed everything in the worlds perception of what was going on. Also of course no superpowers held opposing views to the conflict anymore, and this enabled the peaceprocess to start in 1991.
-
Message 4
Posted by Nick-Rowan (U2517576) on Monday, 30th January 2006
I am sorry, but I just happen to find this subject the most interesting in contempory history, and so it has been since the countrys conception.
And you cannot argue that it has no place on a board about wars and conflicts, since the scale of those in just 60 odd years, in terms of conflicts occurancy, this hot-spot has to be the most intense ever in the history of human kind.
So if the event was extraordinary, events since have been fully up to the match.
And all because Catherine II in 1791 decided to led the jews live in a restricted area in the western border lands - where they would be the fist to receive the blows of any invasions into Russia. -
Message 5
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Monday, 30th January 2006
Nick, why the obsession?
Ever thought of adding a thread with a new theme? -
Message 6
Posted by Kings_of_fife (U2166495) on Monday, 30th January 2006
you have problems!
-
Message 7
Posted by Nick-Rowan (U2517576) on Monday, 30th January 2006
The quotes about these 3 important figures in israeli life was from Wikipedia, this largely jewish controlled encyclopedia, which is therefore not objective but biased i all matters relating to Israel and jews. However you can rely on that they got the names right, as well as this:
>Ben-Gurion encouraged Jews to join the British military at the same time as he helped orchestrate the illegal immigration of thousands of European Jewish refugees to Palestine at a time when the British sought to bar new Jewish immigration<
I have spoken with several brits over the years, and noticed their fondness of the term:
'Bl**dy B****rd'. Will DL as a full booded englishman confirm that given the Testimony referred above, this David Grün will fall under this term? -
Message 8
Posted by henrylee100 (U536041) on Monday, 30th January 2006
History update. The pogroms in Russia, which everybody have hears of, started in the 1880, and let to many millions immigrating in the following years, primarily to The United States. What fewer have heard off, is that it was the assasination of the czar, Alexander II by a jew in 1881, which led his son, Alexander III to clamp exeptionally hard down on all jews in 'The Pale of Settlements', the borderarea to the west, where all jews had been compelled to live since 1791, when Catherina II made them to. Here they were compelled to live in villages without the right to hold land. They could not live in towns. The misery and poverty and backwardness that was the result was to lead to the establishment in Israel as one result, integration in America as another result, involving similar number of people.
Anybody can decide for himself, which he thinks is the most succesfull integration into the wider world, and which have benefitted peace the most.Ìý
a couple of comments
how could the progorms have been the csars reponse to the assasination of his predecessor by a jew if you say the progroms started in 1980 and the csar got wacked in 1881.
According to what I heard, before 1791 there were practically no jews in Russia, they were all living in Rech Pospolita at the time. Once Rech Pospolita (the Polish Commonwealth) got divvied up between Russia, Prussia and Asutria Hungary, a huge chuck of territory was annexed and in that annexed lands was where all the jews lived and that was how they all wound up subjects of the Russian tsars. Now the bit about a ban on them moving eastward is true but it would appear that nobody banned them from living in cities as long as it was Ukrainian/Belorussian/Polish cities, in other words cities in the annexed areas. After all far as I recall the pogroms that got the most attention and publicity were the ones that went down in cities like Odessa and Kiev.
Can't say much about owning land per se, but from what I heard from my Ukrainian friends there was a period when they held property there. They were primarily in the money lending business. There was quite a bit of animosity between the jews and the local non jewish, notable Christian population in West Ukraine over situations where a n affluent jewish money lender would lend money to a local Christian community, then the local Christians would often fail to pay off the debt and the money lender would then reposses their temple and rent it back to them on Sundays. So a lot of local non jews began to see the jews as evil thus by the time of the pogroms the locals were ripe for them, in the sense that it didn't take a lot of effort to provoke them.
Bottom line, there's always several sides to any story -
Message 9
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Monday, 30th January 2006
Nick,
You wrote
"I have spoken with several brits over the years, and noticed their fondness of the term:
'Bl**dy B****rd'. Will DL as a full booded englishman confirm that given the Testimony referred above, this David Grün will fall under this term?"
Considering that you go into the life-history of Ben Gurion's father, then as you can probably guess, no I would not consider him to be illegitimate.
Does that answer your rather pointless question?
As one of the previous posters hinted, GET A LIFE Nick.
"Wikipedia, this largely jewish controlled encyclopedia"
More evidence of Nick's paramoid hatred of Jews.
Wikipedia is edited, compiled and written by the general public, and anyone can edit it if they see fit.
You go on about the assassination of Alexander II by a Jew. So what? Did this mean that Alexander III was correct to carry out pogroms? You obviously agree with the atrocious events in the "Pale of Settlements", so obviously, because one Jew kills someone, then it's ok to carry out a pogrom isn't it Nick? You are officially the reincarnation of Julius Streicher, and a very twisted individual.
Incidentally, a full-blooded Englishman?
-
Message 10
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Monday, 30th January 2006
Henrylee,
Thanks, can't believe I didn't spot that one!!!
So the pogroms of 1880 were caused by Alexander II's assassination in 1881!!!
Nick, foot, shot, yourself, have, again, the, in, you.
Rearrange this sentence to find a very familiar state of affairs with Nick Streicher's posts. -
Message 11
Posted by henrylee100 (U536041) on Monday, 30th January 2006
The Russian Empire and the Rise of Israel.
Don't think the Russian Empire could have done it all alone. For one even though a lot of the prominent Israeli leaders seem to share a Russian Empire heritage, there were always lots of jews scattered all over Europe and the Russian Emprie was never the only place where they got rough treatment.
Ultimately Israel can be said to have been brought into existance by WWII and the final solution. That was when all of Europe was given a bad guilt trip over the concentration camps and Hitler's failed attempt at exterminating European jews. Stalin, on his part, too was interested in wrapping them all up and sending them all away someplace, cause the man obviously disliked them almost as bad as the Fuhrer. In fact shorty after WWII he even had an autonomous jewish region established out in the far east beyond lake Baikal, anyone hear of Birobidgyan. And in the eearly days of Israel the Soviet block actually helped the new state, the first Israeli air force fighters were Check made Me 109's. Plus all this kibuts socialism stuff was obviously the influence of prominent jewish socialists and at the time socialists were practically all in one way or another related with the USSR.
Then Israel got hijacked by the US and they began to call the shots there, the USSR had the cold war role of opposing whatever the Us was doing, thus they ended up helping the arabs and palestinians, at least in words -
Message 12
Posted by Nick-Rowan (U2517576) on Monday, 30th January 2006
henrylee, thanks for your throuhough response, -I have developed this thesis about the Pale of Settlements role in the creation of Israel myself.
This jewish site says as much:
>The Napoleonic Enlightenment, which emancipated the Jews of Western Europe, did not make it to Eastern Europe where most Jews lived in the 18th-19th centuries.
The largest concentration of Jews -- or about 5 million -- was then located there; this represented 40% of the Jewish population worldwide.
