The truth about Hitler?

Craven, Jim jcraven at clark.edu
Wed May 21 09:40:33 MDT 2003


Johannes wrote:

Jim wrote:

>
> I think explicit support by elements of the German Jewish bourgeoisie
> was limited and largely covert.

Yeah, because it was all a secret Jewish conspiracy no documents can be
found today. I have a word in my dictionary for people who argue like this.

Response Jim C: What would that word be? Are you suggesting that I am an
anti-Semite or someone arguing "Jewish Conspiracies?" I only argue that
among elements of the German Jewish Bourgeoisie, many of whom had been
highly assimilated--and were proud of it--and some of whom had been in the
German military, they were far more class conscious than conscious of any
"Jewishness" and were tied in with arch-Conservatives like von Pappen and
von Schleicher who helped to lay the foundations of later fascism and were
later even openly pro-Hitler. Further, in the Jewish communities, some of
them openly preached accomodation with the nazis, preached that any
anti-Semitism by the nazis was mere rhetoric and not much to be concerned
about, openly preached anti-communism and that Jews should never ally with
communists or socialists in some kind of united front against fascism.

Johannes writes (quoting my quote from Rigg):

> It also depends upon how one
> defines "What is a Jew?"

Certainly. We just define Hugo Stinnes, Fritz Thyssen, Gustav Krupp von
Bohlen und Halbach as Jews and we can prove Jewish backing for Hitler.

> as Bryan Rigg starts out his book "Hitler's Jewish
> Soldiers: The Untold Story of Nazi Racial Laws and Men of Jewish
> Descent
in
> the German Military."

This does not prove anything here. German army was (and is) a conscription
army. There were even communists inside the Hitler's army. It would be
absurd to say the Communists supported Hitler.

> Hitler personally
> certified a number of prominent Jews as being "of pure or Aryan blood
> for NSDAP purposes."

All the cases apply to 'Mischlinge', not to Jews (in the sense of the
Nurremberg laws). There was one prominent case (Erhard Milch, who had a
Jewish father) and it was Goering and not Hitler. The cases documented by
Rigg have to be seen in the context of the desperate demand of the German
army for conscripts. In our context (Jewish support for Hitler) it is
irrelevant.

Response (Jim C): I think that Johannes has not read Rigg's book and its
documentation. The so-called "Mischlinge" or "partial Jews" is a concept of
the Nuremberg Laws alone; in Judaism there is no concept of a partial Jew.
As Rigg notes, originally the questions what/who is a Jew was someone born
of a Jewish father (during biblical times) and later someone born of a
Jewish mother or who has properly converted to Judaism. Rigg also notes that
there is no concept of becoming a non-Jew after being recognized as a Jew.
But it is important to note that in the documentation Rigg provides, not all
were conscripts and many took steps to hide any supposed Jewish "blood" in
their family backgrounds; others were given exemptions in writing.

But the bottom line is that the Zionists haver never had a problem dealing
with anti-Semites and the early Zionists, like Theodore Hertzl himself in
his first entry to his diary, saw anti-Semitism as quite "natural" (the same
kind of nationalist "instinct" as the Zionists themselves had and therefore
quite understandable as well as useful in recruiting for the Zionist causes
and/or building solidarity and separateness (or smashing alliances between
Jews and non-Jews) in the Jewish communities.

See Tom Segev's "The Seventh Million" or Raul Hilberg's work on
collaborations between elements of the German Jewish community and
conservatives and even outright nazis.


>From Tom Segev, "The Seventh Million: Israelis and the Holocaust" Hill
and Wang, NY, 1993

" On January 31, 1933, the day after Hitler became chancellor, the
independent liberal daily 'Haaretz' decried this 'hugely negative historical
event'. Ten days later it ran a headline that read, 'BLACK DAYS IN
GERMANY.'The paper followed the ongoing 'anti-Semitic horror', but during
those first weeks it, like the British press, generally aimed at reassuring
its readers:

'One must suppose that Hitlerism will now renounce terrorist methods:
government brings responsibility.' the right-wing 'Doar Hayom' agreed:
'There can be no doubt that Hitler the chancellor will be different from the
Hitler of the public rallies.' But from the start, 'Davar'--the left-wing
daily published by the Histadrut (Labor Federation)--was more pessimistic:
'It was a bitter and ill-fated day when the New Vandal came to power', the
newspaper wrote the day after the change of government in Germany. It
described Hitler as a man of hate and demagoguery who would 'tear Jews out
by their roots.' " (p 17)

"More than anything else, though, the rise of the Nazis was seen as
confirming the historical prognosis of Zionist ideology. 'Hapoel Hatsair'
described the nazi persecution of the Jews as 'punishment for their having
tried to integrate into German society instead of leaving for Palestine
while it was still possible to do so.' Now they would have to run in a panic
'like mice in flight', the paper said. 'The Jews of Germany are being
persecuted now not despite their efforts to be part of their country but
because of those efforts.' The holocaust would later be the primary argument
for the establishment of the State of Israel and for its wars of survival."
(p. 18)

"Ben-Gurion hoped that the Nazis victory would become 'a fertile force' for
Zionism." (p. 18)

"The 'haavara' ('transfer') agreement--the Hebrew term was used in the Nazi
documents as well--was based on the complementary interests of the German
government and the Zionist movement: the Nazis wanted the Jews out of
Germany; the Zionists wanted them to come to Palestine. But there was no
such mutuality of interests between the Zionists and German Jewry. Most
German Jews would have preferred to stay in their country. The tension
between the interests of the 'yishuv' [Jewish community in Palestine] (and,
in time, the State of Israel) and those of world Jewry was to become a
central motif in the story of the Israelis' attitude to the Holocaust."
(p.20)

"The revisionist right, by contrast, had long been sympathetic to Benito
Mussolini's Fascism and now and then even to Adolf Hitler's Naziism--except,
of course, his anti-Semitism. Betar, Jabotinsky's youth movement, fostered
classic Fascist ideas and forms. In 1928, Abba Ahimeir, a well-known
Revisionist journalist, had a regular column, 'From the Notebook of a
Fascist', in the newspaper 'Doar Hayom'. In anticipation of Jabotinsky's
arrival in Palestine, he wrote an article titled 'On the Arrival of Our
Duce' " (p. 23)

"Four years later, in early 1932, Ahimeir was among those brought to trial
for disrupting a public lecvture at Hebrew University. The incident and the
resulting trial are worthy of note only because of a declaration by defense
attorney Zvi Eliahu Cohen in response to a speech by the prosecutor
comparing the disruption of the lecture with the Nazi disturbances in
Germany. 'The comment on the Nazis', Cohen said, 'went too far. Were it not
for Hitler's anti-Semitism, we would not oppose his ideology. Hitler saved
Germany.' This was not an unconsidered outburst; the Revisionist paper
'Hazit Haam' praised Cohen's 'brilliant speech.' " (p. 23)

"...[from Hazit Haam] 'Social Democrats of all stripes believe that Hitler's
movement is an empty shell.', the newspaper explained, but 'we believe that
there is both a shell and a kernel. The anti-Semitic shell is to be
discarded, but not the anti-Marxist kernel. The Revisionists, the newspaper
wrote, would fight the Nazis only to the extent that they were
anti-Semites." (p. 23)

to be continued...




More information about the Marxism mailing list