Hitler's barbaric policies let to the formation of Israel

[Desert Fox]

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.

If Hitler's invasion of Austria was a so called "occupation" and the plebiscite was a fraud held under the guns of German troops where Austrians were forced to vote in favor of Hitler (as absurd as that sounds), then how come there wasn't a mass appeal from the population to the league of Nations for intervention because Britain and France had the military advantage of threatening Hitler into backing off as they did during the Saar plebiscite?? Or, better yet, why were German troops welcomed into Austria by the masses and why wasn't there a single incident of resistance or uprising against the Germans from the civilian population throughout the entire 1938-1945 time period??

BTW, Austrian border guards lifting obstacles to allow German troops to enter Austria:

Hitler sticking his head out of his car carelessly in Austria, why wasn't he assassinated by an angry Austrian the Archduke Franz Ferdinand style??

Anschluss - Google Search

 

[Desert Fox]

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

Please don' try to undermine the tragedy of Dresden by suggesting that it was a "norm" by 1945 thus making it alright, especially when Dresden was of no strategic military value (it was an open city full of refugees and Allied POW's) and by the time it was bombed there was already nothing left of Germany's military capabilities.

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

No, not at all, it was pretty intentional. Nothing can be complex when it comes to starving people do death in artificial famines, many of which the British created even prior to WW2. There should be no excuse for such intentional acts of mass murder.

Bengal famine of 1770 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"The famine occurred or was made more severe largely due to the British East India Company's policies in Bengal.[7]

As a trading body, the first remit of the company was to maximise its profits and with taxation rights, the profits to be obtained from Bengal came from land tax as well as trade tariffs. As lands came under company control, the land tax was typically raised fivefold what it had been – from 10% to up to 50% of the value of the agricultural produce.[6] In the first years of the rule of the British East India Company, the total land tax income was doubled and most of this revenue flowed out of the country.[8] As the famine approached its height in April 1770, the Company announced that the land tax for the following year was to be increased by a further 10%.

Sushil Chaudhury writes that the destruction of food crops in Bengal to make way for opium poppy cultivation for export reduced food availability and contributed to the famine.[9] The company is also criticised for ordering the farmers to plant indigo instead of rice, as well as forbidding the "hoarding" of rice. This prevented traders and dealers from laying in reserves that in other times would have tided the population over lean periods.

By the time of the famine, monopolies in grain trading had been established by the company and its agents. The company had no plan for dealing with the grain shortage, and actions were only taken insofar as they affected the mercantile and trading classes."

Also: Books: Churchill's Shameful Role in the Bengal Famine - TIME

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.

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.

Do you justify this??

Israeli Kristallnacht: Africans attacked in Tel Aviv anti-migrant demo (PHOTOS)

Planned Israeli Detention Camps for Africans Draw Human Rights Protests

Israel Erects Concentration Camps To House African migrants- The Washington post

Eritrean president says countrymen living in 'concentration camps' in Israel- Haaretz

Concentration Camp for African migrants in Israel's south to hold up to 30,000 people- Haaretz

We call that incitement to riot...

I don't see any "incitement" , rather abstinence and restraint on the part of the gov.t.

The "Nazis" sure had a lot of patience, they only snapped around 1938, after years of being harassed and sanctioned by influential Jews and the countries under their influence, with German ambassadors being targeted and even assassinated.

Influential world Jews declaring war/economic sanctions on Germany in 1933, before kirstallnacht, before Nuremberg laws, before any of that:

 

[Developereo]

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.

Once again, as usual, your hatred of Muslims clouds your intellect.

The discussion is NOT about morality. It is about the creation of the State of Israel and why various military powers supported the Zionist movement.

Your predictable blabbering about Muslims misses the point once again. The creation of Israel was a political calculation by Britain -- nothing to do with Hitler's policies on Jews. American support for Israel also resulted from Zionist lobbying in Washington.

The Zionists were mostly Western Jews who were born and bred in Western countries and understood the mechanics of lobbying. Arabs, even if they had been organized, had no chance to compete with Zionist lobbying and it was a no-brainer that Zionist lobbying would win hands down in the Western powers which ruled the day.

The Holocaust created public support for Israel in the late stages, and after its creation, but the decision to support the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine was made decades before Hitler did anything.

 

[Developereo]

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.

There is no doubt that Hitler's policies helped the Zionists' shore up their numbers in the later years, and to enjoy special exemptions denied to other racial supremacists, but the premise of the thread is that the formation of Israel was the result of Hitler's policies, and that is simply not true. The political support for creation of Israel was a political calculation, and was the result of targeted lobbying by Western Jews like Lord Rothschild in Britain, Justice Louis Brandeis in the US., and Josef Korbel in Czechoslovakia All these countries were committed, and instrumental, to the creation of Israel long before Hitler came on the scene.

