A Crossroads in History

[Flyby PC 23]

Sorryyyyy????!!!

I have not read "Mein Kampf" myself, but the Nazis mostly had.

The author Adolf Hitler wrote this before he became "Reichskanzler", and he declared the Jews as the common enemy in his book.

 

When Hitler moved to Vienna he was upset by the antisemitism he saw there. To quote Mein Kampf - “For the Jew was still characterized for me by nothing but his religion, and therefore, on grounds of human tolerance, I maintained my rejection of religious attacks in this case as in others. Consequently, the tone, particularly that of the Viennese anti-Semitic press, seemed to me unworthy of the cultural tradition of a great nation",

 

Now the context of what Hitler said in Mein Kampf is open to question, particularly in the light of what subsequently happened. Was he genuine? Hard to believe he was.

 

 

 

And Cptroyce, don't forget the remarks were based on US involvement in WW1. EVERYTHING was different when WW2 came along, not least the UK being left to fight alone, and the material support from the US was much more important. Don't forget too, the US backing in WW1 which the quote refers to made the war winnable instead of extended stalemate. Nobody could have predicted the consequences at the time.

[Hauksbee 103]

When Hitler moved to Vienna he was upset by the antisemitism he saw there. Now the context of what Hitler said in Mein Kampf is open to question, particularly in the light of what subsequently happened. Was he genuine?

Upset? I'd like to see chapter and verse on that one. He was an anti-semite right from the git-go. He says, straight up, in his student days, he saw Jews on the street in Vienna. Strange folk in long coats, odd beaver hats and long, curley earlocks. He was shocked at their oddness. His first reaction was, "Are these really Jews?". And the answer was ,"Yes". The second question he posed to himself was, "But, are these odd folk really Germans?" And the answer was, of course, "No".

 

It's difficult to see how easily we speak these days of the "Judeao-Christian" tradition. But this comes only in the wake of the WWII Holocaust. Prior to WWII there was no inate sense of continuity between Judiasm and the Christians. The Jew was the eternal outsider. The killer of Christ. My parents, who were not really angry or viscious people, spoke easily about blacks and Jews. Blacks? They could talk about "working like a niggar." and then turn around and say "lazy as a niggar" and never see the contradiction. This kind prejudice was not seen as unusual in the 50's, less so in the 30's and 40's. It was simply the color of the background. And, for my money, I can't see it upseting Adolf one damned bit.

Edited May 31, 2012 by Hauksbee

[Flyby PC 23]

Don't think for a minute I'm defending Hitler or antisemitism, but in Europe at the turn of last century, Hitlers attitude towards the Jews was hardly uncommon, but all too common throughout most of Europe. I'm not talking about the grotesque inhumanities which came to pass, but earlier, before the true monster within revealed itself.

 

Isn't it the basis of all preudice that it stems from a fundamental ignorance?

Edited May 31, 2012 by Flyby PC

[ConradB 0]

I'm assuming here that you mean 'if America had not not intervened'. In 1917 both sides were nearly bled white. Absent the United States, I can't see who would be in a sufficiently strong position to dictate terms of peace, draconian or otherwise. And America wasn't just poking its nose in other peoples business. The hot-button issue was unrestricted submarine warfare culminating in the sinking of the Luisitania. Worse yet, the Zimmerman Telegram, in which Germany is trying to coax Mexico into harrying the U.S. on the southern border to take the heat off Germany, with the promise of restoring California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas to Germany. That sort of thing has to be answered.

 

Interestingly, I have a u-boat history book that talks about the blockade of Germany by the Royal Navy, and with no surface fleet to take them on, Germany used u-boats to blockade Britain.

 

Woodie Wilson, is rather interesting, as he turns a blind eye to the Royal Navy blockading Germany, ie, starving German civilians and troops, and then turns around condems the German U-boats for doing the same thing. Starving British civilians and children.

 

And let us not forget the Lafayette Escadrille. Americans flying for France as mercs, but America was supposed to be neutral. Neutral my butt. America's position was declared long before she entered the war.

 

War Is A Racket is a good one.

 

As the author was quoted, "...... the only time we should take up arms, is to defend our homes directly, and the Bill of Rights."

 

One of Butler's most widely quoted statements:

"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."

 

Read it for free, it's only 5 chapters:

http://www.barefootsworld.net/warisaracket.html

 

And the author? USMC Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler. 2 time recipient of the MOH, and until WWII, the most decorated Marine in American history. But he was asked by Wallstreet to lead a 500k strong army to oust FDR, which included the Morgans, Rockefellers, and even the Bush family. He went along with them to find out who was calling the shots, and when he did, he dimed them out. And in return, since they were in control of the media, he was smeared by them, calling him a coward, and a communist. Well, they were great friends with the Hearst family who controlled the main media outlets, so it was inevitable.

 

And Congress, well they conveniently ignored his testimony to their inquiry. Gee, I wonder why? Maybe because they were beholden to those involved?

[Olham 164]

Don't think for a minute I'm defending Hitler or antisemitism, but in Europe at the turn of last century,

Hitlers attitude towards the Jews was hardly uncommon, but all too common throughout most of Europe.

That seems to be - sadly - true. You found anti-semitism in most other nations too.

