Arab Nazi Week
I am confused by this book review. As we know the philosophy behind Nazism wasn’t new to Hitler. Its pedigree predated the creation of Islam and then some. Even the use of the big lie and blood libel predated Hitler. In fact the Koran embodies many principles that Hitler espoused.
Rather than organizing Islamic Apartheid Week, I have proposed we call it Arab Nazi Week. For instance;
1. Hitler believe in the Aryan race. Islam believes in the supremacy of the Ummah and Dimmitude,
2. Hitler made Europe Yudenrein and the Arabs made their countries, Yudenrein,
3. The Grand Mufti had a close working relationship with Hitler, organized Muslim troops in Bosnia for him and tried to organize the Arabs to “kill the Jews”,
4. Hitler’s Nuremberg Laws which removed Jewish rights were predated by the Koran which removes rights from Jews and others,
5. Both Hitler and the Koran advocated killing Jews,
6. Both Hitler and the Koran justified lying and breaking of agreements to achieve goals,
7. They both made use of the Hudna when it suited them (e.g. Hitler made a pact with Russia and then invaded it.)
8. They both aspired to world domination.
9. Hitler destroyed all the Synagogues and religious symbols and the Arabs destroyed all synagogues in Jerusalem after the ’48 War and since then destroyed many Jewish historic sites.
How Nazism shaped Islamist views
Today’s Jew-hatred in the Middle East has a sinister European colouring
By Jeffrey Herf, February 25, 2010
Political Islam is partly the product of a cultural fusion between European and Islamist traditions of Jew-hatred. Nazism’s Arabic-language propaganda aimed at the Middle East during the Second World War indicates that a crucial chapter in the history of that fusion took place in Berlin during the war.
It was then and there that the highest-ranking officials of the Nazi regime, including Hitler and officials in the Foreign Ministry and the SS, had a meeting of hearts and minds with pro-Nazi Arab and Muslim exiles such as Haj Amin el-Husseini (the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem) and Rashid Ali Kilani, the former head of a short-lived Iraqi regime. Throughout the Second World War, their collaboration led to thousands of hours of short-wave Arabic-language radio broadcasts to the Middle East.
In the spring of 1942, officials in the American Embassy in Cairo began to send verbatim, English-language translations of the broadcasts back to the State Department in Washington. As only small fragments of the broadcasts remain in the German government archives and in the files of British intelligence, the Cairo Embassy files in the United States National Archives outside Washington, DC, are the most complete record in any language of these important documents. There remains much work to be done by scholars who read Arabic and Farsi to trace the continuities and discontinuities between past and present. Nevertheless, it is clear Islamism of recent decades echo some themes of wartime broadcasts.
In their Arabic-language broadcasts, the Nazis stated that Zionists had started the Second World War in order to establish a Jewish state and dominate the Arab world. In its propaganda aimed at Germans at home, the Nazi regime publicly asserted that it was “exterminating” the Jews of Europe. In the Arabic-language broadcasts to the Middle East, Arabic language announcers called on listeners to take matters into their own hands and “kill the Jews” in the Middle East themselves. Rather than translations of speeches by Hitler or Goebbels, it was a fundamentalist reading of the Koran that was crucial for justifying Jew-hatred with Muslim listeners. Husseini and others asserted that Jews had been the enemies of Islam from its inception. They presented Zionist goals in Palestine as only the latest of the Jews’ efforts to destroy Islam.
In the years following the war, the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Hassan al-Banna and, its leading ideologue of the 1950s, Sayyid Qutb, offered evidence that the messages from Berlin had found a welcome reception among Muslim extremists. In June 1946, when Husseini returned to Cairo, Al-Banna said that Husseini would “continue the struggle” that Hitler and Germany had waged against Zionism.
In his important essay of the early 1950s, Our Struggle with the Jews, Qutb described the Jews as implacable enemies of Islam. He further claimed that Allah had sent Hitler to earth to “punish” the Jews for their evil deeds. During the war, Nazi Orientalists working for Himmler’s SS wrote Arabic-language propaganda that presented Hitler as a figure sent by Allah to punish the Jews.
In echoing these assertions, Qutb, whose rage was intensified by the establishment of the state of Israel, sought to justify the Holocaust. For the Islamists, Israel’s creation proved that Nazism’s conspiracy theory about vast Jewish power had been proven correct. After 1945, the ideological poison unleashed by the Nazi regime did not die. Rather it mutated, changed its cultural context and merged with a distinctly different cultural tradition. The history of the seven decades of that mutation and evolution remains to be written. When it is, the chapter on wartime Berlin will be an important one.
Jeffrey Herf’s ‘Nazi Propaganda for the Arab World’ is published by Yale University Press. He is a professor of modern European and German history at the University of Maryland at College Park.
Islamic Jew hatred long preceded Nazism.
If only.
While this is certainly better than articles claiming that Muslims aren’t anti-semitic they just have a problem with Israel. But still we have to do better than this. He starts his exploration of genocidal Jew-hatred in Islam—oh—about 1300 to 1400 years too late. Where did Qutb get his idea that of “Jews as implacable enemies of Islam”? It wasn’t from some newfangled fundamentalist reading of the Koran, it was from traditional Sunni and Shiite Islam, both of which have always considered the Koran as the perfect, unchanging, literal word of Allah and the example of their perfect man, Muhammad, a genocidal Jew-hater. The symbiosis between 20th century Islamists and Nazis has to do with common enemies, common goals and similar worldviews. Churchill had it right when he called Mein Kampf the modern Koran. And we know that Hitler was inspired by the Turkish genocide of Armenians (a Muslim jihad against Christians), and especially the relatively little interest that the world took in the atrocities against the Armenian people, in his belief that he could get away with his genocidal plans for the Jews.
In 1938 Churchill praised hitler!!!
You are wrong on all counts> Until the Evian Conference Hitler was willing to deport all Jews from Germany but after the conference He knew he could get away with killing off all of Europe’s Jews.
Between 1933 and 1941, the Nazis sought to make Germany “Judenrein” (cleansed of Jews) by making life so difficult for the approximately 600,000 German Jews that they would be forced to leave the country. By 1938, about 150,000 German Jews, one in four, had already left. After Germany annexed Austria in March 1938, an additional 185,000 Jews were brought under Nazi rule. Many German and Austrian Jews who wanted to leave were unable to find countries willing to take them in. A substantial percentage tried to go to the United States but were unable to obtain the necessary immigration visas. The U.S. Congress had established immigration quotas in 1924 that limited the number of immigrants and discriminated against groups considered racially and ethnically undesirable.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt, responding to mounting political pressure, called for an international conference to facilitate the emigration of refugees from Germany and Austria, and to establish an international organization to work for an overall solution to the refugee problem. In early July 1938, delegates from 32 countries met at the French resort of Evian on Lake Geneva. Roosevelt chose Myron C. Taylor, a businessman and close friend, to represent the U.S. at the conference. During the nine-day meeting, delegate after delegate rose to express sympathy for the refugees. But most countries, including the United States and Britain, offered excuses for not letting in more refugees. Only the Dominican Republic agreed to accept additional refugees.
The conference attendees created the Intergovernmental Committee on Refugees (ICR), charged with approaching “the governments of the countries of refuge with a view to developing opportunities for permanent settlement” and seeking to persuade Germany to cooperate in establishing “conditions of orderly emigration.” The ICR received little authority and virtually no funds or other support from its member nations. Its achievements were minimal until September 1939 when the beginning of World War II largely ended all efforts.
