Denying Nazi-Zionist Collusion

This is a current event?

quote:

"Hannah Arendt, in her 1960 book 'Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil' writes: 'To a Jew this role of the Jewish leaders in the destruction of their own people is undoubtedly the darkest chapter of the whole dark sky.'

a 1940 letter from underground Zionist terrorist leader Avraham Stern proposed that Jewish militias would fight on Germany's side in exchange for Nazi help in creating an 'historic Jewish state'.

In 'What Price Israel' American Council for Judaism member Alfried Lilienthal describes FDR's efforts to set-up a program to rescue refugees, only to find Zionists sabotaging it. Roosevelt explained: 'The Zionist movement knows that Palestine is and will be for some time, a remittance society. They know that they can raise vast sums for Palestine by saying to donors, 'There is no other place this Jew can go.

In 'The Seventh Million: The Israelis and the Holocaust', Israeli historican Tom Segev quotes Zionist leader and future Israeli PM David Ben Gurion: 'If I knew that it was possible to save all the Jewish children of Germany by transporting them to England, but only half of them by transporting them to Palestine, I would choose the second.'

Segev writes that Ben Gurion warned that 'the human conscience' might cause various countries to open their doors to Jewish refugees from Germany and saw this as a threat, warning 'Zionism is in danger'."

Can someone explain the point of this thread. This is complex territory I admit, but other than causing a stir is there any real strategy here?

More like trying to piss people off...too few know much about this time and the CounterPunch piece speaks to the issue in a very superficial way...hundreds of thousands were being murdered what a devils choice Jewish leaders had to make all the time...this has more to do with understanding human fraility than Zionism.

The emphasiszed bit is obviously false as illustrated by the words of Ben Gurion quoted above:


The other canard on this thread is that it is old news, or merely meant to irritate. If one actually reads the article it is about the very contemporary disinformation and suppression of the facts through the mainstream media involving the Sacramento Bee and McClatchy news service--ETA--with the added play of anti-Muslim propaganda which is now at an epidemic level in the US.

Suggesting all Zionists, or even the majority, were Hitler's accomplices at the time would indeed be inexcusable--though I don't see where anyone has said that. A red herring?

That said, the opening post does not capture the current  events content and focus of the article cited.

 

 

The Never Again for Anyone tour cited in the article, featured Auschwitz survivor Dr Hajo Meyer. Here are some selections from an interview in which Meyer likens Zionism to Nazism;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGa4heNE-SA&feature=player_embedded

good collusion picture

http://www.daylife.com/photo/004L3IT0tI95w?q=Israel

NDPP, its clear to me now that your only goal here is mischief.

There's an easy way to quiet the "Jews collaborated with Hitler" crowd - start talking about how the west aided and abetted Hitler and the Nazis leading up to WW II, and then basically welcomed Nazi war criminals with open arms policies after western aggression against the Russian revolution part two was cancelled by the Sovs.

 Washington Post Explains How the Nazi-Created CIA Protects Us

and, Gladio: The Ringmasters BBC part 1

Bertie's brother, the Duke of Windsor was a collaborator, actually, along with his wife, not Bertie. ("Bertie", nickname for George VI, lifted from THe King's Speech"   :)

(see Timothy Findley's Famous Last Words)

Ridiculous? I dunno. I'm not following this thread very closely, but the views of Nazi racists that wanted to ethnically cleanse Europe of Jews and the views of Zionist racists that wanted to set up a Jewish homeland OUTSIDE of Europe (for those very same European Jews) obviously overlapped. I don't think it's a stretch at all. Don't forget the political rivals of the Zionists were precisely those who had labour and/or socialist political views along with their Jewish ethnicity.

However, it hardly seems like current events. I'm one of those who are of the view that Zionism is simply another form of racism ... but it is the actions of the Israeli regime, and its funders and supporters, that are of current interest and importance. The religious ideology no more determines the political economy of Israel any more than the fundamentalist Christian ideology determines US foreign policy. Sure there is a relationship but the tail does not wag the dog.

Anyway, fill your boots NDPP. There's lots to learn.

Apparently Noam Chomsky was a Zionist at a time when being a Zionist did not mean expropriating land from Palestinians and treating them like non-citizens.

One appreciates more and more the work of people like Howard Zinn, Peter Linebaugh or those authors above like Segev, whose probings into hidden histories, can so powerfully impact our awareness and understanding of how things got to be how they are. Yves Engler probes the long history of Canada's support for Zionism in his book - stretching back to the late 19th century even, largely based upon their shared common core  basis of euro settler-ideology and percieved historical mission to 'cleanse' and colonize. The results are alas all too genocidally obvious. No wonder this staunch support continues today.  Suddenly too, the otherwise perhaps incomprehensible phenomenon of the JDL formally allying itself with blatantly anti-semitic, neo-nazi formations like Haider in Austria or the English EDL, on the basis of their xenophobic racist, fascist islamophobia, aka 'political Islam' becomes much easier to understand when one learns that these poisons share commonalities and have met before.

