Historical Truth | @johndavidblake

johndavidblakeJohn Blake is a London-based history teacher and writer on education. He founded and co-edited Labour Teachers from 2011 to 2014. He blogs here and is on Twitter here

“In 1933, after competing in several democratic elections and finally becoming the leader of the largest party in the German parliament, Adolf Hitler was appointed Chancellor of Germany. In the subsequent election, his party went on to achieve a higher percentage of the vote than before his appointment. In the following years, he made attempts to reverse the details of a treaty imposed on Germany in the wake of the First World War that was agreed internationally to have been unjust. However, Germany’s neighbours, France and Britain—rulers of the two largest empires in the world—were unhappy about these attempted revisions and declared war on Germany in September 1939. In 1941, both the USA and Soviet Union joined the conflict, despite both having promised to stay out of it. The war was terrible, including the fire-bombing of German cities, the horrendous mistreatment of German prisoners of war by the Soviets, until ultimately the forces of totalitarian Russia invaded Germany, precipitating mass forced migration of Germans in Eastern Europe and destroying the capital, Berlin.”

Historical truth is a funny thing – it lives in the whole, not in the parts. Any relatively knowledgeable reader of the above paragraph would spot instantly that it is a terrible perversion of the historical truth of events in Europe in the 1930s and 1940s, yet no individual part of it is factually inaccurate. The Nazis were indeed the largest party in the 1933 German election, though missing here is the important context that this was an election in which the polling booths were surrounded by Nazi stormtroopers; both the USA and the USSR did join the war having attempted to stay out, but in both cases it was because Hitler had declared war on them. Genocide is entirely absent. Important context and relevant evidence has been missed, to render these individual accurate facts into a something that no one remotely familiar with the period concerned could call “the truth”.

This is why, when Ken Livingstone announces he can’t have offended anyone because he’s told “the truth” about relations between pre-war Zionism and the Nazis, or when his online supporters spam everyone with links to the Wikipedia page on the Haavara Agreement as though it is game, set and match to their hero, they are perverting the truth, even whilst they are offering facts. There are fascinating, tragic and terrible stories to be found in the events they are selectively attentive to: one about the desperation of parts of the German Jewish community in the face of a regime besieging them in their own homes and workplaces; another about the confused and contradictory sinews of the Nazi state, working to a Fuhrer who made clear how much he hated the Jews, but ran a government so determinedly dysfunctional it could commit multiple contradictory evils at the same time, planning for the same victims both wholesale forced emigration and industrialised mass murder. But anyone with a smattering of historical learning and even a shred of integrity can see these facts cannot bear an interpretation that Hitler was a Zionist. The often arbitrary survival of evidence from the past into the present does generate valid disputes about historical details, and sometimes makes it impossible to conclude a “right” answer. However, any narrative that deliberately ignores obviously relevant evidence is very clearly a wrong answer.

Toxic inattentiveness to the rules of the historical discipline is the stock-in-trade of the grievance-mongers of the Far Left and the Far Right, the breeding ground for the conspiracy theories that frame their understanding of how change is achieved (as well as explaining why, despite them having seen the truth, they are singly unsuccessful in changing much themselves). These parasites on the past find a nugget of fact, rip it from any sensible context and build atop it whatever deranged narrative pushes their cause the best: Mein Kampf, for example, is full of it, and in the hands of the sectarians of the modern Trotskyite left, Marxism offers little more than a conspiracy theory with numbers, dressed up with occasional infusions of the word “hegemony”. The highest form of such pernicious abuse of evidence is Holocaust denial, in which not just the physical evidence of the destruction of a people but the words of the all-too-few survivors who walked out again from the places the Nazis had fated them to die, are dismissed on pretexts as flimsy as the alleged silence of the memoirs of others.

Livingstone has been suspended from Labour. If there is any decency left in this party, he will never be permitted to return. But he is not alone in indulging and endorsing this malignant conspiracy theorising, and the distortion of the historical record he has publicly engaged in and thus validated has, I fear, already found some parts of the public consciousness in which to dwell. It is clearly taking hold in parts of the Labour movement and party and this should be challenged robustly: historical distortion of this sort is a fraud upon the living and the dead, and it has no place in a decent and principled Labour Party, and no party that entertains it has a place in a humane and educated society.

144 thoughts on “Historical Truth | @johndavidblake

  1. Thank you so much for this excellently written and argued post. I hope you don’t get attacked by those who cannot dispute your words rationally.

  2. “But anyone with a smattering of historical learning and even a shred of integrity can see these facts cannot bear an interpretation that Hitler was a Zionist. ” But – but – Livingstone has never SAID that Hitler was a Zionist! As far as I can make out Hitler was out to make and succeeded in making a devious/pragmatic deal WITH the Zionists – or, rather, with some of them – in order to start getting rid of Germany’s Jewish population. This ‘Haavara Agreement’ – August 1933 – pre-dated, admittedly only by a year or so, the adding of Jews, Roma and homosexuals (apart from those in the ranks of the Nazi party hierarchy of course) to the communists and socialists (genuine ones, as opposed to National ‘Socialists’ aka Nazis) for whom the concentration camps were originally designed. The ‘Final Solution’ didn’t start being implemented in all its full scale horror before 1939. Please note – I am NOT saying everything was fine before that! Also, I am NOT a historian – but I am a (retired) scientist; I’m used to weighing evidence and I really get the impression that it’s often difficult to find a historical narrative which is not slanted one way or another, even if only a little, by the personal prejudices of the narrator – and I certainly get the impression of a witch hunt against Livingstone, with the possible collateral smearing of Corbyn as a bonus. No, I am NOT a ‘Corbynista’- I have my doubts about virtually all politicians, though, on reflection, no doubts at all about the venality of 90% of the Tory variety (whether blue or the ‘red’ fifth column).

    1. “But – but – Livingstone has never SAID that Hitler was a Zionist!”

      (transcript of Livingstone on LBC, Thursday morning)

      “It’s completely over the top but it’s not antisemitism. Let’s remember when Hitler won his election in 1932, his policy then was that Jews should be moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism – this before he went mad and ended up killing six million Jews.”

      http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-anti-semitism-row-full-transcript-of-ken-livingstones-interviews-a7005311.html

      1. He said he was ‘supporting Zionism’. He patently wasn’t. There’s a small semantic difference but it doesn’t affect the arguments above.

        1. It’s not much less offensive to suggest that Hitler supported Zionism. The Haavara agreement was a means to ridding Germany of its wealthiest Jews. They had to surrender their property and pay essentially a deposit of £1000. Hitler’s plan from day one was to rid Germany of Jews. He did not initially desire to help Jews achieve the biblical aspiration of establishing the state of Israel and then go mad and start killing them all. Zionism is not about containing and concentrating the Jewish people into a single geographical location. There is more to Ken’s assertions and the sources he relies on. The early German Zionists apparently colluded with the Nazis to bring about the state of Israel. Read into this what you like, but it sounds like just another classic conspiracy theory.

          1. What evidence can you adduce for your statement? Are you conflating Zionistd with Jews in general? And what are the wider aims of Zionism to which you allude?

        2. “John Mann is supporting the Tories”

          He patently *is*.

          You may not like it, but Livingstone remains absolutely technically correct. You cannot argue over the minutiae of the semantics, then claim the case lies in the greater context.

          The article above is verbose rationalist twaddle.

          1. It is indeed a pathetic and deceitful piece. Fascist Zionism still kills dozens to hundreds of Palestinians every year. And creates far reaching animosities in geopolitics that we actually pay for with our taxes and soldiers lives. This wholly amateur plea to nothing but embracing ignorance is pathetic.

      2. So Livingstone didn’t say Hitler was a Zionist.

        But he did suggest he turned mad after supporting the idea of expulsion. Whereas it is more reasonable to doubt that Hitler’s views on Jews materially changed between the two dates concerned.

        The main article does recycle the nonsense of the Labour Party being in the grip of the Trotskyite Left. The number of new entrants that have read Trotsky let alone have an adherence is vanishingly small.

        And the same would be the case for the number of anti-semites.

        There remains the concern: how does one criticise the policy of successive Israeli governments towards the Palestinians over the last half century without being accused of anti-semitism. I would have thought it quite easy. But in the minds of too many people in the parliamentary Labour Party – not just the windbag John Mann – the two are conflated. I think it is a good idea to oppose that.

        I suggest that this blog post is nearer the mark on this matter: http://averypublicsociologist.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/ken-livingstone-labour-and-anti-semitism.html

      3. Hitler was simply interested in ridding Germany of Jews. Where they went didn’t interest him as much. His paranoid fantasy was fear of Jewish power and a world wide Jewish conspiracy. The last thing he would have supported was a Jewish State. The Nazis didn’t think it was possible. They literally believed that the Jews were racially incapable of the discipline of government.

        Once most of Germany’s Jews were gone, Jews were no longer available as scapegoats. Nazi propaganda then turned specifically on Zionism. Several factors changed Nazi policy from pressuring Jews to leave to exterminate.

        1. Jewish emigration was too slow. By late 1938 more than half of Germany’s Jews remained.

        2. German laws persecuting Jews had impoverished the Jewish community. No nation, including that of the British Mandate for Palestine, wanted to take in poor refugees, esp during a world wide depression.

        3. In 1939 the Reich expanded tremendously due to Hitler’s war, and there were now millions, not just a few hundred thousand to get rid of.

        4. The rest of the world was closing their doors.

        It’s useful to note that in negotiating the exit of Jewish refugees during the war, the Nazis included a rider that Palestine NOT be their final destination. This was due to relations with the Mufti.

    2. James: You seem to have missed the entire point of the article, which is that selective presentation of facts does not remotely equal the truth. You can still present facts and still be lying through your teeth–it’s called propaganda.

      Livingston suggested that Hitler “supported” Zionism. While this Haavara agreeement existed, it wasn’t about “support” — Zionism is not just “Jews going to Israel” — it’s about Jewish right to self-determination, and a place of refuge. Hitler made it known certainly as early as the 1920s that his goal was the removal of Jews–whether through ethnic cleansing, or extermination (later developed in the Final SOlution). Getting Jews the hell out of Germany to purify the “Aryan State” is certainly not Zionism–it was one of the building blocks to genocide.

      Livingstone’s spin would be like saying that the North Atlantic Slave Trade was in support of black immigration to the Americas. Is it true in a sense? Well, yes–to the extent that you want to cynically and sadistically call slavery “immigration”.

      But the overall sense is a lie.

        1. Quite so. “they are perverting the truth, even whilst they are offering facts.” reads to me like “I cannot dispute the facts offered, but I don’t like the conclusion” – before then going on to misquote Ken as claiming “Hitler was a Zionist”. This whole discussion also omits to mention the relations between the Stern Gang, whose leadership included some of israel’s earliest leaders, and the Nazis – the Stern Gang of course being involved in the killing of British soldiers in the British Palestine Protectorate.

          It is rather similar to criminal law – often there is no question about who did what (actus reus), but the issue can be what was intended (mens rea), hence the varying verdicts of murder, manslaughter and innocent accident in a shooting.

          Unfortunately too, where Hitler and the Jews are concerned, one is wholly black and the other is wholly white. That is not “the truth” either, just a set of agendas.

          1. The claims “Hitler was a Zionist” and “Hitler supported Zionism” are separated by fine shades of meaning. Neither of them are remotely true. Either of them is offensive. Worse is the claim that early Zionists colluded with Nazis to bring about a Jewish state. This is a superficial analysis of the politics of the Third Reich and fails to give these Zionists any credit for rescuing 60,000 German Jews.

    3. Great reply. There is talk of context here, but context can always be twisted in print. Eg Ken never said Hitler was a Zionist, but that is insinuated here. The real problem is this is primary news, when peadophiles are walking around Westminster, the prime minister and chancellor just admitted tax evasion, the Lord and business tsar has possibly stolen pension funds, Tory involvement in the Hillsbrough whitewash is endemic, and there are 3000 Syrian children bring turned away, as orphans, not to mention the breakup of the NHS and this is what we focus on?? I call it Stockholm Syndrome…. Labour rightly accepted the Jews after the war, and yet we are focusing on Ken Livingstone who is an honourable politician if clumsy. The Zionist press should be the focus here, in the light of the other news that

      1. Ah, “the Zionist press”. An accusation that is so minutely removed from the old accusation of the “Jewish media” that it is impossible not to conflate the two. Thats precisely the issue at hand Michael. The peddling of thinly veiled, patently false, idiotic and frankly dangerous libels against the Jewish people by people who are either too vacuous or disingenuous to admit they’re anti Semites at heart is sickening.

    4. This “history teacher” is only interested in perpetuating the “Hitler as
      Zionist” myth.

      Livingstone never said it, as you pointed out. But why let the facts get in the way?

      Churchill supported Stalin at Yalta. So I guess I can be quoted as saying that Churchill was a communist?

      Laughable.

      1. A more accurate analogy would be if you’d said “Churchill supported communism”. Not really laughable.

      2. Churchill did not support “Stalinism” at Yalta. If he ever supported Stalinism, then he would be a Stalinist. That is what the -ist suffix means, to be a person who supports the -ism idea. Livingstone was not just saying that Hitler’s expulsion policy was something that some individual Zionists could work with, but that Hitler supported Zionism, the idea: which is to say, Livingstone was saying that Hitler was a Zionist.

        1. Churchill most definitely did support Stalinism, going as far as to delete the chapters on Boris Savinkov and Leon Trotsky in the 1941 edition of his book “Great Contemporaries.” So much for Churchill’s commitment to democratic free speech. Did he really think Stalin would reject Lend-Lease if he left the chapters in?

          As anyone without a political agenda that demands stupid word twisting games should be able to work out, Churchill was not a StalinIST because, just as Nazi German support for Zionism in the 1930s was subordinate to its dedication to the advancement of German Imperialism, his support for Stalin was subordinate to his advancement of British Imperialism. Duh!

          What was it Palmerston said? “Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests.” Well, nothing’s permanent but you get the picture.

    5. You dont need to be a historian to follow the argument. I am sure that as a scientist you can think of lots of examples where you can take one small fact in a complex physical relationship and misuse it to draw a conclusion that is completely at odds with science.