Commenting on the Evian Conference, the German government was able to state how “astounding” it was that foreign countries criticized Germany for its treatment of the Jews, yet none of them opened their doors. Although the events of the violent Kristallnacht (“Night of Broken Glass”) pogroms of November 1938 were widely reported in graphic detail, Americans remained reluctant to welcome Jewish refugees and the quotas remained in place. Even efforts by some Americans to rescue children failed: the Wagner-Rogers Bill, an effort to admit 20,000 endangered Jewish refugee children, was not supported by the Senate in 1939 and 1940.
Widespread racial prejudices among Americans–including antisemitic attitudes held by U.S. State Department officials–played a part in the failure to admit more refugees. In the midst of the Great Depression, many Americans also believed that refugees would compete with them for jobs and overburden social programs set up to assist the needy.
1. Jared Israel’s Accusation: “Gil-White falsifies documentation.”
2. Francisco Gil-White’s defense: “What I did was fine.”
Posted by Jared Israel
Editor, Emperor’s Clothes
The following texts appeared as comments on a discussion thread on the Israpundit website. Jared Israel’s was comment #31, Francisco Gil-White’s comment #55. The thread, as of 3 July 2006, is posted in full at http://emperors-clothes.com/israpundit.htm
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
In spite of not agreeing with how Prof. Gil-White interprets the facts he states, I am always nonetheless better informed for having read his work than not. […]
Jared Israel seems to have lost some perspective and proportionality for he puts his academic sniping against Prof. Gil-White ahead of the fact that both he and Prof. Gil-White are pro-Israel advocates. (Comment 25)
[Comment from Bill Narvey ends here]
I understand that when bitter conflicts occur, it is natural to suspect personal motives. However, I am not engaged in academic sniping, nor is this a personal conflict. In your comment, you suggest that you a) trust Gil-White’s facts and b) you consider him to be motivated by a desire to defend Israel.
Reading Gil-White’s recent work, I have found that a) he deceives his readers, going so far as to falsify documentation in order b) to slander prominent Jews. This is not something he has done just once, with Nathan Weinstock. It is something he has done as a pattern.
I will for the moment reserve my opinion as to what is behind Francisco Gil-White’s pattern of deception. For now, let me present more evidence that he does do it. (I have already presented evidence that he did this with Nathan Weinstock. See my comments #16, #22 and #30.)
I will prove that Gil-White lied in at least three ways when he attacked Rabbi Stephen Wise.
In the article in question, entitled “How the mainstream Jewish leadership failed the Jewish people in World War II,” and archived here solely for educational purposes (i.e., so that you may study this text exactly as it is now, whatever changes may be made on Gil-White’s website) – in it, Gil-White argues that Rabbi Stephen Wise wanted the Holocaust. This charge is important not only because it smears a deceased leader of world Zionism, but because it thereby lends the support of a supposedly pro-Israel writer (Gil-White) to the accusation, made by antisemites, e.g., PLO leaders, that Zionists wanted the Holocaust. (The accusation, which we have all heard, is that Zionists wanted a Holocaust so there would be world sympathy for the creation of a Jewish State.)
Gil-White starts his article in the most sensational way, with the following block of text, indented, in italics, right at the beginning:
[Excerpt from Gil-White's article starts here]
“I would rather have my fellow Jews die in Germany…” [1]
Said on the eve of the Nazi genocide by “Reform Rabbi Stephen Wise, the undisputed leader of organized American Jewry” [19], and “probably the most influential and well-respected American Jew of his generation” [24a], in reply to British prime minister Neville Chamberlain’s suggestion that Jewish refugees from Hitler might settle in Tanganyika.
Stephen Wise got his wish.
[Excerpt from Gil-White's article ends here]
Am I being fair? Did Gil-White really mean to say Wise wanted the Holocaust? On the Israpundit discussion Website, Gil-White wrote:
[Comment from Gil-White starts here]
“According to Jared Israel, I said that ‘Jewish leaders were welcoming the Holocaust.’ I did not. What I did was quote what Reform Rabbi Stephen Wise replied to Neville Chamberlain when Chamberlain (who was certainly an antisemite, there is no implied apology for Chamberlain here) suggested to Wise that Jewish refugees from Hitler might settle in Tanganyika. Stephen Wise’s reply was the following: ‘I would rather have my fellow Jews die in Germany…’ Notice that Stephen Wise did not say, ‘I would rather have my fellow Jews settle in Palestine.’ And I point out also that the quote is documented in a book written by an admirer of Stephen Wise: Urofsky, M. I. 1982. A voice that spoke for justice: The life and times of Stephen S. Wise. Albany: State University of New York Press. (p.304).
In my piece, I commented that ‘Stephen Wise got his wish.’ My remark was therefore specific to Stephen Wise, not to Jewish leaders in general. Jared Israel has taken offense at this comment, but I didn’t invent what Stephen Wise said. If Jared Israel wants to give Stephen Wise’s words a different interpretation, he is welcome to defend it.” (Comment #19)
[Excerpt from Gil-White's article ends here]
Three quick points. First, when Francisco Gil-White slanders Rabbi Wise, head of the American Jewish Congress and the leading Zionist in the USA for many years, he is not slandering only Rabbi Wise. Indeed, Gil-White’s article is entitled “How the mainstream Jewish leadership failed the Jewish people in World War II,” and by stating in his opening words that when the Holocaust occurred, the leading American Zionist “got his wish,” Gil-White is clearly suggesting that Wise was not alone.
Second, please note that in his statement, quoted above, Francisco Gil-White refers to Rabbi Wise’s “remark.” Keep that term “remark” in mind, because we shall refer back to it when we get to Lie #3.
And third, in his article, as it was originally posted, and as it is still posted today (21 June), Francisco Gil-White said nothing about Chamberlain being an antisemite. That description appears only in Gil-White’s comment on Israpundit, as quoted above. And notice that, even in the Israpundit comment, where Gil-White states that Chamberlain was an antisemite, Gil-White still insists that Rabbi Wise wanted the Holocaust.
Francisco Gil-White’s slander of Rabbi Stephen Wise includes at least three forms of deception:
1) A lie by false implication of expert knowledge;
2) A lie by diverting readers through sensationalism; and
3) Lies by falsification of documentation.
The lies in group #3 may be the most blatant, but these are all lies, and their existence necessitates an answer to the question: why did Gil-White lie with such energy in order to slander Rabbi Wise?
==============================================
Lie #1: Lie by false implication of expert knowledge, namely, that of course Gil-White wouldn’t make such an accusation unless he knew what he was talking about.
================================================
To claim that Rabbi Wise, a world Zionist leader, wanted the Holocaust is to make the most extreme accusation. Neo-Nazis and anti-Israel Arab leaders accuse pre-war Zionist leaders of wanting the Holocaust in order to justify the creation of Israel. These people are motivated not by knowledge but by a desire to undermine support for Israel. But other than them, nobody I know of except Gil-White has charged that a Zionist leader such as Rabbi Wise wanted the Shoah.
And unlike the Arab leaders, Francisco Gil-White presents himself as a supporter of Israel and an historian. Indeed, on his website he flaunts his supposed status, emphasizing how far removed he and his colleagues are from ordinary people:
“Laypeople, it now dawns on me, find it quite difficult to grasp what historians do, and have a quite mistaken picture of it. I will do my best here briefly to explain how proper historiography — the very thing this website aims to produce — ought to work.” (Source: Francisco Gil-White, “About the HIR method,” 17 Dec 2005)
And Francisco Gil-White does not present himself as just any historian. On his website he has posted a book, or the first chapters of a book, which will, we are told, encompass several thousand years of history and span the globe. It has the modest title, “The Crux of World history.”