From 1791 until 1915, the Jews living in Eastern Europe were confined by the Czars of Russia -- starting with Catherine the Great -- to an area known as the "Pale of Settlement" (meaning "borders of settlement"). The Pale consisted of 25 provinces that included Ukraine, Lithuania, Belorussia, Crimea, and part of Poland (which had been partitioned between Russia, Prussia, and Austria in 1772).<
***Crash_Course_in_Jewish_History_Part_56
***'
Commentary:
Since the jews living in the west was enlightened towards the modern world, and thus saw no reason to look into themselves and indulge in their own, dull, at that time largely forgotten (and not taught in any schools)- you got to admit that this enforced backwardness of the east had a huge importance in jews going back to their roots, ie. being extreme,righteous, self-assertive, the very kind we are witnessing in the ME on a daily basis, and which some would argue, including myself, is the root of the problem. -
Message 13
Posted by Nick-Rowan (U2517576) on Monday, 30th January 2006
>Another amazing thing that happened in the Pale, despite the oppression, was the re-birth of Torah learning.
Torah studies (as we saw in Part 52) had fallen by the wayside in the 18th century and had become a preserve of the elite.
In 1803, Rabbi Chaim ben Isaac of Volozhin (1749-1821), a student of the Vilna Ga'on, set about to correct this situation. Most yeshivas during this period were small institutions of learning supported by individual towns in which they were based. Rabbi Chaim proposed to found a large institution, open to all, and supported by many communities.
He sent letters to the chief rabbis of cities throughout Europe asking them to send to him their best students to study at his yeshiva in Volozhin, Lithuania, where he promised to provide them with financial support, top teachers, and a high-level standardized curriculum. The response to his letter was very positive and a large number of students were sent to the Volozhin Yeshiva, which eventually enrolled 450 students<
***
same site: Crash_Course_in_Jewish_History_Part_56
-
Message 14
Posted by Nick-Rowan (U2517576) on Monday, 30th January 2006
And you know what, henrylee?
All those 2 million +, who thanks to the emergence of cheap steamship-fares across the atlantic escaped the russian pogroms of the 1880'ties( I forgot the 'ties in the opening post) really proves that another approach is possible, witout necessarily go about craeting new lands in the ME. The succesfull integration of those people in American society speaks for itself. -
Message 15
Posted by Nick-Rowan (U2517576) on Monday, 30th January 2006
DL, I have now for a month, almost daily been deleting these sentences from the opening chapter of David Irvings CV, as it is laid out at Wikipedia. I thought initially, just like you, that everyone could go in and edit. Yes you can edit all right, but if it doesn't befit the jewish nomenclatura, it gets reverted almost immediately.
They have apparently a vast interest in be-samearing this honourable englishman, and for this I dislike them. He is a good englishman, son of a naval officer who took part in the Battle of Jutland.
I simply intervened, in what I saw as a be-smearen
of a fellow gentleman, and knowing that he currently are unable to defend himself, I have repeatedly been deleting these entries at the beginning of his CV, which I do not think should appear at the beginning of any living person, let alone dead, Curiculum Vitae.
>is a British Holocaust denier, who for many years had the reputation of <
>From the late 1960s to the mid-1980s, Irving was considered<
>In the mid-1980s, Irving began openly associating with neo-Nazi and extremist groups.<
>Among Holocaust deniers, Irving is perhaps the only one who for some time managed to maintain the reputation of a serious, if controversial, historian. He is considered an icon by many in the Holocaust denial camp.<
Vandalism
I'm not sure of the procedure myself, but could someone do something about the persistent vandalism on this page? How do I get in touch with an admin? User Nick-Rowan has been vandalising the page non-stop for three or four days now, yet the last 24-hour ban was simply for violating the 3-revert rule. S/he has not editted a single article besides the David Irving page and has made it quite clear they will continue to vandalise the page until stopped. Could someone tell me how to get in touch with an admin on the subject to try and get this sorted? --Davril2020 08:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit]
Justice Gray Hearing
How can anyone claim the Justice Gray hearing was reestablishing the facts? The hearing was a civil case between two parties, not a criminal or a public enquiry. The scope of that case could never question the history other than question did Irving try to disclaim holocaust dogma and they found he did.
That Lipstat is a nasty piece. I recall her doing an interview on an Australia ABC current affairs show, Lateline, and she was constantly lying and misrepresenting the situation. The ABC was lapping everything up as they seem to favour the Jewish cause. Like they recently showed how great Simon Wiesenthal was, but failed to mention his witch hunt style persecutions and lies, like human soap stories.
The only means to questioning the history is to reopen the Nuremberg Trials!
Sign your posts. Bhumiya 15:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit]
Oscar Wilde was an Irish pederast, who for many years held the reputation of being an author and wit
If you think the title above is biased -even if it is factual - then you might also see that the opening paragraph of the Irving article is also biased. It's difficult being honest, open and able to face up to one's own prejudices.
Holocaust Denial is a particular perspective on a particular part of history, and Irving is known principally for his work in studying history. Hence it might be reasonable to describe Wilde as holding a particular literary perspective because it is central to Wilde's public existence. It would equally be incorrect to describe Irving as a criminal or a man who currently resides in prison because that is not central to Irving's public identity. His public views on the only area of history for which he is well known are, however, of great significance. Equally, if Wilde had been a famous child carer, I would consider it acceptable to use the first clause of your sentence as it would be meaningful and significant in such a context. --Davril2020 21:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
'Holocaust Denial' is more than a particular perspective, it is also an emotive label used to vilify people, and suppress considered judgement of the subject. Whether it was the intention or not, placing it at the start of the article taints everything which follows. One can imagine that, in his day, Galileo might have been dismissed, as a 'Flat Earth denier'. To be objective, the writers from history might have mentioned in their article that some people considered Galileo to be a Flat Earth denier; they might also have asked themselves which views Galileo held that made him a Flat Earth denier, and what led him to hold those views? We might ask similar questions of David Irving. Of course, Holocaust denial has to be mentioned, but in the body of the text, and in context. You don't have to agree with his conclusions; I don't. But at least try to keep it neutral so others can make up their minds for themselves. The article might start, something like, "David Irving is a writer and historian whose opinions regarding the Holocaust have often overshadowed the rest of his work, and provoked widespread condemnation." I realise that this is a sensitive subject, but he is a writer, and he is a historian even if one doesn't think he is a very good one, or even an honest one. That first sentence, as it stands, is not neutral by a long way.
