Business as usual with the Germans
On March 24 1933 the British newspaper Daily Express headlined “Judea declares war on Germany”. Despite the numerous calls for a boycott, Jews generally continued to do business with Germany, even during the war. Even Otto Frank, the father of the famous diarist Anne Frank, engaged in providing supplies to the German Wehrmacht after the occupation of Holland in May 1940. Not only relatively small businessmen engaged in trade with the German occupiers, but also the government, most notably secretary-general Hans Hirschfeld.
Hans Max Hirschfeld, born into a Jewish-German business-family, began his career as a civil servant in the department of Labour, Trade and Industry, specializing in relations with Germany. Despite the regime-change in Germany in 1933 Hirschfeld continued to focus on Germany as the premier business partner of Holland. His Jewish background did not prevent him from conducting business as usual: “Beyond the ministerial directorates begins the madness.”
After the German occupation of Holland, Hirschfeld rose to the position of secretary-general of Trade, Industry and Shipping (later renamed: Economic Affairs). The Germans did not remove him despite being half-Jewish, but kept him at this key post during the entire war. The Dutch historian Van der Zwan wrote in his biography about him (Under the Spell of Power, Amsterdam 2004) that Hirschfeld was the willing helper of the Germans and was instrumental of merging Holland’s economy into the German war effort.
The fact that Hirschfeld did nothing notable to save Dutch Jews from deportation to Poland has been harshly criticized by Dr. Loe de Jong, the Dutch Jew who wrote the official history of Holland during World War II. But this is also true about the wartime leadership of the Jewish community, the so-called Jewish Council.
Collaboration with the Germans
The Jewish Council was instituted after a violent uprising in a Jewish neighbourhood, followed by a general strike in Amsterdam in February, 1941. The Germans wanted to have a vehicle through which they could communicate their wishes to the Jewish community. The Jewish Council was composed of the Jewish social and financial elite and enjoyed special privileges. This caused resentment among fellow Jews.
One of the privileges of the Jewish Council was that they were exempted from deportation to Poland; indeed the Council was assigned the job of drawing up the list of those who were to be deported. Later, fellow Jews accused the Council of deporting the mass of Jewish paupers from the slums of Amsterdam and preserving the elite. Meanwhile the Jewish Council implemented the full segregation of the Jewish community in Holland. All Jews in Holland were registered (140,552 of them Jews, 14,549 half-Jews and 5,719 quarter-Jews), and the Council rigorously enforced the German order that Jews wear yellow badges in the form of the Star of David.
The Jewish Council constantly admonished Jews to comply with German orders, no matter how horrible and humiliating they may be. The Council worked only to save their own people: those of a similar class, education and economic background. They remained at the helm during the deportations to save the “most valuable elite” for the “future interest” of the Jewish community. The working class Jews, the proletariat, were the first to be shipped off to the death camps. (“Holocaust in Holland: Jewish-Nazi Collaboration in Amsterdam”)
The collaboration between the German authorities and the Jewish Council was so smooth that, in the words of one historian, “deportation of the Jews in the Netherlands achieved a greater measure of perfection and efficiency than anywhere else in occupied Europe” (see here). This caused a great controversy after the war, shown by a study published by Yad Vashem — “The Controversy Surrounding the Jewish Council of Amsterdam.” Patterns of Jewish Leadership in Nazi Europe 1933–1945. Yad Vashem, Jerusalem, 1979. The leaders of the Jewish Council, Abraham Aasche and David Cohen, were eventually exonerated because they claimed that they were under the impression that the camps would be humanely run work camps.
In order to wipe out the memory of the complicity of their own kind, Jews started to build the myth that the Dutch were responsible for the high number of deported Jews during the war. A good example is this piece by the Jewish publicist Max Pam from 2002, which is titled: “Responsibility for the the largest number of deported Jews in Europe also belongs to the Dutch.” Also Manfred Gerstenfeld beat the same drum by stating that the Dutch authorities did ‘too little’ to save the Jews, while he is silent about the role of the Jewish Council in this process.
Conclusion
Jews were fearful of National-Socialism, and business people like Otto Frank fled Germany for this reason. This did not stop them from continuing doing business with resurgent Germany and even engaging in war profiteering. Although Hirschfeld was certainly not typical of Jewish attitudes towards National Socialist Germany, it shows that for practical reasons some Jews went to great lengths to share in the fruits of German victory.
The willingness of the Jewish elite in Holland to collaborate with the Germans led to the deportation of the mass of Jews, which has caused embarrassment right into the heart of the Holocaust cult – Yad Vashem. If Jews were highly complicit in the smooth deportation of their own kind to save their own skin, what will be left of Jewish victimhood and the subsequent fostering of collective guilt among the Dutch Goyim?
Facing the Future as a Minority
Bryan Mark Rigg PhD in his book ‘Hitler’s Jewish Soldiers’, had claimed that there were approximately 150,000 German Jews in the Nazi Army. Some of them rose to very high sensitive positions both in Military and administration. Whereas, Hennecke Kardel has called Hitler ‘the Founder of Israel’. Even Hitler’s girlfriend to his death, Eva Bruan was allegedly Jewish. Last year, the Zionist Christian Glenn Beck claimed that Jewish multi-billionair George Soro collaborated with Nazis as a youth in Hungary.