Only recently I started reading Graham Greene's "Stambul Train / Orient-Express", which appeared (I think) 1932.

And the tone with which he describes the Jew in the train, made me really wonder.

 

The sad story is, that the Jews earlier on during centuries, were excluded out from the guilds of craftsmen

(at least in Germany) and many other well respected jobs (afaik). The jobs which remained possible for

them (most outstanding negative "job": moneylender and shylock - a job that was needed in desperate

situations, but at the same time often caused very bad feelings against the moneylender) put them in a negative

light. Also, they partly seemed to "ghettoise" themselves somehow, through their religious and other attitudes,

marrying only among Jewish people, instead of ever merging with the populations, where they were living.

All other people who moved during the Migration Period, have merged with the people, where they arrived.

Not so the Jews. Seems they always were in this dilemma since hundreds of years.

 

But I'm aware that I may have a naive view on all this - I haven't read any good books on these points.

 

.

Edited May 31, 2012 by Olham

[Olham 164]

After a little research in WIKI, I have found that already in the Kaiserreich even famous men

from the so called intelligentsia had anti-semitic prejudices.

(Unfortunately these WIKI sites are not available in English - I tried a translation of excerpts).

 

http://de.wikipedia....emitismusstreit

 

In 1880/81 the so called "Antisemiten-Petition" requested from the Reichskanzler Otto von Bismark,

the withdrawal of essential Equality Laws for Jews.

On 18 February 1981 the Synagoge of Neustettin was set on fire, and anti-Jewish turmoil occured.

 

Other representatives of the leading intellectual life in Germany released a pro-Jewish declaration,

the "Notablen-Erklärung" (Theodor Mommsen, Johann Gustav Droysen, Rudolf von Gneist and

Rudolf Virchow). In the declaration they protested against the "revival of an old mania".

 

Bismark, who had at times instrumentalised the anti-semitic movements to weaken the Liberals,

ignored the "Anti-semitic Petition". The Vice President of the Prussian Ministry of State, Count Otto

zu Stolberg-Wernigerode, declared in the Reichstag, that the governement "did not think of changing

anything in the Equality Laws for Jews".

Rudolf Virchow named this answer "correct, but cold up to the heart".

 

The Anti-semitic Petition had been signed by 250.000 peoples.

Edited May 31, 2012 by Olham

[Flyby PC 23]

I think history is best found out rather than taught. People telling you history too often have their own agenda lurking beneath the surface. Listen by all means, but dig, check, take nothing for granted. Read the 'loser's' side of the story....

 

Also read George Orwell's 1984.

 

 

 

 

 

Edit Yes Conrad B, poigniant comments. But you have to remember whose side those manipulative capitalists are on. Butler may have found his paymasters activities and moral politics weren't to his liking, but how patriotic would he have felt if the Soviet or Chinese Big Business had opened up South America and built up their financial muscle right on America's doorstep? If you take the King's shilling, you march to the drumbeat.

Edited May 31, 2012 by Flyby PC

[Bullethead 12]

Woodie Wilson, is rather interesting, as he turns a blind eye to the Royal Navy blockading Germany, ie, starving German civilians and troops, and then turns around condems the German U-boats for doing the same thing. Starving British civilians and children.

 

I agree that the RN's blockade was just as pernicious as the U-boat war. However, from the POV of neutrals on the outside, it looked a lot better.

 

The RN blockade was imposed by cruiser warfare following all the accepted rules of the time. Would-be blockade runners were intercepted and sent into Brit ports with no lives or ships lost. And because the Brits needed the same things from the same suppliers as the Germans, they didn't want to offend those suppliers. Thus, they'd often buy the contraband cargo instead of just confiscating it. And this meant a lot of shippers got paid twice for the same load, because they'd make the Germans pay in advance due to the blockade catching more than 90% of ships bound for Germany. So, this process was a lot more acceptable to neutrals than having their ships and people blown out of the water with no warning.

 

The RN blockade also largely controlled the flow of information from Europe. Very little the Germans said ever crossed the ocean, at least in quantity sufficient to influence public opinion. But the taps of Entente propaganda were wide open. For every German complaint about starving civilians, there were hundreds of headlines about the atrocities of the "Beastly Hun". And of course, the U-boat campaign compared to the RN blockade, as they both affected neutrals, played right into this.

 

And let us not forget the Lafayette Escadrille. Americans flying for France as mercs, but America was supposed to be neutral. Neutral my butt. America's position was declared long before she entered the war.

 

There were plenty of German-Americans who'd have fought for the Kaiser in the same way, if given the chance. However, it was much, much harder for them to get to Germany than it was for Entente-sympathizers to get to France. Again, because of the RN blockade.

 

War Is A Racket is a good one.

 

Too bad Gen. Butler didn't oust FDR. That man was an actual communist. He even sent is Secretary of the Interior to Stalin's USSR to learn about the collectivization of agriculture, so he could apply it to the US.

 

But anyway, what's the problem with war being a racket? At least it serves some practical purpose that way, instead of just being senseless violence. Since the 1st 2 tribes of cavemen fought over access to hunting territory, most wars have been fought for economic reasons. What "defending our way of life" actually boils down to is "preventing others from lowering our standard of living".