Edwin Black’s “The Transfer Agreement”
The Transfer Agreement
Dialog Press, 2009 edition.
When you write a polemic, one meant to justify victory in a war, it would be best to deliver checkmate—that is, irrefutable proof that the correct side had won and that lives had not been sacrificed in vain. Edwin Black’s 1984 volume The Transfer Agreement, which chronicles the secret pact between the Third Reich and Jewish Palestine, is one such polemic. It’s filled with nail-biting drama and larger-than-life characters; it gives us suspense and intrigue, and embodies the agony and ecstasy of Jewish triumphalism on almost every page. As far as histories go, it’s well-paced, extensively researched, and thought-provoking. Ultimately, however, it delivers everything but checkmate.
Indeed, if anything, The Transfer Agreement casts a sympathetic light on the Nazis and reveals how unnecessary, preventable, and essentially Jewish the Second World War really was.
All of this, of course, is unintentional. Black asserts in his Introduction to his 2009 edition that just because Nazis worked with Zionists in the 1930s to establish the commercial, financial, and industrial infrastructure which would become the backbone of Israel does not mean that the Nazis deserve praise or are no longer the despised enemies of humankind. The cognitive dissonance of such a relationship apparently caused Black much anguish and confusion. Yet he persevered to tell this painful yet utterly crucial story of Jewish redemption:
The message of The Transfer Agreement was in fact the chronicle of the anguish of choice—itself the quintessential notion of Zionism’s historical imperative. This book and its documentation posit one question: when will the Jewish people not be compelled to make such choices? Indeed, when will all people similarly confronted be freed from the desperation of such choices?
I know. I gagged too. Dressing up Jewish causes as universal while ignoring or dismissing equally urgent white European causes is a tack Black resorts to often in The Transfer Agreement. For example, in the book’s Introduction, Black lies thusly:
The Zionists were indeed in the company of all mankind—with this exception: The Jews were the only ones with a gun to their heads.
That Black ignores how the disproportionately Jewish Bolsheviks had conquered Russia and contributed to the murder or starvation of millions of Soviet citizens prior to Hitler’s rise to power in 1933, reveals the fundamental dishonesty of The Transfer Agreement. A gun was certainly pointing in the other direction as well.
Such a batter mixed with half-truths can only result in a half-baked product, which makes The Transfer Agreement such a frustrating read. Yet, like Black himself, I persevered. I persevered to reach the inevitable conclusion which Black so unwittingly draws: that without the vituperative neuroticism of a worldwide network of Eastern European Jews, the Second World War would never have happened, and tens of millions would not have died for nothing.
The opening chapters strike one most for the sheer bellicosity of American Jews who immediately found the chancellorship of Adolf Hitler intolerable. Also on display was their awesome power. Rabbi Stephen Wise of the American Jewish Congress (AJC) spoke the loudest and with the greatest scorn, and soon influential Jews across America were debating whether to instigate a comprehensive boycott of Germany. These were no idle threats. Jews controlled many industries, including much of the press, even back then. With enough agitation from the right people, whole cities could rise up in protest against the Third Reich.
If there was any European country back then that could not afford to be boycotted, it was Germany. With millions unemployed and the nation wracked with inflation, Germany was still struggling to pay its war reparations stipulated in the treaty of Versailles. The 800,000 Germans who died of malnutrition at the end of the First World War due to the Allied blockade, as well as the French invasion of the Ruhr in 1923, were still fresh in the minds of many. Things were economically miserable in Germany, and with millions of jobs dependent upon the foreign market, “export was the oxygen, the bread, and the salt of the German workforce. Without it, there would be economic death.”
Black explains further:
Just before the decade closed, on October 24, 1929, Wall Street crashed. America’s economy toppled, and foreign economies fell with it. For Germany, intricately tied to the all the economies of the Allied powers, the fall was brutal. Thousands of businesses failed. Millions were left jobless. Violence over food was commonplace. Germany was taught the painful lesson that economic survival was tied to international trading partners and exports.
So when American Jewish Congress vice-president Joseph Tenenbaum threatened that “[a] bellum judaicum—war against the Jews—means boycott, ruin, disaster, the end of German resources, and the end of all hope for the rehabilitation of Germany.” Hitler, the Nazis, and the suffering German people who elected them knew right away that they were beset by powerful enemies bent upon their utter destruction. Of course, such men were not peculiar to America. Black chronicles how the anti-Nazi boycott movement spread quickly around the world, gaining traction in Europe, the Middle East, and South America. Further, the movement was well-funded and organized with protestors often looking to the AJC in New York for cues.
The alacrity and vehemence with which the Jews reacted to Hitler’s ascension to power were indeed astonishing. With Hitler’s chancellorship not even six-months old, the anti-German boycott had already cost the Third Reich hundreds of millions of Reichsmarks.
One curious aspect of this was Poland. Black does not go into it as much as I would have liked, but he asserts in several places that Polish Jews were indeed behind Polish anti-German truculence throughout the 1930s. The Jews of Vilna were especially vicious, and soon infected the rest of Poland with anti-Nazi fever, which they quite shrewdly framed as national rather than ethnic. The protests quickly grew violent, and in Upper Silesia became “altogether unbearable” according to the German Foreign Ministry. Adding to the insult, the Polish Undersecretary of State told Reich Ambassador Hans Moltke that the Polish government was uninterested in interfering with the boycott.
While Black provides many details surrounding anti-Jewish attacks in Nazi Germany, he offers none on anti-German attacks in Poland, other than that they were “violent.” Things grew further out of hand as Poland, along with Czechoslovakia, began rattling sabers after Hitler, according to Black, threatened to “seize the Versailles-created territorial bridge” (i.e., the Polish Corridor). This led to Poland’s militarization of its western border and serious talks about invading Germany while it was still weak. Thus, the image of Poland being the poor and innocent victim of Nazi aggression gets exploded on the pages of The Transfer Agreement.
We can also thank Edwin Black for writing the following three enlightening sentences:
Polish Jews had successfully enflamed Poland from defensive concern to war hysteria through their violent anti-German boycott and protest movement. German officials were in fact astonished that the historically anti-Semitic Polish people would allow Jewish persecution in Germany to become the pretext for a war. But it was happening.
Why were Jews everywhere so distraught? Hitler barely had time to get his seat warm in the chancellor’s office when Jews were already declaring him an unmitigated catastrophe and were mobilizing with the utmost urgency. Well, according to Black in numerous places, Adolf Hitler had already planned the complete destruction of German Jewry, so the Jews had no choice but to strike back as hard as they could in self-defense. And boycott, along with disruptive protests, picket lines, public humiliations, and libelous editorials were their weapons of choice. “Germany,” Black declares, “would have to be crushed, not merely punished.”
Yet according to the Jewish Encyclopedia, Black’s accusations of Nazi genocidal plans back in 1933 are simply not true.
Did the Nazis always plan to murder the Jews? No. When the Nazis came to power in Germany in 1933, they did not have a plan to murder the Jews of Europe. However, the Nazis were antisemitic. They saw Jews in Germany as a problem. One of the major questions for the Nazis was: How do we get rid of the Jewish population in Germany?
One finds this fairly often in The Transfer Agreement. Black will make some hysterical claim and then footnote it with a source that does not support his hysterical claim. For example, after a brief biography of German banker and early Hitler ally Hjalmar Schacht, Black writes:
It was Schacht who now pledged to his Führer to reestablish Germany’s financial integrity and build a war economy designed for territorial and racial aggression.
Neither of his sources—William Shirer’s The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (1960) and Schacht’s 1956 autobiography Confessions of “The Old Wizard”—mention anything about “racial aggression” on the pages Black specifies (204–205, 265–266, 284, and 358–359 for the former and 2, 6, and 14 for the latter). Shirer does claim that Schacht was most helpful in “furthering [Germany’s] rearmament for the Second World War”—as if Hitler and the Nazis were plotting Stalingrad and the Battle of Britain way back in 1933. But unlike Black, Shirer does not even offer footnotes. So Black bases his assertion on Shirer’s, which is, it turn, baseless.
Black’s most astonishing faux pas occurs on pages 262–263 in Chapter 28. He writes:
At the height of Germany’s unemployment panic, on July 2 Hitler reassured a nationwide gathering of SA leaders that while the tactics might become more restrained, there was no thought of altering the ultimate goal of National Socialism: the speedy annihilation of Jewish existence.
Black’s lone source for this is an article entitled “Jews Throughout Germany Dismissed Wholesale, Bank Head Flees to Switzerland” from the Jewish Daily Bulletin, July 5, 1933. Here is the link, and below is a reproduction of the article itself. See if you can find anything about the “speedy annihilation” of Jews.
Perhaps this was a simple error, but it survived till the 2009 edition which was published 25 years after the first. And it is a pretty big error to boot.
Black also lacks self-awareness in spots, at times argues against himself—which only makes him look foolish. He glorifies the anti-German boycott often in the Transfer Agreement, and approvingly relays a story in which AJC vice-president W.W. Cohen shouted “No!” at a restaurant when the waiter offered him an imported Bavarian beer. Afterwards, Cohen attended a rally and announced that “any Jew buying one penny’s worth of merchandise made in Germany is a traitor to his people!” A few pages later, after the Germans quite understandably respond in kind against German Jews, Black is suddenly against boycott and wishes to direct our sympathy towards its innocent victims:
But this boycott would be a systematic economic pogrom that would plague every Jewish business and household. No one would be spared. What professional could survive if he could not practice? What store could survive if it could not sell?
This obvious double standard is so appalling that not only should Black not be taken seriously whenever he demonizes Nazis or complains about anti-Semitism, neither should his publisher or editors. Here are three more examples that remove any doubt that Edwin Black is little more than a shameless shill for the Jews.
On page 78, he claims without a source that the Nazis “regarded the Zionists as their enemy personified, and from the outset carried out a terror campaign against them in Germany.” But on page 175, he changes his tune and states how Zionist German Jews actually enjoyed more freedom under the Nazis than did non-Zionist Jews. The Zionist newspaper Juedische Rundschau was allowed relative press freedom; Hebrew was encouraged in all Jewish schools; Zionists were allowed to raise a Star of David flag when ordinary Jews were not allowed to raise the Swastika; and youth groups were permitted to wear Jewish uniforms, “the only non-Nazi uniform allowed in Germany.”
Some enemy. Some terror campaign.
Chapters 18 and 28 also shed harsh light on Black’s blatant hypocrisy. In the former, he congratulates the Jews for going global with their pro-Jewish, anti-Nazi vitriol, and in the latter, he frets over how anti-Jewish and pro-Nazi movement was going . . . wait for it . . . global.
Further, on page 25, Black writes [emphasis mine]:
But when Hitler and his circle saw Germany deadlocked in depression, they did not blame the world depression and the failures of German economic policy. They blamed the Bolshevik, Communist, and Marxist conspiracies, all entangled somehow in the awesome imaginary international Jewish conspiracy.
At this point, Black’s editors, proofreaders, research assistants, or the publisher himself should have taken their clueless author aside and gently reminded him that his entire book is about an international Jewish conspiracy. Just about on every third page you have Jews in one country or continent writing, phoning, or cabling Jews in another country or continent. The big meetings in Prague and Geneva which Black reports on late in his book consist of Jews from all over the place arguing over how best to smother the Third Reich in its cradle. How is this anything other than an international Jewish conspiracy?
How could Edwin Black not see how much of The Transfer Agreement not only justifies some of the worst anti-Jewish stereotypes, but also exonerates the Nazis for understanding the truth about Jews and frankly being so patient with them?
Here is a list of all the things Black records in The Transfer Agreement which point to the Nazi leadership being at least somewhat reasonable—not necessarily innocent, mind you, but reasonable—in the face of international Jewish pressure:
- Hitler, Hermann Goering, and other high-level Nazis demanded that Nazis not commit acts of violence. (pp. 49, 52)
- Hitler promised not to boycott German Jews only after world Jewry stop boycotting the Third Reich. (pp. 59–60)
- The Nazis provided special treatment for German Zionist Jews, as mentioned above. (pp. 174–175)
- In June 1933, Hitler personally allowed the AJC and other groups to send a multimillion-dollar relief fund to German Jews. (p. 185)
- After Hitler called off the April 1 anti-Jewish boycott, provincial Nazis continued to boycott Jews despite orders from Berlin not to do so. (p. 219)
- Hitler bailed out a large Jewish-owned department store chain and then strictly forbade mass arrests and harassment of businessmen and industrialists. (p. 220–221)
- In order to outlaw atrocities, suppress anti-Jewish acts, and prevent a “second revolution” by fanatical Nazis, Goering ordered mass arrests of dissident Nazi units. (p. 223)
- Goering promised the death penalty for “atrocity mongers” among the Nazi rank and file. (pp. 224–225)
- When followers of Der Stürmer publisher Julius Streicher illegally arrested 300 Jewish shopkeepers, the authorities released them immediately. (p. 224)
- The Nazis actually encouraged Jewish religious, cultural, and athletic activities in the cities. Black writes: “The Nazis delighted in the Jewish subculture and demanded that it thrive. Indeed, every Jewish gathering was approved and attended by Gestapo. For Aryans, an active Jewish subculture provided reinforcement that Jews were an alien people who had no place in Germany.” (p. 373)
Black’s own analysis reveals that the Nazi leadership at least made an effort to crack down on their own radical followers. It seems that a good deal of the atrocity propaganda Black cites from 1933—minus all exaggerations and lies—happened in spite of Adolf Hitler not because of him. Yet none of this means a whit to Black. The Nazi leadership should be condemned as guilty not for what they were doing in 1933 but for what they were going to do ten years later.
This is entirely unreasonable, and it ignores the role the Jews themselves played in so maliciously provoking war with Germany throughout the 1930s. What I wrote about Benjamin Ginsburg’s How the Jews Defeated Hitler—another book about 1930s Jewish warmongering—applies also to The Transfer Agreement. And it has everything to do with legerdemain:
How does a magician cause objects to vanish or appear out of nowhere? Through a technique called misdirection, he can draw your attention away from something magical that is about to happen by manipulating your ability to anticipate or remember. In a sense, the magician interferes with your sense of time. Ginsburg and other authors accomplish a similar sleight of hand when discussing Nazi Germany prior to the war. According to their specious logic, because the Nazis committed war crimes during the war, the Nazis must also be considered guilty of the same crimes before the war. Therefore, promoting war against the Nazis during the 1930s is perfectly justified and honorable.
Again, this is not to say that the Nazis were entirely innocent or didn’t say or do horrible things to Jews. They certainly did. They were socialist totalitarians, and so could act with ruthless, top-down efficiency when they wanted to. By virtue of being both eugenic-minded and pro-German in nature, they took a dim view of the subversive Jewish outgroup. Hence the unsubtle hints for Jews to leave; hence the transfer agreement. But did some Nazis do heinous things? Sure. I think it is safe to assume that not all of the reports of murders, beatings, incarcerations, and other outrages were lies or embellishments. Furthermore, Nazi leaders starting with der Führer himself said a few things you just can’t easily unsay.
On page 62, Black describes how Hitler raged in the presence of the Italian ambassador when informed of Mussolini’s disapproval of Nazi anti-Semitism:
“I have the most absolute respect for the personality and the political action of Mussolini. Only in one thing I cannot admit him to be right and that is with regard to the Jewish question in Germany, for he cannot know anything about it.” Hitler continued that he alone was the world’s greatest authority on the Jewish question in Germany, because he alone had examined the issue for “long years from every angle, like no one else.” And, shouted Hitler, he could predict “with absolute certainty” that in five or six hundred years the name of Adolf Hitler would be honored in all lands “as the man who once and for all exterminated the Jewish pest from the world.”