One of Hitler’s top officer Adolf Eichmann, a radical Zionist, helped World Zionist movement in populating British mandate Palestine with Jews under Nazi regime. He was kidnapped and executed by his former Jewish allies in 1961 in Israel.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/03/16/hannah-arendt-and-eichmanns-show-trail/
One odd fact is that the Nazi’s let populations self identify, even in Germany. The Jews self identified as Jews.
One amusing story in the German newsmagazine Der Speigel some years ago, told about a German woman with a Black child who identified the child as German.
No questions were asked. LOL.
Glenn Beck is a Mormon, not a Christian.
My guess is that the “Dutch” Jews died along the “Norwegian” Jews on the “Cap Arcona” 4. of mai 1945, on their way to Sweden, when they were sunk by british airplanes .
It is also my guess that the 20.000 Jews Demjanjuk is supposed to have killed, also really died on these there ships.
Isn’t it fair to say of Aasche and Cohen that their impression was correct – that there was no deliberate institutional cruelty, and that much of the brutality and privations was a result of the camps being run internally by communists and criminals?
Make that “communists, jews and criminals”. :-)
communists and jews is redundant language for criminals.
One has to wonder how much Hitler’s “eugenics program” for the Jews actually benefited them in the long run. Of course, there were many thousands of Jews openly serving as Jews with the Nazis and actively collaborating with them to sellout their fellow Jews. Although, I wasn’t familiar with this particular chapter in history, so thanks for the info.
One can only imagine if one were to wipe out all the Whites of subpar intelligence what we could do with the survivors, especially if they operated in the same clannish way the Jews do.
“One can only imagine if one were to wipe out all the Whites of subpar intelligence what we could do with the survivors…”
But this is happening. It is usually among this class (and some of the more wealthy clique) that intermarries and whose children cease being white. The whittling away at the diverse white American peoples is going forward, slowly.
This is a very informative video on the non existence of the alleged gas chambers and plans to exterminate Jews. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wJ-ZReVVYM&feature=youtu.be
Henning Kardel’s “book” is one of the most ludicrous, paranoid work’s of nonsense that can be imagined.
Thanks, I think we suspected as much. Some of these posters actually sound like Lyndon LaRouche supporters. LaRouchies come at things in a way that is similar to Truthers and paranoid conspiracy theorists.
For anyone tempted, I can assure you the Lyndon LaRouche approach does not work. I was once accosted by a gang of them when I was working downtown … they were noisily screaming at us while we walked to lunch, trying to make us take a pamphlet. We just ended up making fun of them – it was a good chuckle. They seemed like weird people that were mentally unstable and desperate to relevant. Anyway, not a good direction to go in.
YEP – I remember a few years ago, thousands of creeps on Jewish payroll called Jimmy Carter’s book on Israel’s aparthied: “that: “book” is one of the most ludicrous, paranoid work’s of nonsense that can be imagined”.
Thanks for this bit of truth.
This is of course one of the many reason why the Evil Ones have made the Hollocast is forbidden territory . The Jewish world is littered with bad behavior but how can they be Gods Chosen if Jews hear about all this so the Nazi Jews in every country collect tithes from their members and then extort money from the Gentile governments and channel those funds into attacking the Gentile people who point out what very greedy hypocrites many Jews are .So we see in this example of Holland in WW2 , Their “Noble Rabbis” selling their congregation down the river and then of course they want to eat their cake and keep it also so they accuse someone else of being the thief . Its the standard responds of cowardly sneak thief’s when they are caught , red handed.They immediately try and rat on each other to save there own stinking skin. Its like the Joke : Why do Jews have big noses? Because air free and money stinks ! I know the Trolls on this sight have good humor so I hope they enjoy this …:O)
I believe that when the Israeli professor Yeshyahu Leibowictz defined holocaust as the new Jewish religion – he was trying to be modest – as it practice it has long passed the threshold of ‘religion’ since Israel’s 1967 invasion of its Arab neighbors during which it occupied the entire pre-1947 Palestine. One can insult the Bible or ridicule the Biblical prophets – but one must not be blasphemous about the “Six Million Died” doctrine.
Kevin Barrett PhD, an American author, talk-show host and lecturer, who has converted to Islam – posted his latest article, titled Holocaustism vs Islam, believe that since the German court has fined Bishop Richard Williamson to the tune of US$18,000 for questioning the ‘six million Jews killed’ – makes clear that Holocaustism has replaced Christianity as well as Judaism.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2009/11/02/holocaust-is-new-jewish-religion/
As a kid I had a Sunday School teacher, an immigrant to the United States, who had been in the Dutch underground during the war (still had his fake identification papers). A task of his had been to help hide Jews. He said he was shocked to watch once as a Jew who had a relative about to be sent off go onboard to retrieve the jewelry the person was wearing.
The relative got to keep the jewelry, and now Israel is classifiying it as stolen during WW2 and demanding reparations.
Lets dispel some myths and reassert the truths ; The Dutch people only seperated from their German roots 400 years ago and the Dutch langauge is a low German dialect. In the First World War although neutral they were symapathetic to Germany and provided a place of exile for the Kaiser in 1918. They were badly affected by the depression and the National Socialist Movement was very popular under the leadership of Anton Mussert. Most of the Dutch Jews were in fact immigrants from Germany like the Franks.