All reasonable authorities agree that Irving denies the Holocaust; this has been established not only by other historians but before the law. The sentence is an accurate representation of the situation. Your use of Galileo is spurious; Galileo was criticised because he proposed heliocentrism not the round earth (incidentally, the idea that people of the middle ages and earlier believed the earth to be flat is in itself mythical, all evidence suggests the concept of a round earth was accepted since Greek times). The point in this context is that you are implying Galileo denied that which should be denied and was punished for it: yet Irving is denying, and - this is important - distorting a historical fact that has been supported by overwhelming evidence. We can present all sides of the argument, but we cannot give them all equal weight. Irving is actively denying evidence; he is not simply interpreting it differently to others. --Davril2020 18:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Davril."All reasonable authorities agree...", "this has been established...", "... all evidence suggests ...", "supported by overwhelming evidence.." Not much grey in your life is there? I doubt any of those bold statements is correct, or if they were, that you would be in a postion to know. If you were a more thoughtful person you might have written, "Many authorities agree..." and instead of "all evidence suggests..." you could write - probably more accurately - "there is much evidence to suggest..." though in your shoes I would have gone with, "there is reason to believe...". Thirty books, forty years of writing, research, and interviews, tons of original documents donated to archives around the world. His books have been read by hundreds of thousands ( maybe millions ) and placed on library shelves in many institutions. In his books, he portrayed the Nazi leaders as human beings with wives and children, ambition, greed and other human failing, rather than the caricatures which war time propaganda had planted in most peoples minds. He reminded us that atrocities are committed by people, not so much unlike ourselves. Read one of his books; you will be surprised at how little Irving praises the Nazis ( not at all ) and how critical he is of their duplicity, war mongering and guilt. The article casts all that aside in the first contentious badly written sentence, then continues to describe Irving's life and work from the viewpoint of someone who is obviously out to highlight the bad over everything else. I'm not saying it's all wrong, just that there is nothing approaching balance. You missed the point about Flat Earth deniers. You grasped hold of my casual use of Galileo's name, and triumphantly hoisted the heliocentric nature of the solar system above your head, but ignored what it was all about. It was about highlighting one distastful aspect of someone's being at the expense of everything else. Here's another one - "Socrates was a pederast who used to be thought of as a philosopher" Strictly speaking it's true, but we would know that the author had an agenda if we read it at the head of an article wouldn't we? If you get caught up on the fact that Socrates wasn't a Holocaust denier you've probably missed the point again.
Categories: Wikipedia controversial topics | Wikipedia featured article candidates (contested)
Article Discussion -
Message 16
Posted by Nick-Rowan (U2517576) on Monday, 30th January 2006
Okay, I managed to get a little too much copy-pasted here, but nevertheless: I am soon going to delete those offending sentences again, which I do not think should appear in the beginning of any living persons CV. So you can watch for yourself that it gets reverted very soon.
-
Message 17
Posted by Nick-Rowan (U2517576) on Monday, 30th January 2006
So now the job is done, and the text is, as I think befits an entry for theis honourable historians CV:
>avid John Cawdell Irving (born March 24, 1938) is a professional historian and a leading author on the Second World War with works such as Hitler’s War and Apocalypse 1945: The Destruction of Dresden.<
Now watch when it gets reverted! -
Message 18
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Monday, 30th January 2006
So you have been deleting the following lines from David Irving's CV???
">is a British Holocaust denier, who for many years had the reputation of <
>From the late 1960s to the mid-1980s, Irving was considered<
>In the mid-1980s, Irving began openly associating with neo-Nazi and extremist groups.<
>Among Holocaust deniers, Irving is perhaps the only one who for some time managed to maintain the reputation of a serious, if controversial, historian. He is considered an icon by many in the Holocaust denial camp.<"
Nick,
The man is in PRISON awaiting trial for holocaust denial, and you are now wanting to edit his CV to remove any reference to Holocaust denial???
So does that make you a holocaust denial denier?
And you wonder why all these people have issue with your attempts to doctor the truth?
I have said previously that your opinions are both bigoted, inflammatory and offensive, and display an irrational prejudice against Jews which is bordering on neo-nazi.
Your above comment proves my thoughts beyond question.
David Irving is not worthy of the name "historian".
I refer you back to my previous post.
Get a life, you ignorant poisonous neo-nazi muppet.
It makes me sick that millions of good people died to free you from the iron rule of those who thought the way you do. You'd have been a prize member of the SS Wiking Division Nick, you really would.
Your views make me sick, and if you feel persecuted, then great. Nazis deserve persecution. -
Message 19
Posted by Nick-Rowan (U2517576) on Monday, 30th January 2006
You wrote this, and asked for it:
>Get a life, you ignorant poisonous neo-nazi muppet.
It makes me sick that millions of good people died to free you from the iron rule of tho....<
I may decide to take my velvet gloves off and deal with you as you deserve, Dennis Lester. I only intervened because I accidentially, and for the first time ever, took a look at Wikipedia, and the first site I saw was the entry of 'David Irving'. I noticed something odd, namely highly subjective, opinionated sentiments about a living person, actually the worlds leading expert on WW2 and the Nazi Regime in particular. I did not think that this should appear at the beginning of any persons CV, and not this about him having lost a libel-case. He won 45.000 £ in libel damage in 1996 against a leading english Sunday Newspaper, for example, and the fact that he this time lost should not figure in this way, at the beginning of his CV. It had to be because somebody wanted to smear him, and I immediately put it to context with the world wide smearing campaign that have been going on since the publication of his book 'Hitlers War' in 1977, which was compulsery reading at Sandhurst and West Point. -
Message 20
Posted by Nick-Rowan (U2517576) on Monday, 30th January 2006
I only hold myself back, Dennis Lester because I know you cannot take it the same way that you treat others. I have no connection or sympathy to the nazis, and acknowledge the great role that british forces played in liberating my country.
The reason you are angry is because our view of Israel differ. But here in the free world one is allowed to hold the view that arabmajority rule should be introduced in Palestine, and indeed would be the solution to the conflict -
Message 21
Posted by Nick-Rowan (U2517576) on Monday, 30th January 2006
It is only natural that you as a military person believe in fixed things that was enstilled in you early on. Such as a right for the jews to a homeland.
My view however is that this is untenable in the long run. As I have decribed , during the cold war the world was pre-occupied elsewhere, in other theatres, with much more important issues than the existence of a jewish homeland. It was the whole existence of the human race that was at stake.
In an ironic twist, after 1989, now the fate of the human race is at stake DUE to the existance if this country in the middle of arab middle east.
I am not surprised that you as a military person with fixed ideas, havent grasped this yet, and are not angry with you. -
Message 22
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Monday, 30th January 2006
Nick,
You wrote.
"I may decide to take my velvet gloves off and deal with you as you deserve, Dennis Lester. "
May I add that I am trembling with terror at this prospect.
Silly person. -
Message 23
Posted by Nick-Rowan (U2517576) on Monday, 30th January 2006
My deletions the past month continue to be reverted, allthough everyobne are supposed to be able to edit, and I am only interfering to restore the honour of a fellow gentleman who currently are unable to do so himself.
But at least I have got this sign on the page, which is new, indicated that some reckocnises that the neutrality is not upheld:
>The neutrality of this article is disputed.
Please see discussion on the talk page.<
Comment:
By any means visit the talk page and read point 5O, written by me, with the title:
"The text in its current form is smear intended to discredit ,and dishonour Mr.David Irving"
or take the link directly:
-
Message 24
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Monday, 30th January 2006
DL, Are you OK? Have you soiled yourself after a full frontal assault from a vicious e-threat?
-
Message 25
Posted by Richie (U1238064) on Monday, 30th January 2006
Dark
Who is this rather obnoxious troll???
"David Irving is malaigned" blah blah balh, the worlds ill's all lie with the Jewish problem, blah blah blah.................
Is this guy for real or just another WUM trying to get a rise??? -
Message 26
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Tuesday, 31st January 2006
Mani,
I have dug out my body armour, just in case he's a stalker!
Morning Rich,
Sadly he is for real. He believes that all the world's ills are down to the "international Jewish conspiracy". I'd guess that he's overdosed on Mein Kampf, and wants to spread the Gospel according to Adolf across the boards. Sounds very familiar doesn't it? What was that other Jew-hating idiot's name we had on here that time?