Such a statement is impossible to defend—and yes, I went to the source, and it checks out (John Toland’s 1976 Adolf Hitler, p. 325—although Black mistakenly lists it as page 424). Hitler did say this. Immense moral quandaries aside, if you agree with such a genocidal statement, then you are giving Jews like Stephen Wise all the reason they need to act preemptively against Germay and with extreme prejudice. After all, in a fight, one’s opponent has the right to fight back.
The best way to address this conundrum is to allow Black to lead us to deep water, and then go deeper, where he is unprepared to go. Why were so many Germans, and Nazis in particular, so indignant about the Jewish presence in Germany? Why would Hitler declare such enmity for Jews and not for any other non-Aryan ethnic group in Germany?
Well, given that all the negative stereotypes about Jews back then—usury, alcohol peddling, prostitution, pornography, business tribalism, etc.—can arguably be balanced by their accomplishments in a host of other fields—including medicine, science, and music—the best way to respond would be to point to the Soviet Union and all its unspeakable enormities as a model of Jewish supremacy. Then we can ask why the protagonists of The Transfer Agreement—as well as Black himself—never suggest that perhaps the millions of people already slaughtered or starved by the disproportionately Jewish Soviet leadership by 1933 was the reason the Nazis had such a massive a chip on their shoulder. As Michael Kellogg demonstrated in his 2005 The Russian Roots of Nazism, the Nazis were well aware of the apocalyptic nature of Bolshevism as well as its undeniable link to Jews. They did not want what happened in 1917 Russia to happen in 1933 Germany. And who can blame them?
Hitler said he wanted to exterminate the Jewish pest? Fine. In his 1990 work Stalin’s War Against the Jews, author Louis Rapoport quotes Jewish Politburo member Grigory Zinoviev saying the following in 1917:
We must carry along with us ninety million out of the one hundred million Soviet Russian population. As for the rest, we have nothing to say to them. They must be annihilated.
And you know what? The tragic irony here is that Zinoviev was underselling the destructive power of his own government. Had only 10 million Russians been “annihilated” by the Soviets throughout their 75–year history, it would have been a good thing—compared to what actually happened! That number in fact is much higher.
One last thing, small but poignant. Black describes Congressman Samuel Dickstein as a close friend of Wise. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, however, it was revealed that Dickstein had been a paid agent for the murderous NKVD. This raises a lot of questions which Black doesn’t care to ask. Further, this knowledge—along with all of the books linked above—came out before the 2009 edition of The Transfer Agreement. Black has no excuse for ignoring such damning evidence against his case.
But what about the transfer agreement itself? Well, here’s where I start saying nice things about Edwin Black. All credit to him for writing an absorbing and well-researched history on this secret pact between Nazis and Zionists. When he is not mendaciously overstating the Nazi menace or eulogizing Jews for trying to destroy Germany, he’s actually quite level-headed and has a reporter’s knack for sticking to only what compels the narrative. His chapter entitled “April First” epitomizes excitement as it depicts, almost like a thriller movie, all the intricate twists and turns of one day in this riveting plot as both Germans and Jews lurch recklessly towards economic war.
On the Jewish side, the struggle boiled down to the belligerent, anti-Gentilic Eastern European Jews (as represented by Stephen Wise, the AJC, and Samuel Untermyer and his World Jewish Economic Federation) versus the more conservative and assimilated Western European Jews (as represented by B’nai B’rith and the American Jewish Committee). Where the former were calling for economic warfare the moment Adolf Hitler became chancellor, the latter were calling for calm and measured diplomatic responses.
Many of the men leading B’nai B’rith and the Committee were German Jews themselves or had friends and family back home. They understood that many of the atrocity reports (known as Greuelpropaganda) coming out of Germany at the time were either lies or gross exaggerations, which was a real sore spot for the Nazi leadership. In some cases, Jews had become victims of violent attack because they were Jews. In other cases, they were victims because they were communist troublemakers who refused to cooperate with Nazi authorities. And when atrocity-mongering reporters like Jacob Leschinsky picked up such stories, they weren’t going to be terribly diligent in making such distinctions.
The German diaspora Jews also understood how serious the Nazis were. If men like Wise, Untermyer, and others kept provoking them, they would retaliate either by making German Jews feel the brunt of the boycott or the brunt of oppression. Many of these Jews were desperate to stop the boycott.
Sadly, the Eastern European Jews won this struggle through will, charisma, and the ability to recruit gullible Christians to their cause. Within months, Jews everywhere were tightening the vise on Germany, hoping to make it crack by winter.
On the opposite side of the coin were the Zionists. Where most Jews saw catastrophe in the Nazis, Zionists saw opportunity. Black is honest enough to admit the ideological similarity between the two, which perhaps is why the Nazis tolerated Zionist Jews most of all. He actually undermines the Jewish supremacist default positions of people like Wise and Untermyer by approvingly quoting common sense from Zionist pioneer Theodore Herzl:
Where [anti-Semitism] does not exist, it is carried by Jews in the course of their migrations. We naturally move to those places where we are not persecuted, and there our presence produces persecution. This is the case in every country.
What we now know as Israel effectively began on March 25, 1933 when German Zionist Federation Kurt Blumenfeld horned his way into an emergency meeting with Goering and other German-Jewish leaders. Goering intended to pressure these Jews into stopping the international Jewish boycott—seemingly operating under the fallacy that they could do this by virtue of being Jews. And according to Black, they really did try.
The Zionists, however, were different. They wanted nothing from the Germans except leave to leave. Goering liked this idea, and promised to play ball as long as the Zionists could do what the other German Jews could not: bring Stephen Wise and Samuel Untermyer to heel. The problem was that in order to entice the 550,000 Jews living in Germany to depart for the undeveloped British-controlled Middle East, each emigre would need to possess the considerable sum of ₤1,000 (now worth £91,566.55 or $114,029) to qualify as refugees according to British law. They would also need to be able to keep a significant percentage of their capital. Two very daunting tasks, but the Zionists were up for the challenge.
This is the struggle Black depicts on the pages of The Transfer Agreement. In it we discover a marvelous array of subplots and subterfuge that, again, could support a decent thriller. Beyond the bitter rivalry among the American Jewish Congress (the largest Jewish activist organization, composed of recent immigrants from Eastern Europe and more prone to radicalism than other Jewish organizations dominated by wealthy Jews from Germany), the American Jewish Committee, and the B’nai B’rith and the obvious Nazi vs. Jew divide, we have German Zionist Federation director Georg Landauer pitted against shady independent businessman Sam Cohen. The former was a true believer and the latter, well, let’s just say he might have been more interested in rescuing German-Jewish capital than German-Jews themselves. He always seemed to stay one step ahead of the Zionists when it came to making deals with the Germans as well. Then you have the loose cannon ideologue Chaim Arlosoroff and his struggles with the “Jewish Hitler” Vladimir Jabotinsky and his Revisionist movement in Palestine. And, as competing alpha-Jews, Wise and Untermyer butted egos quite often.
Everything came to a head at the so-called Political Committee meeting in Prague in August 1933. Here, the world’s most powerful Jews were about to officially declare their anti-German boycott when the Zionists finally revealed the ace up their sleeve: the details of the transfer agreement. In a nutshell, Jewish emigres would leave the majority of their wealth in frozen assets called sperrmarks, which were managed by a Zionist-friendly bank. A collection of Nazi-friendly Zionist businesses (including the one owned by Sam Cohen) would then sell German goods in Palestine and other places, while German exporters would pay themselves with sperrmarks. It was a brilliant scheme, a win-win for the ethnonationalists. It also caused a great deal of kvetching among the Jews in Prague, not least of whom was Stephen Wise—because according to the transfer agreement they could have boycott or Zionism, but not both.
Given that Wise was such a villain throughout this narrative, his getting stymied in the end was satisfying.
To conclude with another chess analogy, there is something known in chess as a helpmate. This is a puzzle which challenges both players to checkmate one side in a certain number of moves. Thus, one player is actually working to checkmate himself. The Transfer Agreement is not quite that bad, but sometimes it does approach helpmate levels of suicide when it comes to Jewish apologetics and the Third Reich. A better analogy would be that Edwin Black is simply a poor player who ultimately captures fewer pieces than his opponent (i.e., the well-read, discerning reader) and ends up in a worse position than when he started. But he still manages to capture pieces. Yes, Nazis said and did things which are difficult if not impossible to defend nearly a century after the fact. So what? The people he champions said and did worse. And Black is not exactly in a hurry to tell us about it.
Often in The Transfer Agreement Black describes the international Jewish struggle against Nazi Germany as economic or propagandistic war. Stephen Wise takes it further in the book’s final chapter when on September 23, 1933, he hinted darkly of real war against Germany. He stated that boycott “is a weapon, but it is not the weapon. . . . The president of the United States and the prime minister of England can do more than a hundred boycotts.”
So war it is.
But this raises an interesting question: if the first casualty of war is always the truth, and the Jews are always at war, then when can we ever rely on Jews to tell the truth?
For French readers, a translation of Ingrid Weckert book regarding the Ha’avara
German Jews created Israel, just a startling example, the Symphony Orchestra of Israel was created in 1936, guess where they had learned to play Beethoven and Bach.
And the German Jews came there with their wealth, but not only, they bring with them their knowledge of business law, stock market, monetary creation, capital accumulation, they set up academic institutions etc.
The Arabs knew all right that water was needed to grow tomatoes, what they were unable to do, however, was to create the required water company.
In a nutshell, Hitler, Göring and Heydrich are at the origin of Israel, they did everything to set the frame of the transfer, despite the economic boycott organised by the Jews on goods and currency market, despite all the barrier erected by the British – a minimum of £ 6 000 pounds was required for Jews to enter Palestine, a fortune at the time (average monthly wage there £4, in fact, the British didn’t want to anger Arabs with too great an influx of Jews.
And what about the Evian conference in France in 1938, during which every country, including the USA, said “I would be glad to take in some Jews, but …”
What about Chaim Weisman making everything to impede the transfer agreement?
Thanks for the article. A couple of small additions:
– With the short-lived German boycott of German businesses, Hitler hater Douglas Reed noted that the “Nazis” marking the Jewish owned stores to be boycotted, opened his eyes to the extent of their control of the economy.
– In respect of “as the man who once and for all exterminated the Jewish pest from the world”, it would be interesting to see the original source of this quote. As translator Carlos Whitlock Porter, author of “Not Guilty At Nuremberg” explained, the use of the word “ausrotten” often used by the NSDAP, literally means “uproot”, but in some contexts meant “exterminate”. There was a lengthy article on “ausrotten” on his website, which appears to have disappeared.
There are indeed different interpretations of German words as in the link below. I agree with the word “uproot”.
Why would the Germans need to exterminate the jews if they had already made the Haavara Agreement with them?
Jewish organisations were calling for mass emigration to Palestine. The British army forcibly expelled the Palestinians from their own homes and country in order to make way for the new jewish immigrants. They were told to pack what they could and leave and the soldiers were given orders to shoot trouble-makers. Thousands died in the desert whilst other arab countries agreed to take the Palestinians in. Most Britains are completely unaware of this shameful act.
The Germans were more than happy to get rid of the jews, hence the transit camps, but when the war started, the emigration stopped. The camps became overcrowed and a typhus epidemic broke out in Auschwitz, which according to the autopsies was the cause of most of the deaths.
The carpet bombing by the Allied forces also meant the Germans had difficulty in providing food to the camps.
Everyone was to blame – the Germans, the jews, the British and the Americans.
Thanks to Curmudgeon for his initial comment and to you for the CODOH link to the Porter translation of the Posen speech. As that link is cleaner and easier to read than the Wayback link, it is the link that is recommended to interested readers.
I understand that Himmler’s long Posen speech was recorded in two parts, but we can be grateful for Porter’s translation, which does nothing however to mitigate its grim even bloodthirsty ideology for the present and future. I have not read Irving’s expensive biography or Longerich’s, but others can report on their treatment of this speech.
I had hoped that the references to corpses might obviously refer to the victims of partisan atrocities or battlefield casualties, but the context suggests that it alludes to German massacre of people on the Soviet side. Also, it is quite clear, contrary to Porter’s spin, that the destruction of “people” means an entire “people” like the German people, not just Jewish criminals.
Yet I still wonder how much of this text is actually original and authentic – its vilification of Russians and Slavs seems excessive, when Himmler changed his mind over an all-European resistance to the Mongol threat towards the end of the war.
Vlassov was a missed opportunity who went over to the other side because his Army-supported contribution was ideologically spurned. See Joachim Hoffmann and Catherine Andreyev.
According to Porter’s English version, Himmler said Jewish children of Jewish adults who were killed must also be killed to prevent revenge. The more Jews that are killed, the more other Jews will want revenge. And what has happened since 1945?
While it’s good to see it here here so it can be commented on, this is not the best article for clarifying the issues around the topic. For example, Quinn goes all out to show us Black’s “faux pas” in claiming that forcing Jews to leave Germany [pages 262–263 in Chapter 28] was equivalent to “the “speedy annihilation” of Jews,” he fails to appreciate that to Jews, being prevented from conducting business where it’s most comfortable and profitable for them IS seen by them as equal to “annihilation.” They don’t believe they are exaggerating or lying when speaking in those terms. It’s their *selective interpretation* which they all make use of and is especially evident when describing their suffering in the camps during the war. Edwin Black is identifying with this Jewish view by not picking up on this.
Another disappointment is that Quinn indulges in the *obligatory* DENIAL that the National Socialists could ever have been good guys, and says unconvincingly “Again, this is not to say that the Nazis … didn’t say or do horrible things to Jews. They certainly did. They were socialist totalitarians, and so could act with ruthless, top-down efficiency when they wanted to.” But not a single example of such “horrible things” they did to Jews. Quinn weakly writes, “I think it is safe to ASSUME that not all of the reports of murders, beatings, incarcerations, and other outrages were lies or embellishments.” Oh, really. Again, he doesn’t give a single example. In fact, most of those reports WERE indeed lies and embellishments! Quinn is in total ignorance here, just going along with the mainstream narrative to be on the safe side.
Quinn also thinks that Hitler’s anger when told by the Italian ambassador of Mussolini’s disapproval of NS anti-Semitism is “impossible to defend” — I guess because of this line: Hitler said he “could predict with absolute certainty” that in five or six hundred years the name of Adolf Hitler would be honored in all lands “as the man who once and for all exterminated the Jewish pest from the world.” I suspect very strongly that the word used was a form of “ausrotten”, meaning root out or eradicate, which has been discussed in great detail for years already as NOT meaning “exterminate” as in kill, murder but to drive out or to render harmless. Hitler was naive about this, but not genocidal.
When you’re dealing with translations from another language (Hitler didn’t even speak English!), you best keep that language in mind when coming to conclusions about “evil intentions.” Will we ever get past the obligatory portrayal of Hitler as “bad,” just because it’s so burned into our culture and belief systems. So few can yet stand on the truth without caving in to “fear of the Jews.”
Excellent comment, it sums up everything I found wrong with this article. I would add that the condescending tone generally used by this author to talk about historical figures that are far beyond his little person (and ours) is annoying.
“While it’s good to see it here here so it can be commented on, this is not the best article for clarifying the issues around the topic. For example, Quinn goes all out to show us Black’s “faux pas” in claiming that forcing Jews to leave Germany [pages 262–263 in Chapter 28] was equivalent to “the “speedy annihilation” of Jews,” he fails to appreciate that to Jews, being prevented from conducting business where it’s most comfortable and profitable for them IS seen by them as equal to “annihilation.” They don’t believe they are exaggerating or lying when speaking in those terms. It’s their *selective interpretation* which they all make use of and is especially evident when describing their suffering in the camps during the war. Edwin Black is identifying with this Jewish view by not picking up on this.”