The highest number of recruits for the SS from outside Germany came from the Netherlands. Most of the “Dutch ” Jews who were sent to German labour camps in the war of course never returned after 1945 because most were not Dutch but very recent immigrants. They went on to the US , Australia, Israel, Argentina etc after 1945 . The myth of the extermination of the Dutch Jews is just that: a myth.
Yep, Dutch is German with lots of Js. It’s funny how much of a linguistic layover it is between German and English:
“Willst du sitzen? Ich kann stehen.” >
“Wilt U zitten? Ik kan staan.” >
“Will (would you like to) you sit? I can stand.”
Let’s not substitute new myths for old.
There were “patriotic traitors” in many Nazi-occupied countries. If the Nazis had won the war, “Quisling” might be an honorable title. But they didn’t, and it’s not.
Anton Mussert’s rightist movement had several hundred Jews among its members–at the start. Antisemitism had to be imposed on the Netherlanders, from outside.
The Netherlands tried to also stay neutral during World War II. Yet despite a declaration of neutrality Hitler’s conquest of Western Europe began with the May 10, 1940 parachute assault on the Dutch airfields, followed soon afterward by a ruthless aerial bombardment of Rotterdam.
Caleb don’t try to rewrite history. The Netherlands was occupied in WW2 for two reasons. Firstly it was threatened by the British and French with occupation and was a direct threat to the Ruhr region of Germany which provided the steel and coal for the Germans and secondly because of the development of air power . When the RAF were attacking the Ruhr nightly with bombers you needed to attack them at the coast not when they were two minutes from their goal.
As for the ruthless assault on Rotterdam the attack was to relieve surrounded German troops and it was a legitimate target. Sadly 600 were killed which pales into insignificance when compared to the 50,000 killed in Hamburg or all the other cities.
As to quisling goverments they only came into existence when the elected governments ran away and there was no alternative.In Denmark and Belgium the goverment and kings stayed and the in 1943 there were even democratic elections in Denmark
Jews still carry a very big stick in Angela Markel’s Germany. Last year, Germany’s Heinrich Boll Foundation and the Rosa-Luxemburg House cancelled anti-Zionist Jewish academic Dr. Norman Finkelstein’s scheduled lecture in Berlin under pressure from the Israel Lobby. In October 2009, a scheduled lecture in Munich by Israeli historian, IIan Pappe was also cancelled under similar circumstances.
And let us not forget – Israel has already sucked US$93 billions out of German taxpayers for “gassing” poor Jews.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/02/22/dr-finkelstein-banned-in-berlin/
The US has given Israel over a trillion since 1948…
It is you, Peter, who is rewriting history and not very believably.
Because God is good the Nazis never developed a four engine bomber like the Lancaster or the Liberator. The Soviet arms factories remained inviolate and there were no firestorms in London.
Rotterdam was the first European city since Guernica to suffer terror bombing. It was unnecessary, too since the Dutch had already agreed to surrender.
The British weren’t attacking anyone in May, 1940. They agreed to and did respect the neutrality of the Netherlands. Except at sea it was the period of the Phony War. Their plan called for a move into Belgium, with the French if the Germans attacked. The result was Dunkirk.
As for the collaborationists in the Western European countries, they needed the Nazi Germans more than the Germans needed them. The deluded Mussert never came close to ruling in the German-occupied Netherlands. That responsibility went to one Seyss-Inquart, an Austrian lawyer as the Dutch underground grew larger and bolder.
Caleb you seem to be obsessed with rewriting history . Are you Richard Evans by any chance? Your first paragraph is absurd. The British developed four engined bombers and pursued a ruthless policy of bombing civilian targets from May 1940 onwards. Up until then Germany and Britain had only attacked cities which were in the front line and were military targets. Thus Warsaw civilians were actually given two days warning and escape roads were pointed out. Rotterdam was attacked because Dutch soldiers there had surrounded the German paratroopers and were attacking them. It was a military target. Propagandists like yourself exaggerated the death toll from 600 to 30,000. As for the Dutch surrender when it was announced and the luftwaffe were aware ,no further attacks took place. The only terror bombings in WW2 were by the British and USAF, for instance in Hamburg in three days nearly 50,000 men woman and and children were burnt to death.
The British were attacking on various fronts in May 1940. They fully intended to attack Norway and thereby deprive Germany of Iron ore from Sweden. They were beaten by a few hours in the attack on Norway in a dareing move by the Germans . Their plans for attacking through Belgium and Holland were well advanced in May 1940.
As for collaborationists like Mussert and Petain as can be seen from numerous newsreels of the time they were popular figures and are vilified to this day by those who support a marxist and Jewish agenda as they defied the forces which would in the next 60 years wreak havoc upon their lands.
Opinion
Why Don’t We Hear About Soros’ Ties to Over 30 Major News Organizations?
By Dan Gainor
Here is some news about one of the most important anti White racists operating.
Published May 11, 2011
FoxNews.com
Editor’s note: This is the first of a two part series on George Soros and the media.