As ever, I tried the rational argument side of it, which just prompted a response of "The Jews did it (insert your chosen historical topic)". Don't feed the troll, or he'll start telling us that the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" is a historical document. -
Message 27
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Tuesday, 31st January 2006
Tell you Herr Streicher,
Start a thread on what the board thinks of David Irving's credibility as a "Historian", and you might learn something (or maybe that will be a Jewish plot too!). Have you ever thought that the reason that your doctoring of David Irving's track record is getting repeatedly deleted because it is not only incorrect, but also white-washing history, in the same despicable manner that Mr Irving has attempted to sanitise historical fact? Have you ever thought that people keep changing it because Irving's views are highly offensive, and bordering on support for Nazism, and the truth needs to be told?
No, of course not. The truth doesn't fit your nasty Jew-bashing agenda, so you won't let something like facts in, since they go against your petty bigotry.
We've had these arguments on these boards many many times before Nick, and you will face opposition from the majority of members on here every time you try to post your poisonous propaganda. I'm wondering if your next effort will be "Ahmadinejad is a great leader".
Cheers all (except Nick) -
Message 28
Posted by OUNUPA (U2078829) on Tuesday, 31st January 2006
Noon,Men
I just want to mention of Beiliss trial of 1913,which even after the Dreifus Affair shoked the whole of Europe with its medieval persecution of an innocent Jew on trumpled-up charges of the ritual murder of a Christian boy in Kyjiv.It was said by Russian Black Hundred Groups that it had to be a ritual murder by the Jews.They distributed leaflets in which it was claimed that 'every year before their Passover the Jews torture to death several dozen Orthodoxy(i.e.Moscow Patriarchia-a very special bred of Christianity) Christian children in order
to get their blood to mix with their matzos'.They called upon the Christians to kill all the Jews until not a single Y..d is left in Russia(in their views Kyjiv was that heart of 'Matushka Rus').
The ritual murder theory received spurious backing from the so-called Protocols of the Elders of Zion(clearly Russian thing), a forgery by the tzarist police which had first been published in St.Petersburg in 1902,and which LONG
BEFORE its success in Hitler's Europe provided a popular basis in Russia for the myth that the Jews formed a worldwide conspiracy to deprave the Christian nations(i.e.Moscow Patriarchia-so they recognized (recognize)
only that bred of Christianity).
But it was only after 1917 ,when many Russians(and those of Ukrainians who counted themselves by 'Russians'=Moscow Patriarchia)
blamed the calamities of the war and the revolution on the Jews.
Gorki wrote an appeal against the 'Jewish witch hunt' which was signed by Thomas Mann,Anatole France ,H.G.Wells,Thomas Hardy,the heads of all the Oxbridge colleges and dozens of leading politicians throughout Europe.
But R. gov. was undaunted by the international scandal and even INCREASED its efforts to GET Beiliss CONVICTED.
On the eve of his trial a number of key defence witnesses were arrested and sent into SECRET EXILE!
The judge was received by the Tzar,given a GOLD WATCH and PROMISED PROMOTION ....if there was a 'gov.victory''.
During the trial he repeatedly interrupted the proceedings and instructed the jury,which was packed with peasants from an area notorious for anti-Jewish pogroms,to accept what the prosecution had just told 'em as 'established fact'.
And yet even this wasn't enough to secure a conviction.The prosecution witnesses -tramps,convicted criminals and prostitutes-all exposed themselves as LIARS PAID BY POLICE.
In the 5 weeks of the trial the name of the defendant was barely mentioned at all,as the prosecution relied entirely on denigrating his religion..
In the end ,amidst widespread rejoicing at home and abroad ,Beiliss was acquitted...Six months later he emigrated to PALESTINE and from there went to USA....
That 'Black Hundreds' were nothing more than the Union of the Russian People the organization of Russian Orthodoxy&Tzar and having got the similar lines within party's programme with the modern Zirinovsky's LDP and 'Rodina'.The idea of 'Russia' serves as a vital reference point and as north on the compass Russians use to steer their way through their politics with the hidden message of the supremacy of Great Russians and the supremacy of Moscow Orthodoxy(the existing only the ONE STATE LANGUAGE in the country which is populated mostly by non-Russians from their origins,Henry)....These 6,ooo,ooo of Russian Ukrainians who live into Russia have no even a school to speak and learn subjects on their native language.....or a paper in Ukrainian language ....
The strictly restrictions on the religions which don't want and keen to go in line with AleksiyII&Putin ...the thinking within the categories of territorial claims directed against Rome rather than of these spiritual attributes of the religion ..If frankly I think that such sort of 'religion' must be put under taboo itself so it is in reality to be being a poison for people all around the world.
In short the slogan of 'Great Russia,United and Indivisible' that is based on racism and xenophobia...and that in its turn being the real source the
emigration of Jews from Russia to Palestine and USA. for ever.
In this sense I dare to claim that Israel ,as a state ,is an outcome of Russian way of thinking...for what hell Jews in USA or in Western Europe needed to emigrate in Israel...they are clever enough not to do such foolish things,right?
P.S. DL and Josef,I bet that the next stage of R. trousers emissions towards Ukraine will come on us in April-May this year from R.'nuclear area'-I mean the 'nuclear solid fuel' for Ukrainian A-energy stations! -
Message 29
Posted by OUNUPA (U2078829) on Tuesday, 31st January 2006
DL,hell with those 'Streichers'....
-
Message 30
Posted by henrylee100 (U536041) on Tuesday, 31st January 2006
henrylee, thanks for your throuhough response, -I have developed this thesis about the Pale of Settlements role in the creation of Israel myself.
This jewish site says as much:
>The Napoleonic Enlightenment, which emancipated the Jews of Western Europe, did not make it to Eastern Europe where most Jews lived in the 18th-19th centuries.
The largest concentration of Jews -- or about 5 million -- was then located there; this represented 40% of the Jewish population worldwide.
From 1791 until 1915, the Jews living in Eastern Europe were confined by the Czars of Russia -- starting with Catherine the Great -- to an area known as the "Pale of Settlement" (meaning "borders of settlement"). The Pale consisted of 25 provinces that included Ukraine, Lithuania, Belorussia, Crimea, and part of Poland (which had been partitioned between Russia, Prussia, and Austria in 1772).<
***Crash_Course_in_Jewish_History_Part_56
***'
Commentary:
Since the jews living in the west was enlightened towards the modern world, and thus saw no reason to look into themselves and indulge in their own, dull, at that time largely forgotten (and not taught in any schools)- you got to admit that this enforced backwardness of the east had a huge importance in jews going back to their roots, ie. being extreme,righteous, self-assertive, the very kind we are witnessing in the ME on a daily basis, and which some would argue, including myself, is the root of the problem.Ìý
True, but it also has to be said that not all jews in eastern Europe and especially Russia were as backward, after all many today credit the Russian jews with (or sometimes blame for) the 1917 Russian revolution. Whether the jews actually instigated and headed the revolutionary movement in the Russian Empire is a moot point but the fact that a lot of those jews eventually joined it and became prominent within it cannot be disputed (Lev Trotsky was not the only one). In way this enarmoredness of the communist ideas was probably in part due to their backwardness and closeness to the Torah. I.e. the eastern european jews did get their enlightment but it came later and it came in the form of communism which blended very well with some of the ideas about fairness found in the traditional jewish teachings.