Exactly! To the Jews, because of their historic social role, this loss was, subjectively and indeed, objectively, a fate worse than death. I’ve been trying to gestate something like this on and off on this cold afternoon.
It’s a deficiency in an otherwise most useful essay.
I feel that the nub of this critical history is still awaiting a definitive narrative that mirrors the complex reality, but what you say here, because it is the product of prolonged committed deliberation, is well on the way. In this, the trite, accusative/exonerating, toing-and-froing is of no use; in fact it runs counter to the task of getting to the truth.
I feel that what is left out is the probably dominant role that the big Jews and their factions played in all of this, something that was anything but static and so not ‘conspiratorial’ except in the sense that the public actors (like even Wise) were, in effect, their puppets. After all, being a ‘Jew’ in the modern world, is essentially an economic function and as such, always subordinate to the (changing) needs of the Jewish ruling caste.
Dear Carolyn, thank you for the corrections to the article. As a German, it was only at an advanced age that I learned to free myself from the sweeping narratives of lies and to seek enlightenment about this period, and in the process I realized that the threat of Sefton Delmer – German-Jewish counterpart of Dr. Göbbels in the Churchill regime, in an interview with the German expert on international law, Prof. Grimm, in 1945, is to be taken seriously (cf. domination of the worldwide mass media).
Delmer himself had bragged ” With atrocity propaganda we have won the war and now we are only really beginning. We will continue this atrocity propaganda, we will increase it until no one will accept a good word from the Germans anymore, until everything will be destroyed that they still had in other countries as of sympathies and they themselves will be so confused that they no longer know what they are doing. When that is achieved, when they begin to dirty their own nest, and not grudgingly but in hasty readiness to please the victors, only then the victory is complete. It is never final. Re-education requires careful, unceasing care, like English lawns. Only a moment’s carelessness and the weeds break through, those ineradicable weeds of historical truth.”
Let us not rest and be that weed of historical truth. My recommendation at the end applies, with greetings of light and the recommendation of the Prussian philosopher Immanuel Kant: “Have courage to use your own mind!
Werte Carolyn, danke für die Richtigstellungen des Artikels. Als Deutscher habe ich erst in fortgeschrittenem Alter gelernt, mich von den pauschalen Lügen-Narrativen zu befreien und Aufklärung über die Zeit zu erlangen und dabei festgestellt, daß die Drohung von Sefton Delmer – deutsch-jüdischer Gegenspieler von Dr. Göbbels im Churchill Regime, in einem Interview mit dem deutschen Völkerrechtler Prof. Grimm 1945 ernst zu nehmen ist (vgl. Herrschaft über die weltweiten Massenmedien).
Delmer hatte selbst geprahlt “mit Greuelpropaganda haben wir den Krieg gewonnen und jetzt fangen wir erst richtig damit an. Wir werden diese Greuelpropaganda fortsetzen, wir werden sie steigern, bis niemand mehr ein gutes Wort von den Deutschen annimmt, bis alles zerstört sein wird, was sie etwa noch in anderen Ländern ab Sympathien gehabt haben und sie selber so durcheinander geraten sein werden, daß sie nicht mehr wissen, was sie tun. Wenn das erreicht ist, wenn sie beginnen, Ihr eigenes Nest zu beschmutzen und das nicht etwa zähneknirschend sondern in eilfertiger Bereitschaft, den Siegern zu gefallen, dann erst ist der Sieg vollständig. Endgültig ist er nie. Die Umerziehung bedarf sorgfältiger, unentwegter Pflege, wie englischer Rasen. Nur ein Augenblick der Nachlässigkeit und das Unkraut bricht durch, jenes unausrottbare Unkraut der geschichtlichen Wahrheit.” Lass uns nicht ruhen und dieses Unkraut der geschichtlichen Wahrheit sein. Meine Empfehlung zum Schluß gilt, mit Lichgrüßen, dem preußischen Philosophen Immanuel Kant: “Habe Mut, Dich Deines Verstandes zu bedienen!
Thank you for addressing me here. What better news could I get than to learn that another German-speaking fellow German soul who had been trapped in the agony of this big lie and blood libel as you have, has learned to see through the deception. Because of you, a thousand others will be freed! You give me hope. Congratulations, and all best wishes and best of luck to you and yours.
I love your final sentence, from Kant: “Have courage to use your own mind!” That is really the key to freedom.
Jewish families were indeed “uprooted” during WW2 whether or not they had committed crimes or even expressed hostility to Hitler. Moving them to camps with minimal luggage in cattle-trucks to engage in munitions-making under strict control and on limited rations was something “untoward” that would never happen to windbag Yeager.
Hitler took the view that if parasites were shaken off the host, they would perish by themselves, and the short-lived Madagascar Plan was not intended as a generous alternative Zion but as a giant Alcatraz.
The word “Vernichtung” was a lot less ambiguous.
This comment from Aiden Lake appears to be a reply to my
April 8 at 4:48 pm comment. So much for my hope that I was finished here and had cleaned everything up.
I’ll just say that Hitler and the NSDAP had been saying/warning since 1932 that the goal was for Jews to voluntarily move out of Germany, and the reasons were given. But most Jews, mostly living in the cities, refused to move. By the time of the forcible removal, ten years had gone by and Germany was now a greatly expanded territory at war with all sides. The Jews were rooting for the Allies to win, counting on the danger to pass. Hitler was under pressure from his own party to remove these very troublesome and treasonous Jews. For some background, see my 7-part book review on Ingrid Weckerts carefully researched volume on “Kristallnacht” beginning here: https://carolynyeager.net/closer-look-kristallnacht-1938-just-another-jewish-hoax
I don’t know what “limited rations” means, nor do you; every time we see Jews disembarking from a train, they look fine. The whole “starvation” schtick is untrue. No, Hitler was not intending to be “generous” toward Jews but he did insist they be treated with as much dignity as possible. To the German mind, being made to work when labor was necessary was not an undue cruelty. The typhus outbreaks were the result of lice-carrying Jews and Polish workers and every effort was made to control them. In fact, the accusations against the labor camps are based on those very efforts to control such outbreaks using Zyklon B.
This website (TOO) posts article after article detailing the harm organized jewry does to European communities and whole nations, since before 1900. There is no let-up. Yet you want to point the guilty finger at Third Reich Germans for not giving Jews “a generous alternative Zion” back in the late 30s, early 40s. THAT is “untoward.”
Excuse me, Hitler did read and understand English. But of course he was not an expert linguist in any sense.
Hitler reportedly could follow spoken English, but used his interpreter to give him more time to phrase an apt, concise and apparently prompt answer.
If this is just another Jewish lie, I shall have to eat my kippah as one of the Herringfolk (only joking, Frl. Yeager).
Even the word ex-terminate means over the border.
Rotte (SA/SS Rottenführer) has another stem
The name Rottweil also seems to have more to do with Rot (red) and not with Rotte (French stem) or Rotten (Germanic stem), as I just found out. Funny: The citizens of Gotha believe that their city name has something to do with the Goths, but this is disputed.
But even more significant is the sad fact that people are blinded by superficialities and rarely look for the origin. (By which no one here among us is meant.) Nothing could be dearer to the Jews than to make us believe that they have a real and actual root, but we have none. In this respect, Jews cannot be “uprooted” (ausgerottet) at all in the truest sense of the word, because, unlike us, they never had a common root. But therein lies the very root of their evil.
Thank you and the others for the insight about “ausrotten”.
The author’s apparent defensiveness and gratuitous charity toward Jewish and other lies render the article unworthy of being shared, but at least those who stumble onto it can find your comments as well.
The brief Nazi boycott of Jewish shops was a reaction to the worldwide Untermyer Boycott, accompanied by SA protests against atrocity propaganda, but the films shown do not explain this. I think Black estimated the damage to the German economy at 10%. Of course, it added pressure on the German drive eastwards to secure an insulated source of raw materials and food. The chronology of events is important.
I am surprised I have never heard of him or his family until now. Judging by his bio-sketch in wikipedia (excerpt below), both of Black’s parents had more than enough story-telling talent and imagination to have attracted Spielberg’s attention.
Their story has everything: that unique jewish heroism and resilience that made it possible for several millions European jews to become Survivors while another 6 million were exterminated. At the same time the bumbling nazis are shown to be no match for a 13-year old jewish girl who jumped from a moving train, was shot and still lived on to meet and marry the love of her life, another jewish hero.
I think Black would have scored much better selling this story than with the Transfer Agreement.
“Black is the son of Holocaust survivors from Poland. His mother, Ethel “Edjya” Katz, from Białystok, told of narrowly escaping death during the Holocaust by escaping a boxcar en route to the Treblinka extermination camp as a 13-year old in August 1943. After escaping, she was shot by militiamen and then rescued by a Polish Jewish fighter whom she later married. Black’s father described escaping death by fleeing to the woods from a long march to an isolated “shooting pit” and subsequently fighting the Nazis as a Betar partisan. The pair survived World War II by hiding in the forests of Poland for two years, emerging only after the end of the conflict and emigrating to the United States.”
Thanks for this Spielberg’s sequel. I laughed a lot.
2 years in a northern forest ? It’s no longer Spielberg, it’s marvel comic superheroes !
The two years they were hiding in the forest must have been the the rest period for the Jewish fighter in between bouts of fierce fighting
“Edwin Black is little more than a shameless shill for the Jews.”
Since “Black” is Jewish himself, not very surprising. Probably
his father’s name was “Shvartz” (similar to that of “György’s”).
Edwin Black is 100% Jewish according to the despised Wikipedia. Am I almost alone here in thinking that his biography does not ipso facto invalidate his information?
I also wondered, but I firmly believe that at least the operators of the website and the author of the article are fully aware of this fact.
“How could Edwin Black not see how much of The Transfer Agreement not only justifies some of the worst anti-Jewish stereotypes..”
Time to retire the word “stereotype,” whose meaning has been gradually changed from:
“Stereotype: a widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing.”
Oxford Dict.: a fixed idea or image that many people have of a particular type of person or thing, but which is often not true in reality and may cause hurt and offence.
I propose anti-Jewish TRUISMS instead.
When Hitler says he wants to “eradicate the Jewish plague”, this does not have to be interpreted as a threat to genocide. Especially not when this happened so early in his tenure. Today the Jews search hair-splittingly with the magnifying glass for all alleged proofs, and transform (as born “magicians”) unclear statements into clear ones.
A few years ago, I spoke with an old gentleman who has long since passed away. But at over 90 years of age, he was still standing in the cold to smoke his cigarette. The man never complained and never whined. He was not suspected of having been a convinced “Nazi”. I also never heard him say anything tangibly “anti-Semitic.”
He was born in the middle of the 1920’s and was a participant in the great military blow against Bolshevism in the East, which possibly saved Europe from total Bolshevization (which is hardly appreciated as a heroic deed nowadays). At the end of the war he got into American captivity and had to spend some time in America picking cotton like a negro.
Anyway, he said that in the small town where he grew up, practically all the businesses were in Jewish hands, which over time caused the population to be somewhat prejudiced. Now one can argue that the Jews are successful traders and salesmen, and that one should not kill them for that. The crucial question is to what extent this actually happened at all.
I had a similar experience during a bicycle trip through Germany in 1979. I had stopped overnight in a village, and while searching for a gasthaus, stopped to ask directions of a man stooped over a work bench in a small shop located in what had been a turret of the town wall. I also needed a repair to the straps on my pannier bags, which were too loose to keep the bags out of the spokes. We got to talking and I asked him how it went for the town during the war.
“It was bombed”, he said, and recalled that body parts had been blown into the top of the tree just outside his door. After a pause to let that scene sink in, while he worked on my bags in silence, I then asked him what he had done in the war. He answered: “Eastern Front, where I got this”—lifting his legs out from under the workbench to reveal two stumps where his feet had been. “Frozen”, he said matter of factly.
His trade was a shoemaker.
Thank you for this kind anecdote and best regards!
Reminds me of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/51_Documents
TOO is currently trending upwards (although not worldwide, which has to do with the massive increase in websites in general). https://www.similarweb.com/website/theoccidentalobserver.net/#overview
I don’t think that Black is only a shill for Jews. Every person I’ve heard of with the last name of Black is Jewish, with the exception of Shirley Temple’s husband… and even that is debatable.
The Jews are something else. They seem to be an unstoppable force. They have the Gentiles fighting and opposing one another and making race an issue that obsesses everyone. I’m a firm believer that every race should have their own homeland and that diversity doesn’t work, for white people at least. But perhaps it might be a good idea if the Gentiles of this world united. We should find a way to turn diversity into an advantage to be used against the Jews as when life gives us lemons we should make lemonade. But we would have to get control of the propaganda machines out of the hands of Jews first.
I agree that at humanity’s current level of spiritual development each distinct racial group should be able to have its own homeland and politically pursue its own distinctive human spiritual, societal and cultural fulfillment. That possibility is anathema to the Khazarian Mafia (Talmudists) whose ethos appears to have always been demonically anti-human as especially typified by their treatment of Russians under the Bolsheviks; Germans during and after WWI and WWII; and China under their puppet Mao. In fact history is riddled with the parasitic Talmudists’ use and abuse of every goy culture they have infested. Even today the Talmudists’ parasitic nature is evident in that, having been given the land of the Palestinians, they depend upon and leach off US financial assistance and military support while stealing the birthright of Palestinians in a land which, historically, they had no connection with.
A Jew invented the NAZI epithet in the 1920s to denigrate German National Socialists and International Jewry has used it ever since to defame the entire German nation:
The NAZI epithet has become as ingrained as the LIE that the valid aspects of Christianity emerge from the Judeo-Christian religion created by the Pharisees to distort Christ Jesus’ teachings by foisting it on Europe with the help of Roman emperors who used it for socio-political control purposes.
The Talmudists use the NAZI epithet as part of their anti-German propaganda. The term “racist” originally meant someone who loved and honoured his/her own race and culture. Typically the Khazarian Talmudists reversed its meaning as they do with much of our language and culture.
Historically the term “racist” didn’t have the negative connotations the AshkenNAZIS’ put on it using governments, religions, schooling, cultural institutions and the MSM to mind control goyim to believe today.
The Talmudic AshkeNAZIS have also reversed the meaning of the “Swastika” as they have done with “racist” and much else.
– “Historically the term “racist” didn’t have the negative connotations . .”
Yeah. Neither did ‘prejudiced’ or ‘discriminating’. Quite the opposite actually.
Like the the Rainbow Coalition call their movement ‘pride’, the worst of the seven deadly sins.
Inversion, inversion, all is inversion. And we know what that means.
“If the first casualty of war is always the truth, and the Jews are always at war, then when can we ever rely on Jews to tell the truth?”
Exactly, moreover, something else always goes by the board: War does not begin with the first shot, but with the rattling of the saber.
Because ‘Truth’ is always the first casualty of war and this is understood, it used to be tradition after wars to discard the propaganda and find out what really happened. Like after WWI & all previous wars.
WWII is the exception in that the atrocity propaganda becomes more intense the longer in the past it is.
Example – Here is ‘righteous Jew’ Myron Fagan speaking in 1967. He puts the Holocaust deaths at 600,000 and no-one even blinks.
Interesting. Though Makow, with his ridiculous “Illuminati” crap, as a tribesman is largely classified by me as a disinformer & shill. (Much overlap with freaks like Jew-fan Alex Jones.)
With these guys, you never know what’s behind. Exactly what’s intended. Their concern is to scatter your attention & focus on important details in a flood of facts, half-truths & fiction.
I don’t know why your harsh on Makow. Everyone is entitled to their own theory of where sits the deep black heart of this evil.
Both him and Jones have done great work illuminating – to coin a phrase – the misery these Jews have brought down on us.
If you just understand Jones uses ‘Chi-Coms’ as a euphemism for jews then he’s the number 1 antisemite on earth.