When liberal investor George Soros gave $1.8 million to National Public Radio , it became part of the firestorm of controversy that jeopardized NPR’s federal funding. But that gift only hints at the widespread influence the controversial billionaire has on the mainstream media. Soros, who spent $27 million trying to defeat President Bush in 2004, has ties to more than 30 mainstream news outlets – including The New York Times, Washington Post, the Associated Press, NBC and ABC.
Prominent journalists like ABC’s Christiane Amanpour and former Washington Post editor and now Vice President Len Downie serve on boards of operations that take Soros cash. This despite the Society of Professional Journalists’ ethical code stating: “avoid all conflicts real or perceived.”
This information is part of an upcoming report by the Media Research Centers Business & Media Institute which has been looking into George Soros and his influence on the media.
The investigative reporting start-up ProPublica is a prime example. ProPublica, which recently won its second Pulitzer Prize, initially was given millions of dollars from the Sandler Foundation to “strengthen the progressive infrastructure” – “progressive” being the code word for very liberal. In 2010, it also received a two-year contribution of $125,000 each year from the Open Society Foundations. In case you wonder where that money comes from, the OSF website is http://www.soros.org. It is a network of more than 30 international foundations, mostly funded by Soros, who has contributed more than $8 billion to those efforts.
The ProPublica stories are thoroughly researched by top-notch staffers who used to work at some of the biggest news outlets in the nation. But the topics are almost laughably left-wing. The site’s proud list of “Our Investigations” includes attacks on oil companies, gas companies, the health care industry, for-profit schools and more. More than 100 stories on the latest lefty cause: opposition to drilling for natural gas by hydraulic fracking. Another 100 on the evils of the foreclosure industry.
Throw in a couple investigations making the military look bad and another about prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and you have almost the perfect journalism fantasy – a huge budget, lots of major media partners and a liberal agenda unconstrained by advertising.
One more thing: a 14-person Journalism Advisory Board, stacked with CNN’s David Gergen and representatives from top newspapers, a former publisher of The Wall Street Journal and the editor-in-chief of Simon & Schuster. Several are working journalists, including:
• Jill Abramson, a managing editor of The New York Times;
• Kerry Smith, the senior vice president for editorial quality of ABC News;
• Cynthia A. Tucker, the editor of the editorial page of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
ProPublica is far from the only Soros-funded organization that is stacked with members of the supposedly neutral press.
The Center for Public Integrity is another great example. Its board of directors is filled with working journalists like Amanpour from ABC, right along side blatant liberal media types like Arianna Huffington, of the Huffington Post and now AOL.
Like ProPublica, the CPI board is a veritable Who’s Who of journalism and top media organizations, including:
• Christiane Amanpour – Anchor of ABC’s Sunday morning political affairs program, “This Week with Christiane Amanpour.” A reliable lefty, she has called tax cuts “giveaways,” the Tea Party “extreme,” and Obama “very Reaganesque.”
• Paula Madison – Executive vice president and chief diversity officer for NBC Universal, who leads NBC Universal’s corporate diversity initiatives, spanning all broadcast television, cable, digital, and film properties.
• Matt Thompson – Editorial product manager at National Public Radio and an adjunct faculty member at the prominent Poynter Institute.
Once again, like ProPublica, the center’s investigations are mostly liberal – attacks on the coal industry, payday loans and conservatives like Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour. The Center for Public Integrity is also more open about its politics, including a detailed investigation into conservative funders David and Charles Koch and their “web of influence.”According to the center’s own 990 tax forms, the Open Society Institute gave it $651,650 in 2009 alone.
The well-known Center for Investigative Reporting follows the same template – important journalists on the board and a liberal editorial agenda. Both the board of directors and the advisory board contain journalists from major news outlets. The board features:
• Phil Bronstein (President), San Francisco Chronicle;
• David Boardman, The Seattle Times;
• Len Downie, former Executive Editor of the Washington Post, now VP;
• George Osterkamp, CBS News producer.
Readers of the site are greeted with numerous stories on climate change, illegal immigration and the evils of big companies. It counts among its media partners The Washington Post, Salon, CNN and ABC News. CIR received close to $1 million from Open Society from 2003 to 2008.
Why does it all matter? Journalists, we are constantly told, are neutral in their reporting. In almost the same breath, many bemoan the influence of money in politics. It is a maxim of both the left and many in the media that conservatives are bought and paid for by business interests. Yet where are the concerns about where their money comes from?
Fred Brown, who recently revised the book “Journalism Ethics: A Casebook of Professional Conduct for News Media,” argues journalists need to be “transparent” about their connections and “be up front about your relationship” with those who fund you.
Unfortunately, that rarely happens. While the nonprofits list who sits on their boards, the news outlets they work for make little or no effort to connect those dots. Amanpour’s biography page, for instance, talks about her lengthy career, her time at CNN and her many awards. It makes no mention of her affiliation with the Center for Public Integrity.
If journalists were more up front, they would have to admit numerous uncomfortable connections with groups that push a liberal agenda, many of them funded by the stridently liberal George Soros. So don’t expect that transparency any time soon.
Dan Gainor is the Boone Pickens Fellow and the Media Research Center’s Vice President for Business and Culture. He writes frequently for Fox News Opinion. He can also be contacted on FaceBook and Twitter as dangainor.
If slowing climate change and making sure multinationals pay their fair share of taxes is a Jewish conspiracy, tell me where I can sign up!