In fact, the terrorism committed by the Zionists against their benefactor, Britain, in the later years very nearly backfired. This terrorism was one of the factors which dampened popular support for the Zionists, and caused Britain to back off and abstain in the UN vote for Israel's creation.

 

[gambit]

Once again, as usual, your hatred of Muslims clouds your intellect.

The discussion is NOT about morality. It is about the creation of the State of Israel and why various military powers supported the Zionist movement.

Your predictable blabbering about Muslims misses the point once again. The creation of Israel was a political calculation by Britain -- nothing to do with Hitler's policies on Jews. American support for Israel also resulted from Zionist lobbying in Washington.

The Zionists were mostly Western Jews who were born and bred in Western countries and understood the mechanics of lobbying. Arabs, even if they had been organized, had no chance to compete with Zionist lobbying and it was a no-brainer that Zionist lobbying would win hands down in the Western powers which ruled the day.

The Holocaust created public support for Israel in the late stages, and after its creation, but the decision to support the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine was made decades before Hitler did anything.

And your religiously mandated hatred of Jews clouded your intellect.

You cannot even see how your own last sentence contradicted your own argument. The decision to support the creation of a Jewish state was not guaranteed. My G/F support my decision to buy a Ferrari.

Public support came from the moral shock at what Hitler did and if the public is willing, it will only make move towards the technical aspects of it easier.

 

[HeinzG]

In fact, the terrorism committed by the Zionists against their benefactor, Britain, in the later years very nearly backfired. This terrorism was one of the factors which dampened popular support for the Zionists, and caused Britain to back off and abstain in the UN vote for Israel's creation.

The terrorism was not just sprang out instantly. It was formulated because British was unable to balance the aspirations of both Arabs and Jews. However it was British that let Jews come and settle in modern day Israel and it was them turned their back on Jews when Arabs tried to massacre the Jews. So it was quite natural that Jews felt resentments against British.

 

[Developereo]

The terrorism was not just sprang out instantly. It was formulated because British was unable to balance the aspirations of both Arabs and Jews. However it was British that let Jews come and settle in modern day Israel and it was them turned their back on Jews when Arabs tried to massacre the Jews. So it was quite natural that Jews felt resentments against British.

Again, factually incorrect.

The Zionists terrorized British civilians because the Brits didn't allow Jewish migration as fast as the Zionists wanted.

 

[HeinzG]

Again, factually incorrect.

The Zionists terrorized British civilians because the Brits didn't allow Jewish migration as fast as the Zionists wanted.

Well Arabs terrorized the Brits for not letting them kill the Jews.

 

[Developereo]

And your religiously mandated hatred of Jews clouded your intellect.

Contrary to your simplistic analysis, fueled by your ignorance and hatred of Muslims, I oppose Israel because it is a colonial cancer -- a festering sore of European colonialism. The ideology of racial supremacy espoused by Zionist Jews is similar to the racial supremacy of the Nazis. While their tactics may not be as extreme, the fundamental belief that other races are expendable to achieve one's racial goals is 100% comparable to Nazi ideology.

Your ludicrous comparison to the civil rights movement in the US only served to provide entertainment.

And I don't expect you to have the historical knowledge to understand that the religious angle to this whole conflict was instituted by the Zionists, not Arabs. Muslims have been relatively accommodating of Jews through the centuries.

I have already explained elsewhere why the Zionists played the religious card from the beginning.

You cannot even see how your own last sentence contradicted your own argument.

There is nothing contradictory. A little refresher in basic logic will make it clear that "A -> B" does not necessarily imply that "not A -> not B".

The decision to support the creation of a Jewish state was not guaranteed.

Nothing in life is "guaranteed", so your claim that Israel's creation was not "guaranteed" is meaningless. What matters is what actually happened, and the fact remains that the Jewish colonial conquest of Palestine was well underway long before Hitler came on the scene, and this colonization was supported by Britain and the US due to political calculations and elite lobbying.

My G/F support my decision to buy a Ferrari.

Your GF is not a global superpower with the wherewithal to create countries, therefore her.convictions are irrelevant on the global stage The fact that you would try to equate the two is a source of amusement.

When dominant superpowers make something an official policy, backed by their military might, it carries a little more weight than an individual person wanting something.

Public support came from the moral shock at what Hitler did and if the public is willing, it will only make move towards the technical aspects of it easier.

You keep arguing in circles. Your continued obsession with "popular sentiment" begs the question. You assume your conclusion to be true and keep using it as an argument to support your conclusion.

Well Arabs terrorized the Brits for not letting them kill the Jews.

Just blabbering things without having knowledge is not an argument.

 

[Fracker]

So many threads on praising Hitler.

So many hitler's fanboyz!

Reality?