But even if they don’t call it the way we do, at least they don’t gatekeep. It’s gatekeepers who are our number 1 enemy, even worse than the Jews themselves.
Henry Makow, a 100% proud Polish Jew, is 100% a gatekeeper. It takes quite a bit of ignorance to say otherwise. If you dislike Hitler and love conspiracy theories, you will like him, too. He doesn’t require valid proofs for anything he writes; it just has to fit his worldview, which started out as a very strong (anti-woman) reaction against the feminist movement and then expanded from there. Please listen to what I learned about him:
Makow’s positions are very close to those of Jim Condit:
“In 1932, a number of Heydrich’s enemies had discovered the old rumours of his possible Jewish ancestry and began to spread them around. … HENRY MAKOW, a Jew himself, writes that Heydrich was part Jewish but without the slightest proof, as usual.”
…” ridiculous “Illuminati” crap”…
The ILLuminati is a secret society within the secret society of FreeMasons . They have no ILLuminati ID card and no permanent headquarters and no records of membership in their satanic cult . They and they alone know for sure who is one or more of them .
The USA CFR was established by the ILLuminati to have non-ILLuminati members whom also function as camouflage for the ILLuminati owned/controlled CFR ; and likewise with regard to all other ILLuminati associations . ILLuminati persons are highly visible and politicly influential ; only their cult membership is super secret and unverifiable .
Can you prove that the ILLuminati does not exist without resorting to all of the nonsense , lies and propaganda about its supposed existence ; where my above assertion of ILLuminati existence is in particular assumed to not be nonsense , not a lie nor propaganda about the existence of a super secret ILLuminati cult for which there is no empirically verifiable membership roster ?
Henry Makow is correct —
the secretive ILLuminati rule the world
( especially the Westernworld ) ;
and they have culpability/complicity if not the ultimate liability for all big human conflicts resulting in large scale death and destruction
( such as for examples : WW1 , 1917 Bolshevik Revolution , WW2 , and more ) . The ILLuminati is primarily a secretive talmudic jewish satanic cult .
In particular , the 1789 French Revolution Reign of Terror was presumably orchestrated by Robespierre whom most likely according to historical indicators was an ILLuminatus and/or patsy for a satanic ILLuminati ruling council .
Mr. Quinn, thank you for the insightful, educational review of Edwin Black’s book. Had I read that book a decade ago, or just last week, I could not have brought to the task the degree of perspicacity you did.
My sentiments as well. Spencer did a pretty good job of critiquing the book, pointing out Black’s schizophrenic, talmudic, hypocrisy & duplicity in particular.
I am entitled to answer Carolyn Yeager’s new questions, please Moderator.
1. The word “snarky” referred to her personal tone, not her verbose “argument”.
2. I said she “completely agrees” with what (she believes were) Hitler’s ideas. I said I agreed with him that “personality and race” are the chief factors in historical development, and commended his general analysis of foreign policy. But not everything – so what?
3. Notwithstanding criticism from writers like Goetz Aly, there were positive achievements in the Third Reich, despite the international boycott of its goods and services, lack of territorial resources and rearmament burdens. She sarcastically disputes my deep admiration for German music, science and soldiering, which dates from boyhood friendship with Germans and has increased ever since.
4. Some arguments against Jewish activity in Germany, and elsewhere, had factual merit; for example, support for communist revolution, financial fraud and sexual depravity, but not all Jews were so involved; and Hitler was mistaken in regarding the “Protocols” as reliably authentic account of a Jewish conspiracy and “The Jew” as an incorrigibly evil demonic parasite, “bacillus or fission-fungus”, that required collective elimination.
5. Anti-communism has been my “special interest”, not Jewish issues as such. Kevin MacDonald spent several years on his pioneer study; and, with aggressive cancer and other commitments, unfortunately I cannot prioritise a similar project, however tempting, as a necessarily major enterprise in my remaining years, although it can be massively augmented with material, including Jewish sources. Others must follow instead – with objectivity, and therefore effect.
6. It is sadly characteristic of conspiracy bigots, some of whose vociferous crackpots are drawn here like bees to a bonnet, to insinuate that any disagreement must distract from their “Truth” as the work of a servile “representative” of “Jewish interests” – in my case, an unfounded and “snarky” slur.
7. As for the similarly gratuitous attack on my integrity by “Peter”, which Yeager endorses, my point was simply that Hitler’s public threat to destroy the Jewish race in Europe was broadcast over 25 months BEFORE Kaufmann’s little tract appeared. Effects do not precede causes. Incidentally, Kaufmann was obsessed with sterilization and had previously suggested it as beneficial for Americans.
8. It is however also characteristic of hasbara trolls themselves to insert violent or ludicrous comments about Jews on critical blogsites to discredit them in the eyes of normal, decent and intelligent readers; and reinforce campaigns to criminalise “hate” speech: “never again”.
LOL. IMO, BR puts all this in one comment hoping it will be too much to answer, and so I won’t. And he is right. He knows the tricks of evasion.
But No. 4, “not all Jews were so involved” is empty talk bc it’s known than Hitler spoke well of numerous Jews; also many Jews were excluded from deportation and left untouched.
Calling Jews “parasites, “bacillus or fission-fungus” was a figure of speech that was meant to emphasize and dramatize their danger to an unsuspecting population, not a policy statement that was taken literally. Rockford certainly has much more objection than that in mind, since that is one sentence, maybe two, in all of Mein Kampf.
He wrote on April 9, 2023 at 4:46 pm:
“Oddly enough I agree with Hitler that the chief creative factors in history have been “personality and race”. **I understand but do not agree with his ranting about Jewish power**, especially in “Mein Kampf”, Vol.I, ch.11.”Race & People” [and] in Vol.II,chh.xiii-xiv.”
So he agrees RACE is a chief factor in history, but Hitler is wrong to put so much blame on the Jew who is invading Europe — yet Brian doesn’t bother to give one single reason why. Other than that Jews are not his “special interest; anti-communism is (#5). It’s as though we’re playing “Ring around the Rosie” for all the sense it makes.
Brian says he COULD write a book like Kevin MacDonald has but unfortunately he’s gotten sick and now doesn’t have enough time. How does that prevent him from putting a short answer here? It’s always the case that when you push back at commenters like Brian, you discover that there’s nothing there.
CY challenged me to write what would have to be a major work of research and length. As usual, she makes unfounded malicious “telepathic” assumptions that I am simply a devious trickster &c.
She may be obsessed by the JQ and AH, but they are only part of my intellectual interests. With terminal cancer and existing commitments, I see no reason to jump just because your voluble Oberaufseherin cracks her whip. She accuses me of trying to silence her by providing too much to answer, and then expects me to post “a short answer” on the genetic and cultural reasons for the behaviour of Jews throughout history. I have already briefly commented here on the motivations of Ashkenazim and Sephardim.
If I had enough free time to begin a post-MacDonald biocultural study, I would start with relevant studies by varied authors, including: Peter-Heinz Seraphim, Hans Guenther, Richard Lynn, Cyril Darlington, Paul Colinvaux, Jim Penman, Raymond Cattell, William McDougall, Nicholas Wade, Heiner Rindermann, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, John Glad, Jerry Muller, Andre Gerrits, Jacques Attali, Dan Cohn-Sherbok, Bernard Lazare, Ellsworth Huntington, Julius Carlebach, Peter Schafer, Paul Johnson, Germar Rudolf, Otto Weininger, Norman Finkelstein, Jon Entine, Nesta Webster, Albert Lindemann, Bertram Wolfe, Maurice Samuel, Nathan Abrams, David Nirenberg, Desmond Stewart…and many more (most of the above writers, and others, already in my library). A few Wiki sites are useful in pointing to useful data; e.g. “Jewish left”.
Why doesn’t CY herself write the book she wants?
In Europe, Jewish activity and anti-Jewish reaction have been an interactive phenomenon, and we certainly need something better than shop-worn corny quotes from the “Illustrated Sunday Herald” or the “Daily Express”. As for “The Holocaust”, there is an abundance of specialist literature on e.g. reports of the Einsatzgruppen, which are surely not all BBC or KGB fabrications, but Zionist exploitation of the wartime “Final Solution” as a faux religion and a financial racket is another matter.
Lucky old CY not to have lived in Poland or Russia with a Jewish grandma during kindly old Himmler’s actual reign.
I will spare myself to go into each position of your comment. An old saying goes, “History is written by victors – truth by the fearless”. As a German truth seeker, I have searched an untold number of sources for the truth of this period and I can only confirm Caroline Yeager in almost every respect. We do not have to turn over the same stones again and again in the hope of finally finding proof for a mendacious narrative. For hobby-historians, I recommend reading 2 standard works before going into detail. One is by David L. Hoggan of 1961 – “https://archive.org/details/HogganDavidTheForcedWarWhenPeacefulRevisionFailedEN200734” and the other more recent by Gerard Menuhin – the son of the world’s most famous Jewish violinist – “https://archive.org/details/menuhin-gerard-tell-the-truth-and-shame-the-devil”. With both meticulous works, the conspiracy of world Jewry to wage war against the German nation (Jews call us AMALEK) is unequivocally proven on the basis of archival material, as is the fact that all Jews were to be removed from the Reich, not murdered.
On November 5, 1933, the Trust and Transfer Office Haʿavara Ltd. was registered for this purpose, virtually as a private company. Palestine desperately wanted European intelligentsia instead of Polish Ghetto-Jews. The World Zionist Organization, at its conference in Lucerne on August 20, 1935, approved the Haʿavara agreement by a majority and even took their entire activity under its own direction. Since this agreement exclusively regulated emigration to Palestine, a second agreement was reached with the Reich, which regulated emigration to the rest of the world. In order that the Jews should leave Germany as soon as possible and move to Palestine, the Jewish banker Georg Kareski, director of the Jewish cooperative bank “Iwria” and Zionist functionary, recommended the introduction of the “Jewish star”, “which had previously proved its worth in England for centuries.
World Jewry declared war on Germany on 24.March 1933 (Daily Express) and the boycott of all German goods” And a last word on the extermination plans against the German people here is a quote from F.D.Roosevelt from 1932 (long before the election victory of the NSDAP), with which FDR announced the next war, in front of his Jewish sponsors “I will crush Germany! There will be no Germany after the war”. Publicly he had always affirmed that he wanted to keep the USA out of European wars.
There is zero proof that Hitler wanted to genocide the jews.
Hitler wanted to get the jews out of Germany because they were wrecking the country.
And he tried to work with the zionists to move the jews to Israel.
Hitler tried to avoid war with Britain. Repeatedly.
The jews are crazy paranoid people. It sounds like their overreaction to Hitler was much like their
overreaction to Trump. Absolutely insane and irrational.
The neocon’s hatred of Russia is insane and irrational to the point that they are actually
DESTROYING the dollar as the world’s reserve currency.
You would think that the jews would have some manner of gratitude toward Americans for fighting a brother war
against Germany; but no, jews have no gratitude whatsoever.
Jews care about what is good for the jews and to hell with everybody else.
But eventually such shortsightedness is bound to backfire spectacularly.
From the looks of it, the jews are running out of friends, having crapped on the very people that have helped them
I have no sympathy for organized jewry. Eventually they will surely get what is coming to them.
Two things. Translating from one language to another can be used to deliberately misinterpret words, sentences and there meanings. Israel and Jews continuously complain that Iran wants to destroy Israel and kill all the Jews. Iran has never said that. They maintain that Israel is a racist state and they want the country Israel destroyed, meaning its Zionist Jewish government and its “for Jews only policies” that stole all the Palestinians property and forced them off their own lands. They have never called for killing Jews.
The other thing is, if Hitler did say that in a speech, was he reacting to the Jewish call for the genocide of the German people in Theodore Kaufman’s “Germany Must Perish!” where the Jew details a plan to wipe the Germans out thru the proposal for the systematic sterilization of the entire German population? This book was reviewed and applauded by top American media outlets. Time Magazine had a lengthy article on it. Jews complain Goebbels had the details of the proposal published in Germany’s top newspapers. Could Hitler have been reacting to one of the constant Jewish threats and assaults against Germans. If he was, maybe he made a political mistake by using certain words, but I think the evidence is clear the Germans were 100% correct in their opinion that Jews were there main and most powerful enemy determined to have Germany destroyed and millions of Germans killed. They were aware of Jews power in the media because they took it on in Germany where Jews power in the press was enormous.
The interaction of Jews and their “host” societies goes back a long way, “the longest hatred” in their own words. The chronological sequence is relevant: The Protocols, the Dolchstoss and Bolshevism. A Racial Darwinist, Hitler saw the conflict in terms of a collective life-and-death global struggle between the genetically exemplary “Aryan” and the criminally parasitic “Jew” (Mein Kampf, passim).
Hitler warned publicly that war would result in the annihilation of European Jews in January 1939.
Kaufman’s booklet was published privately in March 1941 and its plans were attributed to Roosevelt in Nazi commentary.
“A Racial Darwinist, Hitler saw the conflict in terms of a collective life-and-death global struggle between the genetically exemplary “Aryan” and the criminally parasitic “Jew” (Mein Kampf, ).”
Another false statement from you. Hitler and the National Socialists saw the struggle as between the White European and the “eastern” Marxist-Communist (or Bolshevism). That was made very clear, including in Mein Kampf (1925) which you seem to take selective parts from (there was relatively little about Jewry compared to how you make it sound). To the extent that Jews embraced or furthered Communism/Bolshevism and its victory in Germany/Europe, to that extent Hitler saw them as the enemy. (I suspect you pay more attention to Himmler’s writings/interests/activities that you do to Hitler’s.)
There’s a lot of discussion here about the meaning of German words translated to English words which you are ignoring. You write in the style of an academic. You’re either trying to look like one or you are one. Is this your specialized field? Or, what is your interest in the topic?
My general interest is in the philosophy of history, what makes peoples tick. My specialist interest has been anti-communist activism.
Oddly enough I agree with Hitler that the chief creative factors in history have been “personality and race”. I understand but do not agree with his ranting about Jewish power, especially in “Mein Kampf”, Vol.I, ch.11.”Race & People”, only 25 pages but absolutely crucial, but also elsewhere, such as in his otherwise shrewd analysis of foreign policy in Vol.II,chh.xiii-xiv.
In Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, out of eleven chapters, three of which could be called “long”, Hitler speaks out extensively about Jewish detrimental influence on Germany in one, Chapter 11, “Nation and Race” which you wrongly title “Race and People.” https://carolynyeager.net/adolf-hitler-nation-and-race You change “Nation” to “People”? That is very telling in itself, without my adding that the Jewish Problem had been an issue in Germany since the 1870’s, when the word antisemitism was first used by the German patriot Wilhelm Marr. https://carolynyeager.net/heretics-hour-jews-and-nuremberg-part-one He concluded at that time that the Germans had already lost to the Jews!! But for you, it is a non-issue; no need to talk about it.
“his ranting about Jewish power … also elsewhere, such as in his otherwise shrewd analysis of foreign policy in Vol.II,chh.xiii-xiv.”
Out of 15 chapters in MK, Vol 2, you object to two chapters mentioning the role of Jewry in German foreign policy as “ranting.” https://carolynyeager.net/adolf-hitler-german-post-war-alliance-policy and https://carolynyeager.net/adolf-hitler-germanys-policy-eastern-europe-part-one Your position appears unreasonable to me, not Hitler’s, nor do you try to explain it.
Your main purpose here, as well as I can gauge it, is to minimize and relativise any criticism of Jews and/or praise of Adolf Hitler & National Socialism. You agree with Hitler on all kinds of things, you say, but not on the Jews! He’s got it wrong there. But never any explanation of why, where or how you arrived at your conclusion. Never any facts, either. Not even specifics. When you advise readers to go to a certain source, you don’t give a link to make it easy for them to do so. It’s as if you prefer they don’t.