But it also has to be borne in mind that not all of the eastern eurpean jews and rabbis were zionistic, that is not all of them supported the idea of a return to the promised land. Actually zionism is just one of the many branches of Judaism. I forget his name but there was this rabbi who live and died and was buried in the vicnity of Smolensk, a city on the border between Russia and Belorussia which for a long time was the easternmost point that the jews were allowed to go in Russia, so this rabbi taught that since it was God's will to have the jews scattered all over the earth, a return to Israel was an inherently wrong idea as it obviously went against the will of the Allmighty. Thus not all of the Russian jews were eager to move to Palestine, it all depended on a number of factors, such as which rabbi's teachings you were a follower of and whether you got hooked on the new communist enlightment that began to gain more and more popularity in Russia towards the end of the 19th century.
So yes zionism was more prominent in Russia than anywhere else in Europe until the 20th century but it wasn't the only rabbinic teaching there at the time, it coexisted with alternative traditions. What did make zionism the prevailing view among the majority of jews all over the world was the WWII experience when altimately they got slaughtered in the millions and of all places it all went down in the enlightened Europe, that was a cold shower after which zionism evolved from a one among many traditions into about the only practice that promised to provide at least some sort of security against a repeat of the holocaust.
So to sum it up, in my view the main problem is not that there was a period of time at one point when a bunch of jews in the Russian empire were forced to live in islolated enclaves where they began to develop a kind of national identity that eventually led to them creating a state of their own. The problem is the animosity towards jews that has existed for centuries and not only in eastern Europe, it would appear it's been present throughout the world in different forms. Even in the US, some of the white supremasits organizations such as the notorious Clan in the south have often included the jews among their enemies. Even the enlightened Europe, it would seem, only assimilated them to lash out against them big time during WWII. They do have a lot of sway in the Us today though, so basically yes the Us is one country outside Israel where they can feel almost as comfortable but even there, every once in a while a synagogue gets burned down. -
Message 31
Posted by Nick-Rowan (U2517576) on Tuesday, 31st January 2006
Thanks again for your detailed response. I cannot help feeling that it is nice and much preferable to have the subject of the thread adressed, rather than getting abused personally for opinions that one doesn't have .
It is interesting that more than 2 million chose America, where many undoubtely have contributed in a possitive way to the US, allthough it is undeniable that many crooks also came this way.But in the Pale they were resticted from virtuallyany decent profession, and many turned to smuggling, even in women, and opened and ran brothells as well as usual inns. This habit they took with them to America, where Meyer Lanski the financial boss of the american Mafia in the 50'ties is the most prominent example of a jewish crook having comed put of the pale and to America.Also all the heads in smuggling of spirits during the 30'ties and arm smugglers supplying Israel with weapons around british embargoes, and smuggling people there, - all the heads of these operations was jews. The people who sold ponographic were jews, as this industry is today dominated by this segment, bosses as well as actors in the adult industry.In any crime in America where there is big money to bemade, you can bet that its a jew that controlls it.
But whether one should describe this as asuccesfull integration or not, it is in my view preferable to the one we are seing in the ME, where this east european derived culture is completely alien, and the arabs generally are very offended and brace themselves that they have becomed exposed to it.
Finally I want to say, that what you say here:
>they got slaughtered in the millions and of all places it all went down in the enlightened Europe,<
really doesn't hold true, since all the brutal crimes went on in the eastern gouvernement, which Hitlers adjudants with the notorious Himmler in the lead, were conducting in order to cleanse this gouvernement, in effect committing etnic cleansing. Undoubtely they thought they were pleasing the führer and adhering to his wishes, and Hitler has a clear responsibility for having creating this whole athmosphere, where anything like this was possible. However, it is well known that Hitler was pre-occupied with the daily conduct of war, and seems to have considered himself as some sort of latter day Napoleon, who couldn't be bothered with details about how people like jews were being treated. They were by many at this time considered backward, and this was exactly what they was in Eastern Europe at that time. David Irving has found no proof that Hitler should have been aware of the scale of the cleansing until 1943. -
Message 32
Posted by Nick-Rowan (U2517576) on Tuesday, 31st January 2006
David Irving have found evidence suggesting that Hitler was upset upon learning of the Kristalnacht, and tried to quench it - that it was being caried out by villains in brown uniforms outside Hitlers control. When David published this it was not believed, and he got villified for suggesting it.
-
Message 33
Posted by Nick-Rowan (U2517576) on Tuesday, 31st January 2006
What we can say though, is that he was highly intelligent, greatly concerned for the wellbeing and preservation of the german state, which he saw as a great personal responsibility to restore.
This has to be mentioned to those who continues to refer to himin terms of evil. Any description along such lines are not worthy, and yet a good deal of people continue to portray him in this way. Now we have talked about the holocaust, let us not forget that there were many holocausts, and that civilians allways are caught out in times of war, and that jews generally was not held in high esteem by anyone, and that it is allways a precaurios possition to live as a minority with singular customs among a host-majority, in times of war and unrest, or so history have shown many times.
Churchill, de Gaulle, Eisenhower and others all wrote between them thousands of pages of the war, without mentioning the holocaust with one word. -
Message 34
Posted by Nick-Rowan (U2517576) on Tuesday, 31st January 2006
Yet undeniable the germans have a great responsibility for Israel being set up, as the whole world had a bad concience of what had happened. Trouble is the arabs -and persians- don't understand why they should be punished by having such an alien culture in their middle, actually around the holyist shrine in Islam after Mecca and Medina itself, the Al-Aqsa mosque, where they now are been controlled and visitated, if they want to pay respect to this scrine.
It is an explosive situation, with a country 2 times the size of Cyprus holding 200 nuclear bombs, and this now threatens to start an arms race. Here it would be better for the international community to confiscate those terrible weapons, and let Israel fall under the American nuclear umbrella, which i understand the US wouldn't allow in the 50'ties, prompting Israel together with France to get their own nuclear programme in a joint effort. -
Message 35
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Tuesday, 31st January 2006
HITLER DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THE DEATH CAMPS?????????
Nick you are scraping the very bottom of the neo-nazi barrel with that one. I suggest you watch a Â鶹ԼÅÄ documentary called "The Nazis:A Warning from History", where they showed a nice little document listing the killings of Jews by the Einsatzgruppen, (which on this document alone lists around 1/2 million people, men, women and children), and Hitler has marked this document in his own hand, stating that it was "Sehr gut, und richtig". Translation, very good and correct. Don't give me that crap that he didn't know, after all, he was sweetness and light incarnate wasn't he! You are an ignorant neo-nazi fool to keep spouting your vile rubbish.
David Irving found no proof? Well, after all, he's proven to be an unbiased "historian" isn't he? Funny how he now claims that the death camps did exist, and that he was wrong isn't it?
So if he found no proof, then that means it didn't happen obviously!!!
Your distortions of history are only worthy of being called one thing. Lies.
Hitler didn't know about the holocaust, you are a joke.