      KL said Hitler supported/shared zionist goals until he “went mad”. In most people’s book whether he actually said Hitler was a zionist is irrelevant: KL wanted to say that Hitler supported resettlement to create Israel and that the zionists were in cahoots with him and so that justifies talking about resettling Israelis. Along the way he conveniently equates zionism aka Israel with Hitler and nazism. Before you jump up and say he didn’t say that, it is the whole point of the casual association, the catchy quote, the spin.

      Second, he flirts with the supporters of the holocaust myth by implying that until Hitler “went mad” in 1941 things were not so bad – look, the zionists and he were working together hand in glove, they saw eye to eye in Israel and resettlement…”Went mad” suggests that Hitler wasn’t such a bad chap after all and no one else in Germany either but then “external forces” intervened. This is well down the path that leads to questioning the scale and even the existence if the Holocaust. KL has never denied the Holocaust but he is very deliberately playing it down wth this sort of spin. Indeed some of the comments below have made a distinction between the scale of the Holocaust before and after 1939 implying that initially things weren’t so bad. I have no idea of their motives but KL type quotes encourage this and belittle the history of the extermination of the jews and a lot of other people in WW2. And the more you lessen the horror, the more you undermine the feeling of sympathy for the jews who survived and created the state of Israel and so it’s raison d’être.

      Historically it is also wildly inaccurate and KL’s spin is not supported by Lenni Bruce, the source he cites. Bruce, who also uses context economically, focused on zionism, which he loathes, but never suggested that the nazis did anything more than play with different groups of jews in order to achieve their aims. And that is the point and is why what KL says is so offensive. The nazis were never a single coherent group following a single policy, especially at the start, and they were also more cautious initially as they wanted to avoid domestic and international outcry. They were however, unanimous in their hatred of “jewry” and the need to cleanse first the Reich and then the world of this “infestation”. That meant that nazis entertained different ideas for dealing with the problems and let’s not forget to enrich themselves. And they found it with convenient and amusing to use jews themselves to help by promising some small exits, relocation to “better places” etc. Also it suited them to appear to be willing to allow emigration only to find that the rest of the world wouldn’t receive all the jews – look, you see it’s not just us, the rest of the world hates you too but just doesn’t say it openly, so behave and we will find a civilized resettlement solution, after all we are German and do things in an orderly and correct way….

      Is KL innocently misreading history? Unlikely because he is smart and has a record on tossing out inflammatory remarks. But he is quick with words and uses “facts” glibly to cover his views and motives. Indeed KL followed up by saying that the Israeli PM backs him: a clear reference to Netanyahu’s repulsive claim that the Mufti was responsible for convincing the nazis to enact the Final Solution. Why repulsive? Because it was clearly intended to brand palestinians as racists and fellow travelers with nazism and incredibly for a jew it downplays the nazi and German role in the Holocaust. There is a grain of truth to base his claim on but it is universally discounted. Moreover, historians disagree if the Mufti visited Auschwitz and actually said what Netanyahu is referring to. This is another example of how “facts’ can be used in isolation to cloak extremist views in respectability.

      Incidentally Lenni Bruce categorically rejects the idea that Mufti was anything more than a fellow traveller with the nazis and insists he had no influence on the Holocaust. And it ironic that KL in an attempt to bolster his “history” coopts a view that is deeply offensive to the Palestinians and paints Hamas, Hezbollah et al as heirs to the nazi tradition. Too clever by half.

      You may find this over the top but there is a parallel to KL in Trump’s flirt with the KKK. The KKK claimed that Trump’s views support their own. Trump avoided rejecting this for just long enough to cultivate “redneck’ votes before making just enough of a rejection to re-assure enough more mainstream republicans (the spin is that Trump shoots from the hip and that can inadvertently make him seem to be extreme but he is all American and of course is not a racist). You can see in KL a much smoother partitioner of the same art.

      1. I don’t think I’ve ever seen such a densely packed collection of non sequiturs and paranoid delusions. You remember that Woody Allen film when his wife leaves and he start fantasising about where she’s gone and in his day dream she meets a blond haired biker in black leather, she’s making out with him then something jolts him out of the reverie and he blurts “she’s only been gone half an hour and she’s already getting off with a Nazi” or something like it.

        Take a reality check.

        1. I suggest you 1) read up on the Holocaust 2) lookout what Naz and others posted and supported and then see how KL used his reference to say that actually she based her views in “fact” 3) read the comments in that range all over the apologia (soft admittedly but there) for nazism and extraordinary efforts to make the 30s seem not so bad along with linking zionism to the fate of the European jews. For good measure there is even some stuff equating arianism with zionism.
          And then tell me it is delusional. To be honest I have always though Israel has a lot to answer for and have never thought that the creation of Israel was all about good vs evil. But this storm has been a huge eye-opener to the extent people are willing to go to justify their opposition to Israel and frankly how much further it goes than just solidarity with the palestinians.

  3. A very well written, well constructed argument, although I do take issue with a couple of points.
    Firstly, while I completely agree with the central contention, re: the historical context (I learned from Bertrand Russell to not judge “sexist-slave owner” Plato by modern standards), and I am in no way defending Livingstone (I mean, why even bring Hitler into it in the first place?) but he didn’t actually say that Hitler was a Zionist. His ill advised comment suggested Hitler’s advocacy of Zionism, perhaps as a “first solution” to ridding Germany of Jews, but- to declare my own conspiratorial leanings- the way the media have gone to town on this suggests to me that ‘someone, somewhere’ is desperately trying to distract people from other issues (such as election fraud, sectarian campaigning, aristocratic infighting over the best way to rule Britain’s slaves, long term economic scams, etc)
    Secondly- and this is more a point of pedantry than valid concern- since Gramsci wrote his treatise in a fascist prison cell I fear by co-opting the term ‘hegemony’ for use as a kind of syntactical “bottleneck” to conflate ‘Far Left, Far Right’, Marx, Trotsky, Hitler, Mien Kampf and holocaust denial in conclusion, you might also be accused of skewing historical facts to suit your own bias.
    On a final note. Why, in your opinion, do so few people link the rise in anti-Semitism (real and perceived), and the Left’s more reticent support in recent times, with Israel’s actions since the Knesset became dominated by the far right? It seems obvious to me that Israel’s shift to the right has created this oppositional effect, the negative impact Netanyahu and co have had on Israeli society, and the attitude toward ‘the Palestine question’ more broadly, can be seen below the line of any of their major online news outlets. I observe often, and often with disbelief.
    I’ve heard it said that the advent of the internet has contributed most to the phenomenal rise in ‘criticism of Israel’ (legitimate and otherwise), but that was couched in the contention that there was a “Pallywood”/Arab/BDS conspiracy to discredit Israel. I’ve yet to hear a commentator of any repute countenance the notion that it could be because “ordinary people” can now see how Israel operates.

    1. Smoke and mirrors. Indeed left with little to destroy Corbyn, and to distract from their current gross misdeeds, the Tory has effectively bought the media to distract the masses.

          1. If you read the link, you will see that the EJ sets out the history of the arrangement as historical fact, noting the “co-operation” between the two. Indeed, it answers your point to me above about Zionists saving 60,000 Jews – by this agreement.

            To support something can be either deliberate (how this is being presented as “Hitler was a Zionist”) or inadvertent as it can also mean acting in a way, which promotes the other party’s objective. In this case, as the EJ accepts, Hitler and Zionism found a way to work together to pursue their separate aims. That is course makes many uncomfortable – it has then produced the usual resort to -isms and “offensive” to avoid facing uncomfortable information (as the article above has resorted to). Yes, as the EJ accepts, some Jews did co-operate with Hitler and we can add the Stern gang.

            Hitler wanted to ‘ethnically cleanse” the Reich of Jews – initially that meant many leaving for another destination. The change came, not because Hitler went mad, but because the Nazis invaded Poland with its large Jewish population with all means of emigration closed off. Irving’s claim (as I understand it) has been that Hitler simply set the policy and Heydrich etc. determined the means. I don’t know if that contention is correct, but whether it is or not, it does raise interesting questions about the responsibility of leaders setting policy and what is done by the subordinates in pursuit of that policy.

            It is an important question, which applies as much to Napoleon and the Dos de Mayo as it does to a number of recent politicians, who when in difficulty have said “not me, I just set the policy”.

          2. David, I did read the link. What I get from it, among other things, is this: “The Haavara continued to function until World War II, in spite of vigorous attempts by the Nazi Party to stop or curtail its activities.” It seems that the Zionists petitioned the Nazis to create an import/export company to facilitate the removal of Jews to Palestine and the bolstering of German exports and easing of boycott, a form of cooperation. However, Hitler himself was not in favour of this agreement. He changed his mind a couple times. The Nazi Party was divided over this. Clearly the Nazis regretted this agreement and tried to reverse it. They never intended to see a Jewish state created. Hitler was firmly against this. All this was ever about is the removal of Jews to Palestine, not Israel. There was no Israel and Hitler hoped there never would be. Any support (material aid) for Zionism was reluctant at best.

    2. “the way the media have gone to town on this suggests to me that ‘someone, somewhere’ is desperately trying to distract people from other issues (such as election fraud, sectarian campaigning, aristocratic infighting over the best way to rule Britain’s slaves, long term economic scams, etc)”

      As a supporter of none of the involved parties, I’m pretty sure this is the nub, although I’d substitute ‘cynically’ for ‘desperately’.

    3. Spence: See my above comment, but that’s not “support” or “advocacy”. There was a movement during the late 19th century called the “Back to Africa” movement, when racism was peaking and some former slaves wanted to leave the U.S. Also known by some as “Black Zionism”.
      The idea that groups like the KKK or former slave owners may have backed this in order to get black people out of the U.S. can hardly be considered “support” — unless one is viewing it in the most cynical manner possible.

    4. also, Israel’s s shift to the right didn’t come in a vacuum. One of the main motivators was the 2nd intifada, which was brutal and targeted directly towards civilians. The group that sanctioned it is the current democratically elected gov’t of Gaza.

      So these things have to be taken into account for a fair discussion.

      1. IMHO the shift to the right in Israel had more to do with the americanisation of Israel rather than with the Intifadas. For decades the governments of Israel were tough, strong and intelligent, this is no longer the case. Tough, yes. Strong, yes. But the intelligence has gone.

      2. Israel’s shift to the Right has to do with internal demographics. The factions having the most babies are very very conservative. It will be a problem for them in later years.

  4. “both the USA and the USSR did join the war having attempted to stay out, but in both cases it was because Hitler had declared war on them. ”

    I’m being picky but the USA joined WW2 because the Japanese attacked. Yes, the USA were not at war with Germany until Hitler declared war several days later, but the USA were at war.

    1. In trying to be clever you show yourself up as not. The context was clearly about war with Germany and so what he wrote is absolutely correct.

  5. You have provided no sources for your bias. Its a known fact Hitler alloweed the fascist zionists to continue their work unhindered in fascist Germany whilst imprisoning Jews and anti fascists. Its also a know fact the zionists opposed the Jewish boycott of Germany.

    1. You should have been alive at that time.. and then see how you would have acted dealing with the devil. Saving lives any possible way in despairing times. it wàs NOT a game

    2. Thank you for proving the thesis of the author so succinctly. And as a bonus you have shown why anti-zionism is racist and of course is designed to link both zionism and Israel with nazism which then allows the extreme views as well apologia for nazism that litter this blog to cloak themselves in “facts”.

      1. Let’s be clear. Anti-zionism is not (necessarily) racist, and I argued further up that no one here was suggesting this. It certainly can be, and I got from you that “these days”, as you say, it seems hard to separate the two. Still, it would be wrong to call all opposition to the establishment of the Jewish homeland anti-Semitic, nor does that help matters.

        1. Since Israel does exist and legally (it was by a UN vote) the whole debate on its existence is somewhat meaningless. There were wrongs and rights on all sides leading (including very much GB) up to 47-49 but there is no going back. To suggest otherwise is not necessarily racist but it often becomes that. And it has some very unsavory bedfellows.
          Nor realistically is there any going back on 67. What Israel did after that is certainly open to criticism and it is right to call out the wrongs. That however is quite different from the labelling that goes on. In some ways zionism is a thing of the past unless you believe that Israel should not exist. What is alive today are opposing views about what happens to palestine. Greater Israel was part of the original zionist dream but it wasnt a driver post 49 and many israelis and jews disagree with it but would probably say they support the creation of a homeland. Indeed post 67 is in many ways a story about how israelis refused to make a conscious decision on what to do which lead to the current mess.
          Returning to the original issue of KL, the problem is that what ought to be a rational criticism of Israel on post 67 has become a very unpleasant mix of labelling and association in order to justify supporting the elimination of Israel and in the most recent case to excuse what can only be described as a racist suggestion to resettle the jews in the US (as more councillors have been shown up it becomes impossible to dismiss as a “bit of fun” or a momentary lapse). And the respectability of such views is the cloak that Israel is zionism and zionism is a fellow traveller of nazism. KL knows this and is willing to pluck contradictory sources to further that image – hence supporting his comments first with Lenni Benner and then Netanyahu.
          The comments in this blog are just so many examples of that. I am not dumping on you but ask you to look at the amazing, rabid stuff that has been written and then see how a seemingly innocent “fact”or position gets spun to this. Somewhere in there it has gone from legitimate criticism to racism.

  6. History and interpretation of it is carried out, initially, by politicians and political commentators. Therein lies the issue. Politicians deal in “facts” delivered to suit their argument. It never ceases to amaze, that we discuss their utterings’ as important rather than discuss a better way to support human evolution. We are stuck in a loop perpetuated by discussions about how flawed the loop is. For human sake, WAKE UP! or carry on as you will…

  7. Lessons from anti progress ideology (Nazism)

    “This striving toward connectedness with the totality of life, with nature itself, a nature into which we are born, this is the deepest meaning and the true essence of National Socialist thought.”

    http://goo.gl/wHNVbu

    American business co-operation with Nazis. Before and during WWII. (all mainsteam sources) .

    http://goo.gl/bzfyww

  8. “In 1941, both the USA and Soviet Union joined the conflict, despite both having promised to stay out of it.”

    This statement is not factually accurate (i.e. not “no …factually inaccurate.”) Soviet Union joined the conflict on September 17, 1939 by invading Poland. Ribbentrop-Molotov pact was a promise to join the conflict.