So in your interest of ‘what makes peoples tick,’ what makes the Jewish people tick? You ought to have an answer for that. Thanks.
“Kaufman’s booklet was published privately in March 1941 and its plans were attributed to Roosevelt in Nazi commentary.”
That’s irrelevant. The book was widely publicized in the US with reviews in some of the biggest American publications and Hitler spoke about the Jews being leading advocates for war more than once. Top historians and evidence supports that. It doesn’t have to be pointed out someone is a Jew every time, but I’m certain it was noted. Adolf Eichmann even mentioned Kaufman’s book in his memoirs, citing it as evidence of the horrible things planned for the Germans. Germany knew Kaufman was a Jew and this probably contributed to having the Jews arrested in 1941. It was further evidence of their hostility and the danger they presented.
Hitler jokingly referred to Roosevelt as “Rosenfeld”. That blows your theory on Germany not attributing it to Jews out of the water.
The chronology was relevant not to the Nazi-Jew conflict in general, but the pretext for “Vernichtung” by sterilization, sexual segregation, attrition by forced labour, plus the March through July 1941 orders to the OKW and SS Einsatzgruppen about killing Jewish communists in the USSR.
Nothing you said there is relevant to what I wrote, including the word “chronology”. You also repeat nonsensical sentences in your WW II indoctrination.
Trump was just another puppet of Jews, opposed by other Jews. Adelson was the trump kingmaker.
Neo cons are destroying the US dollar deliberately, with Russia’s participation and with internal us intention.
Your opinion. What proofs do you have that Trump is/was a puppet of (some) Jews? It is absolutely common for American Christians (particularly wealthy ones) to be friendly and open to Jews, even to be on Jews’ side if necessary. I’d say Adelson got on the Trump bandwagon, not the other way around. As a politician, Trump welcomed him. Why not? They all would
Trump is not a neocon. So how do you explain that?
@ Carolyn Yeager
True, you can’t make much progress in US politics without some Jewish support. But Trump did Israel some gratuitous favours. However, this great orange lump dropped into the fetid swamp usefully stirs things up, as I hope will happen after the current legal shamboozles.
“True, you can’t make much progress in US politics without some Jewish support.”
Correction: You can’t make much progress in US politics without A LOT OF Jewish support.
“But Trump did Israel some gratuitous favours.”
So what? Did they harm the US in any way? No. Unlike what other presidents have done. And I don’t hear you anti-Trumpers harping on them.
Same hysterical paranoia with Poutine. As I have said several times on this very site, only hereditary mental illness (probably through inbreeding) can explain this destructive behavior.
“So when American Jewish Congress (AJC) vice-president Joseph Tenenbaum threatened that “[a] bellum judaicum—war against the Jews—means boycott, ruin, disaster, the end of German resources, and the end of all hope for the rehabilitation of Germany.” Hitler, the Nazis, and the suffering German people who elected them knew right away that they were beset by powerful enemies bent upon their utter destruction.”
A question: This quote seems to indicate that, at least in the eyes of the AJC, the Germans had already signaled they were about to “declare war” on Jews. Does this mean the Jews interpreted the mere election of Hitler as a “declaration of war” against them? This would mean, of course, that Hitler never had a chance of reaching a non-violent solution to the Jewish question.
“Does this mean the Jews interpreted the mere election of Hitler as a “declaration of war” against them?”
Yes, it does mean that, and that is exactly how it was. “The Jews,” ie. organized world-wide network of wealthy, well-connected Jewry, with its large stake in major media (among much else), will never accept any “solution to the Jewish question” that any non-Jewish people, nation, religion or organization would come up with, because they reject voluntarily allowing any restrictions on Jews. Sherry White’s comment right above yours describes these Jews’ nature and their unwillingness to see an other point of view as valid and justified if it doesn’t match theirs.
They were, of course, warning about Hitler and National Socialism long before the Leader was selected to become Chancellor in 1933. As soon as that happened they went into action, not waiting for any specific “crimes” and regulations to be announced. They anticipated. These people cannot accept majority rule unless they themselves are pulling the strings.
“They were, of course, warning about Hitler and National Socialism long before the Leader was selected to become Chancellor in 1933. As soon as that happened they went into action, not waiting for any specific “crimes” and regulations to be announced. They anticipated. These people cannot accept majority rule unless they themselves are pulling the strings.”
In the light of what you say here, what do you make of this apparently contradictory ‘information’:
“The financing of Hitler and his war powers was largely handled by the Max/Paul Warburg controlled Mendelsohn Bank of Amsterdam (all Zionists) and the Schroeder Bank of Frankfort and London (all Zionists).”?
Of course, ignoring certain widely refuted aspects of this article (e.g. the next sentence, no, all the rest of it), the claim was also made, apparently more authoritatively by former Chancellor (1930-32), Heinrich Brüning, as reported on the IHR site (it is very hard to get it to come up, even with my, no doubt faking it, ‘objective’ search engine).
I’d make no claim that this was anything but episodic, even purely pragmatic, in the conjunctural political circumstances.
Short answer: I don’t think much of Rense.com and never have. It’s part of the dumbing-down of Americans. I don’t read it unless someone links me to it, which hasn’t happened in a long, long time. The very first paragraph of this article perfectly demonstrates that: mystical, conspiratorial nonsense. It’s dated 2013 (which is alright), written by an unknown of whom no description is given, not even a website. J. Speer-Williams even sounds made up.
The term “Zionist bankers” is used inaccurately, but I guess at that time Rense was using the word “Zionist” for “Jewish,” as was much of the Internet. I’m surprised you’re questioning me on this – are you serious?
I am serious. I wanted your experienced opinion on Bruning’s claim.
You made the point that:
“They were, of course, warning about Hitler and National Socialism long before the Leader was selected to become Chancellor in 1933. As soon as that happened they went into action, not waiting for any specific “crimes” and regulations to be announced. They anticipated. These people cannot accept majority rule unless they themselves are pulling the strings.”
The claim made by the former German Chancellor, Brüning, that large amounts of money was given to the NS’s by Jewish bankers seems to run counter to your point. As to the source: this was originally found by David Irving in his extensive researches and is here in the IHR archive.
For example, when I was writing my Churchill biography, I came across a lot of private papers in the files of the Time/Life organization in New York. In Columbia University, there are all the private papers of the chief editor of Time/Life, a man called Daniel Longwell. And in there, in those papers, we find all the papers relating to the original publication of the Churchill memoirs in 1947, 1949, the great six-volume set of Churchill memoirs of the Second World War. And I found there a letter from the pre-war German chancellor, the man who preceded Hitler, Dr. Heinrich Brüning, a letter he wrote to Churchill in August 1937. The sequence of events was this: Dr. Brüning became the chancellor and then Hitler succeeded him after a small indistinguishable move by another man. In other words, Brüning was the man whom Hitler replaced. And Brüning had the opportunity to see who was backing Hitler. Very interesting, who was financing Hitler during all his years in the wilderness, and Brüning knew.
Brüning wrote a letter to Churchill after he had been forced to resign and go into exile in England in August 1937, setting out the names and identities of the people who backed Hitler. And after the war, Churchill requested Brüning for permission to publish this letter in his great world history, The six-volume world history. And Brüning said no. In his letter, Brüning wrote, ‘I didn’t, and do not even today for understandable reasons, wish to reveal from October 1928, the two largest regular contributors to the Nazi Party were the general managers of two of the largest Berlin banks, both of Jewish faith and one of them the leader of Zionism in Germany.”
Now there is a letter from Dr. Heinrich Brüning to Churchill in 1949, explaining why he wouldn’t give permission to Churchill to publish the August 1937 letter. It was an extraordinary story, out of Churchill’s memoirs. Even Churchill wanted to reveal that fact. You begin to sense the difficulties that we have in printing the truth today. Churchill, of course, knew all about lies. He was an expert in lying himself. He put a gloss on it. He would say to his friends, “The truth is such a fragile flower. The truth is so precious, it must be given a bodyguard of lies.” This is the way Churchill put it.”
JM, you are asking me to speculate on incomplete information. That is exactly what “conspiracy theories” are based on. I do not deny or reject the fact of conspiracies taking place, far from it, but “conspiracy theory” is meant to imply speculation without sufficient evidence. I don’t wish to do that.
So, do you know the identity these two Jewish general managers of what were among the “largest banks in Berlin”? I do not and am not able to find out. There were many large banking firms in Berlin in 1928. So just how useful is this information, after all?
I have said in a recent exchange (I think on another thread on TOO) that Hitler was financed by German industrialists and bankers, along with small donations from German common people (“Who Financed Hitler?” by James Pool). This as opposed to “Wall Street” and American Jews. So if the money came from Berlin banks, so what? Is there information on WHO it specifically came from?
Additionally, Heinrich Brüning was also appointed by President Hindenberg (a German hero) to the office of Chancellor, not elected, and was unpopular bc of his austerity policies. Brüning resigned in 1932 after 2 years and Hindenberg appointed Hitler as a last hope to manage the job. Hitler succeeded. Brüning was left with hard feelings toward Hitler, understandably.
Irving writes: “Brüning had the opportunity to see who was backing Hitler.” Sez who? Brüning! But he wouldn’t reveal it, except to say ” the two largest regular contributors to the Nazi Party were the general managers of two of the largest Berlin banks, both of Jewish faith and one of them the leader of Zionism in Germany.” This, to me, is typical David Irving taking a small thing that he comes across in his research and making it into a major revelation that boosts his reputation. I don’t fault him for that, but I fault the rest of you who fall for it. What have we actually gained from this? Nothing of substance.
Plus, it’s been known since at least 1986.
Carolyn, I’m replying to this comment, because the comment of yours to which I want to reply doesn’t offer the ‘reply’ link.
In that comment, you wrote “I have said in a recent exchange (I think on another thread on TOO) that Hitler was financed by German industrialists and bankers, along with small donations from German common people (“Who Financed Hitler?” by James Pool).”
I recently read a book entitled “German Big Business and the Rise of Hitler,” in which the author, Henry Ashby Turner, Jr. did a credible job of dispelling the notion that Hitler was financed in any significant way by German industrialists, making the case that the preponderance of financing for the National Socialists came from party membership.
Are you familiar with the work?
Thanks for your reply.
I have searched both Edwin Black’s and Lenni Brenner’s books for the identity of a “…general manager(s) of (one) of the largest Berlin banks who was (the) leader of Zionism in Germany.”
In Black’s book, many “leaders” of the (at first almost minuscule) German Zionist organisation (ZVfD) are identified, but this role isn’t (or if so, my reading of it doesn’t reveal any). Whatever the case, I would not be surprised that mention of German Jewish bankers would be omitted in both volumes.
As to your assessment that: “Irving writes: “Brüning had the opportunity to see who was backing Hitler.” Sez who? Brüning!” The access of Brüning to this information is surely very likely…via his full access to the files of the German state police by virtue of his role as Chancellor. And we can be sure that the Weimar state, in those crisis ridden times of incipient revolution, would have been most interested in fully investigating all ‘extremist’ parties, not least, their source of funds.
You immediately go on to say: “But he wouldn’t reveal it, except to say ” the two largest regular contributors to the Nazi Party were the general managers of two of the largest Berlin banks, both of Jewish faith and one of them the leader of Zionism in Germany.”
In fact he wouldn’t even, publicly, reveal that! And he implies his (very ‘reasonable’) reason for this. It was Churchill who wanted to publish this in his History. Churchill was no lightweight historian and had had critical Jewish connections. The fact that he was willing to publish it, indicates Churchill’s favourable assessment of its veracity.
But this is lightweight stuff regarding funding of the National Socialists compared with some of the ‘well substantiated’ claims made by other writers, including some who responded to the Quinn essay at the Unz Review.
Reply to JM,
Have to say, you don’t make a damn bit of sense here.
“Whatever the case, *I would not be surprised* that mention of German Jewish bankers would be omitted in both volumes.”
‘I WOULD NOT BE SURPRISED’ is your only answer as to why the two Jewish bankers’ names would not be mentioned in either Black’s or Lenni Brenner’s (tell-all) books (or anywhere else). I would think that after all this time something would have come out … but nothing? You think that’s normal?
Then in the next paragraph, you state: “The access of Brüning to this information is surely *very likely*…via his full access to the files of the German state police by virtue of his role as Chancellor.” That is, unless he was lying or ‘making it up.’ After all, he didn’t NAME anybody, did he? No one was EVER named! What does that make you think? It makes me think there never were any names.
At the end you say, “The fact that he (Churchill) was willing to publish it, indicates Churchill’s favourable assessment of its veracity.” It does?? Churchill loved the truth, did he? Never told a lie? Churchill was out to blacken the name of Hitler, through whatever means. Are you too?
You’re showing yourself to be someone who WANTS TO BELIEVE Hitler was some sort of traitor to Germany–working with the Jews … for what purpose? That makes no sense at all to a healthy mind, or a German.
This is in reply to Liosnagcat says:
April 11, 2023 at 10:59 pm
Hi there, thanks for the question. I am not familiar with that book but I am with Henry Ashby Turner through the book he edited, “Hitler–Memoirs of a Confidant.” The “confidant” is Otto Wagener and the book is highly accurate to my mind, so I would put stock in the one you’re recommending too.
I agree that the party membership supplied a large portion of the funding (maybe even most), but it has also been reliably documented that some major industrialists, in particular steel magnate Fritz Thyssen, and Friedrich Flick, were instrumental in supporting the NSDAP election campaigns. Even Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Thyssen writes:
“Thyssen also persuaded the Association of German Industrialists to donate three million Reichsmarks to the Nazi Party for the March, 1933 Reichstag election. As a reward, he was selected to run as a Nazi candidate in the election, and was elected to the Reichstag and appointed to the Council of State of Prussia, the largest German state.”
Also: “Thyssen was impressed by Hitler and his bitter opposition to the Treaty of Versailles, and began to make large donations to the party, including 100,000 gold marks ($25,000) in 1923 to Ludendorff.” […] “Thyssen himself claimed to have donated 1 million ℛℳ to the Nazi Party.”
Hitler was not the pariah that the JewSA paints him as, but the HOPE for growing numbers of Germans who hated communism and Marxist trade unions, very real threats in Germany at the time. The idea that he forced his way to power (“seized” it) is just another baseless myth.
So for me both are true.
Thanks for your reply, Ms Yeager.
You say: “That is, unless he was lying or ‘making it up.’ After all, he didn’t NAME anybody, did he? No one was EVER named! What does that make you think? It makes me think there never were any names.”
But before you denied Bruning had nay special capacity to ascertain this ‘truth’. And this German banker doesn’t have to be named. It’s just that this leading banker, leader of German Zionism has been tucked away from history and as I say, this comes as no surprise. Irving – light years ahead of you or I as an investigative historian, a proven performer, thought it worthy of ‘mention’.
Then you say: “At the end you say, “The fact that he (Churchill) was willing to publish it, indicates Churchill’s favourable assessment of its veracity.” It does?? Churchill loved the truth, did he? Never told a lie? Churchill was out to blacken the name of Hitler, through whatever means. Are you too?”
How would that blacken the name of Hitler? It would, rather than that, tend (only “tend”) to destroy the Zionist narrative, obviously Bruning’s motive in withholding his permission to publish.
You go on: “You’re showing yourself to be someone who WANTS TO BELIEVE Hitler was some sort of traitor to Germany–working with the Jews … for what purpose? That makes no sense at all to a healthy mind, or a German.”
I’ll leave out the “German” bit because I have a disproportion of very successful pioneering German antecedents and my children more than that, most unusual for my ancestry.