Gil-White’s ultra-elevated status has been asserted on Israpundit, for example by his close associate, Alex Eisenberg, and by others, apparently swept up in Gil-White fever.
Alex Eisenberg writes:
“…the strength of his [Gil-White's] work, as opposed to those [sic] of Pipes or Dershovitz, is precisely in its scientific approach.” (Comment #9)
And:
“In fact, his work is not ‘only’ a defense of the Jewish people as such. It is part of a broad research which encompasses the entire history of the [sic] Western civilization based on the most recent advancements in the field of evolutionary anthropology.” (Comment #9) [My emphasis – J.I.]
This hyperbole is apparently infectious. Texts are generally presented in a matter-of-fact fashion on Israpundit. But in his introduction to part 4 of Gil-White’s four-part series on the Palestinians, throughout which series Gil-White misportrays Holocaust scholar Nathan Weinstock as rejoicing in the deaths of Jews, Israpundit editor Ted Belman describes Gil-White’s writing as “revolutionary,” calling him “a fierce defender of the Jewish people” and telling readers, “Take the time to read all parts and for that matter also read his other articles…”
With all this hype, one would naturally assume that Gil-White’s comments about Rabbi Wise were based on considerable knowledge of British policy, which of course is what Rabbi Wise was responding to.
One would be wrong.
On 16 June 2006, Gil-White stated that when he wrote this article, in January 2006, and indeed, as late as April 2006, when I attacked him on the Arutz Sheva website:
“…at the time, I had not studied British Mandate ‘Palestine,’ and hence was ill-informed about [British Colonial Secretary] Malcolm Macdonald in general.” (Gil-White in comment #19)
He didn’t know about Palestine Mandate history and Malcolm MacDonald when he wrote an article half of which was about British government conflicts with Jewish leaders over offers to resettle Jews in Africa, conflicts directly related to Palestine Mandate history and Malcolm MacDonald.
By failing to tell his readers that when he accused Rabbi Wise of being an advocate of the Nazi’s Final Solution, he did not know about the issues, Gil-White was of course deceiving his readers. This is worsened by the fact that, at the same time, his website (i.e., he himself) and his followers and others were praising him as the most knowledgeable, indeed, scientific and revolutionary of historians, one who was writing a book called “The Crux of History.”
================================================
Lie #2: Lie by using sensationalism to divert from having presented zero evidence.
================================================
As noted, Gil-White presents his claim that Rabbi Wise wanted the Holocaust in the most dramatic way: as a block of text, indented, in italics, at the start of the article. He has a set-up, then some white space, and then the portentous statement: “Rabbi Wise got his wish.” And on the side of the page, there is a picture of a grim-faced man, identified as Rabbi Wise.
The effect of this presentation is so chilling that one may be excused for not noticing the paucity of evidence. For example, nowhere in the article does Gil-White tell us when Rabbi Wise allegedly made this statement. Was it immediately after the Evian Conference? During that 1938 affair, convened to discuss the problem of where to send Jewish refugees from Hitler, the British had made clear that they did not want any Jews sent to Britain. If, after the British performance at Evian, British Prime Minister Chamberlain, notorious as the appeaser of Hitler, had made some flippant and perhaps, in context, insulting suggestion to Rabbi Wise about settling Jews in Tanganyika, one might even forgive Rabbi Wise for punching Chamberlain in the face, let alone giving him an “over-my-dead-body” response. Similarly, if the alleged confrontation between the two men had occurred shortly after the announcement of the White Paper, eliminating Palestine as an escape destination, one could imagine a similar response to such a Chamberlain remark.
Moreover, there is something else Gil-White’s sensationalism causes one not to notice: Gil-White never quotes Chamberlain. Exactly what did Chamberlain allegedly say? What were his exact words? Does Gil-White know? If he does, why doesn’t he quote him? And if he does not, how can he gauge Rabbi Wise’s alleged response?
As demonstrated below by my detective hunt starting from Gil-White’s cited source, apparently there was no direct confrontation between Wise and Chamberlain about this issue. But I am getting ahead of myself. The point here is that, by presenting the alleged confrontation, and Rabbi Wise’s alleged statement, in such a sensationalist manner, Gil-White diverts attention from the fact that he hasn’t fulfilled the most minimal requirement of “proper historiography” – mentioning the date when something has allegedly occurred, and telling us what both sides allegedly said!
So here we have a second kind of lie – the disguising of a lack of basic information, by means of sensationalism worthy of the lowest, gutter-rag journalism.
================================================
Lie #3: Lies by direct falsification of documentation.
================================================
One is so conditioned to accept uncritically the printed word, that it was only after looking at the alleged quote from Rabbi Wise a dozen times that I noticed that it ends in three dots – an ellipse! Some of the text has been removed.
Using a truncated quotation may be perfectly honorable, or it may constitute the worst kind of deceit.
It constitutes falsification if, by quoting partially, one hides any information that might to any extent possibly be construed as contradicting anything one is trying to prove. This is true in direct proportion to the extremity of one’s argument. And in this case, of course, Francisco Gil-White’s argument is of the most extreme.
In order to determine whether Gil-White has falsified by deletion of text, we have to look at his source. I went to Gi-White’s footnote 1 and found that he does not simply list his source, he emphasizes its credibility, writing:
[Gil-White's footnote 1 starts here]
This quote is reported, I should note, by an admirer of Stephen Wise. It will be found here:
Urofsky, M. I. 1982. A voice that spoke for justice: The life and times of Stephen S. Wise. Albany: State University of New York Press. (p.304)
[Gil-White's footnote 1 ends here]
I searched for the Urofsky book in the online library database, the ‘Minuteman Catalogue,’ which covers most school and public libraries in Eastern Massachusetts. It gave 20 listings for Urofsky, a nonfiction writer specializing in Jewish and legal issues, but there was nothing about Rabbi Wise. One fellow who works on Emperor’s Clothes suggested that from what he’d observed about Francisco Gil-White, he had probably found the quote in an online fishing expedition. I searched online but couldn’t find the Urofsky book – and then I remembered. I had introduced Gil-White to Questia, an online archive that allows one to search through hundreds of thousands of books and documents looking for a phrase or phrases. For example, if one wanted to find something that could be used to make Rabbi Wise appear to be calling for the Holocaust, one could enter “Rabbi Wise” and “death” or “dead,” etc. You get the idea.
I went to Questia and sure enough, they had the Urofsky book. On p. 304, I found the quote, including the part that Gil-White had deleted. Here it is with the deleted part in bold:
“When Chamberlain suggested that Jews go to the former German colony of Tanganyika, Wise bitterly rejected the plan. ‘I would rather have my fellow-Jews die in Germany than live in lands which bear the imprint of yesterday’s occupation by Germany and which may tomorrow be yielded back.’”
Restoring the part that Gil-White had deleted, the quote makes sense. Wise was apparently outraged because Chamberlain was suggesting that Jews should go to a colony that Chamberlain, the notorious appeaser, might very well turn over to Germany as soon as the Jews arrived. In any case, Rabbi Wise obviously was not calling for the deaths of Jews. Rather, he was making an “over-my-dead-body” statement. If, as Gil-White suggested in his 16 June comment (#19), Rabbi Wise had instead responded, “‘I would rather have my fellow Jews settle in Palestine,’” even though Chamberlain’s government had cut immigration to Palestine to a trickle and refused to let refugee Jews into Britain, Wise would have been kissing Chamberlain’s fanny. You know, being an Uncle Tom, a step-and-fetch-it kind of Jew.