Hitler's barbaric policies led to the formation of Israel

And anyone praising Hitler will unintentionally make Israel stronger and more determined.


Strange. Isn't it?

That's Make me thing whether Hitler really kill many jews? as much 6 Million? And best thing the Jews 6 million killing made no effect on Jews population overall in world. I remember I had the discussion with a Jew, where I posted some reference with shows no major population degradation during 1930-48 in Jews. (Have to search for that). But in short....

1887 some migration started from Europe to Palestine area. Tal aviv was the first city build by Jews in 1906. In 1910, Some Zionist leader ask place for in Jerusalem, which was rejected by Khalifah. Then That jew told him I will get that place. He went back and use Italy, balgharia and others to attack Khalifat. W1 was the last nail to the coffen, where on paper fight was in Germany and others but in reality Whole Khilafat was under threat, this all to take control for just Jerusalem. At the end of W1, the winner started to break whole Khilafat into the pieces , and give more lands to Jews/Zionist in Palestine. In 1928, it intensify and this was the first time huge population was kicked out of Jerusalem and Jews settlers toke over major portion of Jerusalem.

For me W1, W2 was excuses, and it was meant to happen, since it was planned by "New World Order" in 1883. In both wars Germany was against other European nations but, each time Muslims were the loosers. All because of this Zionists , and they will keep everyone of us engaged till they able to achieve what has been written on Israel's Parliament. I.e Greater Israel.

 

[My-Analogous]

So many threads on praising Hitler.

So many hitler's fanboyz!

Reality?

Hitler's barbaric policies led to the formation of Israel

And anyone praising Hitler will unintentionally make Israel stronger and more determined.


Strange. Isn't it?

These are statement of our Quaid-e-Azam and in those time world war not start and also Hilter was not even in a picture. Now can you please tell us how Hitler made Israel?

"May I point out to Great Britain that this question of Palestine, if not fairly and squarely met, boldly and courageously decided, is going to be the turning point in the history of the British Empire. I am sure I am speaking not only of the Mussalmans of India but of the world, and all sections of right thinking and fair-minded people will agree when I say that Great Britain will be digging its grave if she fails to honour her original proclamation, promises and intentions-pre-war."

MA Jinnah’s Presidential Address at the Lucknow Session of the All-India Muslim League (15 to 18 October, 1937).

"The way in which the British Government have hitherto dealt with the Arabs is the greatest blot on their national honour."

M A Jinnah on British Government’s Policy (New Times, November 27, 1938).

"But no nation, no people who are worth living as a nation, can achieve anything great without making great sacrifices, such as the Arabs of Palestine are making. All our sympathies are with those valiant martyrs who are fighting the battle of freedom against usurpers."

MA Jinnah’s Presidential Address at the Annual Session
of the All India Muslim League held at Patna (26-29 December, 1938).

 

[gambit]

Contrary to your simplistic analysis, fueled by your ignorance and hatred of Muslims, I oppose Israel because it is a colonial cancer -- a festering sore of European colonialism. The ideology of racial supremacy espoused by Zionist Jews is similar to the racial supremacy of the Nazis. While their tactics may not be as extreme, the fundamental belief that other races are expendable to achieve one's racial goals is 100% comparable to Nazi ideology.

Your ludicrous comparison to the civil rights movement in the US only served to provide entertainment.

And I don't expect you to have the historical knowledge to understand that the religious angle to this whole conflict was instituted by the Zionists, not Arabs. Muslims have been relatively accommodating of Jews through the centuries.

A couple yrs ago, I met a couple of young Muslims from the Islamic Society of Nevada who were students at UNLV. We were waiting for our cars going thru a car wash across the street from the campus at Maryland Parkway. If you are ever in Vegas and need a good and cheap hand wash for your car -- under 25 bucks -- the Regency Auto Spa is the place.

Any way, after I steered the conversation towards Jews and Israel, they gave me the usual bullshit about how Muslims do not hate Jews except Zionists, etc...etc...Kinda like how often I see here, so I gave them 'The Look'. It was a blank stare without facial expressions, intended to silently convey the response "Are you fucking shittin' me, jack ?"

It worked. And being Asian, we can give 'The Look' better than other folks can.

One of them laughingly admitted that most Muslims never met a Jew or at best have only casual acquaintance of a Jew or a few Jews. Most know very little about Israel or the history of how Israel was created. They admitted most Muslims do not have any true hatred for Jews and Israel, as in personal as if a particular Jew have done a wrong or world Jewry have done the Islamic community a great wrong the way Nazi Germany did to Jews in WW II.

They admitted that while they feel animosity towards Jews and Israel, that animosity is quite 'ginned up', as they used the American vernacular to express something conjured to create something else that was never there before. The animosity or even hate is 'real' in the sense that they were told by their elders that they must have in order to be a real Muslim. In a way, it was an act but one that can have dire consequences to the targets of that 'ginned up' hate.