There is no necessary proof arising from this “fact”, unless one believes that race alone determines history. The class interests of the German Jewish “elite” may well have been the motive for this claimed donation, given the revolutionary turmoil Germany was experiencing at the time. The device (“Bonapartist”) of balancing one extreme against another was a well worn track and no doubt still applies today.
Again, replying here, because your reply to me doesn’t offer a “reply” option.
Thanks very much for your response to my question.
I’m about to embark on “Hitler’s Banker: Hjalmar Horace Greeley Schacht” by John Weitz. We’ll see what nuggets that contains.
I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve recommended your “The Artist Within the Warlord.” Of the (many) books I’ve read on Hitler, none has moved me as yours did. Thank you.
Reply to Liosnagcat says:
April 13, 2023 at 1:28 am
That is very much appreciated. We are on the same page. If the book was a moving experience for you, it’s because Hermann Giesler’s memoir of Hitler, that we translated, was moving for us, for me. Hitler had so many positive qualities, sensitive and artistic, yet with a persevering and iron will. It’s too bad so few people can see it.
On April 12, 10:04pm you wrote to me:
“But before you denied Bruning had nay special capacity to ascertain this ‘truth’.”
When “before?” No, I did not, you must be mis-remembering.
All I said on the subject was this : carolyn yeager says:
April 10, 2023 at 10:29 am
“Irving writes: “Brüning had the opportunity to see who was backing Hitler.” Sez who? Brüning! But he wouldn’t reveal it, except to say ” the two largest regular contributors to the Nazi Party were the general managers of two of the largest Berlin banks, both of Jewish faith and one of them the leader of Zionism in Germany.” This, to me, is typical David Irving taking a small thing that he comes across in his research and making it into a major revelation that boosts his reputation. I don’t fault him for that, but I fault the rest of you who fall for it. What have we actually gained from this? Nothing of substance.”
I was questioning Irving more than Bruning. But mostly I’m saying: This is a long-running conspiracy theory – too long-running.
“How would that blacken the name of Hitler?” Any connection to Jewish supporter can be interpreted to mean Hitler was secretly in league with the Jews.
“The class interests of the German Jewish “elite” may well have been the motive for this claimed donation, given the revolutionary turmoil Germany was experiencing at the time.” Speculation, which is the heart & soul of conspiracy theories that people “want to believe.”
A German soldier recalls his struggles on the Eastern Front
The author makes a couple of mistakes.
1. The idea that somehow marginal scientific accomplishments by Jews somehow “balances out” the endless promotion of destructive degeneracy, racial destruction, etc. is ludicrous. European man is perfectly capable of advancing himself scientifically without the Jewish parasite. However, the endless societal destruction wrought by the jew is unfathomable and unsurvivable.
2. The idea that Hitler opposing Jewish power in a real way lends moral justification to Jewish war against Hitler, essentially amounts to “strongly opposing Jewish power means the jew has a moral right to destroy the challenger.” This is shit tier relativism that refuses to acknowledge an actual right or wrong, good or bad. Hitler was right, and the Jews were awful.
3. As others have stated, exterminating the Jewish pest doesn’t mean genocide. It means negating the influence of Jewish morality and civilizational control over Aryan societies. I know this because the Holocaust never fucking happened.
4. It annoys me when I read these well written “both sides are wrong” treatises on national socialist Germany. The “socialist totalitarian” indictment is a tell that the author is an americanist libertarian type. The fact that ten years of national socialism in Germany created a superior people, identity, race, culture, future, strength, morality, aesthetic, etc. I could go on, means that the ideology is inherently superior to the dead, pointless, empty, consumerist, degenerate, raceless, bloodless, futureless cesspit that this liberal system as wrought in the last 80 years. So yes, I guess totalitarian socialism is simply superior to American neoliberal freedom, bald eagles and capitalism. Period. It isn’t debatable.
Yes, I agree that the “both sides were wrong” idea is stupid. Hitler was right. The German people did what they had to do to try to save their country. They knew the Jewish Bolsheviks had slaughtered million next door in Russia and they knew that Germany was next.
I always ask what people think the Germans were supposed to do. There was rampant degeneracy, all of the same weird stuff we are seeing now, and then hyperinflation as well. On top of many years of suffering after WWI.
You are right !National Socialism is for White people. It works for White people so why let jews and kosher conservatives dissuade us from what we need?
Do Jews really make “marginal scientific accomplishments”?
Perhaps some do, but their presence in general in all fields seem to retard development in everything.
It was only after Hitler purified German science of Jews that they shot a generation or two ahead of all their competitors.
I don’t know much about the sciences today, but in the medical field we are defiantly going backwards. The people are sicker, life expectancy is shorter and the whole thing appears to be a money-making scam. German New Medicine seems to confirm this as well.
When medical research was basically judenrein from 1850-1950 that’s when all the advances were made.
I’d bet money it’s exactly the same way in every other field.
Agree. I remember reading that Jewish psychoanalysis delayed, worse, prevented any serious research on autism in the USA. I think it was an article by William Pierce.
At least these charlatans seem to have a real superiority : pseudo-science.
Freud wrote some interesting essays, and the id-ego-superego concept was useful enough even for Mark Collett, but Freud himself and commercialised “psycho-analysis” have been exposed repeatedly as fraudulent by quite different critics. Adler made minimal constructive contribution to medical health, but Jung remains far superior in many says, except for his occultism waffle.
Autism was first properly discovered by the Nazi scientist Asperger.
You are ignorant. You say whatever you feel like without concern whether it’s true or can stand up to scrutiny. Mostly it cannot. You’re simply littering.
Developing our own means of informing people is imperative. We should own our own newspapers, magazines, book publishing and internet sites . We should not give up on print.
This is one of those medias. TOO.
Anyone here who doubts Jews are already here, detectable or un, (the latter I would estimate) using this forum for material to practice Jewry (jewing the gentle’s like nonstop-able barraging projectile explosives) from the trenches is a fool. There’s no way to surmount or fight this dilemma. The only thing gentiles can do is adopt a design of lifestyle philosophy not unlike Bugs-bunny. Drop out of the dream and just fuck everything up in sight (except ourselves of course) I can estimate that each non jew in just in the USA alone engages in at least 20 significantly “important” or “benefiting” activities that support Jewish only interests 90% to our 10% ends. Elementary Schools in the USA are on their way down like a deflating play bouncer. Next, minors (little kids) will be applying for jobs and it will look as normal as it does today having two parent full time job employees just to keep the boat afloat where it was just predominantly just one parent only six decades ago We cannot stop the inhalation of our people by helping support the inhalation machinery keep running. We have to stop doing ANYTHING that is beyond care for ourselves and those mouths we need to feed clothe & shelter. All at the same time for one week to put some contrast between the power we actually possess as a unit and those seeking only to use us. I already lost my job recently as a result of commenting here using my actual name as our enemy loves a good little snitch to help em with what equates to playing the Whac-A-Mole game – but we’re the moles in their complacent fraught contempt for nature. I might get visited for these comments so be ready for a jump if you’re ready to haul off.
Don’t use your real name.
I doubt that you will get a “visit.”
You are not that important.
Not when there are surely millions of us and whack a mole is impossible.
Both positives in my views. I’ll leave it there. Ty.
John alder, you’re right about all of it but the general tendency for an steadfast expansion to mobilize as a means of surmounting our oppressors is in my estimation fraught with impulse motives and methods of which we all do presently to results that relentlessly perpetually elude our ability to gain sufficient leverage to steer things in an more accommodative cultural direction. …that is unless someone stands on a mountain and announces a calling to all gentiles to meet in the middle of somewhere for a month and structure our intentions vote in our service (leaders) people to interphase with oppositions
Perhaps Voltaire is right when he spoke about tending our garden? Act locally.
Don’t use my name?? I’d rather be unemployed thank you.
Guess I’m important enough to post that I’m “not that important” on a public forum with huge amounts of readers if not participants. Whac a mole: the game being “impossible” precisely my point. Not sure about usefulness of your response can you elaborate please?
G’day John Alder,
I agree BUT first every goy nation must own and control its own asset backed, interest free money and currency emission. THAT is the source of the Ashkenazis’ (i.e. Talmudic Khazars’) power and control of every nation.
I agree, I think this is absolutely the most vital thing that we could do. The control of all propaganda machines is how Jews engineer all of their evil machinations and change our culture. Art has also been historically important to us and they have destroyed actual art and replaced it with their trash and garbage.
“In it we discover a marvelous array of subplots and subterfuge that, again, could support a decent thriller.” “And it has everything to do with legerdemain.”
Here is a subplot for you!!!! Pay attention!!! From Dr. Cantelon’s book and work:
The Gold Standard
In 1870, America’s banks went on the gold standard. This meant that any American could come to the bank with his paper money and exchange it for gold. In 1933, however, this was changed. In the aftermath of the crash of ’29 and the depression that followed, the morale of the nation was such that it was willing to accept any revisions or suggestions which might point to a way out of their misery. Mr. Roosevelt asked the government to pass legislation demanding that the American people give up their gold. This they did, receiving in exchange paper money showing they had received $20.67 an ounce for their precious metal. Immediately, however, the government raised
the price of gold to $35.00 an ounce, realizing a $3 billion profit. When asked his opinion on this particular action, Senator Carter Glass replied to President Roosevelt on Apnl 27, 1933,
I think it is worse than anything Ali Baba’s forty thieves ever perpetrated.
Thirty miles south of Louisville, Kentucky, out on the open prairie, Uncle Sam sought to prepare a storehouse for his golden billions. An army of government men blasted a mighty hole in the ground. A wall of mirrors was constructed to reflect every shadow of anything that would pass by-an airplane in the sky or a mouse crawling on the ground. Fifteen hundred soldiers stood at attention nearby,guarding night and day the steel vault containing America’s gold.
And in underground vaults five stories below Wall Street reside more than a hundred thousand gold bars worth well over a billion dollars.
But though this gold is on Americans oil, it is not ours. It bears the stamps of the central banks of any one of seventy foreign countries.
But in spite of the physical guard placed on the gold at Fort Knox and in the sub-basements of the New York banks, America’s gold steadily drained away. If the gold could speak, it might impart quite a story of the miles it had traveled from country to country and from one hand
to another. At the height of her power, Britain took much of the gold from the Spanish. The Spanish took it from the colonies that they invaded. At the close of World War I, when the leaders of the Western world met in the beautiful Hall of Mirrors to sign the Treaty of Versailles, Germany was compelled to deliver up all the gold she possessed in the Reich Bank of the nation. It would not be long, however,
before much of America’s gold would move back again to Germany and to western Europe.
ln 1934, when legislation was passed prohibiting the American public from owning gold currency, the door was left wide open to the foreign holders of American dollars to claim gold in exchange for their paper. But even before this international stage was set, Representative Louis T.McFadden (R-Pa.), Chairman of the Committee on Banking and Currency, made statements on June 10 of 1932 which indicated America’s gold was already moving back to Europe. His statements were recorded in the Congressional Record and pages 140-174 in H. S. Kenan’s book entitled The Federal Reserve Bank. Representative McFadden speaks of those on the other side of the water with a strong banking “fence getting the currency of the Federal Reserve Banks-exchanging that currency for gold and transmitting the gold to the foreign confederates.”
McFadden named the dates on which America’s gold was shipped to Germany:
On April 27, 1932, $750 thousand in gold was sent to Germany. One week later another $300 thousand in gold was shipped to Germany the same way. In the middle of May of that year, $12 million in gold was shipped to Germany. . . .Almost every week there was a shipment of gold to Germany-these shipments are not made for profit.
Representative McFadden referred also to the comments of Senator Elihu Root:
Long before we wake up from our dreams of prosperity through an inflated currency, our gold which could have kept us from catastrophe will have vanished, and no rate of interest will tempt it to return.
In his report to Congress, Louis McFadden asked the question,
Why should our depositors and our government be forced to flnance the munition factories of Germany and Soviet Russia?
Representative McFadden continued,
Gold was taken from the entrusting American people and was sent to Europe. In the last several months $1,300,000,000 in gold has been sent to Europe-every dollar of that gold once belonged to the people of United States and was unlawfully taken from them.
As I weighed the words of Louis McFadden and other lawmakers, I also witnessed the fantastic scene of America’s vanishing gold. The record was unbelievable:
1949 – $24,500,000,000
1958 – $21 ,593,000,000
196L – $ 17,667,587,000
On and on the gold drain went, unabated. Then came the crisis in the spring of 1968. We were living in Europe at that particular time. On March 14, hysterical crowds of people crowded, screamed, and scrambled their ways to the windows of the banks of England, and to the bank windows of the sub-basements of Paris to exchange their paper for gold. On one single day, the crude and the cultured, the
peer and the peasant, carried off 200 tons of the precious metal. They stored it in secret places of their homes and deposited it in various banks in strongboxes labeled with fictitious names.
On that day Senator Everett Dirksen in conversation with Secretary of the Treasury Fowler, William McChesney Martin, and a dozen other senators said,
We have reached the bottom of the barrel.
It seemed like only yesterday when I spoke on monetary matters when America had $26 billion in gold in her treasuries. By June 30 of 1971, it had been reduced to $10.5 billion.” pgs 43-45 the Day the Dollar Dies Cantelon, Dr. Willard
Add to the above this also from Cantelon:
Some of the strongest words that came to my attention were those of Curtis B. Dall, written 9in Philadelphia, Pennsyvania, on April, 1968, as an introduction to H. S. Kenan’s book on the Federal Reserve Bank. In reference to the international bankers, Mr. Dall writes,
They are driving toward complete control of the worlds long range monetary policy and world markets for their own profit. They foment foreign wars to aid this objective.
It did not take a brilliant mathematician long to prove with simple arimthtic that war debts allowed to continue would soon burden the people of the world with such indebtedness that it would take most of the earning power of the masses simply to pay the the compounding interest. Was it possible, i asked myself repeatedly, that man would so crave power that they wouold be willing to sacrifice millions of lives to the god of war in order to achieve their goals?
If it were true, were they so deluded or deceived that they justified the mass slaughter of the innocent as a so called stepping stone to a better world they were seeking to build? Regardless of the questions, or their answers, here was one certain fact: the world was swiftly moving toward centralized world government and universal control. The General Assembly of the UN frequently echoed with accusations and dissension. but there was one power that seemed even stronger than man’s endless legislation. It was the power of money. Whoever controlled it, controlled mans destiny. the path toward world control seemed to be indeed as divided highway. On the one side, there was the shadowy personalities representing the high priests of finance, who visualized the wealth of the world in few hands their hands. On the other side of the road, there were a number of men, honest and sincere, who pointed out that the total commitment to a world government was mans only hope of escaping a nuclear holocaust. Or famine from exploding population, or poison from pollution. close quote
Contrast this history with your Transfer Agreement! “legerdemain”
Thanks Spencer. I always enjoy reading your essays. They are always very educational. This one’s a keeper.
Also enjoyed and learned from reading everybody’s comments.
If there is one thing that bothers me to no end it is trying to get to the bottom of the truth, the real truth. I mention this only because of that professor Carroll Quigley from Boston who after being given access to many secret papers and documents of the International Bankers was of the opinion they are the HOPE OF THE WORLD!?!?!?!?!?! What did they know one must ask? But for me it is this question that comes to the forefront. Were these power brokers taken off guard by the brutality of WW2. If we could have only listened in to their private conversations after the fact about what they saw and witnessed would it have been – we never expected this kind of bloodshed to happen? Nor the Atomic Weapon!!!!! Not after and so soon after the first one? If so then what, Carroll Quigley was correct? Alas though I find another man more intelligent who got it right I’m afraid:
“After serving as an official representative to the Paris Peace Conference in 1919 during which the terms of settlement for World War 1 were set, Keynes came away shocked at the vengeful and shortsighted nature of the settlement. In his book The Economic Consequences of the Peace, Keynes warned of the dangers that would arise from the fact that the Treaty includes no provision for the economic rehabilitation of Europe-nothing to make the defeated Central empires into good neighbors.” He correctly predicated that a combination of starvation and hyperinflation inflicted on Germany would ultimately lead to social upheaval throughout Europe:
Men will not always die quietly…In their distress they may overturn the remnants of organization, and submerge civilization itself.”