Gil-White had indeed falsified the quotation, the better to falsely portray Rabbi Wise’s tough defense of Jews as being a violent attack on Jews. He had doctored the evidence in order to slander a key Jewish leader.
But it gets worse.
In general, and especially when considering the validity of an extreme accusation, the rule of thumb is to dig down as close to a primary source as possible. In footnote 38, Urofsky, a popular biographer, gives his source for the Wise quotation, so of course, Gil-White had this information:
“[Footnote] 38. Feingold, Politics of Rescue, pp. 124-25″
I searched Questia for Feingold’s book, and in a short time was looking at page 124.
Examining the Rabbi Wise quote in Feingold’s book, I found that Urofsky had slightly miscopied Feingold’s text; a few words were different. None of it altered the meaning, but one change did indeed matter. As is not shown in Urofsky’s book, there is an ellipse. In other words, Feingold had deleted something else when he copied the quotation from wherever.
Here is Feingold’s quote, with the second half, the part cut by Gil-White, highlighted in bold:
“I would rather have my fellow Jews die in Germany than live somehow, anyhow, in the lands which bear the imprint of yesterday’s occupation by Germany, in lands which may tomorrow be yielded back . . . to Germany.118?
So far Gil-White’s “proper historiography” has him making the most extreme accusation even though, he now states, he knew nothing about the subject matter; doctoring Rabbi Wise’s alleged statement to hide the reasons for Wise’s anger; and using Urofsky when in fact Urofsky was just passing along a quote miscopied from somebody else who, it turns out, had also deleted material from the original.
And it gets worse.
Feingold’s source for the quotation is indicated in footnote 118:
“[Footnote] 118. Wise, Stephen S. As I See It. New York: Jewish Opinion Publishing Corp., 1944.”
So, without much trouble, we get to the original source – Rabbi Wise.
This book is a 1944 compilation of over a decade of Rabbi Wise’s articles from the Jewish magazine, Opinion. This indicates another Gil-White falsehood: the Wise quote, thrice altered and thrice removed from the original source, was not, as Gil-White wrote in his comment #19, a “remark.” It was not, as he wrote in his article, something Rabbi Wise “said on the eve of the Nazi genocide.” (My emphasis) Based on a trail of evidence easily followed from the Urofsky book, it was not said at all. It was part of a magazine article, included in a book.
Stephen Wise’s 1938 article, entitled “America Has Spoken,” is worth reading (though I do not claim it is the “Crux of History”), so I have posted it on Emperor’s Clothes. I hope that reading his words will wipe out the effect on Jews of the hideous accusation, now circulating the Internet, that, according to Gil-White, supposedly “a fierce defender of the Jewish people,” Zionist leader Wise wanted the Holocaust. You can read Rabbi Wise’s article in full on Emperor’s Clothes. Or you can go to Questia and get a free week’s subscription, and access the whole book.
Below I have posted two paragraphs from Rabbi Wise’s article. But first, let me once again post Gil-White’s doctored version of the Rabbi Wise quotation, falsely presented as something he said and then give you the real quotation.
First the doctored version, courtesy of Gil-White:
“I would rather have my fellow-Jews die in Germany…” [9 words]
Now Rabbi Wise, undoctored:
“I would rather have my fellow-Jews die in Germany than live somehow, anyhow, in lands which bear the imprint of yesterday’s occupation by Germany, in lands which may tomorrow be yielded back by England and France to Germany, as all other conceivable concessions are being made to the Nazi Reich.” [50 words]
I think you will agree that these read like the words of a man committed to the defense and dignity of his people, expressing the spirit of the Jews who died rather than submit to Roman slavery at Masada. And this is especially true when you read the words in context. To provide that context let us first look at another paragraph from the same article. This is quoted from p. 109 of Rabbi Wise’s book:
“Not being a race of beggars, though we are wanderers, we must make clear to the world that we are resolved that we are not to become, nor to be dealt with as a refugee people, even though the German-speaking peoples are forcing our brother-Jews into exile. The refuges for Jews are the lands in which they have lived for centuries and millennia. We raise our voice today against every proposal and program which deals with Jewish migrants or exiles as if they were to be further penalized by being settled in uninhabited lands, lands of doubtful title, lands of uncertain capacity for colonization and resettlement.” [Emphasis as in original. – J.I.]
And then this section, from page 110, including the text Francisco Gil-White falsified in order to slander Rabbi Wise. I have indicated the part omitted by Gil-White by putting it in bold. The words that Gil-White did not delete are highlighted in yellow:
“We lift up our voice in most solemn protest against any and every thought of settling Jews in the German colonies of yesterday. Having lived under the blight and burden of the Swastika, no Jew must ever again be compelled to touch the soil over which the German flag has been lifted up. Moreover, we Jews do not believe in reprisal or in vindictiveness. We do not wish even the German people to believe that we desire to possess ourselves of lands of which they have by war been dispossessed. Moreover, the destruction of any Jewish-occupied, one-time German colony would become the supreme objective of Germany. We would have Jews live anywhere outside of the Nazi Reich, live under almost any conditions, but we will never give approval or sanction to any plan which dooms Jews to live again in a land defiled up to the days of peace by that government which has sought to destroy them. I would rather have my fellow-Jews die in Germany than live somehow, anyhow, in lands which bear the imprint of yesterday’s occupation by Germany, in lands which may tomorrow be yielded back by England and France to Germany, as all other conceivable concessions are being made to the Nazi Reich.”
I will continue my discussion of Francisco Gil-White’s falsifications, aimed at slandering prominent Jews, in my next comment. Yes, there are more. As I said, it is a pattern.
Jared Israel.
Emperor’s Clothes
***
2. Francisco Gil-White’s defense: “What I did was fine.”
[Note from Jared Israel: I have highlighted the points I consider most revealing in yellow.]
REPLY TO JARED ISRAEL (CONCERNING STEPHEN WISE), by Francisco Gil-White
I notice that Jared Israel has not replied to my demonstration that he is wrong about Nathan Weinstock.
I shall now reply to his comments regarding Stephen Wise. In Comment #31, above, Jared Israel accuses me of having presented “falsified documentation” in order “to slander Rabbi Stephen Wise as wanting the Holocaust.”
What is the criticism, specifically? At the top of an article that I wrote on Stephen Wise and other American and British Jewish leaders during the Holocaust, entitled “How the Mainstream Jewish Leadership Failed the Jewish People in WWII,” I quoted Rabbi Stephen Wise saying, “I would rather have my fellow Jews die in Germany…” Jared Israel claims that I quoted Stephen Wise out of context.
In other words, Jared Israel believes it is possible to apologize for what Stephen Wise said.
I hold that the following statement is true by inspection (that is, true without requiring an explanation):
OBVIOUSLY TRUE STATEMENT: On the eve of the German Nazi extermination of the European Jewish population, which this was, it is unacceptable for the foremost leader of the Jewish community in the United States, which Stephen Wise was, to begin a sentence with, “I would rather have my fellow Jews die in Germany…”
In other words, there simply is no context that one can provide, before or after the sentence fragment that I quoted, that will render Stephen Wise’s sentence acceptable to anybody who does not already feel contempt for Jews. For demonstration, I submit Jared Israel’s heroic display of his talents in the service of rendering what Stephen Wise said
acceptable, and which fails.
In conclusion, since no context can make what Stephen Wise said acceptable, I quoted just the beginning of his sentence, which economically and dramatically communicates the contempt that Stephen Wise felt for the Jewish people. What I did was fine.
But what really matters, in the end, is not whether I misused that particular quote. If had done so I would simply remove it and issue a retraction. Nothing much hangs on it, and my article would remain.