One slight correction, Peter: numerous **Nazi** newsreels showed how popular Quisling, Mussert and the like were. But then, Minister of Enlightenment and Propaganda Josef Goebbels was a real genius at doctoring the truth–the original “spin doctor”. Now **le Marechal** Petain was popular, owing to his service to France not as a Nazi puppet but as a general in the First World War.
And speaking of Jewish, **Der Fuehrer** thought of nuclear physics as “Jewish science” and showed little interest, God be thanked.
Caleb I know it is hard to escape from your Jewish matrix but I suggest you try searching on you tube Petain 1944 there you will see huge enthusiasm for Petain when he visited Notre Dame in May 1944. As stated earlier thousands of Norweigians and Dutch volunteered to serve in the German forces against your heroes the Russian Bolsheviks . No doubt you approve of Katyn and the murder of the Polish officers. As for Dr Goebbels he too was very popular in Germany and his wife who worked in Red Cross centres even more so. As for Hitler’s views on Nuclear Science, there was indeed a nuclear program in Germany . Fortunately the war ended in May 1945 as most of the Jewish scientists who worked on the Manhatten project were looking forward to incinerating German women and children. They did unfortunately get their reward when the US atom bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Try trolling on other message boards in support of your beloved mother land in the middle east.
[ If slowing climate change and making sure multinationals pay their fair share of taxes is a Jewish conspiracy, tell me where I can sign up! ]
LOL !
Why stop there ?
How about changing climate slow and taxing the moon ?
Caleb
English historian A.J.P. Taylor wrote over 60 years ago that the German expansion of the war was in direct response to the actions of France and Britain. Quisling was vilified because he replaced Johan Nygaardsvold, the man who welcomed Trotsky to Norway.
As Trotsky was Stalin’s most feared enemy, I would have welcomed him, too.
Can you cite the work in which AJP Taylor wrote this?
Prior to the May 10 attack on (neutral) Holland, there was little “action” by either Britain or France–except, as I said, at sea. Their armies seemed content to sit on the Maginot Line indefinitely After all, that’s why it was called the Phoney War.
SHOULD the Western Powers have come to terms with Hitler in 1940, conveniently forgeting the guaranties they had given to Poland?
All Hitler wanted was the return of the people of Danzig, a 99% German city for many centuries, to German rule. The Versailles treaty insanely gave it to Poland after WW1. All Hitler’s territorial claims were essentially the same; ‘Just let us have back what was taken from us after 1919′.
I have long believed Jews designed the terms of the treaty so as to guarantee another war.
Caleb- by the way the Germans did develop a four engine plane it was called the Kondor. Check it out on U tube -not trying to be a smart ar-e
Glenn Beck was nominated by the FAIR magazine as one of America’s top 12 Islamophobe in October 2008. He is a TV Show host at CNN, owned by the Zionist Christian billionaire Rupert Murdoch. On October 13, 2010 – Rupert Murdoch was honored for protecting ‘Israel’s good image’ by Anti-Defamation League (ADL), one of the most powerful Israel Lobby groups in United States. Glenn Beck has repeatedly equated Islam with Nazism (though Nazi Army had 150,000 German Jews among them) and Holy Qur’an with Hitler’s Mein Kampf which was written over 1,300 after the revelation of Holy Qur’an. Since Glenn Becks associates himself with Islamophobe Jews like Daniel Pipes, David Horowitz and Mark Steyn – ADL always supported Glenn Beck’s ‘freedom of speech’ (though Helen Thomas was not awarded that freedom for criticizing Jews for occupying Arab lands).
Last week, Abraham Foxman, the ADL’s national director expressed outrage over Beck’s charges against Jewish billionaire George Soros’ behavior as a boy in Nazi-occupied Hungary, which Beck made on CNN on Tuesday and again on the radio Wednesday. “Glenn Beck’s description of George Soros’ actions during the Holocaust is completely inappropriate, offensive and over the top,” said Foxman. “For a political commentator or entertainer to have the audacity to say – inaccurately – that there’s a Jewish boy sending Jews to death camps, as part of a broader assault on Mr. Soros, that’s horrific… To hold a young boy responsible for what was going on around him during the Holocaust as part of a larger effort to denigrate the man is repugnant.”
Glenn Beck is being accused by the Jewish Lobby for calling Jewish billionaire and funder of ‘regime-change’ all over the world – as a Atheist and anti-Jewish on the air. He accused Soros of helping Nazis steal Jewish property as a teenager and of feeling no remorse about it. In fact, when Soros was 14 in Nazi-occupied Hungary, his father bribed an agriculture official to pretend that the boy was his Christian godson. Soros once had to accompany his protector to inventory a confiscated Jewish estate. Asked by 60 Minutes if he felt guilty about it, he said no, because he wasn’t at fault. …….
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/11/18/glenn-beck-from-islamophobe-to-anti-semite/
I wrote the article about the Dutch Jewish Council that is cited above, “Holocaust in Holland: Jewish-Nazi Collaboration in Amsterdam.” The reason that I wrote it is to document Jewish collaboration with the Nazis, which did take place during the Holocaust period. I have felt that Jewish-Nazi collaboration has been under represented in the writing of history. It was not the norm, but it did happen and is in the history books. It is found in scholarship, but not in mass-market books or popular articles. One has to seek it out to find it. It has, however, become the subject of essays written by Jewish scholars who are trying to set the record straight. I don’t wish to condemn everyone for the deeds of a minority. The evidence shows, however, that Abraham Asscher and David Cohen were indeed collaborators. What one must consider when looking at them specifically includes:
1) The Nazis perfidiously selected those Jews who would do everything that they wanted them to do with no question.