This is precisely what happened to Germany under the burden of paying war reparations and continuing to suffer the effects of its destroyed economy. Although he anticipated the potential for a dictator to emerge from such a desperate situation, Keynes unlike more recent futurists made no hard and fast predictions of what would happen, instead questioning,
“But who can say…in what direction men will seek at last to escape their misfortunes.” Sheridan pg. 213
This Keynes seems to me knew something of human nature. In fact was he quoting from the Book of Job 36:21?:
Beware of turning to evil, which you seem to prefer to affliction.
All of which stems from what a lack of knowledge and faith. Sheep to the slaughter eh, Space Cowboy? Ah, the Christmas truce of 1914? Everyone should have just gone home to their wives and children!!!!!
And O look now CBDC’s and your conscience payment for your bread? Wow was Jesus right or what?
What I haven’t seen from a single author or historian is pointing out the fact that german national socialism and soviet communism are both “socialism”, are both dictatorships using collectivism, where the individual disappear in the name of the collective, of the whole… and of course, both are highly anti-christian. Nazism was national socialism and soviet communism was/is international socialism. If one knows that socialism and communism are one and the same, both created by talmudic jews [not by Marx], then what to say about the quarrels between Germany and Soviet Union?
Socialism is a softer version of communism, as social democracy is an even more softer version of the same communism; remember that in 1920’s Germany, the jewish/communists formed the social democracy party.
There seems to be no end to the opportunities for educating people in this thread. That’s the reason for all my replies.
Luis is focusing only on “Socialism” in “National Socialism”, which makes him just plain wrong in everything he says.
Luis, Communism is INTERNATIONAL, so National Socialism cannot be the same thing. That’s why no one points out what you’re saying.
In addition, National Socialism was NEVER anti-Christian. It was pro-Christian and liberally supported all the Christian churches financially, in spite of the fact that Hitler personally became disillusioned with some of the church’s highly political pastors who became openly critical of his government policies. He spoke of that in private, as found in Table Talk, but not in public. He was a paid-up Catholic Church member until his death.
In spite of his personal feelings, Hitler knew the German people wanted the Christian churches and believed it would be wrong to deny them. He also thought religion was necessary for a strong nation AND for fighting Marxism/communism which he strongly opposed. He wanted a national church in Germany like the Church of England. Did you know the English have a very establishment grounded, government-connected national Christian church — the Anglican Church?
“remember that in 1920’s Germany, the jewish/communists formed the social democracy party.”
Earlier than that. It can be traced back to the 1860’s. From 1891 to 1959 it was considered a Marxist party, according to Wikipedia.
Ms Yeager’s lessons on National Socialism are naively simplified and unduly favorable. Hitler held to the view that Jesus was not a Jew, but to say he was a “paid-up” (rather than lapsed) RC is ridiculous in view of his religion of “nature” and his eventual change of opinion about postmortem survival. Never mind the authors, but check the documentation in: “Persecution of the Catholic Church in the Third Reich” (1941); Rainer Bucher, “Hitler’s Theology” (2011); Susannah Heschel, “The Aryan Jesus” (2010); Alfred Rosenberg, “Myth of the Twentieth Century” (1993 ed).
My response to “Luis” was geared to the nature and extent of his own incorrect and uninformed statements. I am not giving a thorough dissertation on Hitler’s religio-spiritual beliefs. Luis is speaking about National Socialism, really, and not Hitler. I brought Hitler into the conversation and probably should not have. NS did not have a position on Church & religion; it was up to the membership individually and it was divided between faithful Christian believers and degrees of atheists. So you’ve chosen a stupid thing to complain about.
To be a “paid-up member” of a denomination means that you have not formally rejected it, whether you are actively engaged or not. That is my point.
I see now that I brought Hitler into the conversation, not Luis, and probably should not have.
“Hitler held to the view that Jesus was not a Jew. . . ”
So does any nominally educated individual. This quotation, from The Controversy of Zion by Douglas Reed explains it well:
“This public assertion, “Jesus was a Jew,” is always used in our century for political purposes. It is often employed to quell objections to the Zionist influence in international politics or to the Zionist invasion of Palestine, the suggestion being that, as Jesus was a Jew, none ought to object to anything purporting to be done in the name of Jews. The irrelevance is obvious, but mobs are moved by such phrases, and the paradoxical result, once again, is that a statement, most offensive to literal Jews, is most frequently made by non-Jewish politicians and ecclesiastics who seek Jewish favour.
The English abbreviation, “Jew,” is recent and does not correspond to anything denoted by the Aramaic, Greek or Roman terms for “Judahite” or “Judean,” which were in use during the lifetime of Jesus. In fact, the English noun “Jew” cannot be defined (so that dictionaries, which are scrupulously careful about all other words, are reduced to such obvious absurdities as “A person of Hebrew race”); and the Zionist state has no legal definition of the term (which is natural, because the Torah, which is the Law, exacts pure Judahite descent, and a person of this lineage is hardly to be found in the entire world).
If the statement, “Jesus was a Jew,” has meaning therefore, it must apply to the conditions prevailing in his time. In that case it would mean one of three things, or all of them: that Jesus was of the tribe of Judah (therefore Judahite); that he was of Judean domicile (and therefore Judean); that he was religiously “a Jew,” if any religion denoted by that term existed in his time.
Race, residence, religion, then.
This book is not the place to argue the question of Jesus’s racial descent, and the surprising thing is that Christian divines allow themselves some of the statements which they make. The reader should form his own opinion, if he desires to have one in this question.
The genealogy of Mary is not given in the New Testament, but three passages might imply that she was of Davidic descent; St. Matthew and St. Luke trace the descent of Joseph from David and Judah, but Joseph was not the blood father of Jesus. The Judaist authorities discredit all these references to descent, holding that they were inserted to bring the narrative into line with prophecy.
As to residence, St. John states that Jesus was born at Bethlehem in Judea through the chance that his mother had to go there from Galilee to register; the
Judaist authorities, again, hold that this was inserted to make the account agree with Micah’s prophecy that “a ruler” would “come out of Bethlehem.”
The Jewish Encyclopaedia insists that Nazareth was Jesus’s native town, and indeed, general agreement exists that he was a Galilean, whatever the chance of his actual birthplace. Galilee, where nearly all his life was spent, was politically entirely separate from Judea, under its own Roman tetrarch, and stood to Judea in the relationship of “a foreign country” (Graetz). Marriage between a Judean and a Galilean was forbidden and even before Jesus’s birth all Judeans living in Galilee had been forced by Simon Tharsi, one of the Maccabean princes, to migrate to Judah.
Thus, the Galileans were racially and politically distinct from the Judeans.
Was this Galilean, religiously, what might today be called “a Jew”? The Judaist authorities, of course, deny that most strenuously of all; the statement, often heard from the platform and pulpit, might cause a riot in the synagogue.
It is difficult to see what responsible public men can mean when they use the phrase. There was in the time of Jesus no “Jewish” (or even Judahite or Judaist or Judean) religion. There was Jehovahism, and there were the various sects, Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes, which disputed violently between themselves and contended, around the temple, for power over the people. They were not only sects, but also political parties, and the most powerful of them were the Pharisees with their “oral traditions” of what God had said to Moses.
If today the Zionists are “the Jews” (and this is the claim accepted by all great Western nations), then the party which in Judea in the time of Jesus corresponded to the Zionists was that of the Pharisees. Jesus brought the whole weight of his attack to bear on these Pharisees. He also rebuked the Sadducees and the scribes, but the Gospels show that he held the Pharisees to be the foe of God and man and that he used an especial scarifying scorn towards them. The things which he singled out for attack, in them and in their creed, are the very things which today’s Zionists claim to be the identifying features of Jews, Jewishness and Judaism.
Religiously, Jesus seems beyond doubt to have been the opposite and adversary of all that which would make a literal Jew today or would have made a literal Pharisee then.
None can say with certainty who or what he was, and these suggestive statements by non-Jewish politicians ring as false as the derisive and mocking lampoons about “the bastard” which circulated in the Jewish ghettoes.
The New Testament teaches that God grafted the Gentile onto the tree of Abraham so that Gentiles are now God’s chosen people. God chose the Jew supposedly but then He changed His mind. Christians today are the victims of Jewish propaganda and psychological warfare so that they react to any criticism of the Jew by defending them. But that’s not based upon Christianity or Christian teachings.
Regarding “it’s not all Jews”, how many does it take to set up their central banks and to do all of the other things they do to Gentiles? It doesn’t require all Jews.
The contrast between the Christian “Son of God” (7 BC-33 AD?) and the noisome racketeers and revolutionaries from Ostjuden shtetls, very many centuries later, encouraged the notion that Jesus could not have been a “Jew”. Erroneous argument have been employed, such identifying “Galilee” with “Gaul”, whereas here is an example of philology that is technically correct but historically misleading, i.e. the difference between a descendant of Judah (tribal) and an inhabitant of Judea (residential). An individual could be both.
What matters in respect of Jesus is how the term Ioudaios was used in his own lifetime, or even in the period extending beyond 70 AD to the final composition of the canonical NT. Secular and theological encyclopedias, and responsible modern historians, are now pretty conclusive about relevant historical/religious/ethnic meanings of Jew, Judean, Galilean, Edomite and Israelite; and they can be checked against both the Nazi work co-authored by eminent NT scholar Gerhard Kittel, “Das antike Weltjudentum” (1943) and the informative Essays in “The Jewish Annotated New Testament” (2017 ed), especially those by Joshua Garroway and Martin Goodman.
The quite different Gospel genealogies do not make Jesus a Gentile, though raising other problems left unsolved even by Roman Catholic exegetes from Pope Benedict XVI to Raymond Brown. If as questionably contended, Galileans were forbidden to marry Judeans, what do we make of the betrothal of Joseph and Mary?
If Mary brought Jesus for circumcision he entered into the Israelite/aka later “Jewish” community of the Mosaic faith. He is described as a Jew even in the “antisemitic” Fourth Gospel (John 4.9-26,19.40). The NT and other texts indicate that he was not only an Israelite but a descendant of Judah, albeit domiciled in Nazareth (not far from another Bethlehem) and Capernaum.
Any other solutions to this conundrum?
I have previously commented here on the ethnicity of Jesus. While not wishing to hog as much space as Cowboy or Carolyn, I think some readers might be fascinated by Stephen Sage’s “Ibsen and Hitler” (NY 2006) which states that the latter was influenced in his belief in an Aryan Jesus, often counterpoised to the Jewish Plague, by Dietrich Eckart, Richard Wagner, Johann Fichte, Ernst Haeckel, Paul de Lagarde, Houston Stewart Chamberlain, Julius Langbehn, Artur Dinter, Friedrich Doellinger, Widar Waelsung, and even Eugen Diederichs. He mentions the gravestone of the Roman soldier Julius Pantera as supporting the ancient allegation that someone so named was the real father of Jesus.
More important, Sage argues in detail that Hitler modeled himself on the idealistic Galilean who whipped the money-makers from the Temple (which in fact was quite profitable for High Priest Annas) rather than a preacher of pacifism.
Of course, there was more to Jesus than that, although what exactly that was has evoked a vast contradictory literature (see e.g. Charlotte Allen, “The Human Christ”  for a popular but erudite introduction). Modern research into the religion and population of Galilee has not closed the question.
Various scurrilous libels about Jesus in the Talmud and in stuff like the Toledot Yeshu were partly based on, but do not refute the statement by Celsus about his non-miraculous parentage.
As Hitler pointed out, there were Roman garrisons in Galilee. The name Pantera of the supposed father was known among “centurions”, one found in the Roman occupation of Britain. It likely referred to the leopard headcover worn by standard bearers. In mythology the leopard/panther was seen as an heroic adversary of the demonic reptile, and with its “sweet breath” later became a symbol of Christ.
The case for Jesus as the mamzer son of a Gentile and a girl (probably from the tribe of Levi) was best made by the archeologist James Tabor in print and online (yes I know, one of Them), following “The Foreigner: A Search for the First Century Jesus” by the Arabist and Mosleyite Desmond Stewart.
The Lukan genealogy which differs from Matthew is often explained as the ancestry of Mary, and there is another complex “solution” based on Levirate marriage that implausibly integrates them both. However, both genealogies are symbolically arranged and names added for special reasons, as the feminist Jane Schaberg, among other NY exegetes, has explained in her book on the illegitimacy of Jesus. Rape by a Roman is her explanation, but the sole candidate Julius Abdes Pantera, to judge by this middle name and timing of the “star(s)” of the Zoroastrian magi, could have been on a religious mission to provide the world with a long-awaited “savior” – as prophesied by Zoroaster according to the Syriac Infancy Gospel.
The “missing years” of Jesus could have been spent in preparation for his mission in some community of Therapeutae.
Douglas Reed’s opinions have been superseded by a vast amount of modern research into Galilee and NT origins, especially in the light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. You can still choose between Jesus the Myth (e.g. Carrier), Jesus the Jew (e.g. Vermes) and Jesus the Aryan (e.g. Grundmann).
All this pales in insignificance when the Archbishop of Canterbury tells us that generous accommodation of innumerable non-Christian migrants inside England is required by the “living presence” of Jesus, whatever that means in his case.
There are many writers, largely on the libertarian conservative perspective, who make these same points, not entirely valid.. I shall not list them, but merely observe that the “socialism” of Nazi and Fascist movements was based on collective love of the tribe, nation or race, not on the class-war basis of Marxism &c. There were statist elements in control of defense and police, but also control of banking and cultural health, plus major enterprises and public works. The Soviet system controlled manufacturing to an absurd degree, and ultimately its “public works” were slave-labour camps.
If only you knew as little about typing as you do about the subject on which you chose to comment.
You are way off. Like Carolyn said, communism is jewish internationalism, or world domination.
This is not nationalism in the normal sense. Nationalism for the Germans is not the same thing as jews running the entire world. There is no comparison.
Why are Jews never crushed in the Fourth Turning?
Barbara, the Ashkenazis who call themselves Jews but are not, ARE being crushed during this Fourth Turning. Trump moved the Fed into the US Treasury and bankrupted it along with the US Corporation (established in 1871 to replace US constitutional government) and all of the Rothschilds’ global Central Banks which the Fed funded. The Jews are being starved of funds and their personal fortunes and corporations are being confiscated.
Ron – Can you explain why the US Treasury is ending the dollar and forcing a digital currency upon us? The Jews have to be behind this don’t they? Of course I see Yankees as being like Jews. They always want to rule over everybody and they always make themselves universally hated just as Jews do by the way they treat other people who just want to be left alone. I see everything that is happening as being done to the world by international Jewry and white Yankee psychopaths who help them.
President Kennedy was assassinated, I believe, because he created a currency that had United States of America on it rather than Federal Reserve. If Trump did anything to threaten Jew banks I don’t see how he is still walking around unless the Jews somehow benefit and it’s part of their plan for world domination.
The US Treasury has no option. The US national debt of 33 Trillion USD means there’s incredible amounts of USD all around the world – worthless electronic digit (counterfeit) money provided to foreign nations in return for real goods. That’s why USans have lived high on the hog for the last 52 years and counting.
Now that the BRICS nations are establishing mechanisms for using their own money for international trade instead of the “Petrodollar” those nations and another 120 countries that are seeking to join the BRICS, no longer have any use for “Petrodollars” that their Treasuries are stuffed full of (because they were needed to finance international trade previously) BUT not now.