What does my article show? That Stephen Wise, this man whom Jared Israel has attempted to defend, moved heaven and earth to sabotage the effort to rescue the desperate European Jews, even as the ovens were burning. This means that, according to Jared Israel’s own published standards, Stephen Wise is worse than Adolf Hitler. I shall now demonstrate this.
(I emphasize, however, that I will demonstrate that Wise is worse than Hitler according to Jared Israel’s published standards, not my own; if I myself was forced at gunpoint to choose between Wise and Hitler to be locked in a room with, I would choose Wise).
Jared Israel wrote an article for Israel National News (Arutz Sheva) entitled; “Benny Morris: The Kiss that Kills”; where he attacked Benny Morris.
This Jared Israel did with justice, because Benny Morris wrote a fraudulent history of the War of 1948, where Morris literally made up stuff in order to attack the Israeli Jews with the accusation that they had supposedly had a policy of ethnic cleansing against the Arabs. In Jared Israel’s judgment, this makes Benny Morris “worse than Arafat.” Here is his reasoning:
“It was [Benny Morris’s] lies, his manufactured ‘scholarship,’ which was picked up and spread worldwide by an eager media, and which poisoned the thinking of millions of people against Israel. Here was a Jewish scholar, supposedly driven by a passion for truth wherever it might lead, who accused Israel of terrible crimes. I was one of the people affected by Morris.
In large measure it was because of him that — and I am ashamed to have to say this — I once supported the PLO.
When I read [historian Efraim] Karsh [who unmasked Benny Morris] and realized Morris had lied — not made mistakes, but fabricated evidence — I was sickened. Morris’ lies were criminal, just as much as if he had attacked Israel with bombs. He helped undercut worldwide disgust for Palestinian terror; he helped create the political basis for a Palestinian terror state next door to Israel. Morris is responsible, like Yasser Arafat, for the murder of thousands of Israelis. But Arafat is not an Israeli Jew. Morally, Morris is worse than Arafat.”
In the middle of a terrorist war against the Israeli Jews, Benny Morris wrote lies that help the terrorists who murder innocent Jews, and which make the defense of Israel difficult. In Jared Israel’s opinion, this makes him “worse than Arafat” because “Arafat is not an Israeli Jew.”
Well, as bad as Benny Morris is, what Stephen Wise did is worse. Stephen Wise energetically sabotaged the defense of desperate European Jews who were being slaughtered by Hitler during the Holocaust, even as they were being slaughtered; in other words, Stephen Wise materially assisted one of the greatest catastrophes ever to befall humankind. In Jared Israel’s view, the fact that Stephen Wise was Jewish should increase, not decrease, his guilt. At least this would be consistent with the way he has judged Benny Morris. This would then make Stephen Wise, according to Jared Israel’s standards, worse than Adolf Hitler.
So Jared Israel has attempted to defend a man who, according to his own published standards, is worse than Adolf Hitler. Anybody who thinks that I am exaggerating is invited to read my article on Stephen Wise.
The reason that I wrote my piece on Stephen Wise is that there is widespread ignorance about him among Jews, in part because the organizations that he founded, such as the World Jewish Congress, are powerful in the world of today’s Jews, and these organizations have therefore kept most Jews from understanding what he did. Another reason is that current Jewish leaders, who inherited Wise’s position of leadership and even his specific institutional offices, are behaving much in the manner of Stephen Wise, as I have explained in a companion piece: http://www.hirhome.com/israel/leaders2.htm
Unless the Jewish people wake up to this, such Jewish ‘leaders’ will once again succeed in sabotaging the defense of the Jewish people, and we will once again face Catastrophe — all of us, not just the Jews, because when antisemites acquire enough power to kill millions of Jews, as they did in WWII, everybody else pays a cost, too.
Finally, concerning the email that Jared Israel has characterized as a threat (see Comment #42), I certainly did send it, but it is not a threat. I was within my rights to post the paragraph in question at the bottom of my demonstration that he is wrong about Nathan Weinstock. But I didn’t, not right away. Why? Because without that final paragraph, my demonstration that Jared Israel is wrong about Nathan Weinstock is a celebration of Jared Israel’s work, and not yet an open attack on him. The reason I wrote my piece like that is that I wanted to give Jared Israel an opportunity to make a public retraction. He has refused this opportunity, and so I have now posted the paragraph.
Francisco Gil-White
==============================================
It took me less time to read “War And Peace”, although fairness dictates acknowledging that unlike Tolstoy’s mindless scribblings your work is an immortal classic.
My work is entitled “War is War” Don’t trust any liberal Jew!!! or ex commies like Jared Israel. I think he still is a Commie.
So you are also a speed reader. I still read about 15 words a min. I write 200 wpm. Go figure.
Lewis Moses Rose
Source of the song the Yellow Rose of Texas
ROSE, LOUIS [MOSES] (1785–1851). Louis (Moses) Rose, a soldier of fortune who escaped from the Alamo and contributed to its legends, was born on May 11, 1785, in Laferée, Ardennes, France. He joined Napoleon’s 101st Regiment in 1806 and eventually became a lieutenant. In 1814 he was named to the French Legion of Honor for his role as aide-de-camp to Gen. Jacques de Monfort. He served in campaigns in Naples, Portugal, and Spain as well as in the invasion of Russia. Though no one knows when or where he entered North America, he settled in Nacogdoches, Texas, about 1827. There he was employed as a log cutter and hauler at a sawmill owned by John Durst and Frost Thorn and served as a messenger between Nacogdoches and Natchitoches, Louisiana. He joined the Fredonian Rebellion in 1826 and took part in the battle of Nacogdoches in 1832. Rose was a friend of James Bowie and accompanied or followed him to the Alamo in the fall of 1835. He fought in the siege of Bexar that year.
Rose served the cause of Texas independence a fourth time during the siege of the Alamo. He fought for ten days, up to three days before the fall of the fort, and then escaped. He is the source of the story about William B. Travis’s drawing a line in the dirt with his sword. Rose got the nickname Moses because of his age at the time, fifty-one. When asked, “Moses, why didn’t you stay there in the Alamo with the others?” he invariably replied, “By God, I wasn’t ready to die.” He was not the only survivor of the battle of the Alamo. Bowie and Travis sent out numerous couriers, including Capt. Juan N. Seguín, to plead for reinforcements, and other men left during an armistice that Gen. Antonio López de Santa Anna declared. In 1907 Enrique Esparza reported, “Rose left after this armistice had expired . . . [and] after Travis drew the line with his sword. He was the only man who did not cross the line. Up to then, he had fought as bravely as any man there . . . . Rose went out during the night. They opened a window for him and let him go. The others who left before went out the doors and in the daytime.” William P. Zuber, whose parents took Rose in after he left the Alamo, wrote of the escape. Rose went through enemy lines west through San Antonio, then south down the San Antonio River about three miles, then east through open prairie to the Guadalupe River, avoiding roads. He arrived at the Zuber ranch in Grimes County and stayed there for a while before going on to Nacogdoches, where he operated a butcher shop and acted as a witness for numerous heirs of Alamo defenders trying to get land for their service. In 1842 he moved to Logansport, Louisiana, where he lived with Aaron Ferguson’s family until his death. Rose, who never married, died in 1851. His brother Isaac had several sons; in 1927 one of Isaac’s descendants, Arthur Rose, presented Moses Rose’s gun to the Alamo museum.
Jewish contribution to Texas and American folk lore the only fighter at the Alamo to choose life over death.
Yamit, you bring back memories. As a matter of fact I just heard from Francisco but don’t have his permission to publish.
4Infidels got it right in my opinion in comment #2.
