Hitler's barbaric policies let to the formation of Israel

[he-man]

Just saw schindler's list again
Damn the guy was crazy(hitler)

 

[ExtraOdinary]

Just saw schindler's list again
Damn the guy was crazy(hitler)

Liam Neeson was just brilliant

 

[he-man]

Liam Neeson was just brilliant

Oh yeah..........but i liked amon the psycho nazi more

 

[Zabaniyah]

Zionism pre-dates Hitler's....."ideals".

Logically, it was Europe that was to give Jews a piece of land since it was their leaders who spearheaded the onslaught. However, Zionism; or rather - Jewish Nationalism focuses on the Holy Land. That is the heart of the ideology.

As a matter of fact, Hitler had a high opinion of Jews during his early years. He only had to make a scapegoat to further his plans for the domination of Europe and the world. The man was an expert orator.

 

[ExtraOdinary]

Oh yeah..........but i liked amon the psycho nazi more

I guess only Ralph Fiennes could have pulled off such a cold blooded character.

 

[gambit]

Factually incorrect.

The primary backers of Israel (Britain, US and France) were supporting Israel long before Hitler did anything.

And you missed the point...Which is that what Hitler did was the final push that sent people over the other side of anti-Semitism.

Anti-Semitism was tolerated as long as the acts were low level and low intensity. Instead, what Hitler did was so morally outrageous and offensive that it produced the opposite effects. Would the political state of Israel be created in spite of Hitler ? Who knows ? Any answer would be speculative and 50/50 of being correct. But look at the US with the Birmingham church bombing that killed four young black girls back in Sept 15, 1963 and see an example. Sure, blacks were already fighting for equality, but that bombing forced enough of the racist whites in America to examine themselves in the light of the Christian morality they professed to believe that the country began to steer in the opposite direction the hard core KKK would like to see.

 

[he-man]

I guess only Ralph Fiennes could have pulled off such a cold blooded character.

Cold,,,remember it was just a movie,reality would have been far more worse than this

 

[Developereo]

And you missed the point...Which is that what Hitler did was the final push that sent people over the other side of anti-Semitism.

No,as usual you missed the whole point of this thread's premise.

Would the political state of Israel be created in spite of Hitler ? Who knows ?

Only people who are ignorant of history do not know.

Anyone who knows history knows full well that support for Israel preceded Hitler by many, many decades.

Once again, anyone who knows history knows that Britain's support for Israel had NOTHING -- that's zip, zero, nada -- to do with Hitler's policies on Jews. It has to do with Russia.

The US support for Israel also preceded Hitler by decades.

It's fine for people to pontificate about how history "might have been", but people who know the sequence of events don't need to guess.

And, just to complicate things, there is a school of thought that believes that the West's support for Israel is based on anti-Semitism -- to get rid of Jews from Europe.

 

[gambit]

No,as usual you missed the whole point of this thread's premise.



Only people who are ignorant of history do not know.

Anyone who knows history knows full well that support for Israel preceded Hitler by many, many decades.

Once again, anyone who knows history knows that Britain's support for Israel had NOTHING -- that's zip, zero, nada -- to do with Hitler's policies on Jews. It has to do with Russia.

The US support for Israel also preceded Hitler by decades.

It's fine for people to pontificate about how history "might have been", but people who know the sequence of events don't need to guess.

And, just to complicate things, there is a school of thought that believes that the West's support for Israel is based on anti-Semitism -- to get rid of Jews from Europe.

Local Allied commanders marched local Germans past the liberated emaciated prisoners to show the Germans what they were complicit to. This is not about the technical aspects on how the political state of Israel was created but about morality. And why is it worthy of criticism that I or any non-Muslims who guess on Israel when there is no shortage of Muslims who pontificate on whether Jews should be allowed Israel or not. Yours is just another attempt to reduce the moral impact of what Hitler did.

 

[Penguin]

Even though i am on A.P. Richelieu's ignore list i will address the fallacious points he brought up just for the benefit of others:


1). Austria was German and a great majority of Austrians voted to be a part of Germany, which is why the League of Nations did not interfere in an attempt to prevent the Austro-German union. There was a 99% approval amongst the Austrian population under a plebiscite held by the Dollfuss-Schuschnigg regime which mind you was an anti-Hitler gov.t.

On the morning of 12 March, the 8th Army of the German Wehrmacht crossed the border to Austria.
The plebiscite was held on 10 April and officially recorded a support of 99.7% of the voters.

Having knowledge of on goings inside German, and with your country occupied by a foreign military, would you vote for or against anschluss? And how about the possibility of FRAUD?

Schuschnigg scheduled a plebiscite on the issue of unification for 13 March. By the next day, it became apparent that Hitler would not simply stand by while Austria declared its independence by public vote. Hitler himself declared that the referendum would be subject to major fraud and that Germany would not accept it. Hitler sent an ultimatum to Schuschnigg on 11 March, demanding that he hand over all power to the Astrian Nazi's or face an invasion.

We all know how that ended.

 

[Penguin]

No,as usual you missed the whole point of this thread's premise.



Only people who are ignorant of history do not know.