    There is no reason to keep paving the Hell.

    1. Oh dear. You have completely missed the point.

      Blake wrote a version of the war on Germany from the point of view of the Nazis. The statements are all about the point at which countries joined the war against Germany, not when they became involved in WW2. So…the non-aggression pact between Russia and Germany in Aug 1939 was a promise by Russia to stay out of the conflict against Germany. Russia agreed not to declare war in Germany or to support Poland. The fact that Germany agreed not to interfere in anything Russia did in Eastern Poland and the Balts is irrelevant to the Nazi version ( and btw it most certainly was not a promise to join the conflict – it was just an agreement of areas of influence).

      The fact that Blake’s imaginary version misses out lots of facts that disprove it is the whole point of the exercise.

  9. Very logical and clearly explained.

    Are you going to leave Labour by yourself or would you rather wait until they kick you out?

  10. Ken Livingstone did not say that Hitler was a Zionist. He said in his interview,
    “ Let’s remember when Hitler won his election in 1932, his policy then was that
    Jews should be moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism – this before he
    went mad and ended up killing six million Jews.”

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-anti-semitism-row-full-transcript-of-ken-livingstones-interviews-a7005311.html

    The Haavara Agreement drawn up by Nazi Germany support
    what Ken Livingstone said. The fact that at the same time
    Germany under Hitler was persecuting the Jews does not
    negate the fact that the Haavara Agreement existed.

    1. The fact that the Haavara agreement existed does not prove that Hitler supported Zionism, which you would know if you read anything about it or understood anything about Zionism. This is sort of the point the author is making here.

    2. I am an Expat born and raised in Glasgow. I now reside in Tampa, Florida. I used to read The Guardian when I was a teenager and into my early 20s. My question is this. Does the Guardian think that both Corbin and Livingstone are equal opportunity thinkers, or has anti-Semitism and false reasoning brainwashed their ugly minds? The Guardian used to be a left leaning newspaper that also attempted to try to administer honest views toward all sides of the political divide. Has it now skewed its views so far to the left (including anti-Semitism) to the extent that it is no longer an impartial and honest newspaper?

    3. Is the ‘Hitler going mad’ part an attempt to whitewash European elite sympathy with Hitler before he ‘went mad” ? After all, Hitler was beating up trade unionists before he starting invading countries.

    4. Desperate efforts to save lives
      How can you not take into account the restrictions under which all Jews were living from Jan 1933 when Nazis took power?
      There were few options

  11. Good article.
    Poison Ken kept mentioning on LBC this am that he wasn’t saying anything that the Israeli president had not said, re Hitler in 30s and Zionism, in the past few days. What is the truth, context of this?

      1. Interesting btl conversation. I agree article interesting but suffers many if the problems it associates with Livingstone’s comments but just more articulately. Thank you for posting this – I found it particularly shocking.. https://youtu.be/0i0ZJdiIMUM Watch “Netanyahu: Hitler Was a Patsy” on YouTube

  12. The fact that the Haavara agreement existed does not prove that Hitler supported Zionism, which you would know if you read anything about it or understood anything about Zionism. This is sort of the point the author is making here.

  13. The claims “Hitler was a Zionist” and “Hitler supported Zionism” are separated by fine shades of meaning. Neither of them are remotely true. Either of them is offensive. Worse is the claim that early Zionists colluded with Nazis to bring about a Jewish state. This is a superficial analysis of the politics of the Third Reich and fails to give these Zionists any credit for rescuing 60,000 German Jews.

  14. Unfortunately the author and most critics of Ken Livingstone’s comments make the mistake of interpreting the word support in a way that suits their agenda. According to the OED the definition of support is ‘give assistance to, especially financially’. There is no doubt that assistance was given, that is a fact. The suggestion that Livingstone meant that the Nazi’s were of one mind with Zionists except in removing Jews from Germany is absurd as is any suggestion that his remarks were anti-Jew.

    1. Hitler didn’t support Zionism. He didn’t even really support the Haavara agreement. He changed his mind a couple times. The Nazis were divided on this. A link kindly provided above by someone trying to make the opposite point says “The Haavara continued to function until World War II, in spite of vigorous attempts by the Nazi Party to stop or curtail its activities.” What happened was the Zionists managed to convince the Nazis to setup this Haavara company, which the Nazis regretted. In doing so, they managed to rescue 60,000 Jews.

    2. Of course Livingstone meant ideological support, that Hitler and the Zionists were of one mind. There is nothing “absurd” about understanding Livingstone to mean that: his entire career indicates that this is exactly what he meant. He always insinuates that Zionism = Naziism. This was just a more blatant instance than usual.

  15. OK all you very intelligent people, can please advise me on how I can ;-Oppose the killing of Palestinians
    The destruction of their farms
    Building of illegal settlements
    Israel’s refusal to implement UN rules

    Without being called a racist by the right wing of the labour party.

    1. It’s not so difficult. Familiarise yourself with the most common anit-Semitic tropes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitic_canard

      Ken might have clarified his statement about Hitler and Zionism and perhaps he could have appeased his critics. Instead, he dug deeper. He furnished a controversial history book in his defence which he claims shows a collusion between the Nazis and the Zionists. http://news.sky.com/story/1687454/livingstone-says-labour-should-reinstate-him

      “The shocking thing about his book was that he revealed that not only Hitler had wanted to move all of Germany’s Jews to Israel, but that the Zionist leadership continued a dialogue privately with Hitler from ’33 when he became Chancellor from 1940-41,” he said.

      “They were working quite closely. Lenni’s book shows a shared common belief between the Nazis and the Zionists in preserving their race from interracial marriage and things like that.

      “They wanted to preserve their ethnic purity and that’s why they had a working relationship. This caused quite a stir at the time but everyone’s forgotten it.”

      I don’t know where to begin. The book itself has been criticised for selective quotation and snide characterisation divorced from context. They worked closely, perhaps. We have to remember the climate in which this agreement was forged. An unapologetically Jew hating government had taken over Germany. Mein Kampf made it absolutely clear how Hitler felt about the Jews. Let’s just say the writing was on the wall. But the bits of his statement about racial purity take the cake. He is equating Nazi supremacy with the Jewish desire not to intermarry. One is racist. The other is merely customary.

      There are at least two canards operating in Ken’s further statements. These are the canards of dual loyalty and accusations of racism. Collusion also implies the most recognisable one of Jewish conspiracy.

    2. When one side declares war, I suggest you fight back with all you’ve got. By conflating Zionism with the Jewish ethnicity THEY are racist. Anyone called me a Zionist because my dad was Jewish, they’d get a smack in the teeth just like if they called me a kike. Purge them all.

  16. “Selective presentation of the facts” is just as relevant to current politics as it is to the history books. How do we know the real facts relating to the junior doctors’ contracts or whether we are better in or out of the EU?

  17. This is a fascinating debate. Just out of interest how much context is being put around the comments which are alleged to be anti-semitic? If suggesting Hitler ‘supported’ Zionism is on the one hand factually correct and on the other utterly misleading….and that’s not OK. How is it OK to imply that Naz Shah’s unpleasant and quite possibly anti-semitic remarks, made before she was an MP, and at a time when Israel were behaving in a way towards the Palestinians that many of us found unacceptable and distressing, makes her evidently an antisemite and by extension the Labour Party a party with antisemitism problem? Antisemitism is an ugly thing but to accuse someone of it is also ugly and those accusations are being stirred up deliberately and are stirring up hatreds and irrational fears that are remarkably like those who seek to whip up racism itself. There is a really good piece here which puts that historical perspective around Labour’s ‘antisemitism problem’, it can’t fix Livingstones motormouth though https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/jamie-stern-weiner/jeremy-corbyn-hasn-t-got-antisemitism-problem-his-opponents-do

  18. What Livingstone said was irrelevant (in his defence of Shah) and at the very least insensitive. I’m not sure it was anti-semitic.

    1. You are correct that it was irrelevant to the defence of Shah. That’s precisely why it was anti-semitic. Why else make references linking Hitler and Zionism. Particularly if they’re, as you say, irrelevant. There can only be one reason. To stick it to the Jews, oops, Zionists.

  19. “Toxic inattentiveness to the rules of the historical discipline is the stock-in-trade of the grievance-mongers of the Far Left and the Far Right”

    “Livingstone has been suspended from Labour. If there is any decency left in this party, he will never be permitted to return.”

    Historical truth is a funny thing – it lives in the whole, not in the parts. Any relatively knowledgeable reader of the above two extracts from John’s piece would spot instantly that it is a terrible perversion of the historical truth of events

    The far right is responsible for genocide and extermination; there is no instance of the far left doing similar, except where right-wingers find it convenient to label Stalin and Pol Pot as far leftists who did the same. But the vast majority of the far left have denounced Stalin and Pol Pot’s crimes – which were in fact committed in the main against people who criticised Stalin and Pol Pot from a position to the left of them

    Livingstone is a clumsily-speaking liability, but his historical activities have been overwhelmingly positive. His uncompromising defence of Irish people in the 1970s and onward was one of the factors setting up the peace process; his GLC was such a thorn in Thatcher’s side that she anti-democratically abolished it; even little things like the “Boris bikes” were originally his idea. In history’s judgement of him this week’s row will be hardly figure

    The interesting question is why is this row going on? The supposed facts of the case are given as Livingstone anti-semitically trying to link Hitler with Zionism. The real problem here lies in how present-day Zionists respond to this. The Israeli leaders (who may or may not be Zionists – I don’t know) – what was it they did that was wrong? They negotiated with a vile fascist to try to save vulnerable victims from him. They got a bad deal – forced emigration, loss of property, but surely that is preferable to concentration camps and extermination? To me their actions seem brave and praiseworthy? Rather like trying to negotiate with Daesh today

    The problem is that present day Zionists and the pro-Israel lobby are deeply embarrassed by this action. It flows from them making any contact with Naziism anathema, which is part of their world-view, and from their conflation of criticism of the Israeli state and its supporters with anti-Jewish racism (which they term anti-semitism). So they want to hide it, to bury it deeply. So when Livingstone raises it they all combine, not to correct him (because they can’t – at one level he’s right and to attempt to fix his inaccuracies involves accepting that the event did actually happen) but to shout him down and drive him out with threats. No smoke without fire, after all

    We need to accept our people, with all their minor faults. We need to have genuine honest discussions instead of coming down like a ton of bricks on the slightest thing said for our own factional reasons. Corbyn understands this; right-wing Labour and the Tories don’t – they play the game of spin and distortion. And lest anyone think I am labelling anti-Jewish racism / anti-semitism as “slight” – I don’t think that at all. But Livingstone did not say Hitler was a Zionist and he did talk about something that was essentially true

    “These parasites on the past find a nugget of fact, rip it from any sensible context and build atop it whatever deranged narrative pushes their cause” says John, establishing his credentials as a parasite on the present

    1. “The far right is responsible for genocide and extermination; there is no instance of the far left doing similar, except where right-wingers find it convenient to label Stalin and Pol Pot as far leftists who did the same. But the vast majority of the far left have denounced Stalin and Pol Pot’s crimes – which were in fact committed in the main against people who criticised Stalin and Pol Pot from a position to the left of them”

      Wow.

      That is an impressive piece of double think. The vast majority of the far right have denounced Hitler too. It’s funny how some on the far left seem eager to accept a more flattering depiction of him. It’s almost as if political views are really on a continuum and the extremities are barely distinguishable because in reality they disappear into each other.

    2. “The far right is responsible for genocide and extermination; there is no instance of the far left doing similar, except where right-wingers find it convenient to label Stalin and Pol Pot as far leftists who did the same. But the vast majority of the far left have denounced Stalin and Pol Pot’s crimes”.

      At the time the far Left did not denounce them. Of course, it’s easy to denounce once they are dead and their movements defeated. Much of the far right does the same with AH…

      “which were in fact committed in the main against people who criticised Stalin and Pol Pot from a position to the left of them”

      This is close to an outright lie. Most victims of Stalin and Pol Pot were apolitical civilians which can’t be fairly described as having any political position in the aggregate, unless you only consider their purging of fellow far-Left party members to be crimes, not their killing of millions.

      “The Israeli leaders (who may or may not be Zionists – I don’t know)”

      Sigh.

      “The problem is that present day Zionists and the pro-Israel lobby are deeply embarrassed by this action… So they want to hide it, to bury it deeply. ”

      Well, the actions in question are well known. The problem is that Livingstone twisted them to ‘being supported by Nazism’.

      “at one level he’s right and to attempt to fix his inaccuracies involves accepting that the event did actually happen”

      Can you quote any opposing position actually denying the events?

      “anti-Jewish racism (which they term anti-semitism)”

      “They” did not term it ‘anti-semitism’. The 19th century German anti-semitic movement called itself like that, when it started to base itself on racial pseudo-science. Read up on Wilhelm Marr.

      “he did talk about something that was essentially true”

      Sorta true in facts and pretty mendacious in interpretation. And lets remember the context of what he was defending – a comment about ‘removing’ all Jews from a location and shipping them to the US…

      “”their conflation of criticism of the Israeli state and its supporters with anti-Jewish racism”

      At the moment, there is a problem with the relative tolerant of too many of said critics toward said racism. Do they not care that they completely sabotage their own case, or is their point just about emoting?

      1. “This is close to an outright lie. Most victims of Stalin and Pol Pot were apolitical civilians which can’t be fairly described as having any political position in the aggregate, unless you only consider their purging of fellow far-Left party members to be crimes, not their killing of millions.”

        I think what we have here (in what you are referring to) is mainly a circular argument. Stalin and Pol Pot were not really far left because they were murdering people further to the left of them. The people who were being killed are good people, therefore they are to the left of their oppressors (I’m a lefty, so I identify left with good). Therefore, only the right perpetrate genocide. It’s a variation of the No True Scotsman fallacy. No true lefty would commit genocide.

    3. RE: The far right is responsible for genocide and extermination; there is no instance of the far left doing similar, except where right-wingers find it convenient to label Stalin and Pol Pot as far leftists who did the same. But the vast majority of the far left have denounced Stalin and Pol Pot’s crimes – which were in fact committed in the main against people who criticised Stalin and Pol Pot from a position to the left of them

      Entirely ridiculous and anti-historical. Stalin and Pol Pot (not to mention Mao, who killed even more), were leftists by any realistic definition of the term. The vast majority of the far left have NOT denounced Stalin’s crimes (and many leftists, including Chomsky, pooh-poohed stories of Khmer Rouge genocide). And no, most of the people Stalin and Pol Pot killed were NOT “to the left of them” but ordinary, regular, working people (farmers and labourers) in their own country, entirely apolitical.