I agree with Unionist.

But probably think more strongly that this is a typical lefty attempt to tar whatever with the most sensationalist associations available.

You cannot count on two hands the number of groups/interests who were doing deals with the devil to help Jews in Europe... many of them conflicting, some of the selling out or betraying other efforts.

Sick times produce people engaging in desperate measures.

The intellectual integrity of tarring by association is suspect. And on the practical level: to honestly refute the readily available and credible counter-arguments inherently becomes tendentious.

Victor Klemperer and his wife found the movement of a few German Jews able to move to Palestine an unacceptable encroachment on the Palestinian people...and compared it to the European takeover of First Nation's land in the Western Hemisphere.

He was writing as a resident of Dresden, even while losing his teaching rights in the first year of Hitler's reign as chancelor. I could not find in his later diary entries any evidence of a change of heart on that score, even as the couple were reduced to complete penury and they were among only a handful remaining in Dresden's Jewish community near war's end. And I've no means of finding out whether their totally principled stand was peculiar to an intellectual strata in his country/Europe, or was more universal in scope.

This is definately not "a current event". A people's history is not a good way to measure their current status.

That being said, lets look at history - it is likely true that many Jews collaborated with the Nazis. They were throwing their chips in with the dominant force of the day. Furthermore, going back in history, Jews had collaborated with the 6th and 7th century Muslim "crusades" in the middle east where the Jews would throw in with the invaders, and agree to hold a town until the Muslims returned  while the Muslim army moved on to conquer other areas. [I heard that on a History Channel show last night].

Some Norwegians also collaborated with Nazis in WWII. An honorable excuse would be that they did it to survive the day so they could fight a winnable battle later on. Or, perhaps they were cowards, Quislings, opportunists, traitors, etc.. For sure, FEAR was a major incentive for collaboraters of any race.

There is a case to be made to say that the USA was the biggest supporter of Nazi Germany. In the 1930's there was a lot of concern about the USSR [Russians, for you younger ones] taking over Europe, and that the best defense against the USSR was support the German military [and a lot of other strategy that is too complex to go into here... I have links if you want].

The USA's oil companies were supplying Hitler's military machine with fuel from their own refineries. Without that fuel, the Nazi war machine would have ground to a halt, ending WWII much earlier that it did. American industrialists were more than willing to make a profit from fuel and weapons sales to Nazi Germany.

 

But here were are today - Germans, Jews, Norwegians, and Americans are not the same as their ancestors. Collaboration is not a genetic thing, not as far as we know anyhow. Racism is about seeing a race of people as all the same, when in fact they are all individuals. In fairness, if we have to be critical of actions taken, we should only condemn one person at a time, not by race and not by ancestory. It is wrong to judge an entire people on the basis of individual actions.

So there, pffffft.

 

 

 

 

Hard to take  seriously your concerns  of collaboration during the Holocaust if you don't know what the Judenrat were, NDPP.

I fail to see how this trip down history lane is germane to the actions of the modern state of Israel. Nothing you post is news to historians of the era.

I shall as have others in this thread.

I think you got it all backwards; more like Hitler was a Zionist puppet. Without the help of the international banking community he wouldn't have been able to do anything. The reason of course was to establish Israel. Jews had almost 1800 yrs to go back to the homeland, but they weren't interested.  Not until it was demonstrated in Pennsylvania that oil could be captured by drilling oil wells, and they've known for thousands of years there was oil (bitumen) in the middle east, and that it was necessary to get a beachhead in that part of the world so the English could do what they do best which is rule by divide and disrupt. Theodor Herzl is the voice that makes a case for the Israel homeland (and given enough press and publishing so that we all know who and what he had to say) Churchhill makes the case for military advantage by converting a navy from coal to oil, and sets the groundwork for Israel in the Balfour declaration. Then it was just a matter of creating economic conditions that would allow someone like Hitler to tramatize the German jews into leaving comfortable Europe for a desert nobody cared about. [ comment on the consequences of the holocaust retracted at moderators request] If it wasn't for oil driling, and oil in the middle east, Israel/Palestein would still be back in the 1700's with Jews and Arabs in peaceful coexistence.

Banking With Hitler 1 5 BBC History Channel

Yes, there were collaborators in low places.