As those Petrodollars are returned to the US (AND the global financial system and all the banks collapse) the US will experience gross inflation in the volume of USD in the economy which means that the VALUE of the USD will plummet i.e. DEFLATE enormously.
THAT will mean that the cost of goods, if available, will INFLATE greatly.
Fortunately Trump knows this and steps have been taken to cushion the effect of what would otherwise be a money crisis like what occurred in Germany in 1923 and in Zimbabwe and Venezuela more recently.
When the crash happens it will look devastating BUT Trump is on side with the BRICS and the whole process is being covertly controlled so that the event (together with the coming kinetic events with which Russia will end the Ukraine SMO) will seem catastrophic in order to wake people up.
Normies still believe their governments and the MSM and don’t realise what’s really happening in our world. They HAVE to wake up if civilisation on this planet is to continue.
The “Jews” are the core of the problem and Israel will be dealt with to finish the cleansing of this planet.
Things are not what they seem. The Jews have concealed the truth for millennia and that’s why Trump, Putin and Xi et al, have had to conceal their activities also in order to defeat them.
When the banks and the internet go down for a week or three there’s likely to be mass panic in some big cities and that’s why there will be martial law and people are advised to stay home if possible.
Another Epstein won’t get funded. In fact the reverse is true. All the major banks are being bankrupted and most will be liquidated although they’ll probably continue to operate for awhile to enable everyone to exchange their current USD for the new rainbow currency being issued under the new asset backed, usury free monetary system that is to replace the Fed and the Rothschilds’ global Central Banks.
That is nice to know. Now everyone can relax.
Is the US Treasury funding another Epstein? They’re all being blackmailed.
And that brings us back to what? Monarchy?!?!?!?!?
Europe is all Monarchy, at least was anyway but the puzzling part is how many of those attending the treaty of Versailles were there on behalf of Mobarchy? And if that doesn’t bring up that prince who abdicated fir the love of an American girl and was all pro German?
What is going on?
This Jew turned Darwin’s “The Descent
of Man” into the opposite. Sounds better,
but is certainly (as always) a rotten egg.
Switch to the most optimal quality (480 pt)
His last act in life, because shortly after he died.
Such a great compassionate “humanist”! Surely these
“people” are not interested in murder and destruction?
See also Jew “zoologist” Lord/Baron Solly Zuckerman.
“During the Second World War, Bronowski worked in operations research for the UK’s Ministry of Home Security, where he developed mathematical approaches to bombing strategy for RAF Bomber Command.
At the end of the war, Bronowski was part of a British team of scientists and civil engineers that visited Japan to document the effects of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki for the purpose of studying the effects of the atomic bomb and its implications for future UK civil defence.”
Of course, Hitler had only non-Jews to work on his armaments and nuclear policies (though it is said that he had the futile wish to recall the brilliant scientist [and Ayn Rand lookalike] Lise Meitner from exile under his personal lucrative protection). The Manhattan Project was more kosher than Hollywood. Captured German scientists helped the post-WW2 weapons in the USSR.
The worst Americans in the U.S. Army were those of German descent (see Evil Eisenhower). Roughly comparable to WASPs who considered the British motherland an enemy. German inventiveness ultimately led to Germany’s downfall.
Balts and German Russians had already played a significant role in the establishment of the vast tsarist empire. Developers among the Russians were also often of German origin. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgy_Langemak
The same principle now applies to all whites. What we devised to optimize our society now serves all those who will plunder us and make us disappear. Faustian irony. The genie is out of the bottle and can’t be recaptured. One must not only invent, but also know why and for what.
The East Asians are smarter than we are: they steal the principles we have discovered and use them exclusively for themselves. While we squander our resources “out of Christian charity” on destructive Jews and Third Worlders, as an unmistakable invitation to plunder us as a never-ending self-service store.
The world’s first submarine (manually operated!) rots off the coast of Panama. The inventor was a German named Julius Kroehl, who inspired Jules Verne to his literary character “Captain Nemo”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYN-37N_eds
“The inventor of the first submarine to successfully dive deep, American [sic!] Julius H. Kroehl, died in Panama in 1867. Records indicate that his remains are located in the Amador Cemetery. The U.S. Embassy in Panama took the initiative to exhume the remains to be buried in the Corozal cemetery with military honors. The exhumation was carried out by U.S. archaeologist James Delgado, who has conducted extensive research on Julius Kroehl and his submarine.”
(The researcher speaks English after a minute.)
What about this?
Remarkable (however, also in terms of consequences: it ended up as an inescapable mass grave). Only now the definition of Kröhl’s invention becomes accessible to me, even though it was only launched a year later than the Hunley: “Since it was the first boat to resurface under its own power, it is considered the world’s first functioning submarine.”
This is actually, a great piece to share with your normie friends.
Thank you, Bobby. I’m always trying to connect with normies when I write.
Thank you all for such great comments. I selected a few which I thought were indicative of the major trends among them, and responded below. I hope this clarifies things. I also hope to pen a longer, more comprehensive response for TOO later this month.
“While it’s good to see it here here so it can be commented on, this is not the best article for clarifying the issues around the topic. For example, Quinn goes all out to show us Black’s “faux pas” in claiming that forcing Jews to leave Germany [pages 262–263 in Chapter 28] was equivalent to “the “speedy annihilation” of Jews,” he fails to appreciate that to Jews, being prevented from conducting business where it’s most comfortable and profitable for them IS seen by them as equal to “annihilation.” They don’t believe they are exaggerating or lying when speaking in those terms. It’s their *selective interpretation* which they all make use of and is especially evident when describing their suffering in the camps during the war. Edwin Black is identifying with this Jewish view by not picking up on this.”
Correct, and Black is not only wrong and dishonest but hysterical about it. My point: “speedy annihilation” does not mean “being prevented from doing business.”
“Another disappointment is that Quinn indulges in the *obligatory* DENIAL that the National Socialists could ever have been good guys, and says unconvincingly “Again, this is not to say that the Nazis … didn’t say or do horrible things to Jews. They certainly did. They were socialist totalitarians, and so could act with ruthless, top-down efficiency when they wanted to.” But not a single example of such “horrible things” they did to Jews. Quinn weakly writes, “I think it is safe to ASSUME that not all of the reports of murders, beatings, incarcerations, and other outrages were lies or embellishments.” Oh, really. Again, he doesn’t give a single example. In fact, most of those reports WERE indeed lies and embellishments! Quinn is in total ignorance here, just going along with the mainstream narrative to be on the safe side.”
Nothing obligatory, and keep in mind that this is a book review, not a proper history or an apologia for Nazism. I am taking the information the Black presents in TTA and demonstrating how it fails to establish checkmate against the Nazis and instead inadvertently shines a positive light on them. I believe that my review makes it clear that the Nazis were the good guys in the face of powerful warmongering Jews bent on their destruction. But this does not mean the Nazis were perfect or that they did nothing wrong. But I did point out that *most* of what the Nazis did wrong during the period Black chronicles, they did *in spite of* Nazi leadership, which was trying their best to enforce discipline. So we are talking about hooligans and radicals who went rogue and murdered/beat up/terrorized Jews.
According to Black that *did* happen. He describes how on April 7, 1933 a mob dragged a Jewish attorney out of jail and murdered him. On June9, 1933 Black describes Nazis breaking into a Jewish dressmaker’s home and torturing an 18-year-old boy. He offers a few other examples, but most cases involved Jews getting roughed up or intimidated. He also mentions Nazi “torture houses,” which I find hard to believe. Now, I accept that Black is not always reliable and that he has an axe to grind. Maybe these are all lies or embellishments? Maybe that Jewish attorney was some pedophile or pedophile enabler or an anti-German communist agitator. Or maybe not.
My whole point here was not necessarily to exonerate Nazi Germany but to take Black’s claims at their strongest and demonstrate how weak they are in the face of the evidence we can bring to the table. This I believe is something fence sitters on this issue would understand, and the best way to get people to appreciate our perspective. However, if Black’s position is weaker than it seems due to lies and embellishments, as many commenters claim, all the better.
“Quinn also thinks that Hitler’s anger when told by the Italian ambassador of Mussolini’s disapproval of NS anti-Semitism is “impossible to defend” — I guess because of this line: Hitler said he “could predict with absolute certainty” that in five or six hundred years the name of Adolf Hitler would be honored in all lands “as the man who once and for all exterminated the Jewish pest from the world.” I suspect very strongly that the word used was a form of “ausrotten”, meaning root out or eradicate, which has been discussed in great detail for years already as NOT meaning “exterminate” as in kill, murder but to drive out or to render harmless. Hitler was naive about this, but not genocidal.”
Fair enough. I don’t speak German, and missed that something could have been lost in translation. Toland lists the source of this quote to E. De Felice, Storia degli ebrei italiani sotto il fascismo (Turin, 1961). 113.
“The idea that somehow marginal scientific accomplishments by Jews somehow “balances out” the endless promotion of destructive degeneracy, racial destruction, etc. is ludicrous.”
I said that the bad Jewish stereotypes could *arguably* be balanced out by the good they do in the fields of medicine and science. Whereas you cannot even argue that Nazi Germany was in any way worse than Soviet Russia, which is a “model of Jewish supremacy.” This is an important distinction, one that may not be lost upon a person who is on the fence with this issue and knows a lot less than what most TOO commenters know.
“It annoys me when I read these well written “both sides are wrong” treatises on national socialist Germany. The “socialist totalitarian” indictment is a tell that the author is an americanist libertarian type. The fact that ten years of national socialism in Germany created a superior people, identity, race, culture, future, strength, morality, aesthetic, etc. I could go on, means that the ideology is inherently superior to the dead, pointless, empty, consumerist, degenerate, raceless, bloodless, futureless cesspit that this liberal system as wrought in the last 80 years. So yes, I guess totalitarian socialism is simply superior to American neoliberal freedom, bald eagles and capitalism. Period. It isn’t debatable.”
Not saying both sides are wrong. I am saying that one side was a lot less wrong than the other. Nobody’s perfect, and that includes the Nazis. And you are correct, I do have an “Americanist libertarian” streak, something I intend to address in a Counter-Currents article later this year. Still, I understand the dangers and limitations of libertarianism, so your points on all the good things Nazi Germany accomplished by breaking from the libertarian model are well taken.
Re-reading Carolyn Yeager’s snarky comments, I notice that she complained that, unlike herself, I don’t completely agree with Hitler’s view of the Jews, and that I have not explained instead what I think makes them tick. There has been no need, opportunity, or space and time, to do this subject justice here. If I had longer to live, it would be a most interesting project.
The fact that you re-read them all is a sign that you’re troubled by them, as you should be. Since you can’t show me to be wrong, you use the word “snarky” … again without explaining why you think they are.
“I don’t *completely* agree with Hitler’s view of the Jews”
What part DO you agree with? I haven’t heard one thing.
“… I have not explained instead what I think makes them tick (because) … There has been no need, opportunity, or space and time, to do this subject justice here.”
There was opportunity and space to say something at the end of my reply to you with that question. Now your excuse is that it requires “a project to do justice to it” — maybe a multi-year one? No one will fall for that, especially since you said it was your special interest.
Thanks to commenter Peter for also holding you to account for your “irrelevant” replies. Yes, your purpose here is to distract, and lessen the impact of the truth, whether it’s just your own idea to do so or you’re representing some Jewish interests.
Well said, Carolyn Yeager, for all of it, including:
“The fact is that ten years of national socialism in Germany created a superior people, identity, race, culture, future, strength, morality, aesthetic, etc. I could go on, means that the ideology is inherently superior to the dead, pointless, empty, consumerist, degenerate, raceless, bloodless, futureless cesspit that this liberal system as wrought in the last 80 years.”
The Luftwaffe could have flattened the jewel of the British cultural heritage, Oxford and Cambridge, in a single night, but didn’t. Whereas the Allies bombed all German universities and their libraries (20 of them), except one, Heidelberg. And of course they bombed the Island of Museums in Berlin.
It is perfectly possible to praise good features of National Socialism and Fascism, and to condemn Anglo-American carpet-bombing of cultural heritage targets and civilian homes in WW2, without having to be totally committed to Hitler’s ideas and actions; and there is something sadly weird about people who mistakenly discern evil motives or allege alien subservience in the more open minds of independent researchers.
Thanks, Harold, but I can’t take credit for someone else’s work. What you’ve quoted was written by “Dixieland88” in his or her excellent 4-point comment.
My final refutation of Carolyn Yeager’s delusion that her effusions worry me was posted but has not appeared at the end of this thread.
Yes, Carolyn. Dixieland88. I see it. Four points, all excellent. I‘m sorry.
For a long time, I have been learning from your insights. I have got far enough to see that Dixieland88 is right. I now understand the Lie. The Foundation Lie of Modern Western History, as it is called. Dixieland88 is not partly but absolutely right.
Dixieland88 speaks of the inherent superiority the Germans achieved in those ten years. This is clear from reading what the leaders said. (Not what is said about them.) Their inherently superior leadership was marked by high intelligence and perfect integrity.
Starting with their least mentally challenging utterance, the Party Program. Especially Point 11: The abolition of income gained without work or effort. The dissolution of interest slavery.
Colonising the neighbours was no longer allowed.
That leadership had support from 98% of the electorate in two referendums. It attracted the utmost dedication from the overwhelming mass of the German people. A country the size of Texas fought an alliance of three Empires, with combined economies three times larger, and populations many times larger, and it nearly won. Such support has never before been seen in human history, I would guess.
“Germany issued debt-free and interest-free money from 1935 and on, accounting for its startling rise from the depression to a world power in 5 years. Germany financed its entire government and war operation from 1935 to 1945 without gold and without debt, and it took the whole Capitalist and Communist world to destroy the German power over Europe and bring Europe back under the heel of the Bankers. Such history of money does not even appear in the textbooks of schools today.” Billions for the Bankers, Debts for the People (1984), Sheldon Emry
“The Third Reich was able to turn a bankrupt Germany, stripped of overseas colonies it could exploit, into the strongest economy in Europe within four years, even before armament spending began.” Henry C K Liu, Economist.
People of good character remain so. If the Geneva Convention says, do not bomb civilians, they do not suddenly turn bad and bomb civilians, because they get cross, or find fighting soldiers is too difficult.
The British leaders were of bad character. They were building Lancasters in 1936 to bomb civilians. The Germans went into the War with dive-bombers, to hit the target and nothing else. Their remedy against carpet bombers was defence, FLAK, and they shot down 75% of the bombers that came at them, fighting no civilians.
file:///tmp/HY3Tfm.jpg This table compares German and Allied bombing.
The German bombing in 1940/1941 Hitler described in speeches as “retaliation”, and he announced clearly when the retaliation was over. He speaks about the Allied bombing repeatedly and with the same disbelieving scorn as we heard after the My Lai massacre, when Seymour Hersh revealed that the Allies, now NATO, were waging their war against the civilians.
Basil Collier: ‘The Defence of the United Kingdom’, the HMSO’s official history:
“Although the plan adopted by the Luftwaffe early September had mentioned attacks on the population of large cities, detailed records of the raids made during the autumn and the winter of 1940–41 does not suggest that indiscriminate bombing of the civilians was intended. The points of aim selected were largely factories and docks. Other objectives specifically allotted to bomber-crews included the City of London and the governmental quarter round Whitehall.”
As Dixieland88 says, there are no shades of right and wrong. The leaders of Britain and the USA attacked Germany. The British ambassador, Sir Nevile Henderson, showed this in 1942, by printing at the end of his book, Failure of a Mission, the unrevealed final exchanges between Hitler and the British government.
Oxford and Cambridge were not harmed. The war criminals were the Allies.