      As for Livingstone, I’m not surprised YOU don’t find it odd that he would drag in Hitler into a discussion about Naz Shah, but most thinking people would, since it was irrelevant to the topic. More to the point, most thinking people, and Jewish people especially, know that the only reason to bring up Hitler when talking about Zionism and Israel is to stick it to the Jews. You’re in great company, buddy.

      1. Really? I guess you’ve never analysed the social relations of the Soviet Union under Stalin, the PRC or Cambodia. Nothing like judging books by their covers to yield a deep understanding of social phenomena. 😉

  20. Erm, Marxism isn’t inherently anti-semitic at all, it was written by Jews, albeit only be heritage. When they say hegemony they mean the bourgeois hegemony, you’re attributing anti-semitic hatred to it through your own ignorance. Indeed, it suggests that when you read that you assume Jewish.

  21. LOL, here we have another gatekeeper of the Matrix

    well educated stupid people are the most dangerous type of fools

  22. This situation arose b/c someone searched through the twitter account of a Muslim MP and found anti Jewish remarks. This in the run up to the London mayoral election in which a Muslim Labour candidate is running against a Jewish (heritage) Conservative candidate, Zac Goldsmith. Many are linking the two events

    It’s interesting that Goldsmith’s family have been associate with the far right since the 1970s. James Goldsmith was Zac’s father.

    ‘Desperate Lucan dreamt of fascist coup (The Guardian, 2009)

    One biographer, Patrick Marnham, said: ‘Seen from the Clermont Club [Lucan’s favourite gambling haunt], the country was starting to resemble the less stable years of the Weimar Republic. Sir James Goldsmith began to develop his theory of “the Communist infiltration of the Western media”. Over the smoked salmon and lamb cutlets, the talk turned to the pros and cons of a British military coup.’

    This is about Zac’s revered uncle Edward (Teddy) Goldsmith (like his brother James, his friend John Aspinall and Zac himself, fanatical environmentalists)

    ‘Black Shirts in Green Trousers

    The far right is moving in, and greens and globalisation campaigners must do more to shut it out. By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian 30th April 2002

    “Goldsmith, whose politics are a curious mixture of radical and reactionary, has advocated the enforced separation of Tutsis and Hutus in Rwanda and Protestants and Catholics in Ulster, on the grounds that they constitute “distinct ethnic groups” and are thus culturally incapable of co-habitation.

    Goldsmith, as the former editors later pointed out in their paper “Blood and Culture”, assumes that culture is a rigid, immutable thing: that different communities can live only within the boxes nature has assigned to them. ”

    The wonderful BAFTA winning , BBC documentary ‘The Mayfair Set’ by Adam Curtis

    Wikipedia

    ‘looks at Britain’s decline as a world power, the invention of asset stripping in the 1970s, and how buccaneer capitalists shaped the climate of the Thatcher years, focusing on the rise of Colonel David Stirling, Jim Slater, Sir James Goldsmith and Tiny Rowland—members of London’s elite Clermont Club in the 1960s’

  23. I agree with a lot of what John says in the article (although I think he should be cautious about some of what he describes in his own writing about other historical events) but I still have no idea what point Ken was trying to make. There’s a big argument about whether what he said was true or not (and that probably comes down to how you define “support”, whether you agree with the oft-repeated suggestion that Hitler “went mad” and whether we’re using Hitler as a shorthand for the Nazi party) but next to no discussion about what it added to the debate. How did it defend Naz Shah? What did it add to a discussion of anti-Semitism? Ken appears to have just said this apropos of nothing and then dug his heels in to defend it because “it’s true” regardless of the modern context (or lack of it) rather than the historic one. I fear it is symptomatic of something significantly more individual and personal to Ken than any sort of mass phenomenon. And on that basis I am sympathetic (while still being bloody furious at the impact of his bizarre interviews, both on those offended and on the party and leadership).

  24. This is a perceptive article, notwithstanding the difference saying “Hitler was a Zionist” and “Hitler supported Zionism”. The basic point that history is complicated and for Livingstone to claim that there is nothing to apologise for because he is merely stating “the truth” demonstrates that we are witnessing a politician nearing the fag end of his career.

    For those who remember the relatively libertarian days of the GLC when he headed it or the calming words spoken after 7/7 it is perhaps sad that he may be remembered for these stupid, infantile outbursts which is not out of character of the man as he has aged.

    The Soviet Union under Stalin was the first state at teh UN to recognise the existence of Israel in 1948. The post war Czechoslovak People’s Republic gave arms to the Israelis. Would defenders of Livingstone, especially those who look favourably on the old USSR therefore accept a statements such as “Stalin supported Zionism”, or as BTL commentators here state “Fascist Zionists” accept “Communist Zionists”? Why do we not see placards at Palestinian Solidarity marches which equate the treatment of Palestinians with the gulags?

  25. “Hitler was a monster.” Ken Livingstone.
    Selective quotation and wildly distorted perspective comes with the territory in politics; but this week has been almost surreal.
    • We have had to watch a lifelong anti-racist campaigner accused of being a Nazi apologist by an MP who believes that Labour should adopt an immigration policy closer to UKIP’s.
    • We have newspapers suddenly terribly concerned about anti-Semitism that whip up xenophobic hostility to immigrants on a daily basis.
    • We have a Conservative Prime Minister explicitly using Islamophobic smears at the despatch box at PMQs and their candidate for London Mayor using ethnically divisive dog whistle leaflets and hardly being challenged on it at all; while the media trawls through all the social media posts it can from anyone who’s ever had any contact with the Labour Party to find any comment that can be egged up into something that might be interpretable as
    anti-semitic.
    Cast out the beam from thine own eye….

  26. John Blake sets out a general law, that facts are not truth and that truth is found in the relationship of all relevant facts to each other. So far, so good. What follows, however, is a libel against Ken Livingstone, constructed from a lie, grotesque conflation and misrepresentation, poorly concealed behind the fig leaf of pseudo “historical discipline.”

    Ken Livingstone has never called Hitler a Zionist. He states that Hitler supported Zionism in the 1930’s, a fact corroborated not just by the existence of an agreement between the Nazis and German Zionists but also by the nature of that agreement.
    In this pre-Kristallnacht period, only months after Hitler was made dictator, John Blake doesn’t trouble to mention that German Jews were persecuted no more than those for whom Mr Blake reserves his deepest loathing- Trotskyists and other Socialists. Unlike many rich Zionists, such workers, German and Jewish alike, didn’t really have the option to buy their way out of Germany.

    But in terms of verifying whether the Haavara Agreement represented support for Zionism, we must look at its details. Zionists take deep exception to Naz Khan suggesting that a solution to the problem of Israel would be to move it to the United States. That’s not because they are opposed to mass emigration of Jews, or Palestinians for that matter, but because Zionists believe that their racist, Jewish supremacist state had to be carved out of an ethnically cleansed Palestine. You will note in the Zionists’ agreement with the Nazis that this is not payment to ship out over Germany’s borders to whatever country, but to facilitate Jewish emigration to a specific country- Palestine.

    In the Haavara Agreement, through the 1930’s the Nazis got to reach their hands deep into the pockets of increasingly scared, traumatised Jews, of those who, like Blake would have been, one suspects, were rich enough to buy their way out. The Zionists got to increase the Jewish population and political weight of Zionism within Palestine. It improved their chance to create their state. In this we have a confluence of interests which by any definition, virulent Nazi anti-Semitism notwithstanding, constitutes Nazi support for Zionism. Does US hatred of various fundamentalist Islamic militant groups preclude it supporting them?

    Of course, Livingstone does not expound this history and is guilty of reprehensible flippancy in evading it, waving off examination of Nazi policy evolution by the mindless reference to Hitler “going mad.” Such sloppy unseriousness, typical of soft/ex-left dilettantes does not, however, constitute anti-Semitism.

    Blake hasn’t done yet. To “Toxic inattentiveness to the rules of the historical discipline is the stock-in-trade of the grievance-mongers of the Far Left and the Far Right ” we must answer, “where is your historical discipline, Mr Blake?”

    Trotsky long ago explained in “Their Morals and Ours” the penchant of impressionists to lump opposite currents together on the basis of secondary, unessential phenomena. Equating the “far Left” with the “far Right” as does Mr Blake, has been the stock-in-trade of Liberals for some considerable time-

    “The fundamental feature of these approchements and similitudes lies in their completely ignoring the material foundation of the various currents, that is, their class nature and by that token their objective historical role. Instead they evaluate and classify different currents according to some external and secondary manifestation, most often according to their relation to one or another abstract principle which for the given classifier has a special professional value. Thus to the Roman pope Freemasons and Darwinists, Marxists and anarchists are twins because all of them sacrilegiously deny the immaculate conception. To Hitler, liberalism and Marxism are twins because they ignore “blood and honour”. To a democrat, fascism and Bolshevism are twins because they do not bow before universal suffrage. And so forth.”

    If we were to excuse for a moment Blake’s conflation of left and right on the grounds of his being a middle class moralising philistine, that still leaves us, unless it is just something he demands in others while excusing himself, with his protestation of the need for historical discipline. Blake makes no effort to contextualise the “fascinating, tragic and terrible stories” he doesn’t really tell anyway, and, in not doing so, violates the very historical discipline for which he simultaneously argues.

    Most obscene is his conflation of the early era of the Nazi dictatorship, during which the Haavara Agreement was signed and in force, with the period of the “Final Solution.” Alleging that simultaneous planning of enforced Jewish emigration and their extermination constitutes an implausibly contradictory dysfunction of the Nazi state, Blake ignores the actual contradictions of the Nazi state and invents his own.

    The Nazis preached that the Jews were synonymous both with Bolshevism and finance capital. Their state preached the evils of finance capital yet disarmed all domestic, resistance to German finance capital’s needs. It preached the subjugation of the individual to the “nation” yet never encroached upon German private property.

    One could continue at length. But, Mr Blake, what is your evidence that the Nazis were planning the industrialised murder of the Jews while they were enforcing, aided and abetted by Zionists, emigration to Palestine? There is none. The “Final Solution” was a product, like the “Hunger Plan” of an entirely different set of circumstances, a context his professed “historical discipline” should have obliged him to examine. That he has not done so, as Adam Tooze did so expertly in his book “The Wages of Destruction” is more than a slip. He was, I wager, more concerned with venting his spleen at what passes as Socialism in today’s New Tory Party and militating for its expulsion. That is his only perceptible “principle.” “Fact” or “truth” are just two more words to bandy about in engineering this, united with, as is always the case in such party putsches, advancing his own personal position.

    War, the prospect of food shortage, the need to keep Germany’s work force fed and industries expanding are what progressed virulent racism to genocide. German racist supremacism, which is as innate to Nazism as Jewish racist supremacism is innate to Zionism, facilitated the most inhuman solution to Germany’s wartime economic problems. It also developed from what had gone before in Germany, but the argument that the Nazi state planned for both emigration and mass extermination simultaneously is an hysterical, histrionic rabble rousing mess.

    If Blake had any integrity he would apologise and retract this article. Of course, if anything, he will only return with more venom, the logic for which is not to be found in his arguments but in his social class.

    It is clear from his diatribe that his real hatred is for any residue in the Labour Party of the very ideology that organised the working class to fight fascism- Socialism. His own ideology manifests the same class contradictions as those of the Nazi ideology and their state. Born of the middle class it hated both the working class organised independently for its own class agenda- socialism, and finance capital that ruined it and its obsolete petty industries. Stuck between the two primary classes, in fascism it attempted its own path but was drawn inexorably to serve big capital. Likewise, Blake hates anti-Semitism, finding it even where it doesn’t exist, but even more the only social force that can consign it to the dustbin of history- the international working class, organised to fight for socialism.

    1. “If instead of arguing against zionism in the 1920’s and 1930’s I had urged European Jews to go to Palestine, I might have helped some of the lives that were later extinguished in Hitler’s gas chambers”

      Isaac Deutscher, ‘Israel’s Spiritual Climate’ in The Non-Jewish Jew (1954)

    2. For all the waffle, there’s no need to read beyond paragraph three.

      “Zionists believe that their racist, Jewish supremacist state had to be carved out of an ethnically cleansed Palestine.”

      Then later on we find: “German racist supremacism, which is as innate to Nazism as Jewish racist supremacism is innate to Zionism…”

      See anti-Semitic canards I mention elsewhere above, specifically accusations of racism. Yes, I am making an accusation of anti-Semitism. Feel free to lodge a libel action.

      1. I guess I must be one of those “self-hating Jews” of anti-Semitic mythology. Ooh, it’s only my dad that was Jewish, guess that doesn’t count.

        1. Anti-semitic canards. It’s a thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitic_canard

          It doesn’t matter who you are or where you come from. It doesn’t matter that Lenni Brenner was born into an orthodox Jewish household, as relied on by some Ken supporters to suggest that the author’s writings cannot be tainted. Brenner is a Marxist-Trotskyist who continually refers to the removed Jews as capitalists. To him they were just part of the bourgeoisie. Some people are so set against Israel that they would tar the entire Zionist movement with the same brush. Undoubtedly some Zionism had or has a superiority complex, but not all Zionism is the same. You call Zionism inherently racist, perhaps relying on the 1975 UN Resolution to that effect, which was revoked in 1991 with only a handful of Arab nations sticking to their guns. Most have apologised for signing it. The thing that sets anti-Semitism apart from other forms of racism is its pseudo-emancipatory aspect. It has an insidious blinding tendency.

          1. Succinctly put. KL’s brand of history is an attempt to equate Israel with Nazism. That’s why anti-zionism these days is anti-semitism. That doesn’t excuse Netanyahu but criticizing him and Greater Israelites is not the same thing.

  27. I am interested in the roots of Nazi ideology which was in the romantic, deep ecology of Volk culture. Hitler’s deepest antisemitism came from his absolute opposition to human domination of nature, stated in Mein Kampf and exemplified by.