2) The Nazis gave them “perks” for their work.
3) Asscher and Cohen responded to the “positive reinforcement” by being extremely efficient, wanting to “impress” the Germans.
4) The issue of class comes into play: Asscher and Cohen protected the wealthy, educated Jews as much as possible. The proletariat, working class Jews were dispatched to the death camps first. Of course, the vast majority of Dutch Jews were not wealthy and educated and thus were exterminated.
Thus in a nation where Jews had had equal rights since 1796 the number of Jews killed numbered about 75%, the highest percentage in any Nazi-occupied nation. Asscher and Cohen were collaborators and Quislings of the highest order, but were not punished for their deeds. History should punish them for what they did to their own people. But history should not be manipulated or changed to fit an agenda or to “prove” some kind of “conspiracy.”
Going beyond the Holocaust
Can we teach our children a broader view of history?
By Anshel Pfeffer Harretz
…I’m not sure what is more depressing, the limited scope of history taught in Israeli schools or the knowledge that is not going to get better. With schools being asked to equip children with practical skills that will prepare them for tomorrow’s marketplace, and so much of the time that is devoted to the humanities going to Jewish subjects, there just are not enough history hours in high school to give even a basic grounding in the major periods of world history.
Political considerations dictate the syllabus more than anything else, and of course it would be unthinkable to teach anything but the required subjects.
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/going-beyond-the-holocaust-1.368139
Interesting piece, not particularly new insights though. The same sort of thing went on all over occupied Europe both amongst Jews and non Jews, there is even by now a substantial literature on the Nazi-Zionist collaboration prewar mostly,though extending until 1940-41 in some ways, as well as the lack of serious action to save Jews all round thereafter. Some corrections though to comments- Holland had the highest percentage of Jews killed only in Western Europe, not overall, it was higher in Poland Lithuania etc. The Rotterdam bombing was legal if not moral, was in direct support of ground action, and was actually called off when word of the surrender came through, though only part of the bombing force could be recalled in time. The 900 or so dead were in large part from fires that broke out when a factory caught fire – it was not as far as the facts indicate a deliberate terror bombing (unlike Allied bombing,even before the war ie Iraq in the 20′s) though it was in the circumstances a perhaps welcome side effect (ie terror), given the German need for a quick victory. The Allies were however planning themselves to occupy the Low Countries to facilitate their own intended offensive into Germany the following year. The Germans actually had a number of four (and more) engined bombers, but never tried to develop a strategic bomber force or doctrine. Reasonable terms in 1940 would have been preferable to the slaugher and destruction that ensued instead – and they were offered (via Ludwig Weissauer). As for God being good, well if there had not been the world wars for a start, let alone every other natural and (some) man made disaster, you might have the beginnings of a real case.
Well, Steve, the Weissauer mission in Sweden is generally believed to be a dodge, an attempt even at that late date to get the appeasers back in office at Whitehall and No. 10.
Any “reasonable terms” would have had to involve trusting Hitler to some extent. Hitler didn’t ALWAYS break his word, some promises he kept such as staying faithful to the end to Mussolini even when the Duce in those last months at Salo broke faith with Hitler. But Hitler himself conceded his promises were not to be relied on, telling a confidante in 1944 that even if he made a peace pact with the Soviets “I would just have to break it. I couldn’t help myself”.
The bombing of Rotterdam by a few small twin engine planes is mild enough in retrospect. At the time it was shocking that one civilized, European people would do that to another, and fellow Teutons at that.
Where is any evidence that England and France were going to attack the Netherlands?
Caleb,
The Weissauer mission was clearly an attempt to end the war in the West on terms viable for both sides – if you have read the details of it it’s clear enough, and it was in keeping with Hitler’s July 19 Reichstag speech offer and his general and well attested desire not to fight Britain. Plus it was kept confidential, which a “dodge” as you put it need not have been. The ‘general regard’ you speak of (sources?) would be nothing more than the usual attempt to dismiss the idea that there was any alternative to total war. In fact it (the offer) has been written out of the historical record if anything, not the sort of thing that suits the establishment lie.
Trusting Hitler was not the problem, as you admit he was trustworthy enough to allies and friends, the Allies themselves were hardly entirely trustworthy themselves (eg Versailles), and interests and balance of force were the real guarantees, as in diplomacy they always are. There was no guarantee it would work, but considering the alternatives it was worth a try. The Allies however dismissed it out of hand, for other reasons, revealed in certain statements of Churchill and the loathesome Vansittart (ie Germany had to go regardless).
Hitler’s supposed offhand comment regarding the Soviets to one of his secretaries I believe means little in this context, even if he said it it might have not been meant entirely seriously, though he had far less desire for real peace in the east than west anyway. But pure trust was not the issue as stated.
Rotterdam was much exaggerated in propaganda of the time, with talk of death tolls in the tens of thousands and motives of pure terrorism. Civilians were not targeted as such, and died by accident effectively, it was a military action, so what was in fact particularly shocking about it, other than from a pacifist perspective?