Yamit #3
Your comment in no way supports your charge “You are wrong on all counts”
Also you wrote
On what basis do you conclude what his motivation was for making their lives difficult. In the mid thirties it was far from certain that he would succeed in anything. He was terribly worried about the world boycott of Germany that many Jews were behind. He no doubt wanted to keep the property and assets of the German Jews. Perhaps this was his motivation. As he gained in power he came to the conclusion he could get their property by merely killing them. Then there was the Eichmann deal of selling the Jews for $10,000 each and so on. I wonder if anyone has done a study on the cost/ benefit of extermination. All this can’t take away from his Jew hatred.
Furthermore Hitler set the Jews up as an enemy in order to rally the Aryans together. The Arabs do the same.
There is no question that the world wouldn’t let the Jews in. But that is another crime to be remembered.
Ted: I was tajing issue with this statement by 4infidels but not only!!!
The Final Solution wasn’t a German invention, but a collaborative effort by the Christian world.
Christian Russia thought about some kind of Final Solution in the nineteenth century. The Russian government was receptive to Zionist leaders because they offered to rid Russia of Jews. The Russian government prompted waves of pogroms.
In the early twentieth century in Ukraine, government forces annihilated the Jews in numbers only exceeded in the
Holocaust.
Then came Stalin. He was deeply anti-Semitic, but allowed Jews into the most visible—and hated—positions in the communist hierarchy. Stalin committed a disastrous strategic error by partitioning Poland with Germany: the absence of that buffer state in June 1941 allowed the Germans to extinguish the Russian army in a matter of days.
Russians supported Nazi Germany until the very day it launched its offensive against the Soviet Union; Germany thrived on Russian iron, grain, and many other products.
The Jewish American establishment, an assimilated bunch of court Jews who prosper by selling the souls of their compatriots, pretended to doubt the scale of the German massacre of Jews. They lied.
The US Administration had the benefit of vast intelligence, and certainly knew about the ongoing extermination of Jews, if only from regular Enigma intercepts of German communications, which included the exact numbers of massacred Jews. The US refused even to bomb the death camps. Before WWII, when the extent of German institutional anti-Semitism was clear, and British and American newspapers ran articles about the immense suffering of the Jews, the US refused entry visas to fleeing Jews and deliberately made a comedy out of the Evian conference, which meant to find the Jews foreign asylum.
The Americans, British, and Russians maintained radio broadcasts for German-occupied countries, but not a single time did any of them mention the ongoing extermination of Jews. That silence allowed the Germans to keep shipping trainloads of unsuspecting Jews to Auschwitz until as late as autumn of 1944.
The UN partition plan of 1947 was no boon to Jews, but meant to complete the Final Solution.
The Jewish state was broken into three isolated enclaves, interspersed with Arab territory. The three “Jewish” enclaves contained 40 percent Arab populations. Thus the UN Security Council’s Christian members ensured attacks on Israel both from without and from within.
The Jews were to be annihilated.
Nothing has changed since the Holocaust. In 1967, as the Arab armies were massing at Israel’s borders, as the IDF was digging thousands of graves open for Jewish bodies, as common Israelis thought in terms of the Holocaust—what did the world do? Nothing. Nasser and the Syrians were explicit about their intentions to annihilate all the Jews rather than merely dismantle the Zionist state.
The world screamed at Israel in disappointment when she preempted and survived.
In 1973, as the Egyptian army was seemingly poised to enter Tel Aviv in a matter of days,
It is incorrect to say that the world learned nothing from the Holocaust. It learned a tremendously important thing: murdering millions of Jews is socially acceptable. A handful of Germans were hanged, but most ex-Nazis led respectable lives and worked in government offices. Just years after the Holocaust, Germany opened its embassy in Israel and was welcomed into the community of nations. To talk about the Holocaust to a German is now indecent, as it may offend his sensitive soul. So the nations learned, it is okay to kill Jews.
In 1947, the US originally voted for establishing the Jewish state. When fighting between Arabs and Jews subsequently flared up, the US withdrew its UN vote in favor of Israel, leaving the Jewish state one-on-one with Arab militias. To add insult to injury, the US banned American Jews from going to Israel to fight, and embargoed arms shipments to Palestine. That didn’t affect the Arabs, who received arms supplies through other ports—notably in Egypt—and from Iraq and Syria. In effect, the arms embargo targeted Israel. The US voted for the UNSC resolution condemning Soviet arms shipments to Israel.
The US reiterated its policy of annihilating Israel in 1956. After Israel, besieged by fedayeen attacks for eight years, cleansed Sinai of the Egyptian militia, the US intervened, ordered Israel to halt, offered military aid to Egypt, and threatened direct intervention on Egypt’s behalf. Eisenhower pressed Israel to withdraw from the Sinai, promising the US would always intervene to keep the Tiran Straits open. He lied; in 1967 America not only refused intervention on Israel’s behalf, but prepared operational plans for landing the US Navy in the Sinai to defend Egypt against the Jewish army. Before the Six-Day War, US foreign policy was geared toward buying Egypt time to launch an offensive against Israel. The US-led UN withdrew its peacekeeping troops from the Sinai immediately upon Nasser’s demand.
In 1973, the US intervened only to counter the Soviet influence in the Middle East which grew exponentially with Egypt’s early victories and Soviet deployment of nuclear missiles in defense of Egypt. The US aid to Israel came too late to be used in the war.
The US provides massive aid to the PLO, which is nominally intended for the terrorist Palestinian Authority. America sells advanced weapons to Egypt and Saudi Arabia, fakes nuclear disarmament of North Korea, and uses Israel as a pawn to placate Arabs with the suicidal peace process.
Bush was touted as the US president most favorable to Israel. Roosevelt, too, was very friendly to Jews—but did nothing to stop the Holocaust. Truman was very favorable to Jews, yet he almost killed the newborn Israel with an arms embargo. Decades later, Jews were surprised to discover anti-Semitic remarks in Truman’s diary.
The current peace process is a historically standard Christian policy against the Jews. Locked into a fourteen-mile-wide state, besieged by US-armed Arabs from without, watched by the fifth column of a 34 percent Arab population from within, the Jewish state is meant by the Quartet to become the Final Solution.
Continued : To- #11
The Evian Conference – Hitler’s Green Light for Genocide
“The world seemed to be divided into two parts – those places where the Jews could not live and those where they could not enter.” His words were to become even more poignant as events of the 1930s and 40s unfolded. Dr. Chaim Weizmann,
In September 1935 Nuremberg Laws cancelled Jewish citizenship and made illegal marriages or sexual intercourse between Jews and Aryans.
However, Hitler had also warned in his Nuremberg speech:
“If this arrangement for a ‘separate secular solution’ broke down, then it might become necessary to pass a law handing over the problem to the National Socialist Party for ‘final solution’.”
It was decided that the venue should be Evian-les-Bains on the shores of Lake Geneva in France. Thirty-three countries including Britain, her dominions, and her colonies, Scandinavian and other European and Latin American countries were also invited. Some countries, which would have liked to be included, were not invited, including the Republic of Ireland, which eventually did attend, and Luxembourg. Poland and Rumania were rejected, as they were not regarded as likely countries of Jewish immigration but they, and the Union of South Africa sent observers to the conference. Henry Feingold says that Portugal’s exclusion proved a serious mistake, as the main hope for the majority of resettlement at one time was Angola, a Portuguese colony. Germany was not invited to the conference on the advice of American Secretary of State, Cordell Hull.