    Genesis 1:28

    ‘And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth’.

    The Nazis were an anti capitalist, pro worker state oriented party before Hitler was appointed chancellor (on the advice of big business). In my opinion, that’s what causes all the conflict and confusion about the Nazis. They CHANGED when they got into power.

    The Night of the Long Knives was the moment ideology (socialism and ecology)were purged from the Party.

    “Hitler was uncomfortable with Röhm’s outspoken support for a “second revolution” to redistribute wealth (in Röhm’s view, President Hindenburg’s appointing of Hitler as German Chancellor on January 30, 1933 had accomplished the “nationalistic” revolution but had left unfulfilled the “socialistic” motive in National Socialism).

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_of_the_Long_Knives

    This in when the true horror of Nazism began. IBM orchestrated the holocaust.

    “IBM ‘dealt directly with Holocaust organisers’ -Author says US firm had control of Polish subsidiary

    “knew they were not German machines… The labels were in English…

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/mar/29/humanities.highereducation

    1. I suggest you read Trotsky’s article “What is national Socialism.” I know I shouldn’t promote his work as he was a Jew, me, apparently, an anti-semite (although also with a Jewish father), but I have found no other analysis so profound or tragically prophetic.

      1. R BH

        “This striving toward connectedness with the totality of life, with nature itself, a nature into which we are born, this is the deepest meaning and the true essence of National Socialist thought.”

        Ernst Lehmann, Biologischer Wille. Wege und Ziele biologischer Arbeit im neuen Reich, München, 1934

        My website on the Volkish, romantic roots of Nazism. Deliberately side stepping the nascent horror.

        http://goo.gl/wHNVbu

        1. Yeah, a right bunch of hippies. Same class, different social environment.

          Some exerts from “What is National Socialism?

          “Hitler accomplished the same feat [as Mussolini] in translating the methodology of fascism into the language of German mysticism.

          “Fascism has opened up the depths of society for politics. Today, not only in peasant homes but also in city skyscrapers, there lives alongside of the twentieth century the tenth or the thirteenth. A hundred million people use electricity and still believe in the magic power of signs and exorcisms. The Pope of Rome broadcasts over the radio about the miraculous transformation of water into wine. Movie stars go to mediums. Aviators who pilot miraculous mechanisms created by man’s genius wear amulets on their sweaters. What inexhaustible reserves they possess of darkness, ignorance, and savagery! Despair has raised them to their feet fascism has given them a banner. Everything that should have been eliminated from the national organism in the form of cultural excrement in the course of the normal development of society has now come gushing out from the throat; capitalist society is puking up the undigested barbarism. Such is the physiology of National Socialism.

          “The program of petty-bourgeois illusions is not discarded; it is simply torn away from reality, and dissolved in ritualistic acts. The unification of all classes reduces itself to semisymbolic compulsory labor and to the confiscation of the labor holiday of May Day for the “benefit of the people.” The preservation of the Gothic script as opposed to the Latin is a symbolic revenge for the yoke of the world market The dependence upon the international bankers, Jews among their number, is not eased an iota, wherefore it is forbidden to slaughter animals according to the Talmudic ritual. If the road to heaven is paved with good intentions, then the avenues of the Third Reich are paved with symbols.”

          https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/germany/1933/330610.htm

  28. A) Hitler’s policy was manifestly worse towards Jews from the start. Political opponents had more options, like recanting and joining the Nazi party, feigning support or at least moderating their opposition.

    B) The question of when did Hitler decide on the extermination course is a red herring. Hitler essentially held that Jews were fount of evil. And that was when Jews were totally dispersed. Actually supporting Zionism would not only allow them to concentrate in a single spot but also allow them to form a state with its own army, intelligence service, etc. That could not have been anything but the stuff of nightmares to AH, and indeed Nazi state policy was to oppose Zionism, to point of supporting the then ‘Arab revolt’. The Haavara agreement was the product of very specific circumstances, and stretching it to claim ‘support for Zionism’ is ignorance to the point of slander.

    C) Then again. by the standard of ‘support’ discussed here, we could say that the ‘international working class’ supported Hitler, when it allowed Stalin to sign Molotov-Ribbentrop with zero protest (or alternatively that Hitler supported Communism). Also we would be able to say that the various Trotskyist ‘intellectuals’ that Orwell had called ‘objectively pro-fascist’ weren’t just ‘objectively’ so, but actually supported Nazism.

    D) The modern Left is capable of supporting every oppressed groups’ call for rights unconditionally and without ifs and buts, and especially without demanding they wait for the Revolution ™ to eliminate the prejudice against them. Only Jews have to for some reason to wait for the ‘international working class’. One wonders why that is so.

    1. A) “Hitler’s policy was manifestly worse towards Jews from the start. Political opponents had more options, like recanting and joining the Nazi party, feigning support or at least moderating their opposition.”

      Tell that to the thousands of German socialists murdered in the camps through the 1930s or, say, the French Trotskyists and the cadre they built in the Wehrmacht occupation forces, tortured and shot when the Gestapo discovered them. You haven’t a clue about class struggle or the sacrifices communists make.

      B) “The question of when did Hitler decide on the extermination course is a red herring. Hitler essentially held that Jews were fount of evil. And that was when Jews were totally dispersed. Actually supporting Zionism would not only allow them to concentrate in a single spot but also allow them to form a state with its own army, intelligence service, etc. That could not have been anything but the stuff of nightmares to AH, and indeed Nazi state policy was to oppose Zionism, to point of supporting the then ‘Arab revolt’. The Haavara agreement was the product of very specific circumstances, and stretching it to claim ‘support for Zionism’ is ignorance to the point of slander.”

      That would be libel, it’s written. It’s amazing you continue to argue a case that has just been refuted. Maybe you’ll get it when you wake up tomorrow?

      C) “Then again. by the standard of ‘support’ discussed here, we could say that the ‘international working class’ supported Hitler, when it allowed Stalin to sign Molotov-Ribbentrop with zero protest (or alternatively that Hitler supported Communism). Also we would be able to say that the various Trotskyist ‘intellectuals’ that Orwell had called ‘objectively pro-fascist’ weren’t just ‘objectively’ so, but actually supported Nazism.”

      Stalin was not a representative of the international working class so much as that of a nascent Great Russian capitalist class. But you can and will say what you like, and without any compunction to scientifically justify it. That’s just a characteristic of middle class dilettantes and muddle heads, particularly in a political fight, who fling any old quantity of crap at their adversaries without thought to its integrity. Seen you before a thousand times.

      D) “The modern Left is capable of supporting every oppressed groups’ call for rights unconditionally and without ifs and buts, and especially without demanding they wait for the Revolution ™ to eliminate the prejudice against them. Only Jews have to for some reason to wait for the ‘international working class’. One wonders why that is so.”

      What modern “Left?” Whatever it might be, I am no part of it and cannot answer for it.

      Communists are not opposed to a homeland for Jews, but the one Zionists have made for them was at the expense of Palestinians and has become a tool of western imperialism.

      Communists do not believe that any national liberation movement can realise the tasks of a bourgeois revolution in an imperialist environment, without passing beyond bourgeois nationalism to socialist revolution. Support for the struggles of oppressed nationalities is for us a phase in the struggle for world revolution. The immediate tasks of the socialist revolution in Israel is to unite Israeli with Arab workers. This cannot occur without a simultaneous fight against all racist doctrines, Arab and Zionist.

      1. A) “Tell that to the thousands…”

        Again, inherently, they simply had more options, and less dogged Nazi pursuit. That they didn’t join in with fascism or run away is to their credit, but they still had an advantage over Jews. (And your original comment was about the _early period_ of Nazism. Recall that all Jews were removed from government service as early as April 7, 1933, while, again, even ‘hostile’ non-Jews could stay [e.g. if they had registered with the Nazis…]).

        B) ” It’s amazing you continue to argue a…”

        I notice you raise no counterpoint.

        C)
        “But you can and will say what you like, and without any compunction to scientifically justify it”

        I was saying your “standard” is absurd.

        “Stalin was not a representative of the international working class so much as that of a nascent Great Russian capitalist class..”

        The first is a creative definition, but I don’t think _any_ leftist of the time (even Stalin’s opponents) would agree with you. The analysis of USSR as failed state-capitalism dated to early 2000s AFAIK. Anyhow, we can rephrased that as ‘Hitler supported nascent Great Russian capitalism when he signed the Anti-Aggression Pact’. Does that sound even remotely credible given what we know of his views and actions?

        And I was talking also about the reaction of the various leftist intellectuals and communist parties which immediately praised the deal and didn’t criticize Stalin at all.

        D)
        “Communists are not opposed to a homeland for Jews, but the one Zionists have made for them was at the expense of Palestinians and has become a tool of western imperialism. ”

        But we are where we are today, and ‘a homeland for Jews’ exists, to an extent because of Communist ‘mistakes’ (one might recall Communists supported Israel during the critical first two years). A saner approach would try working inside it, rather than this futile attempt to kill it. Israel is a ‘tool of western imperialism’ but Britain isn’t?

  29. Well if ever there was an example of using “facts” to distort history and make racism, conspiracy theory and oddballs respectable, and the dangers of KL’s comments, this is it. A selective reading of some “facts” that are not only out of context but in many cases are not accurate.

    Like so many totalitarian movements the nazis jumbled together socialist ideas with a bunch of other stuff including virulent anti-semitism and the “stab in the back”. After leaving prison Hitler developed a good relationship with capitalism such that by the time he became chancellor he was supported openly or tacitly by a good chunk of the elite who saw him as bulwark against socialism and communism and someone who could be controlled.

    Hitler exterminated Rohm because he was increasingly independent and threatened his leadership. He also viewed the SA as a dangerous force which was outside his control and offended the military. Eliminating had everything to do with power and control and little to do with ideology.

    To suggest that Rohm and the SA were any less rabid about the jews and somehow things changed after they were gone is pure fantasy and the worst form of apologia. After all, who beat up the jews during the long years on the road to power?
    As for the IBM comment, it is beneath comment.

    1. Simon

      “by the time he became chancellor he was supported openly or tacitly by a good chunk of the elite who saw him as bulwark against socialism and communism and someone who could be controlled.”

      Yes, I agree and it’s exactly why he was appointed chancellor. I could have written that myself, but decided not to in order to reduce the length. of the post

      I didn’t suggest ‘Rohm and the SA ‘were any less rabid about the jews ‘. I was purely referring to their enthusiasm for fundamental Nazi socialist and ecological ideology.

      As for IBM

      New York Times

      However, another invention did exist: the IBM punch card and card sorting system—a precursor to the computer. IBM, primarily through its German subsidiary, made Hitler’s program of Jewish destruction a technologic mission the company pursued with chilling success.

      IBM Germany, using its own staff and equipment, designed, executed, and supplied the indispensable technologic assistance Hitler’s Third Reich needed to accomplish what had never been done before—the automation of human destruction.

      More than 2,000 such multi-machine sets were dispatched throughout Germany, and thousands more throughout German-dominated Europe. Card sorting operations were established in every major concentration camp. People were moved from place to place, systematically worked to death, and their remains cataloged with icy automation.

      https://www.nytimes.com/books/first/b/black-ibm.html

      My web page on American business co-operation with the Nazis before and during WWII . One of the strongest themes (sub texts) of the novel Catch 22 written by (Jewish writer) Joseph Heller.

      All mainstream sources

      http://goo.gl/bzfyww

  30. “Succinctly put. KL’s brand of history is an attempt to equate Israel with Nazism. That’s why anti-zionism these days is anti-semitism.”

    I wouldn’t put it past him, he’s no Marxist, but where? How? If he did he would be judging sociological phenomena by their expressions, not their essential relations. This method is hopelessly flawed given that relatively identical phenomena can manifest differently and very different phenomena can manifest relatively equally. I’t’s what we call impressionism. Clearly the Nazis and the Zionists have committed some very similar crimes, but that is insufficient evidence to label them the same.

    Even if he was, there is still no logical progression to equating anti-Zionism with with anti-semitism. Israel is not Jews in general but a fundamentally racist state hated by many Jews, among others.

    The entire Zionist “logic” is non sequitur behind a fig leaf of spurious anti-racism and the worst political correctness.

    1. The brilliant thing about the blog is how people go in proving the point they oppose. Simply equating nazism with Israel and Zionism even if only in part is incredibly racist. There is absolutely no doubt that Israel has done some things that are wrong (and so have the arabs and palestinians) but you cannot even begin to put that in the same bracket as the nazis and genocide. To do to the survivors and relatives of the victims is rather like excusing the slave trade by saying that africans were part of it (I would love to see this page debate that one).

      “Jews in general” do not oppose the existence of Israel nor do they view it as a fundamentally racist state. If they did the US would behave very differently.

      Both statements are part of the extreme language and basic racism that has become so standard that people to an extent dont believe they are racist. But they are. And no better proof than Crobyn’s continued denial of a problem or of the problem of sharing platforms with Hizbollah, Hamas and Isis (if he could). It’s the same as the smug myth that only the right wing commit atrocities.

      1. You appear to have comprehension problems if you are not just farting about. Who is equating Zionism with Nazism? You need a trip to specsavers.

        If we were to give a sociological definition of Israel, it would today doubtless include, to use the terminology of Zbigniew Brzezinsky, being a vassal of the United States. It could not exist long independently. Actually, to move the state of Israel to the United States, where it would be welcomed by the evangelical far right no less than far right Jews, is not such a bad idea except that not being a vassal in the Middle East would rapidly lose the state its appeal to US imperialism. Jews who wanted to live in peace with Arabs could stay in Palestine.

        How bloody dare you hijack me and hundreds of thousands of Jews who bitterly oppose Israel, to your sick, racist, religious fundamentalist cause. We are not you and never will be.

        1. Once again you bear out much of what the author wrote and what is generally being said about anti-Israel and anti-zionism today. Your last comments are very telling. It seems that your only retort to criticism is to tar people with rabid slurs.