They admitted that Muslims are discouraged, under peer pressure, to even have a neutral attitude towards Jews and Israel lest a Muslim be known via the rumor mill that he/she is not enough of a Muslim, as if hatred towards Jews and Israel is a core part of what it is to be a Muslim. In essence, Muslims are raised to hate Jews and Israel with the vast majority of them knowing next to nothing about Jews and Israel. It was a religiously motivated hate that needed a cover and the Palestinians-Israelis conflict is that needed cover. Most Muslims do not care about the Palestinians in that conflict. Both young men know and admitted the contradiction and hypocrisy in the Muslim community at large, that the Muslims will make hue and cry about human rights charges when it comes to Israel but are perfectly comfortable with Muslims oppression of non-Muslims under Muslim governments' rule. Perfectly comfortable -- as they admitted. Also as to why they would rather live in the US than in the Muslim countries they visited.

It was a refreshingly candid conversation from these two American Muslims.

While you may have a good read from a few history books about Israel, it is unlikely that you have as much dealings with Jews as I had with Muslims, thanks to my USAF time in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. Then being an Asian-American is the proverbial double whammy when I had to deal with racist Muslims in those countries. You, being in first world Australia, may make you outwardly a more sophisticated Muslim the same as those two American Muslims I met, but deep inside you are no better than the hate filled Muslims I had the displeasure of working with in the ME.

 

[Developereo]

A couple yrs ago,

Personal anecdotes are not valid evidence of generalities. I can think up all sorts of anecdotes and generalize based on them.

The bigger picture you missed is that the current anti-Semitism in the Muslim world is the direct -- that's DIRECT -- result of the Zionist colonialism. If someone captures your land and says "this land is for right-handed people; everyone who is not right-handed must leave", you will develop a hatred against right-handed people.

The Zionist Jews made it a religious issue by making religion the determining factor on who got to stay in Palestine and who had to leave. It's only natural that the resentment on the other side would coalesce around religion.

Regardless of how you dismiss it, the fact remains that Islam shared a closer bond with Judaism than with any other religion, including Christianity. That's because Judaism, like Islam, has retained much if its Middle Eastern character, unlike Christianity.

While you may have a good read from a few history books about Israel, it is unlikely that you have as much dealings with Jews as I had with Muslims,

Assumptions have a tendency to backfire.
You haven't the faintest idea how wrong you are on this one!

I lived in the US for a long time -- much of that time with Jews of all stripes, from IDF Israelis to Western Jews to East European, Iranian and African Jews, from the Ultra-Orthodox "no modern tech after Friday sunset" to barely-Jewish.

I am entirely well aware of the diversity within the Jewish community and the penetration of the Zionist propaganda. Our fight is not with Judaism; it's with Zionism. The two are antithetical.

 

[gambit]

Personal anecdotes are not valid evidence of generalities.

Neither does ignorance. What are the literacy rates of the Muslim countries ? How about your Pakistan ? 113th out of 120 countries ? And yet how many Pakistani Muslims hate Jews and Israel ? The fact that the literacy rates in the Muslim countries varies from over 90% to the lower half of the scale proved beyond any reasonably doubts that what those two American Muslims said about Muslims in general is true: that the hatred for Jews and Israel are manufactured in similar ways, if not identical, of how Nazi Germany did it for the Volk.

YOU may have some personal experience with Jews, but that is because of your living in the free West, not because of the benefits of multiculturalism in the Muslim countries. The Muslims, literate or not, know that their hatred for Jews are religiously motivated with the alleged charge of colonialism a credible cover for the many gullible and naive 'progressives' in the West.

 

[Developereo]

Neither does ignorance. What are the literacy rates of the Muslim countries ? How about your Pakistan ? 113th out of 120 countries ? And yet how many Pakistani Muslims hate Jews and Israel ? The fact that the literacy rates in the Muslim countries varies from over 90% to the lower half of the scale proved beyond any reasonably doubts that what those two American Muslims said about Muslims in general is true: that the hatred for Jews and Israel are manufactured in similar ways, if not identical, of how Nazi Germany did it for the Volk.

YOU may have some personal experience with Jews, but that is because of your living in the free West, not because of the benefits of multiculturalism in the Muslim countries. The Muslims, literate or not, know that their hatred for Jews are religiously motivated with the alleged charge of colonialism a credible cover for the many gullible and naive 'progressives' in the West.

Readers can see how you utterly failed to address the topic of the thread with any actual evidence and resorted to your usual foam-at-the-mouth blabbering about evil MOOOSLIMS when your abject incompetence was exposed once again.

Happens every single time you venture outside your cut-and-paste world of radar specs and expose your utter ignorance of everything outside that narrow domain.

Stick to cutting and pasting radar specs.