Britain therefore insisted that Palestine be left off the list of receiving countries for refugees. Palestine unlike other countries before the war did not have unemployment but had a labour shortage. The country was prosperous due to the Zionists who were chiefly responsible for the boom.
The Roman Catholic Church did not support the immigration of Jews to Palestine or the Balfour Declaration that declared it a Homeland for the Jews. In a letter dated 22nd June 1943 to Myron Taylor, President Roosevelt’s special emissary to the pope, A.G. Cicognani, special representative of pope Pius XII said:
Chaim Weizmann says of Palestine, “In those days before the war, our protests, when voiced, were regarded as provocations; our very refusal to subscribe to our own death sentence became a public nuisance, and was taken in bad part. Alternating threats and appeals were addressed to us to acquiesce in the surrender of Palestine.”
An example of the attitude of the Canadian Government to Jewish Refugees is that of a senior Canadian official who, when asked after the war how many Jews would be allowed into Canada, said, “None, is too many.”
Canada had a tight immigration policy from the 1920s as they wanted to restrict the numbers of those deemed lest desirable and only those who had the funds to set up and sustain themselves were welcome. A number of Canadian officials in high positions in the government were anti-Semitic, including the Prime Minister Mackenzie King and Frederick Blair, Director of Immigration who said, “Canada was in danger of being flooded with Jewish people…” unless he ensured that they were kept out and believed they conspired with their relatives already in Canada to get themselves admitted. He would deny being anti-Semitic believing he was only being realistic about Canada’s immigration policy.25 Evian
It was hoped by three new Jewish MPs and the Jewish community of Canada that the new Liberal government of 1935 would modify the strict and harsh laws of the Conservative Bennett government regarding immigration. However it was decided that no exceptions would be made for German Jews unless they had enough money to set up successful farms – they would not be allowed in under any circumstances.26
Canada was further restricting Jewish immigration when President Roosevelt suggested the Evian Conference. They therefore feared that, according to Irving Abella and Harold Troper, once the Canadians had committed themselves to attending the conference they ‘would be expected to do something to alleviate the refugee problem. This situation caused great anxiety to Prime Minister Mackenzie King as it meant “admitting numbers of Jews.” These fears were strengthened by Under-Secretary of State Skelton, who warned that the publicity generated by the conference would likely result in strong “domestic pressure” in Canada to do something “for the Jews.” King feared a violent reaction from Quebec to any admission of Jewish refugees as almost all French–language newspapers had warned the government against allowing European Jews to immigrate to Canada. Le Devoir asked “Why allow in Jewish refugees?…..The Jewish shopkeeper on St. Lawrence boulevard does nothing to increase our natural resources.” Abella and Troper go on to say that this was mild in comparison with vicious anti-Semitic remarks made regularly in other Quebec newspapers and French-Canadian politicians such as H.E. Brunell who said that Jews caused “great difficulties” wherever they lived.27
The Jewish Congress was afraid of an anti-Semitic backlash and alienating the government. Its role was therefore to monitor Jewish opinion and try to prevent outrage and demonstrations or meetings that would attract adverse publicity.
The Canadian government’s slow response in replying to the invitation to attend the conference was an indication of its reluctance to be present. They further emphasised their disquiet when Skelton made it clear that Canada’s participation at Evian should not be construed by anyone to imply that a Canadian initiative was on the agenda. He also argued that accepting refugees might be counter-productive to Jewish people themselves as they might be subjected to persecution. Countries with unwanted minorities should not be encouraged to think that if they ill treat these minorities that they can absolve themselves of responsibility by expecting other countries to open their doors to refugees.
Two other speakers are worth mentioning for their differing views.
One was Mr. M.J.M. Yepes from Colombia, whom Adler-Rudel remembers as the only one among the speakers who was warmly applauded for his courage in getting to the root of the problem. He said, “….Can a State, without upsetting the basis of our civilisation, and, indeed, of all civilisation, arbitrarily withdraw nationality from a whole class of its citizens, thereby making them Stateless….? Can a State, acting in this way, flood other countries with the citizens of whom it wishes to get rid, and can it thrust upon others the consequences of an evil internal policy?…It would be useless for us to-day to find homes for the present political refugees and to hear the grievances – well-grounded, as I freely admit they are – of those who have come to voice their complaints before this modern Wailing Wall which the Evian Conference has now become..…”9 Unfortunately the Colombian Government, even if it shared Mr Yepes’ views, was no better than the others in offering refuge to these “Stateless citizens”.
Delegates from one country after another stood up and said they could do nothing more than they were already doing to help the refugees. Belgium, Denmark and Sweden were small countries and did not have room for large numbers of refugees, except for those travelling to overseas territories. Most South American countries claimed their laws did not allow a large-scale influx of immigrants but they were also concerned that their trade with Germany would be affected if they accepted German and Austrian Jews. Some also had large German populations.
Only the Dominican Republic offered to accept more than a few refugees and volunteered to contribute large but unspecified areas for agricultural colonization. Unfortunately war broke out before the offer could be implemented to its full extent.
William Shirer a world-renowned journalist who attended the conference wrote on 7 July 1938 “…I doubt if much will be done. The British, French and Americans seem too anxious not to do anything to offend Hitler. It’s an absurd situation. They want to appease the man who was responsible for their problem.”
The Nazis themselves were not in a mood to negotiate and a cool reception was given to tentative approaches by the State Department. Myron Taylor made a proposal for settlement in a speech on 3 October to the Foreign Policy Association. He estimated that German Jewish property in Germany was worth between two and six billion dollars. “Even the lower figure,” he calculated, “would be more than enough to re-establish the half-million persons elsewhere, were it possible to use it.”
Roosevelt asked Neville Chamberlain to intercede with Hitler asking him for flexibility regarding the refugee question but Chamberlain refused, telling American Ambassador, Joseph Kennedy, that such matters are best handled through formal diplomatic channels.
Negotiations with Germany regarding orderly emigration and the transfer of part of the emigrants’ property made little progress. A rehabilitation society was established, headed by Paul van Zeeland, ex-prime minister of Belgium, but no agreement could be reached with the German Authorities. The Intergovernmental Committee succeeded in reaching an international agreement on travel permits for refugees not possessing passports.
The IGC failed through lack of interest and co-operation, and a lack of funds and authority to help refugees. The onset of World War Two made its task virtually impossible. According to Tommie Sjoberg, examination of the IGC’s records show that the British and US governments ‘manipulated the IGC largely for their own ends, especially to defect humanitarian pressure away from themselves.
After Kristallnacht Britain again invited the Dominion Governments to accept refugees. Canada refused claiming that Jews did not settle well on the land. Only 5,000 refugees were allowed into Canada between 1933 and 1945. In spite of Australia’s High Commissioner, S.M. Bruce recommending that 30,000 refugees be accepted a quota of 15,000 over three years was agreed but only 10,000 arrived.
As Louise London points out the countries of the world withstood pressure to go out of their way to alleviate Jewish anguish and the UK choose ‘caution and pragmatism, subordinating humanitarianism to Britain’s national interest.’
Britain did not feel it was in its own interests to solve the refugee problem so did not try to do so
Continued to conclusion:
Regardless of what predated it, which I alluded to, this is right. “The symbiosis between 20th century Islamists and Nazis has to do with common enemies, common goals and similar worldviews. “
Continues from# 11
Conclusion
After the annexation of Austria, and the Evian Conference, Hitler seemed to throw caution to the winds while the world stood by and allowed it to happen. As Martin Gilbert comments, “It was a neutral stance, not a hostile one, but this neutral stance was to cost a multitude of lives.”2 Murders, killings, torture and forced labour in concentration camps continued after Evian. In October Hitler marched into the Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia and four months after the Conference Kristallnacht, or ‘Night of the Broken Glass’ took place when thousands of Jewish shops and businesses were destroyed and many people arrested and killed. Although protest was again made in many parts of the world, the appeasement of Hitler and governments’ own agendas were paramount over helping the Jews. Humanitarian considerations were sacrificed to self-interest and after war was declared, the allies’ main thought was that of victory and the refugee problem was sidelined.