          By saying that “clearly the nazis and the zionists have committed some very similar crimes” you’re equating the two. It’s an extraordinary thing to say since there is simply no comparison in the wrongs of Israel and what the nazis did at any level. You might as well say that the US, GB, Spain, China, Russia, Poland, ancient Persia, ancient Greece, ancient Rome etc committed some similar crimes to the nazis. And if that is what you truly believe you need to do some serious reading on the Holocaust and the nazis in general

          By making the link you do two things. First you are reducing the horror of nazi genocide by making it something more common place that others do too. Second you by linking zionists to nazism you permit extreme language and action against Israel and jews. Many of the comments on this blog are wildly inaccurate, rabidly anti-Israel and zionism to the point of being anti-jewish and not a few are apologies for nazism.

          There is plenty to object to in what Israel has done since 67 and Netenyahu’s Greater Israel politics is despicable. To criticize that is fine. To smear nazism over it is not.

          This video says it much more elegantly than I can

          https://www.facebook.com/chriscookbbc/videos/811491352316512/?hc_location=ufi

    2. There appear to be two parallel and contradictory arguments going on here, both of which have become off topic. On the one hand, some of us find ourselves arguing that Zionism is not Racism. This is in direct response to assertions such as yours pointed out above, e.g. “German racist supremacism, which is as innate to Nazism as Jewish racist supremacism is innate to Zionism…”. On the other hand, we have people like you arguing that anti-Zionism is not racism, as though anyone here is suggesting that. Indeed, there are religious reasons why certain Jewish denominations reject Zionism, not least by any means the prophecy of the arrival of the Messiah.

      It is all too easy to shield from criticism the wrongdoings of Israel by claiming anti-Semitism. It is perhaps even easier, by which I mean lazy, to use the claim “you can’t criticize Israel without being branded anti-Semitic” as a shield to ward off the finding of actual anti-Semitism. Both of these are off topic. Ken Livingstone’s remarks on BBC London were both crass and historically inaccurate, but he did not leave it there. In the following days he went on to give his deeper feelings and drew a parallel between Nazism and 1930s Zionism by asserting a shared racist interest. He is not quite saying that Zionism is racism, but he is within spitting distance. This is the canard I cannot forgive him for, certainly not until he owns up to it. I don’t believe that Ken Livingstone is a bad person. I don’t believe that anti-Semitic remarks reveal a permanent character flaw. In Ken’s case I place the blame on a failure of self awareness and an utter lack of humility.

      Livingstone is correct in one sense. Of all the German Jews, the Zionists are the ones Hitler distrusted the least. In his view they were at least honest enough to acknowledge that Jews were a separate nation and hence not German. Any outward support the Nazis may have shown for Zionism was nothing more than an appeal to real Germans to see the Jews as alien.

      1. Actually there is a very real problem with this whole attempt to link zionism to nazism and equating Israel with zionism. Even saying that Hitler distrusted it the least muddies the waters, hugely belittles the Holocaust (it didn’t “begin” in 1941. It was a plan that evolved from the 20s), and opens the door to the stuff that litters this blog such as the claim that since Israel shares some crimes with nazism it is perfectly fair to consider resettlement to the US. These are just innocent political or social views. They are racist and rabid. No other country or movement is so deliberately tarred with links to nazism. No one credible says that the US shares traits with the nazis and then uses that to justify extreme views and solutions.

        Livingstone is not an innocent in this. he has form going back to the 70s and 80s when he ran with movements that were expelled from Lab for anti-semitism and he edited/was in the board of at lear one publication that openly labelled the jews in Israel as nazis. KL is very well aware of what he is doing and happily promotes the idea that zionism is racism and linked to nazism. he just does it a bit more subtly.

        Ironically that leads to what you complain about. Criticism of Israel is labelled anti-semite. If people stopped using zionism and nazism as ways to justify there opposition to Israel it would be far easier to call Israel to account for wrongdoing and for the support of Greater Israel ideas.

        Jacobson sums it up perfectly
        https://www.facebook.com/chriscookbbc/videos/811491352316512/?hc_location=ufi

        1. Norman Finkelstein makes some good points here, and I think his opinion deserves respect, though I know the he is somewhat controversial: https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/jamie-stern-weiner-norman-finkelstein/american-jewish-scholar-behind-labour-s-antisemitism-scanda

          It is from Finkelstein that I get the notion that Hitler thought the Zionists were the only Jews honest enough to acknowledge the reality of their separate nationhood (though I’m reading Mein Kampf at the minute and I can’t find this reference on page 56 of the edition I am reading, which is James Murphy’s 1937 translation). It’s certainly plausible. Hitler clearly regards Jews as a nation unto themselves. Overall, chapter 2 (the second half of which is simply vile) does suggest that Hitler was not exactly respectful of Zionists. He considered Zionism ultimately a sham, at least at the time of writing. It is however apparently true that the Zionist flag was permitted to be raised in the Third Reich starting in 1936 (Jews were not permitted to raise the German one). None of this excuses Ken Livingstone’s twisted logic, which is almost lifted from the pages of the Institute for Historical Review.

          1. The problem is that so much of this is looked at in isolation. It has two results. One is to suggest that Hitler wasn’t so convinced initially of the need to rid the world of jews when really it is one example of how he and other nazis toyed with conflicting ideas as they moved towards the sort of cleansing they wanted. As you say, using zionism helped the effort to convince Germans that German jews were alien. BTW this line if reasoning also opens the door to casting doubt on just how evil Hitler and nazism were and if the Holocaust was really intended, etc – KL giving a perfect example of that, not just once but twice. The fact that Netanyahu has flirted with that as well doesn’t make it any more acceptable – it’s just a comment on Netanyahu.

            The other problem is that this is a slippery path to linking zionism with nazism – if zionism had agreements, got certain “concessions’, had some “support” then it’s easy to say zionism is fascist even quasi nazi. From there a short hop to zionism equals Israel, so then Israel is fascist/nazi/ etc so it can be eliminated. This blog is littered with this logic. No other country is tagged like this and that lets inevitably to the conclusion that this is more than just political opposition (BTW it is entirely right to criticize israel for behavior but using zionism and nazism to do so is not).

      2. “On the other hand, we have people like you arguing that anti-Zionism is not racism, as though anyone here is suggesting that.”

        The UK-based Campaign Against Antisemitism told The Independent that being “anti-Zionist” is antisemetic.

        “Zionism is the Jewish people’s right to self-determination in Israel,” a spokesperson said. “All people have the right to self-determination, so denying that right just to Jews is antisemitic.”

        http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-antisemitism-row-naz-shah-israel-map-norman-finkelstein-obscene-a7012461.html

  31. I am promoting neither the video nor the book as truth.

    “1933: Zionists sign a deal with Hitler – The Transfer Agreement”

    Newscast about the launch of the controversial book about Nazi-Zionist collaboration. Admission that boycott of jewish stores was for only one day, April 1, 1933!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3we8Sg9oOs&bpctr=1462309808

    It’s about this book

    The Transfer Agreement: The Dramatic Story of the Pact Between the Third Reich and “Jewish Palestine is a book written by author Edwin Black, documenting the transfer agreement (“Haavara Agreement” in Hebrew) between Zionist organizations and Nazi Germany to transfer a number of Jews and their assets to Palestine. This agreement was partly inspired by a global boycott of Germany that had appeared to threaten the Reich.

    Controversial as it may be seen in hindsight, it marked one of the few rescue of Jews and their assets during the Holocaust.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Transfer_Agreement

    1. Are you serious? Only 1 day? This is such a silly statement and is comment on the author and frankly you for paying lip service to him.
      A cursory glance at the astray of the period would tell you that the nazis worked up over time the ethnic cleansing program. Efforts to promote boycotts were common in the 20s and nit just by Nazis and not just by Germans. The April 33 boycott was not respected by all Germans but the nazis stepped up a program of excluding jews from professions, education, clubs etc and obstructing their businesses.
      The same goes for the agreement. Sure it happened but the context is completely different from what KL, Black, Lenni and you suggest. Which is exactly what the author of this article was talking about.

  32. “…the Holocaust (it didn’t “begin” in 1941. It was a plan that evolved from the 20s)”

    It is all too easy with hindsight, to divorce the Nazi persecution of Jews from its changing historical context during the dozen or so years of dictatorship and say the end was an inevitable planned continuation of the beginning. Actually, there is no evidence to support such a view, it is impressionism of the sort Da Vinci recognised in our ability to see patterns in natural, unfashioned materials- pareidolia.

    The only thing the Nazis were planning and creating new infrastructure for, is new territorial aggression. That this aggression would create conditions in which the Holocaust and other genocidal policies would take root does not make it inevitable, precisely because it was not pre-planned.

    Just one example of the variables, what if Halifax had made peace with the Nazis in 1940? There would have been no blockade of Europe, no anticipated shortage of calories for the Nazi work force as the war moved East. All sorts of things would have flowed differently from that outcome, worse for the world in general, possibly better for European Jewry. Another, had Russia cut off Germany’s grain and manganese supplies any time after Poland, Germany would have been brought to its knees. Could the Nazis have anticipated their pact with Stalin through all the political twists of the thirties? So how could they plan the Holocaust?

    From Haavara Agreement to “Final Solution” is not a straight line because the needs of the Nazis changed so much over that period. Otherwise, why bother with Haavara at all? Why not just kill the rich German Jews and take all their money? Clearly there are distinct periods of the Nazi persecution of the Jews in which different methods were employed to achieve different ends. And if anyone still thinks the beginning was as bad as the end, ponder upon whether you would prefer-

    1. To wear a gold star on your jacket and not be allowed to wear wool, risk getting arbitrarily beaten up by thugs, be barred from numerous professions, have your windows smashed and house daubed with graffiti etc etc but have the option to buy your way out of Germany, if you’ve got any money.

    2. Be dragged from your house and marched to a gully, be given a shovel and forced to dig a pit in which you would then be shot and buried.

    If neither are alternatives many people would jump at, is there any serious argument that to people with a life instinct 1 is not as bad as 2?

    “…the claim that since Israel shares some crimes with nazism it is perfectly fair to consider resettlement to the US”

    I must have missed that one. Unless you are referring to someone else’s argument misrepresentation rears its foolish head yet again. Israel was created by ethnically cleansing Palestinians from their homeland. It is maintained by the oppression of the Palestinian people and their displacement into other countries and by the world’s greatest imperialist power. It has no right to exist in Palestine.

    “By saying that “clearly the nazis and the zionists have committed some very similar crimes” you’re equating the two.”

    And now we once again have twisting by selective quotation. Let me quote myself with some emphasis added-

    If he did [equate Nazism with Zionism] he would be judging sociological phenomena BY THEIR EXPRESSIONS, NOT THEIR ESSENTIAL RELATIONS. THIS METHOD IS HOPELESSLY FLAWED given that relatively identical phenomena can manifest differently and very different phenomena can manifest relatively equally. It’s what we call impressionism.

    “It’s an extraordinary thing to say since there is simply no comparison in the wrongs of Israel and what the nazis did at any level.”

    There certainly is- ethnic cleansing, massacres, supervision of massacres, belief in racial superiority and national destiny. One could go on. Here’s a quote from a memorandum of the Zionist Federation of Germany, dated June 22nd 1933-

    “Zionism believes that the rebirth of the national life of a people, which is now occurring in Germany through the emphasis on its Christian and national character, must also come about among the Jewish people. For the Jewish people, too, national origin, religion, common destiny and a sense of its uniqueness must be of decisive importance to its existence. This demands the elimination of the egotistical individualism of the liberal era, and its replacement with a sense of community and collective responsibility.”

    In spite of these expressions of Zionism it remains sociologically incorrect and intellectually undisciplined, to equate Zionism, which rests on an untenable economic base in Israel, a vassal of the US, with Nazism, which rested upon an aggressive expanding capitalism hemmed in by global empires. I also object to Livingstone’s comments, not because they are anti-Semitic- they are not- but because they are of no help in understanding history.

    “You might as well say that the US, GB, Spain, China, Russia, Poland, ancient Persia, ancient Greece, ancient Rome etc committed some similar crimes to the nazis. ”

    Without doubt. I’m not entirely sure who invented the concentration camp, perhaps the Spanish? But certainly the US made extensive use of them in the Philippines, the British in South Africa, not to mention the genocide of various indigenous peoples. Then there’s the slave trade followed by indentured labour and the often genocidal treatment of their own working classes in the accumulation of capital (Stalinist Russia and PRC very much included). Since you include the ancient Persions I am aggrieved that you left out Genghis Khan and Attila, but is the future to drag post enlightenment culture and values down to the denominator of barbarians?

    1. Breathtaking dumbing down of the nazis. Try reading some unbiased history which isn’t trying to prove a point about zionism.

      Sure it wasn’t straight line. The nazis were acutely aware if the need to play domestic and international public opinion while trying to eliminate the jews from Germany which they never though simply kicking them out. They were also never a monolithic party and lots of things went on especially in the early years that can be interpreted out of context 70 years later. And they also played opinion and jews for all they could so there was a lot of play acting to show the world that actually no one wanted the jews and the Germans were just being more honest. Plus Europe was riddled with anti-semitism of all shades – hey it was news in the US when a jew ran for veep 10 year ago which is quite extraordinary if you stop and think.

      The nazis were never “only planning” one thing. They were planning and living out multiple ideas/fantasies/ hatreds and from the start they set about reducing jews to sub-humans and denying the means to live. Read Hans and Hans if you want to see the two sides. They let some jews buy their way out, they let some go to keep international opinion inside, they let a shipload leave and try in vain to gain entry anywhere before returning, they did so much more than just put a star on and beat up jews. And they denied wealthy jews exits just as often as they let them buy them. You have to look at much more than the sayings and direct actions of Hitler. You have to look at what the whole range of the nazi system was saying and doing. Hitler didnt give lots of specific orders. He relied on others to do the work and give him results – that’s why the myth that he never actually knew about the Holocaust arose.

      They didn’t have the Final Solution all worked out but they knew that they were working towards that goal in some form. War didnt suddenly change their views but it did give them space for the German jews and a new jewish population to lock up and slowly starve to death (there was no Wannensee to create ghettos). And ever wary of international opinion they created Maria Theresenstadt to try to fool everybody (even while they were quietly starving even those “lucky” jews as well).

      Russia did change things. First it gave them the confidence that they were going to win and could do what they wanted especially in the East out of sight. It also gave them a huge “problem”. All of sudden they had millions of jews to deal with and all the measures up to date just weren’t going to be enough. Wannensee.