The Allies were planning an offensive through the Low Countries in 1941, though it’s little discussed in the “blame it all on Hitler” climate still extant. Obviously permission would have been preferred, but it would not (and later did not eg Iceland, Iran) stop them if it was not forthcoming.
You seem (admittedly typically) naive about the pure intentions and conduct of the Allies – they may have been better than Hitler, though not by much, all in all. Stalin alone bears that out, let alone the rest.
Agreed. Hitler kept his word when it was in his interest, or he believed it was.
The allies “gave it a try” at Munich.
Well peace with the West was in his interest, and he believed it was. Perhaps you are forgetting that they declared war on him not the other way around, and what is more over a situation originally of their own creation (ie Danzig and the corridor). Munich did preserve peace, and whilst Hitler’s occupation of the rest of Czechoslovakia was not in the spirit of it as the Western powers understood it, from Hitler’s pov it was legitimate – it was simply a resumption of German-Austrian authority over what had been a province for centuries until 1918, lost as a result of Versailles, and still strategically important to Germany, as a result of a voluntary Czech visit to Berlin to consult (as per the agreement) in the wake of the collapse of the country (which the West used as an excuse not to intervene), and signing away of independence, accepted by the Allies, even if there were threats used to bluff Hacha once there. Still the Czechs could have fought if they wanted to. At any rate so long as the other powers kept their empires and conquests by what right did they say to Hitler “you must not have any”? He was just aping them. It did not prevent the possibility of a viable peace in 1940, one which could have been used to further peace and security generally.
They didn’t “give it a try” at Munich, that was just about avoiding a war over Czechoslovakia, which not even the Czechoslovaks could be bothered fighting for. Munich was not a general or final settlement of anything, and btw, Hitler did not actually make any peacetime territorial claims against Poland, Danzig not being a part of Poland.
Germany lost the First World War. When you lose a war there are consequences. The overseas colonies Germany had in Africa and Asia were given to the victorious powers and their allies — including Japan — to govern. Did not France lose Alsace-Lorraine in 1871 AND pay a big indemnity to Germany?
The Poles are famous for fighting when they should give up (1939). The Czechs have a name for giving up when they should fight (1938, 1968)! But by the autumn of 1938 Czechoslovakia was surrounded on three sides by a hostile Germany, independent Austria having been obliterated by the **Anschluss**. How ironic that Hitler should then take up for a formerly Austrian (not German) people as a pretext.
The guaranty to Poland was not popular but Britain and France were determined to honor it by declaring war once Germany invaded Poland. Hitler did not have to ally with Stalin against the West; didn’t have to attack Holland, Belgium and France in May 1940; didn’t have to declare war on the USA in 1941.
Even the dimwitted von Ribbentrop recognized that the alliance with Japan was wholly defensive. If **der Fuehrer** was hoping Japan would return the favor and attack Russia, he was fooling himself again.
I’m not talking about the colonies, but rather those parts of Germany taken away against the principle of self determination, which the Amistice was partly signed on. Regarding Alsace-Lorraine, Germany did not take it all in 1871, only the essentially German parts, taken by the French under Louis XIV, and it was on account of a war France started for indefensible reasons, and to lessen her ability to try it again. Plus parts were taken in the East beyond even what Versailles decreed, eg Upper Silesia. The Germans had every right to feel hard done by, especially as they did not actually start the war (Austria and Serbia declared, and Russia and France mobilized first).
Once Hitler incorporated Austria, with overwhelming popular support in fact, Austrians had wanted Anschluss since WW1, and as an Austrian by origin himself, he was quite entitled to represent ex Austrian interests, there’s nothing surprising about that. “Allying” with Stalin was about his only way forward when the West turned around and blocked any further progress, even justified (ie Danzig 95% German and wanting reunification) and courted Stalin into the bargain – again he followed their lead. He certainly had to strike West in 1940 once they had declared war on him, with every intention of finishing it when they could. As for the US, it was in solidarity with an ally, unwise but what Roosevelt actually wanted and worked for anyway. Hopes for reciprocation against the Soviets were not fulfilled, but the chances were even less otherwise, and the Japanese did cause the British big problems.
Certainly Hitler went too far in his treatment of nationalities and civilians, but that’s another matter. His diplomacy had a rational side, in response to others, despite some ulterior motives, but he didn’t need to go beyond the openings provided by the dubious actions of others to get his chance to implement them, more’s the pity – he wouldn’t have gotten so far otherwise, by a long shot.
Ha ha. With “friends” like Hitler, Austria didn’t need enemies. One of the very few examples of Hitler’s actual signature is on a letter to his Austrian draft board. It stated that young Adolph refused to serve in the Imperial and Royal army because it was full of ethnic non-Germans. As a politician Hitler repeatedly proclaimed himself one of Germany’s truest sons, categorically rejecting the country of his birth and ancestry.
The enthusiasm shown by Austrians for the **Anschluss** faded rapidly. They had been impoverished by Saint Germain and were often hungry but at least they had been at peace. “Ein Reich, ein Volk, ein Fuehrer” gave way to “Piefke, geh heim!” (German, go home).