Your true colours are coming clear now, and they are red, with a white circle in the middle, and a big black bent cross in the circle. -
Message 36
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Tuesday, 31st January 2006
David Irving have found evidence suggesting that Hitler was upset upon learning of the Kristalnacht, and tried to quench it - that it was being caried out by villains in brown uniforms outside Hitlers control. When David published this it was not believed, and he got villified for suggesting it.Ìý
Actually, there is a small amount of truth in this, but as usual you have twisted it Nick.
Hitler was furious about Kristallnacht, not because of the fact that thousands had been put in KZs, and hundreds killed, but because of the damage done to the German ECONOMY by the insurance claims!!!! So, Goering found the solution, to have the insurance claims paid back to the Reich in "fines" levied on the Jewish communities, and most of this money disappeared into Nazi party coffers. -
Message 37
Posted by Nick-Rowan (U2517576) on Tuesday, 31st January 2006
But now it is in the US interest to do it. It should be done together with a programme of introducing arab majority rule, with all jews having absolute freedom to choose whether they want to stay ,like the white can do since the end of Apartheid in South Africa in 1993, or leave.
Perhaps many reckon that the crimes committed in terms of property-confiscating and etnic cleansing and commandoraids into the palestinians temporary dwellings , have been on such a scale, that they will prefer to leave. Well, so be it then.
For the same reason many hold dual nationality and passports, and it is undeniable that among the 2 peoples the jews are the one best suited for a life in exile, as they before have shown to a remarcable degree.
It is obvious that the US as Israels sole ally and benefactor for the last 35 years hold a unique responsibility for encompassing as many as possible, who may wish to settle down in the states. And the states would have been a much wiser choice of destination in the first place, rendering the last 60 years a regrettable parenthesis in world history that have produced such untold levels of violence and suffering --and all to no awail. -
Message 38
Posted by henrylee100 (U536041) on Tuesday, 31st January 2006
Noon,Men
I just want to mention of Beiliss trial of 1913,which even after the Dreifus Affair shoked the whole of Europe with its medieval persecution of an innocent Jew on trumpled-up charges of the ritual murder of a Christian boy in Kyjiv.It was said by Russian Black Hundred Groups that it had to be a ritual murder by the Jews.They distributed leaflets in which it was claimed that 'every year before their Passover the Jews torture to death several dozen Orthodoxy(i.e.Moscow Patriarchia-a very special bred of Christianity) Christian children in order to get their blood to mix with their matzos'.They called upon the Christians to kill all the Jews until not a single Y..d is left in Russia(in their views Kyjiv was that heart of 'Matushka Rus').Ìý
a little comment, OUNUPA, unfortunately some of the Ukrainians were just as narrow minded and evil towards the jews in Ukraine as the Russians, far as I recall during the civil war in Russia one of the first things that units of the Denikin white army did whenever they captured a settlement, was to kill all the jews there and the Denikin army fought under the same zhelto blakitny flag that is now the offical banner of today's Ukraine. Hatred toward Jews, unfortunately is not unique to Russians, the problem seems to run much deeper than that.
The ritual murder theory received spurious backing from the so-called Protocols of the Elders of Zion(clearly Russian thing), a forgery by the tzarist police which had first been published in St.Petersburg in 1902,and which LONG
BEFORE its success in Hitler's Europe provided a popular basis in Russia for the myth that the Jews formed a worldwide conspiracy to deprave the Christian nations(i.e.Moscow Patriarchia-so they recognized (recognize)
only that bred of Christianity).
But it was only after 1917 ,when many Russians(and those of Ukrainians who counted themselves by 'Russians'=Moscow Patriarchia)
blamed the calamities of the war and the revolution on the Jews.
Ìý
choose one of the two , the Beliss trial was before the revolution not after it. The blaming of the jews for the revolution far as I understand is a relatevly recent invetion in Russia and can be seen as a return of anti semitism. In the USSR the anti semitism was more subtle in the form of not hiring jews in certain jobs or not giving certain roles to jewish actors, one episode I'm personally aware of is when as late as the 1970's (or possible early 1980's) there was an attempt to cast a jewish actor by the name of Leonid Yarmolnik as the main character in a movie called The Sleuth, the movie industry authorities expressedly banned it, Yarmolnik ended up playing a small support character.
Gorki wrote an appeal against the 'Jewish witch hunt' which was signed by Thomas Mann,Anatole France ,H.G.Wells,Thomas Hardy,the heads of all the Oxbridge colleges and dozens of leading politicians throughout Europe.
But R. gov. was undaunted by the international scandal and even INCREASED its efforts to GET Beiliss CONVICTED.
On the eve of his trial a number of key defence witnesses were arrested and sent into SECRET EXILE!
The judge was received by the Tzar,given a GOLD WATCH and PROMISED PROMOTION ....if there was a 'gov.victory''.
During the trial he repeatedly interrupted the proceedings and instructed the jury,which was packed with peasants from an area notorious for anti-Jewish pogroms,to accept what the prosecution had just told 'em as 'established fact'.
And yet even this wasn't enough to secure a conviction.The prosecution witnesses -tramps,convicted criminals and prostitutes-all exposed themselves as LIARS PAID BY POLICE.
In the 5 weeks of the trial the name of the defendant was barely mentioned at all,as the prosecution relied entirely on denigrating his religion..
In the end ,amidst widespread rejoicing at home and abroad ,Beiliss was acquitted...Six months later he emigrated to PALESTINE and from there went to USA....
Ìý
it would appear that back then the courts in Russia were lots more democratic and independent than they are today, and inspite of your deragatory remarks those "anti jewish" pheasants on the jury didn't let their bias interfere with their reason.
That 'Black Hundreds' were nothing more than the Union of the Russian People the organization of Russian Orthodoxy&Tzar and having got the similar lines within party's programme with the modern Zirinovsky's LDP and 'Rodina'.The idea of 'Russia' serves as a vital reference point and as north on the compass Russians use to steer their way through their politics with the hidden message of the supremacy of Great Russians and the supremacy of Moscow Orthodoxy(the existing only the ONE STATE LANGUAGE in the country which is populated mostly by non-Russians from their origins,Henry)Ìý
the last statement is simply not true. As totalitarian as Russia may be at the moment, ethnicity based regions in Russia are allowed to choose their own official languages for local use, for example in Tatarstan, the Tatar language is the official language for use at the local level. Russian there has the status of the federal language.
....These 6,ooo,ooo of Russian Ukrainians who live into Russia have no even a school to speak and learn subjects on their native language.....or a paper in Ukrainian language ....