      A straight line? No but a common thread of the need to cleanse “jewry” and not just send them elsewhere (the Madagascar “homeland” idea was never really serious and anyway it was never expected to be a place they would actually survive and thrive in).

      The paragraph on historical what -ifs is, with respect, half baked and riddled with inconsistencies. The only purpose seems to be to justify the idea that the nazis couldn’t have foreseen lots of things including planning the Holocaust. That misses the point that they meant to get rid of the jews not just exile them but it wasn’t all neatly worked out – the Holocaust evolved although not in a straight line.

      As for linking zionism and nazism to justify anti-Israel racist positions you seem to have forgotten the starting point of this scandal. Naz posted the idea if resettling Israel in the US with the cute link that after all that is what zionism had proposed and worked for with the nazis (the sites of other suspended councillors makes the point far more explicitly). That is the origin of KL’s comment: hey, it’s not such a big deal, she’s not really anti-jewish, I mean look the zionist’s did work with Hitler and he supported their aims. he didnt switch to Holocaust until he went mad. It’s true, it’s in a book I read. What’s more Netanyahu said so too (note he refrained from saying what N actually said because he knew it was actually something else but no less outrageous)

      And no matter what qualifier you put on it, saying Nazis and Israel committed the same crimes is equating the two. And for a reason which you then go on to set out, complete with banal and offensive equation of the concept of Aryan purity of blood and zionist statements of separate identity and purity. Followed up with an outright association of the two (cute since your previous post ranted about being misquoted and misrepresented). For starter judaism as a religion holds blood as an essential element. Zionism was reacting to centuries of persecution across the known world and the need for a place to be safely jewish. The call to communalism was not some nazi or soviet slogan. it was the recognition that creating homeland required sacrifice and putting the common goal above the individual. Read you on the Balfour Declaration negotiations if you genuinely want to understand the context better. Moreover, zionists were viewed as kooks by many jews especially in Germany in part for just these types of declarations. BTW the fact that they used the Aryan parallel to support their views was hardly surprising. they were preaching to German jews with an eye to the nazi reaction. It is also probable that they like most others couldn’t quite believe that the nazis were really that dangerous.

      But no matter. Let’s use zionist quotes in the wrong context to label it fascist, unsustainable and linked to the same ideologies as nazism. For good measure criticize KL for poor history! What follows after the rant is more poor history. It was the British who are widely accused of starting the idea if concentration camps in the Boer war, ironically condemned by the germans. The Spanish has been accused of just about everything, the Romans, Chinese, Persians , Egyptians, the US and others variously resettled, enslaved, eradicated and committed “the same crimes” as nazis. The Mongols just killed and invaded, Attila invaded and looted. But none get stuck with the same nazi label. And that is telling.

      As for suggesting that Nazism was just about expanding capitalism in the face of being hemmed words fail. But in the end it buttresses Blake – erroneous use of “facts” to justify extreme positions – and Jacobson – anti-zionism is ultimately racist the way it is used today. Spend the 20 minutes to listen to him.

      1. “Try reading some unbiased history which isn’t trying to prove a point about zionism.”

        You haven’t a clue what I read and what I don’t read, but that does at least evidence your own argumentation.

        “[The Nazis] were also never a monolithic party … You have to look at what the whole range of the nazi system was saying and doing. Hitler didnt give lots of specific orders. He relied on others to do the work and give him results”

        And then cherry pick the titbits that suit your narrative and make the fantasy of some, the plan of a regime?

        The Nazi regime consisted of a number of conflicting overlapping departments fighting for supremacy amongst themselves and the favour of their “leader.” As such, outside of a plan and preparation for territorial aggression the Nazis had no long term plan so much as pragmatic and multiple, often conflicting responses to various situations. As you rightly put it, under the aegis of Hitler, various fiefs attempted to “liv[e] out multiple ideas/fantasies/ hatreds” which needed satisfaction. But a thirst might be quenched by beer or water and without evidence of plans, installations or even an approved, expressed intention, you cannot rationally assert an extermination “plan.” Fantasies have to be made reality. Until steps are taken to do so, they remain fantasies. Or are you asserting that virulent anti-Semitism equals genocide?

        As you again so rightly say, anti-Semitism was not unique to Germany, and other countries, actually, had traditions of far more violent expressions. Although the Nazis went on to enlist the help of numerous ethnicities in their subsequent execution of the Holocaust, only in Nazi Germany and under its wings did virulent anti-Semitism arrive at such an outcome. The explanation for this is not to be found, then, in anti-Semitism per se but in the material conditions of Nazi Germany, its internal and external contradictions.

        You half cite anecdotes about ships departing and returning, etc, and the rather obvious public relations angle (though we note Kristallnacht, a pivotal event in Nazi relations with the West, was not such a well concealed affair). But we’re looking for a plan, aren’t we? It’s not hard to find, there is plenty of paper trail. Expulsion of the German Jewish population was primarily a means to gain desperately needed foreign exchange. How were the Nazis going to exterminate Jews they had driven abroad and often to other continents? Towards the decade’s end the policy of financial parasitism dovetailed with that of war preparation as what remained of German Jewry, probably rightly after all that had been inflicted upon it, was regarded as “subversive.” The Nazis had made that fantasy a reality.

        There are some fantasies that they were unable to materialise. Haavara is notable as a Nazi collaboration with Zionism, also as the single most “successful” scheme to remove German Jews, accounting for 1/10 of the population and their least financially disadvantageous means of exit. It is far from the only attempt to “export” German Jews to raise much needed foreign exchange.

        One of the problems facing the Nazis in their desire to rid Germany of Jews was that emigration had dramatically slowed. The high price of leaving Germany was a disincentive to many who remained, even those who still had the means to leave. People had found a way to get by and adjusted to the new normal. Kristallnacht shifted those not inclined to leave and the Nazis were ready with a plan. Just three days after the pogrom Hjalmar Schacht was authorised to negotiate a deal, to which end he went to London the next month. There he met with George Rublee of the Intergovernmental Committee on Refugees in an attempt to raise a 1.5 billion RM loan from “international Jewry,” secured on the assets of German Jews all of a sudden wishing to emigrate. Post pogrom, these assets were now under state control. Like Haavara, the details involved exports of German manufacturing and “international Jewry” was less than impressed. The loan was not forthcoming. Nevertheless, the attempt refutes the existence of an extermination plan. It also sheds light upon the different attitude towards Nazism of Zionists and of other Jews.

        “They didn’t have the Final Solution all worked out but they knew that they were working towards that goal in some form. … … they meant to get rid of the jews not just exile them but it wasn’t all neatly worked out – the Holocaust evolved although not in a straight line.”

        In some form? You can’t be more specific because you have no evidence, only the prejudice that what did eventually happen was planned from the start. Sorry, forced emigration and state theft are acts of barbaric parasitism but they are not genocide.

        “War didnt suddenly change [the Nazis] views.”
        War changed their NEEDS. Change needs and you change deeds. Necessity is the mother? How they attempted to satisfy their needs was coloured by their views.

        “Russia did change things. First it gave them the confidence that they were going to win and could do what they wanted especially in the East out of sight.”

        Oh yes! Russia, since planning to invade it, changed everything, but nothing like as you fantasise.

        The plan for Barbarossa envisaged the encirclement and destruction of the Russian army west of the Dvina/Dnepr in the opening weeks of the war, but this was only achieved in part. The Nazis never envisaged the Russians being able to sustain their prosecution of the war. By August 1941, and in spite of some spectacular military successes, Barbarossa’s more sober architects already realised they had failed. Those few short months of seeming success followed by grave concern, then the disaster of the 1941-2 winter did not engender, outside of Goebbels’ ebullient ministry of course, any “confidence.” The confidence you cite is of your own creation. The mass extermination of non-Germans was planned before the invasion and begun before any “confidence” engendering successes had been gained. “Confidence” to begin the Holocaust is your invention.

        Being “out of sight” of the West’s, and their own population’s view may have been a plus to their schemes. To attribute the mass exterminations of Jews, which began with Barbarossa, to this, is the most facile of arguments. The extermination of Jews, carried out by Einsatzgruppen and numerous SS and security as well as regular army units directly behind the advancing armies, was a corollary to execution of the “Hunger Plan.” This was drawn up from December 1940 onwards with a view to sustain Germany’s food supplies from conquered Ukraine by engineering the starvation of literally tens of millions of non-Germans. Principle victims were Russians, but also the Jewish ghetto populations and to a lesser extent the Polish and Greek people amongst others. Genocide was practised for a practical reason brought about by Germany’s economic situation and expansionism. The Nazi solution to this problem was determined by their racist ideology, but the problem is primary to the solution. Without this problem, all sorts of vile things, but no genocide. Anti-Semitism is clearly a common thread in the history of Hitler’s Germany. The forms it took are many and varied, depending upon the changing needs of the regime.

        “The paragraph on historical what -ifs is, with respect, half baked and riddled with inconsistencies.”

        For example?

        “ As for linking zionism and nazism to justify anti-Israel racist positions you seem to have forgotten the starting point of this scandal. Naz posted the idea if resettling Israel in the US with the cute link that after all that is what zionism had proposed and worked for with the nazis ”

        You seem to have forgotten, or did you ever know, that the “anti-Israeli-racist” resettlement map was the work of Norman G Finkelstein. Do I need to spell out his ethnicity?

        I grew up in a post war environment in which comments about “effing krauts” in 101 varieties were every day occurrences. Nobody ever challenged them. The German people were held by most to be responsible for what our people had suffered. You still find that today. While I enjoy this as humour at home where it cannot be misinterpreted, in public it is something I would challenge as not only is it racism but the Germans were, in reality, primary victims of Nazism. They paid a terrible price for their leaders crimes.

        That said I find it very understandable that British and other people should have come to hate them. It is politically quite sophisticated, to separate those doing the deeds of criminal national leaders from those national leaders themselves.

        Likewise, if I ever did find anti-Zionism straying into anti-Semitism, I would challenge that, but I would be mindful that it probably flows from a lack of understanding among victims and those who empathise with victims of aggression and violence, that a people are not synonymous with those who mislead them.

        You, on the other hand, not only excuse Zionist ideology- which certainly does have similarities to Nazi doctrine, on the grounds of a history of persecution, but justify it too. Suffice to say that Zionism was only one of the solutions put forward and adopted by different Jewish strata. Persecution did not make Zionism the only choice, as you acknowledge. Socialism has always been vehemently hostile to Zionism and long may that be the case.

        “What follows after the rant is more poor history. It was the British who are widely accused of starting the idea if concentration camps in the Boer war, ironically condemned by the germans.”

        Does “widely accused” pass as “good history” with you? And what is ironic about German condemnation? Are you an anti-German racist too?

        “As for suggesting that Nazism was just about expanding capitalism in the face of being hemmed words fail.”

        Now you’ve got me interested. Just what was it about then? In your view?

  33. This is going nowhere because you are determined to paint the nazis as somehow not too bad until war started.

    You also want to lump zionism in with arianism which shows a stunning lack of understanding of the two. Purity of blood is part of judaism. Under the pressure of persecution zionism took the concept of being jewish to be political as well and hence the need for a homeland.This could not be further from kooky theories about aryans and the desire to restore Germany to its greatness and create a 1000 years Reich, tapping into to the Barbarossa legend.

    Hitler was never in doubt or unclear that part of his aryan rich required the elimination of jewry and that that meant much more than just exile. Nazism was not just capitalist expansion – indeed it was not a capitalist project. It was about restoring German borders, strength, purity and lebensraum with the struggle against jewish bolshevism as a key part of the future. Your hemmed in line is borrowed from the Kaiser (who btw espoused lebensraum too).

    Read Hitler’s Willing Executioners. It nicely captures the twists and turns to the Final Solution, the caution about sticking Germans and foreigners, the confusing mix of initiatives and the stark difference between the crime of being jewish and of being anything else, shared by many Germans. What he emphasizes is that there was neither a steady progression nor a sudden change to elimination. It was always in the language and psyche but how was the issue.

    Which brings up the issue of Germans saying the price for their leaders. Willing Executioners, The Good Old days and much else besides including SS papers and recordings of PoWs details how WW2 and much of the Holocaust was not the product nor the secret of the few. The Germans unlike the Austrians are pretty open about that. That said the comment about concentration camps was just what it said – ironic. the British devised concentration camps to break the back of Boer resistance. it created an international scandal. It is ironic that 30 years later the germans were using a British invention that they had condemned, something that amused the nazis.

    Einsatzgruppen Aktionen were not part of a Hunger plan. They were the result of a directive to deal with the most dangerous of all jews , those who were believed to drive bolshevism.read Heydrich. No mention of hunger. Fear of jewish bolshevism also played a role in the cautious way jews were rounded up in Poland until 1941 – no desire to upset the jewish bolsheviks until war had begun.

    Oh and socialist Russia loathed jews just as much as Tsarist Russia. It just didnt extend to genocide (but it had a good go with other groups). Not that the Soviets were pussycats. The Germans were both shocked and impressed by the speed with which Russia cleaned Poland and the Balts of “undesirables” with a savagery that helped explain Finland’s decision to fight in 1940.

    None of this means that Zionism and modern Israel is free of blemish. Of course there are people like the chief rabbi making mirror image statements about expelling. Judaism has its own bigots and archaism along with the best of them. There are places in the US where the devout mark off the streets in an attempt to keep the place “pure”. But it is not in the same class and doesn’t come with bloodlust.

    Israel is here to stay. the focus should be in getting the best possible deal for the palestinians in that reality rather than using them as cannon fodder in ideological bs.

  34. “This is going nowhere because you are determined to paint the nazis as somehow not too bad until war started.”

    That you might regard the Nazis minus genocide as “not too bad” would exhibit a tolerance of criminality which I cannot share. I don’t believe you do, either, at least in the case of the Nazis. If, on the other hand, and like so many before it, your remark is merely a puerile misrepresentation of my argument, made to denigrate me and in denial of recognition that you have no historical argument, that would explain why, for you, this is going nowhere. You cannot point to evidence that I asked of you because it doesn’t exist in any shape or form.

    Case in point-

    “Hitler was never in doubt or unclear that part of his aryan rich required the elimination of jewry and that that meant much more than just exile.”