Anyone who knows history knows full well that support for Israel preceded Hitler by many, many decades.

Once again, anyone who knows history knows that Britain's support for Israel had NOTHING -- that's zip, zero, nada -- to do with Hitler's policies on Jews. It has to do with Russia.

The US support for Israel also preceded Hitler by decades.

It's fine for people to pontificate about how history "might have been", but people who know the sequence of events don't need to guess.

And, just to complicate things, there is a school of thought that believes that the West's support for Israel is based on anti-Semitism -- to get rid of Jews from Europe.

I think that perspective is a bit one dimensional. For example, there is a difference between elite political support and mass public support. Clearly, the rise of the Nazis led to a migration wave, prior to WW2 and again shortly after it. Which gave critical mass and moventum to the zionist ideal. Would Isreal NOT have come in to existence as a State without Hitler and WW2? Probably not, but there would have been a significantly different dynamic and world. And a very different today.

That was the German publics reaction to the assassination of the German ambassador in France at the hands of the Jewish Communist Herschel Grynszpan. The German gov.t did not condone their actions and tried to control the attacks on Jewish businesses. The Americans reacted in a similar manner towards the Japanese Americans during the aftermath of the pearl Harbor attack

Kristallnacht was a pogrom (a series of coordinated attacks) against Jews throughout Nazi Germany and Austria on 9–10 November 1938, carried out by SA Paramilitary forces and non-Jewish civilians. German authorities looked on without intervening. Nonetheless, 30,000 were arrested and incarcerated in concentration camps (which makes is not a 'german public' reaction, but an institutional reaction)

Ernst vom Rath died of his wounds on 9 November. Word of his death reached Hitler that evening while he was with several key members of the Nazi party at a dinner commemorating the 1923 Beel Hall Putch. After intense discussions, Hitler left the assembly abruptly without giving his usual address. Propaganda Minister Goebbels then delivered the speech, in his place, and said that "the Führer has decided that... demonstrations should not be prepared or organized by the party, but insofar as they erupt spontaneously, they are not to be hampered." The chief party Judge Walter Buch later stated that the message was clear; with these words Goebbels had commanded the party leaders to organize a pogrom.

We call that incitement to riot...

 

[Penguin]

He did so at the request of Franco and also due to the threat of Communism spreading into Western Europe which was a fear shared by every European, not just Hitler. Why else do you think NATO was established after WW2?? Because anyone with a brain understood the threat posed by Communism which had an internationalist agenda.

Of course, the Spanish Civil War that broke out 17 July 1936 and lasted to 1 April 1939, was between the Republicans, who were loyal to the democratically elected Spanish Republic, and the Nationalists, a rebel group led by General Franco.

The war began after a declaration of opposition by a group of generals of the Spanish Republican Armed Forces, under the leadership of Jose Sanjurjo, against the elected government of the 2nd Spanish Republic , at the time under the leadership of President Manuel Azana. The rebel coup was supported by a number of conservative groups, including the Spanish COnfederation of the Autonomous Right, monarchists such as the religious conservative Carlists, and the Fascist Falange.

The coup was supported by military units in Morocco, Pamplona, Burgos, Valladolid, Cádiz, Cordoba, and Seville. However, rebelling units in important cities - Madird, Barcelona, Valancia, Bilbao, Malaga - were unable to capture their objectives, so those cities remained under the control of the legitimate government. Spain was thus left militarily and politically divided. The Nationalists, led by General Francisco Franco, and the Republican government fought for control of the country. The Nationalist forces received munitions and soldiers from Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, while the Soviet Union and ... Mexico (!) intervened in support of the "Loyalist", or "Republican", side. Other countries, such as Britain and France, operated an official policy of non-intervention, although France did send in some munitions (to the Republicans).

So while Franco may have requested the Condor Legion, Franco was a not the legitimate leader of Spain at that time.

 

[Penguin]

Do you support the allied bombing of Dresden? Or what about the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki??
Do you support Churchill's starvation of indians during the Bengal Famine?

Question is : can you really compare the situation in 1937 with that of 1945? In 1939, the air bombardment of a city center, targeting civilian population, was a novelty. By 1945, all sides and main players had engaged in it. Does that make it moral behaviour? No, it doesn't. Guernica may have been considered as a military target, being a communication center not too far from the battle line. The Germans bombed Guernica in a deliberate attempt to destroy the entire town. Mostly the professionals were against is but politicals hammerd it home. You reap what you sow.

As for the Bengal Famine (of 1943), it is again a little more complex and less one dimensional as you put it.
Bengal famine of 1943 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[MOHSENAM]

Creating israel was a very old plan from colonial jackals.

 

[Penguin]

Yes, everything pointed in that direction. After all those Jewish migrants were claiming what is now Palestine and Israel as their land. They did not migrate to Madagascar.

In 1948? Sooner? Later? How so?
In what manner? (UN is post WW2, as are the superpowers as such, as is the decline of the Britisch Empire)
You can't pretend or seriously claim that Hitler, Nazism, WW2, Holocaust didn't have an impact.

Creating israel was a very old plan from colonial jackals.

So was your inception.