The strictly restrictions on the religions which don't want and keen to go in line with AleksiyII&Putin ...Ìý
I'm not a fan of the Russian goverment but you've got to give the credit where it's due, so tell us is it because of this exclusive preference for Russian Orthodoxy that the Russian government every year charters planes to take moslem pilgrims to Mecca? AS for the 6 mil Ukrainians living in Russia that have no opportunity to speak/learn the Ukrainian language, you know I've never seen or heard a single report about any one of those Ukrainians campagining to get the Russian government to promote Ukrainian unlike the numerous reports of Russian speakers in Ukraine demonstrating againt Ukrainian being forced on them. So my point is let the Ukrainians living in Russia speak for themselves, plus who do you consider a Ukrainian in russia, far as I know the nationality entry has long been droped from Russain passports, I personally know one man living in Russia whose last name is Maksimenko, obviosuly a Ukrainian last name, the man has never spoken a word of Ukraiian in his life because he was born and brought up in russia, so would he qualify as a Ukrainian expat that needs to be taught his ancestors' language and be counted among those 6 million who are being deprived of their right to use their "native" language?
the thinking within the categories of territorial claims directed against Rome rather than of these spiritual attributes of the religion ..If frankly I think that such sort of 'religion' must be put under taboo itself so it is in reality to be being a poison for people all around the world.Ìý
OUNUPA, with all respect, but you're losing it. The Russian Orthodoxy is part of the Eastern Orthodox church, if you look at the core of it it's basically the same as any other religions business under the sun, run on the principle of charing people for providing different kinds of spiritual services to them. All Russian governemtns have always had a clear understanding of the hold that spiritual leaders can have on their flocks. Ironically with some people you can get them to do lots more with promises of an everlasting life than with promises of perishable wealth in the here and now, thus the church in Russia, just like in many other countries and historical periods has often been used by the ruling classes to manipulate the biomass. The Ukrainian orthodox church, that branch of it that split from the Moscow Patriachy, is too a tool in the hand of politicians, there's nothing really new about it, you can't go demanding that a ban be put on a church on account that it gets used by a government, you know people get used by governments all the time, would you suggest that people as a species be banned as well?
In short the slogan of 'Great Russia,United and Indivisible' that is based on racism and xenophobia...and that in its turn being the real source the
emigration of Jews from Russia to Palestine and USA. for ever.
Ìý
you may not be aware of it but the jews have been emigrating to the US not just from Russia but from Easter Europe in general and as the Germans demonstrated in the 1930's and 1940's russians are not the only nation suceptible to nationalist xenophobic sentiments. You're too fixated on russia and this fixation seems to prevent you from being able to see the bigger picture. Russia's not the source of all evil, evil is ubiquitous and ulitmately every one of us can potentially be the source of it.
In this sense I dare to claim that Israel ,as a state ,is an outcome of Russian way of thinking...for what hell Jews in USA or in Western Europe needed to emigrate in Israel...they are clever enough not to do such foolish things,right?Ìý
yeah yeah, go ahead and blame them russkies for EVERYTHING that ever went wrong on earth (btw it's always easier to put the blame on someone else rather than take a close look at yourself, it's the easy way), you know your russiaphobia is even worse than those jewish conspiracy ideas them white supremacist nuts have. don't you think it's just unreasonable. Sure russians have done lots of nasty things to the jews but they aren't the only ones, that's the core of the problem if it was only russians the jews would have just all emigrated to Europe and would have lived there happily ever after but that just didn't happen. The Russians can't have caused all of this, even though they do control a very large territory , western europe has never been controled by them (the situation may be changing now , with Schroeder's recent appointment it would seem that they may have eventually found a way to worm their way into Western Europe and corrupt it from within) -
Message 39
Posted by henrylee100 (U536041) on Tuesday, 31st January 2006
really doesn't hold true, since all the brutal crimes went on in the eastern gouvernement, which Hitlers adjudants with the notorious Himmler in the lead, were conducting in order to cleanse this gouvernement, in effect committing etnic cleansing. Undoubtely they thought they were pleasing the führer and adhering to his wishes, and Hitler has a clear responsibility for having creating this whole athmosphere, where anything like this was possible. However, it is well known that Hitler was pre-occupied with the daily conduct of war, and seems to have considered himself as some sort of latter day Napoleon, who couldn't be bothered with details about how people like jews were being treated. They were by many at this time considered backward, and this was exactly what they was in Eastern Europe at that time. David Irving has found no proof that Hitler should have been aware of the scale of the cleansing until 1943.
Ìý
what do you mean by the eastern government? the governemtns installed by the Germans in the occupied territories? You see thing is that even before German began its drive on the east there was a campaign against the local jews at home, remember when they were all forced to wear the jewish stars on their clothes, then there was that famous night when jewish businesses got trashed and looted all across Germnay, around that time jewish scientists began to be restricted in or kicked out of their jobs. you know there was a reason why Einstain emmigrated, they passed a whole host of expressedly anti semitic laws of which Hitler had to have been aware because as the Chancellor he woould have had to sign them all. Now if you'll remember the famous Anne Frank's Diary was written by a Dutch girl, this proves that the planned extermination of the jews was not restricted to eastern europe only. Just so happened that in Eastern europe they had fewer opportunities eo escape because the jewish population there was generally poorer than in the west where they could afford to hop in boats and go to England or the States.
As for the Fuhrer, there's pretty solid evidence, such as memoirs related by people like Speer that suggest he definetely did no like them one bit. Sure he probably didn't go into all the details of how exactly his subordinates went about wiping out the jewish population of Europe but he was certainly in charge of the general direction. Yes, preoccupation with the war and all, but basically you concede that the general idea was his, it's not really important how it was implemented and who were the implementors as far as the extent of Hitler's personal blame is concerned. He wanted them gone and his subordinates went and tried to make his wish come true. -
Message 40
Posted by Nick-Rowan (U2517576) on Tuesday, 31st January 2006
Yes I agree with you he in any case bears the main responsibility, because he have many times made utterings about them, which his subordinates tried to live up to
-
Message 41
Posted by Nick-Rowan (U2517576) on Tuesday, 31st January 2006
Yes, yeas there were campaign in the west, but no talk of any annihilation or extermination of them, at the most expulsion. As I said the brutal stuff took place in the east, where those who could not flee germany and later german occupied europe ended up.
-
Message 42
Posted by henrylee100 (U536041) on Tuesday, 31st January 2006
Yes, yeas there were campaign in the west, but no talk of any annihilation or extermination of them, at the most expulsion. As I said the brutal stuff took place in the east, where those who could not flee germany and later german occupied europe ended up.Ìý
remember what happened to Anne Frank, God rest her soul, she was found by the nazies and wound up being shipped to one of the concentration camps where she was killed. The fact that the nazies has most of their concentration camps in eastern europe doesn't mean that west european jews never got sent there. Expulsion was no longer an options once a territory was occupied, first it was living in a ghetto and then concentration camps. -
Message 43
Posted by Nick-Rowan (U2517576) on Tuesday, 31st January 2006
Answers to a Sixth Grader on the Big H
I AM a Sixth Grader and I am doing a report on Holocaust Denial and I would like to know if you would mind taking this interview for me. I need this interview for a school assignment due on June 6, 2005.
Sarah O.
1. When did you become interested in the whole controversy of whether or not the Holocaust ever occurred in history and Why?
I HAVE no interest whatever in the commercial package now marketed as The Holocaust. I find it boring. When a Holocaust programme comes on television, I switch to a different channel or I am careful to go out. If Winston Churchill, Charles de Gaulle, Dwight D Eisenhower and others could write entire histories about World War II without referring in one line to "The Holocaust" then why should I pay any attention to this post-1970 money-making media invention?
Did this have a big impact on any part of your life or the way you
thought of World War II before and after and the Holocaust?
Answer: see above response.