There is no evidence France and England were going to undertake offensive operations against Germany in 1940, after doing nothing actually to help Poland in 1939. The French surely would have huddled behind their Maginot defenses indefinitely and the British with their small, antiquated army would not have acted alone.
Who “started” World War I is a debatable point to this day. Remember Wilhelm II’s “blank check” to Austria leading up to the declaration of war against Serbia.
Do you call Hitler’s swallowing up of all of Czechoslovakia “progress”?
Hitler was against multi-ethnic Austria Hungary certainly, though not German Austria, but nevertheless the unified Reich he presided over inherited theoretically claims to previously held territory, at least equal in validity to those of the other powers of the day to their empires, notwithstanding the forcible manner of their break away with foreign assistance and dishonesty. Ideally all nationalities would have their own independence, but in 1939 that was simply not the situation generally, and a (renewed) German Protectorate over Czechoslovakia was certainly preferable to war, as was a return of Danzig to Germany which the Allies specifically blocked.
Allied offensive action was planned for 1941 not 1940 as I said, the interim was to be used to build up the requisite forces. At any rate once they had declared and were conducting war it was perfectly justifiable to preventively strike them, and indeed prudent given the likely shift of the military balance in their favor. You are wasting time trying to argue that the Western offensive was somehow unjustified, no serious historian argues that.
There is certainly much debate over the origins and outbreak of WW1, but it’s beyond argument that Germany did not start it. The so called “blank check” was nothing more than the necessary expression of support for a close and vital ally of long standing in its attempt to preserve itself, and there was even more done by the Kaiser to prevent war. And again, Austria and Serbia mobilized and declared war first, and Russia and France mobilized before Germany also. Germany did not start it, though it played a role as did all players in the diplomacy leading up to it.
If you want a “blank check” that led directly to war, Chamberlain’s guarantee and the subsequent military agreement (including secret clauses) are a perfect fit. They encouraged and enabled the Poles to refuse all serious negotiation, and indeed provoke war in the hope of further territorial gain, a long held ambition. Hitler was not the only one with expansion on his mind. And don’t forget (if you even knew it to start with) that the Poles wanted and connived at the partition of Czechoslovakia, this is admitted even by some Polish historians.
An antisemitic military dictatorship, Poland was admittedly not the ideal cause for which to fight and its behavior during the Czech crisis made it yet more unpopular with all countries of Eastern Europe. Its pretense at being a Great Power, its refusal to choose between Germany and Russia — thus allowing them to combine against her — its rejection of sound military advice, all made Poland a difficult ally to say the least.
Yes, in August 1939 the French newspapers asked “Mourir pour Danzig?” [(Why) Die for Danzig?]. But, of course, Danzig wasn’t the point any more than the Sudetenland had been. Appeasement having failed — indeed, it only sharpened Hitler’s appetite, the Western Democracies had to take a stand and Danzig was the place Fate dictated appeasement would finally end.
Austria an “ally of long standing”? The treaty of alliance was signed only in 1879, 35 years before the outbreak of World War I. Before that, in 1866 there had been war between Austria and Prussia. Nor was feckless Austria “vital”. It contributed nothing to Germany’s western front and had to be repeatedly rescued by German troops. Russian victories were all against Austrian armies or the Turks.
In truth, Germany had outsmarted itself by the time World War I began. Had Bismarck not been dismissed, his diplomacy might have prevented the Franco-Russian Entente which left only Austria to ally with Germany. German mobilization was rigidly fixed to railroad schedules. Unlike the other powers she could not mobilize and stand in place. She had to attack and did, following the Schlieffen Plan.
But all that is beside the point. Hitler was not Wilhelm III or another Franz-Joseph. He was a totally new phenomenon–a sort of hoodlum, indifferent to rules, who claimed that the Poles had fired first (they certainly didn’t) and that Mussolini was the greatest statesman in Europe. Churchill understood this as early on as the Munich sellout. He didn’t celebrate “peace in our time” but stated that England had suffered a major defeat without having fought a war.
And btw “offensive action” against Germany was exactly what was undertaken in 1940, in Norway, Germany’s main source of iron ore, and at sea, as well as occasionally in the air. The war was real even then.
True enough, Steve. There was no Phoney War at sea.
I myself was in the hotel room in Montevideo with **Kapitaen am See** Langsdorf. I could see he was despondent over having to scuttle his ship so I said “Hansi, don’t do it. We’ll have a drink to your next command”. I went down the hall to get some ice and “bang!” there was a shot, and well, you know what happened…
Very droll, Caleb. Btw you must really be getting on by now. At any rate I think we can leave the discussion there, there’s more than enough else to occupy ourselves with.
This story is a bunch of BS.
I was there.
Mr. Frank did not do business with the Germans.
The company was taken over by a German verwanter, by two Dutch citizens who were running the business.
And wat the Joodse raad is concerned, you have to know the Dutch citizens who were raised for hundreds of year to follow
the goverments orders.
But the elite Dutch Jews did not betraid there fellow Jews.
Holland did have a lot non-Jewish of collaborators
@Jerry Meents: Here we go: Otto Frank admitted during a police investigation in 1963 that he delivered supplies to the Wehrmacht: http://www.geschiedenis24.nl/andere-tijden/afleveringen/2001-2002/De-zaak-Frank.html