As has been shown there was also an element of anti-Semitism among government ministers and officials at the highest level. Although they did not condone Hitler’s deportations, killings and atrocities against Jews, they did not want to offend the Reich government. For example, at Evian the words ‘Jew’ and ‘Germany’ were never used. Von Ribbentrop, now Germany’s Foreign Minister, had also threatened to retaliate against German Jewry if anti-German propaganda was made at the conference. Presidents and Prime Ministers were constrained by and accountable to Congress or Parliaments and their administrations and unwilling to take a stand against them. Some elements of the media also played a role in stirring up anti-Jewish feeling.
Although it was known that Jews were being put into concentration camps, it could never have been envisaged in 1938 at the time of the Evian Conference that six million Jewish men, women and children would be horribly murdered, experimented on, tortured and suffer the worst atrocities that human beings could perpetrate in their evil and warped minds.
This however cannot excuse the lack of willingness of fairly prosperous and democratic countries to help these refugees whom they knew were in desperate need. Although not always an easy task, if there had been the will, attempts could have been made by Governments to try to bring public and press opinion onto the side of the refugees and assuring native populations regarding jobs and the erroneous belief that Jews did not assimilate into their country of refuge.
Although Jewish people had their own kosher food, religious laws, customs and festivals, they obeyed the laws of their country of adoption. They did not demand special treatment or legal exemptions for their religion but tried to live quietly and peacefully in spite of false accusations made against them, persecution and anti-Semitism. Much was made of the fact that Jews were an urban people who would not do well working in lands where agriculture was the main industry but Palestinian Jews proved this to be a false assertion as they had transformed desert land into fertile and vast crop growing areas. In fact Lord Winterton congratulated the Palestinian Jewish agriculturalists for their excellent work.4 Like every other group of people, some Jews could work successfully on the land while others were unsuitable for such work.
Prime Minister, Mackenzie King, of Canada, did little, as he did not want to upset the province of Quebec but the anti-Semitic views of Quebec should not have influenced or shaped Government policy for the whole of Canada.
The Australians also made the excuse of unemployment and an anti-Semitic backlash in a vast country that could have housed many new immigrants. British colonies could have taken many thousands of refugees and a greater attempt could have been made to negotiate with the Arabs regarding immigration to Palestine declared as a Homeland for the Jewish people in the Balfour Declaration of 1917.
Holocaust
As Adler-Rudel points out,
Those who spoke up for the Jews such as James Macdonald, Sir Neill Malcolm and Sir John Hope Simpson, who was very critical of restrictive policies towards refugees, were considered disloyal and a nuisance. They might cause trouble and problems for Governments and were therefore unsuitable for jobs that would enable them to speak out for refugees. Other individuals such as Eleanor Rathbone, a British MP, also tried to help the Jews, befriending many and helping them to immigrate to Britain. British diplomat Sir George Ogilvie-Forbes, wrote from Berlin that the treatment of Jews and political opponents in concentration camps made the “Germans unfit for decent international society.”7 A senior colleague in the Foreign Office in London agreed. “The Germans”, he minuted, “are out to eliminate the Jews at any cost to the latter and nothing we can do or say will stop them.”8 In this air of futility very little was done to relax immigration laws. The Germans made things extremely difficult by refusing to allow Jews to take their money and possessions with them when they were expelled and most countries did not want to give refuge to penniless immigrants.
Jewish leaders themselves had to stand by as their people were excluded from one country after another and their voluntary organisations did not have the funds to sponsor all the penniless refugees fleeing from the Nazis. As Chaim Weizmann said to Anthony Eden, “The fire from the synagogues may easily spread from there to Westminster Abbey and the other great English cathedrals. If a government is allowed to destroy a whole community which has committed no crime save that of being a minority and having its own religion, if such a government, at the heart of Europe, is not even rebuked, it means the beginning of anarchy and the destruction of the basis of civilization. The powers which stand looking on without taking any measures to prevent the crime will one day be visited by severe punishment.”9
http://christianactionforisrael.org/antiholo/evian/evian.html
http://christianactionforisrael.org/antiholo/evian/chapter1.html
http://christianactionforisrael.org/antiholo/evian/chapter2.html
http://christianactionforisrael.org/antiholo/evian/chapter3.html
http://christianactionforisrael.org/antiholo/evian/chapter4.html
http://christianactionforisrael.org/antiholo/evian/conclusion.html
Ted It had no relationship to Islam It did have a relationship to Christian Europe and Christianities persecution of the Jews for 1500 hundred years previous to the Holocaust and today is no different.
Hitler murdered the Jews because he believed he could get away with it after Every country in the World led by America and Britain refused to help the Jews or even threaten Germany of any repercussions or sanctions. Up ubtil Hitlersd Invasion of Poland they all loved the Germans and Hitler as well even Churchill.
As Bad as Islam is: it’s Christian historic and current attitudes and treatment of the Jews which by comparison dwarfs Islamic treatment of the Jews in a Historical perspective.See my comment#10
I stand by my analysis and comments.
Nothing I wrote disagreed with this.
Some things never change, although Jewish organizations deserve credit for exemplifying representative democracy.
The American Jews who are led by these American Jewish leaders are also an assimilated bunch of soulless sycophants.
Israel endures far greater abuse from American Jews than from American Gentiles.
Something about possessing a Hebrew surname that confers carte blanche upon Jew haters.
Can you name two major Jewish American organization that democratically elect their leadership? Can you then name 1?
I can name two, but I cannot name one.
The Democratic Party.
The Council On American Islamic Relations.
That was easy enough.
It doesn’t matter.
American Jews voted for President of the United States, so we know the zeitgeist of American Jewry.
Prostrate submission, as perfectly exemplified by American Jewish leadership.
Are you implying that if B’nai B’rith popularly elected the head of the ADL, Dishonest Abe Foxman would be defeated by someone ethical?
Surely, you jest.
Or is it Shirley, you jest?
I am saying that no major Jewish organization I am aware of popularly and democratically elect their leadership. American Jews have ersatz leaders who have no constituencies. (Leaders with no followers)
When I would speak to the Jewish community years ago If I didn’t speak the PC Jewish line I was thrown out or booed down. They the Jews not only hate the message they hate the messenger too. That’s how they pick leaders who are yes men to a phantom constituency.
No, the constituency consists of the leftist assholes who shouted you down, and the leadership accurately reflects the ignorance of the followership.
Endora in Nora Ephron’s Bewitched?
Aunt Clara and Uncle Arthur in the Elizabeth Montgomery Bewitched.
You would have loved Elizabeth.
She was the ultimate no-bullshit broad, which made her spectacularly unpopular with Hollywood executives.
She did things her way, and if people didn’t like it she couldn’t have cared less.
When she was diagnosed with cancer, she declined treatment saying, “No need to prolong the inevitable or get weepy. I am ready to die.”
She was very nice to me and I greatly admired her.
When I grow up, I want to be Elizabeth Montgomery.
When I would see how they reacted I think the underlying emotion besides their leftist political and social slants was that of real fear. American Jews may for the most part enjoy unprecedented material and professional success but they are afraid and very insecure.
That is an excessively generous interpretation.
They are appallingly egocentric.
That too!