3. What really happened during the Holocaust?
LOTS of Jews were killed. In wartime lots of people get killed, -- see Iraq -- sometimes the ones who were guilty for the war, sometimes the innocents. See the air raid on Dresden. That was a holocaust. I am on the side of the innocents.
4. World War II? -- I don't understand your question.
5. What about the Trial, what was that about? -- See below.
6. What do your family and friends think of the Holocaust and World War II? In 8th grade students are required to learn about the Holocaust and Anne Frank's Diary, How will your children deal with this?
6. Don't you find it odd, shameful even, that "In 8th grade students are required to learn about the Holocaust and Anne Frank's Diary"? Doesn't that smack of propaganda? Isn't that like having something rammed down your throat, like it or not? Real History does not require enforcers, or bans, or prohibitions, or web-filters, or punishments.
Poor little Anne Frank, like "the" Holocaust, has become big business, with two rival business empires fighting each other tooth-and-claw for the right to market Anne Frank T-shirts and memorabilia -- one based in Switzerland, where her mega-wealthy father lived and died, the other in Amsterdam where the house is.
The good news is this: I think that children who are required to read Anne Frank's diary are capable of thinking for themselves, and they may well think: This proves David Irving right:
a. Little Anne Frank, her young sister and her father were Jews, and they were actually in Auschwitz, the "factory of death". They were too young to work. But they were not killed. So much for the legends about a programme of 100 percent extermination of the Jews.
b. Her sister Margot died of typhus. This proves David Irving right. Typhus was the biggest killer in the camps.
c. Her father Otto Frank (with whom I corresponded, and who tampered with the famous Diary, writing fake passages in ball point ink) fell ill with typhus. The Nazi doctors took him into the Auschwitz camp hospital and looked after him. So much for the legend that the Nazis killed all Jews who fell sick.
d. Given the choice of leaving with the Nazis or staying to greet the Russians, in January 1945, most of the Auschwitz survivors chose to leave with the Nazis. Anne Frank went to Bergen-Belsen camp, where she died . . . of typhus.
As you will see if you read The Secret Diaries of Hitler's Doctor, which I found and published, at the end of the war all the German pharmaceutical factories had been destroyed by Allied bombing, and even Adolf Hitler could not get the medicines he needed. This may have been part of the cause of the uncontrolled typhus epidemics that raged through the German camps. And how did the epidemics start? An interesting question.
***
-
Message 44
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Tuesday, 31st January 2006
"6. Don't you find it odd, shameful even, that "In 8th grade students are required to learn about the Holocaust and Anne Frank's Diary"? Doesn't that smack of propaganda? Isn't that like having something rammed down your throat, like it or not? Real History does not require enforcers, or bans, or prohibitions, or web-filters, or punishments."
Did you write this rubbish Nick? Why are children taught about the holocaust? Because it was the greatest crime man has ever committed, and we should learn from it.
That's why!
You just don't get it do you!!
Enough of this garbage, you sick twisted nazi. -
Message 45
Posted by Nick-Rowan (U2517576) on Tuesday, 31st January 2006
It is a letter to David Irving, at it is David who answers. I brought it up re. the remarks about Anne Frank, to show that her sister and father survived Ausswitch, and that his father was taken care off by german doctors, when he fell ill with typhus, which was the biggest killer fro the inmates in camps in those years( particularly at the end of the war)
-
Message 46
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Tuesday, 31st January 2006
I hate to call you a liar Nick, but if David Irving had written this, would he have written...
"b. Her sister Margot died of typhus. This proves David Irving right. Typhus was the biggest killer in the camps."
Oops. Just a bit of fibbing going on there then. Incidentally, if David Irving did indeed write this, his chances of getting out of jail in Austria don't look good!
Incidentally, lots of German Doctors "took care of people in the camps". The names Rascher and Mengele spring to mind for some reason....
Or was that made up too? -
Message 47
Posted by Nick-Rowan (U2517576) on Tuesday, 31st January 2006
> Because it was the greatest crime man has ever committed,< No 'man' has not committed this. Some germans did it. And in terms of number of casualties it is not the biggest that 'man' or men has committed. Here communism with and estimated death toll of more than 100 million people has been a far greater killer. In fact this make communism to the greatest crime in the history of mankind.
It is very wrong to focus only on those jewish victims. And it is being done partly on political grounds in order to create sympathy for Israel which in due time can be cashed in for political goodwill, as has been the case many times when prominent jewish leaders have used this a pretext for what Israel have been doing.
Many reckon that only due to the Holocaust and with it the possible exageration of numbers of casualties and distortion of the way they died, has Israel been able to get away with the ethnic cleansing that they themselves have been conducting towards the palestinians. -
Message 48
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Tuesday, 31st January 2006
"d. Given the choice of leaving with the Nazis or staying to greet the Russians, in January 1945, most of the Auschwitz survivors chose to leave with the Nazis. Anne Frank went to Bergen-Belsen camp, where she died . . . of typhus"
Wrong. Most of the survivors were force-marched across central Europe, in the middle of winter and shot if they couldn't keep up. That's why they called them "death marches". They weren't given "a choice", that's a lie. If they were thought to be about to die, they were left behind. -
Message 49
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Tuesday, 31st January 2006
"And how did the epidemics start? An interesting question."
Easy answer.
If you cram undernourished half-starved people into wooden buildings, with insufficient clothing, they huddle together. Typhus is spread by lice. Lice spread easily in such conditions, and when people are sufficiently weakened by malnutrition and over-work, they have little resistance. They just die.
The medicine issue is neither here nor there. Even after the allies arrived and liberated the camps, thousands more died despite of proper food, healthcare and warmth. Why? Because they were so severely weakened by the abuse of the nazis that they just couldn't recover.
Why am I not surprised that someone like yourself Nick, with your habit of blaming the Jews for everything wrong in the world, that you are also a holocaust denier? It's hardly surprising is it?
Hitler didn't know. My arse. -
Message 50
Posted by Nick-Rowan (U2517576) on Tuesday, 31st January 2006
Just follow the link I provided to Davids site, Focal Point Publications, fpp, where this letter is, along with lots of other material and sources relating to WW2 and regarding Ausswitch: You wont on the net find similar amount of material and that goes for other areas: transcripts og british wiretaps, transscripts of Admiral Cunninghams Diary and the like, transcript from an estate somewhere in Britain where german generals were imprisoned, recorded secretly, like listening in, word by word of their conversation. Very interesting!
I am surprised if you havent discovered this wealth of information! As you know, all historians are pedantic with getting the facts right, and from there on they try to interpret what went on. On the first count, the facts, you can absolutely trust that they are impeccable, you cannot put any finger on anything. Only 12 (minor) factual faults have been found in Davids work, spanning a career of 40 years, and they were corrected immediately when someone spotted them and alerted Mr. Irving.
As you know it is the interpretation of (certain) facts that somebody decided to discredit Mr. Irving for. And among his many books and numerous bestsellers they only picked at one (ONE) chapter of his 1977 landmark work: 'Hitlers war'. The one chapter dealing with the holocaust. But there i s no factual faults in his presentation, he just said, as truth was, that he have found no proof that Hitler knew about it before, I think 1943, and the offer of 10000 dollars for anyone coming up with facts for the contrary still stands.
He is a leading authority of WW2 and of the Nazi regime in particular
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.