    The truth of a mantra is not determined by the times you repeat it. Yet again, no evidence. Instead you demand that I read vulgar, pulp historical voyeuristic drivel “Hitler’s Willing Executioners” to excuse your ignorance. Actually, you have alluded to it. This attention seeking and utterly racist diatribe against the German people in general and working class in particular, has been roundly condemned by serious scholars of the Shoah. As Raul Hilberg put it, the author, Goldhagen, is “totally wrong about everything”

    http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_6.1-2/hilberg.htm
    http://web.ceu.hu/jewishstudies/pdf/01_kwiet.pdf

    That the sources you cite are products of such unscientific, partisan methodology is not only indicative of the ideological putrefaction in which you have immersed yourself but genuinely ironic, that you should a few lines later allege my “ideological BS.”

    “British devised concentration camps…”
    I was hoping that you’d redeem yourself somewhat by taking the trouble to investigate some real history, history beyond and above your “generally accepted” version, replete as it is with ignorant assumption, prejudice, lack of diligence, superficiality and often self interested selective quotation. You see, it wasn’t the British, however generally accepted it might be, who invented the concentration camp. Clearly, while you can denounce my “bad history,” an accusation you make without providing a shred of evidence, to actually investigate the veracity of your own statements, let alone others’ is too much trouble.

    “In 1896, the Spanish commenced a policy of destroying the huts, crops and livestock of peasantry on a mass scale. It is a mark of the real departure in the conduct of war that the policy of erecting concentration camps represented, that the Spanish commanding general in Cuba, Martinez Campos, recognised its military logic, but felt ethically unable to carry it out himself. War had often involved population movements and looting of civilians, but confinement of civilians on such a scale was a real innovation. Martinez Campos wrote to the Spanish Prime Minister, Canovas, that ‘I could reconcentrate families from the countryside to the towns’. But he feared that this would lead to ‘horrible misery and hunger’. He himself was not willing to do this: ‘I cannot, as the representative of a civilized nation, be the first to give the example of cruelty and intransigence’

    “Martinez’s reluctance represents not a modern legal squeamishness but rather an old-fashioned gentlemanly view of war. His replacement, Valeriano Weyler, in his conduct of the Cuban campaign in 1896 – 1897 breached all accepted notions of ‘civilized warfare’. During that period half a million people, more than a quarter of the whole population of the island, were moved to concentration camps.”

    https://www.academia.edu/870110/The_Invention_of_the_Concentration_Camp_Cuba_Southern_Africa_and_the_Philippines_1896-1907

    Returning to the logic expressed in your previous post-
    “And no matter what qualifier you put on it, saying Nazis and Israel committed the same crimes is equating the two.”

    No, that’s a method by which one can say pigs are ducks, they both have skin or even rocks and people are the same, they are all composed of matter. You can mix and match your similarities and make the world as you see fit. In your head, at least. My approach, though, is to try to understand objective reality which only comes within grasp by analysis of essential relationships, for the reasons given previously.

    In passing, an omission in my sociological description of Nazism above is the glaringly obvious and vital ingredient that it was the response of a middle class squashed between big capital and a well organised working class, the latter nevertheless unable in that period, to resolve Germany’s primary social contradiction.

    “Purity of blood is part of judaism.”

    Really? If it is it would be a racist religion. I can find no reference, however, to support your assertion. Since various sects within Judaism are matrilineal, patrilineal or both, and I believe all accept converts, whence “purity of blood”? Please provide a source.

    “Under the pressure of persecution zionism took the concept of being jewish to be political as well and hence the need for a homeland. This could not be further from kooky theories about aryans and the desire to restore Germany to its greatness and create a 1000 years Reich, tapping into to the Barbarossa legend.”

    What a narrow, closed in outlook you have. Jews have been persecuted for centuries yet only in the late 19th century did Zionism emerge. Was this not a product of the impure, un-Jewish nationalist ferment gripping much of the world? I am reminded yet again, of Trotsky’s article on National Socialism where he dismantles racism thus-

    “The theory of race, specially created, it seems, for some pretentious self-educated individual seeking a universal key to all the secrets of life, appears particularly melancholy in the light of the history of ideas. In order to create the religion of pure German blood, Hitler was obliged to borrow at second hand the ideas of racism from a Frenchman, Count Gobineau [4], a diplomat and a literary dilettante. Hitler found the political methodology ready-made in Italy, where Mussolini had borrowed largely from the Marxist theory of the class struggle. Marxism itself is the fruit of union among German philosophy, French history, and British economics. To investigate retrospectively the genealogy of ideas, even those most reactionary and muddleheaded, is to leave not a trace of racism standing.”

    The German middle class was also persecuted. Large swathes were ruined by finance capital or lost status, either to enter the periphery of major industry or the ranks of the unemployed. They had fought and sacrificed in the war for the Fatherland, and the working class gave them no respect, only strikes which ruined yet more small business caught in the middle. Beggared by finance capital, threatened by socialism, the self-contradictory identification of “international Jewry” with both banks and Bolshevism made perfect sense to the frenzied middle class rabble.

    The middle class, by reason of its relations to production, cannot offer a progressive solution to its persecution, whatever its ethnicity. Mobilised under its own banner, it inevitably becomes a tool of big capital. The middle class has no independent road today.

    Wistful, sentimental dreams of resurrecting a long gone magnificent past and other kitsch Volkish nonsense- the dream of a ruined middle class harnessed by German capital- or carving a pure blooded, you allege, Zionist Jewish state out of Palestine to recreate Israel, the long lost homeland.

    The similarities between Nazi and Zionist dreams are clearly more than fleeting. Their social base is also similar, possibly only the relations of that social base to societies in which they lived and the relations of Germany to the world market are significantly different. Yet big differences.

    You sanitise Zionism and its aims. It did not advocate any Jewish homeland, I would have no problem with a homeland somewhere, though nationalism is clearly no enduring resolution to the world’s great political problems. It advocated carving one out specifically in Palestine and at the expense of its population. This has just created a new problem and made that homeland the political play thing of the US. The entire project is reactionary to the core and neither oppressor or oppressed will be free until the state is destroyed.

    “Nazism was not just capitalist expansion – indeed it was not a capitalist project.”

    So if Nazism was not capitalist, just what was it? It can’t be both not a capitalist project and not just about capitalist expansion. That’s the sort of precision I expect of Ken Livingstone.

    Please don’t answer that it was socialist, I deal with essential relationships, not what things call themselves. Social composition, program, social relations of production, that sort of meaningful stuff, not demagogy, rhetoric and lables.

    “It was about … lebensraum … … Your hemmed in line is borrowed from the Kaiser (who btw espoused lebensraum too).”

    And so, cutting all the ideological ephemera and guff we have what both wars, or what might just as well be regarded The World War parts 1 and 2, were/was all about. Nazi ideology, however keenly felt, is in this relation, only a means to an end, a moral justification for criminality.

    You will find Hitler’s proposed division of the world in Mein Kampf and the Zweites Buch. Where the two conflict, we must take the latter as the more developed expression of his thought. Hitler’s solution to WW1 was to acknowledge Britain’s mastery of the seas and colonies and by not, according to his limited vision, conflicting with its interests, make alliance with her. That is the most important difference between his and the Kaiser’s policy. And his inability to make the British “see sense”, the first fissure in his plan.

    Though he anticipated a final show down with the US in the far distant future, the aim of Lebensraum, like the other nationalism purporting to be Socialist- Stalinism- was to create an autarchic empire with no need to conflict with other nation states. Where he chose to carve this out was by and large in the same area as the Kaiser before him. The resources Germany most needed- grain, manganese and oil, were found there in quantity. There is also the problem of small scale traditional German agriculture which was to be resolved in the east.

    You appear to see ideology as leading an existence quite independent from material relations which leaves you in a sorry state of superficial misconception. The relationship is not mechanical because the nature of our being allows (mis)perception of immediate experience to persist like a ghost of the world in our minds. For better and often for worse, this allows the past to reassert itself in the present as we respond to the world, not just to external stimuli but the contradiction between these and what is already in our heads. Nevertheless, material reality gives rise to ideology, the latter being incomprehensible outside this relationship. To treat ideology as independent of human social relations is a remnant of superstition. In place of finding a material root of ideas, you create your own explanations. This is idealism.

    Nazism thus flowed directly from the Kaiser’s failure at has shot at Lebensraum followed by the working classes failed shot at world socialist revolution. It was the continuation of the Kaiser’s policy under new, highly fraught domestic and global conditions.

    Your remarks about German complicity in the holocaust reveal a crass indifference both to what the German people suffered as a whole and precisely who was willing in their collaboration with Hitler. I have described the plight of the Nazi middle class above, but what of the working class?

    Stalinism split the KPD workers from their SPD counterparts with the “social fascism” doctrine at a critical point. The working class, which alone inside Germany could have destroyed fascism, was thus handed on a plate to the Nazis. What followed was the systematic violent destruction of any independent working class organisation and its leaderships and the dragooning of the working class into “labour” organisations which from then on policed them. All working class resistance was atomised, its socialist culture repressed and beaten out of it or murdered in the camps. Socialist leadership is very difficult to rebuild and gain influence under these conditions. That is primarily what the dictatorship was for.

    We can fill much space with anecdotes about who did what to whom and when, but none of this is truth itself. The truth that can be abstracted from experience is that when German workers found socialist leadership they responded, even after seven years of brainwashing and brutalisation. The history of (Zeitung fur Arbeiter und Soldat, the German language paper printed for occupation troops by French Troskyists in western France between 1943-44 was, as mentioned elsewhere, particularly tragic. This, in both the extent of support it gained among German soldiers as well as its violent end. Another notable campaign was by “Aryan” wives of spouses detained for deportation. Up to 1000 women successfully protested for the return of their Jewish husbands at Rosenstrasse, Berlin, in 1943 a fact that on no level sits easily with Goldhagen’s crude, racist narrative. The two links from Holocaust scholars above also give a much more nuanced picture of how people were prepared for acts of genocide.

    “Einsatzgruppen Aktionen were not part of a Hunger plan… … read Heydrich. No mention of hunger.”

    Another instruction to read something, this time not even providing a reference. I suspect you mean Goldhagen, though. If so, you are unfortunate to have chosen someone so roundly condemned by serious historians for selective quotation to prove his narrative. From the Konrad Kwiet document linked above, “The first killing orders issued after the attack against the Soviet Union in June 1941 targeted male Jews of draft age for immediate liquidation. In July the women followed. From mid-August children considered as “useless eaters” were included as a final, “logical” step.”

    Useless eaters.

    As regards the rant about “socialist Russia,” by which you, I can only think, mean Stalin’s post counter-revolution Russia, and to “poo poo” what you assume are my beliefs and allegiances, once again you take “generally accepted” history without question or investigation. Doubtless you lack the theoretical tools and knowledge of Marxism to determine the class nature of a state, but in the hope it will inspire curiosity about the unknown, socialism is contingent upon a level of wealth, hence labour productivity, capable of satisfying general want and need. Russia never achieved this and the revolution was snuffed out almost before it started.

    No Marxist would ever refer to Russia, even before Stalin’s triumph, as “socialist.” It was, following November 1917, a worker’s state, by which it is meant that the social relations of production and distribution were socialist, ie, conducive to building socialism under the dictatorship of the working class and its, sadly, single political party.

    It was long ago noted that Stalin’s declarations of achieving socialist goals became ever more fanciful as he destroyed the revolution and its gains. The resurrection of anti-Semitism was one of many tools in his attacks on the Old Bolsheviks in particular, many of whom, as was known in Berlin and elsewhere, were Jewish. How and why the revolution was crushed is a subject in itself, too long and off topic for here.

    “None of this means that Zionism and modern Israel is free of blemish.”
    How frightfully balanced of you! Balance is a precondition for investigating truth, but truth is not balanced. It is truth whomsoever it offends or hurts, be they a majority or minority. To try to trivialise a Chief Rabbi in Israel, a religious state, as just an odd bigot, you know, we all have them is really quite something is really something!

  35. It wasn’t Hitler who pursued the Haavara agreement, and the Germans didn’t pay for it. The Zionists pursued it as a way to get out of danger in Germany and to get to the land they had never forgotten. It was paid for by Jewish money. Hitler was reluctant, but was persuaded. He didn’t support anything Jewish, that’s for certain, and Zionism is nothing if not Jewish.
    The main aim of Hitler at first was to get Jews out of Germany. The Haavara was presented to him as a way to do this with the help of the Jews themselves. He wanted nothing to do with them, this again is certain, but it must have had a certain appeal because it wasn’t easy to implement the ethnic cleansing of Jews.
    From the early thirties Hajj Amin El Husseini and some Arab Palestinian leaders had been in contact with Nazis. The Nazis supported them materially. El Husseini constantly strove against Jewish immigration. He left Palestine after the war had begun and went to Europe, meeting Mussolini, Himmler, Hitler, and other Fascist leaders. They cooperated on many agendas.
    It was soon after Hitlers meeting with El Husseini that the Wannsee Conference was called. This is the period during which the “Final Solution” overruled the expulsion or transfer solution.
    El Husseini, who was supported by the British, only losing their support when he turned against them, was supported also by the Nazis, who paid him a very large salary to make radio broadcasts which did not support Zionism in the least. The opposite in fact. He called for Jews to be killed.
    El Husseini raised and trained Muslim troops for the SS, and continued to block any possibility of Jews, even children, getting to Palestine.
    This was what Hitler actually supported in a real sense.

    1. Nobody has said that the “Germans,” -by which I think you mean the Nazis- paid for Haavara. On the contrary, it brought them considerable foreign exchange. Ethnic cleansing of Jews from Europe was not the only item on the Nazis agenda. Foreign exchange was as essential to realising Nazi plans as moving Jews to Palestine was to Zionist plans. Support for something is not determined by whether, and does not infer that, the supporter likes what they are supporting.

      While most of “international Jewry” was boycotting Nazi Germany, the Zionists were not, it matters not why, in determining their support or not for the regime. Support, in any meaningful sense, is not subjective. Support is an objective fact, determined by material actions, or not. We are not talking about supporting football teams, which may be done in the solitude of one’s bedroom without another soul ever knowing.

      By the subjectivism of the “Hitler didn’t support Zionism” argument, Hitler didn’t support anyone, neither Italy or the other European Axis powers, with the possible exception of Finland, and certainly not Arabs and, euw, the Japanese, the “yellow race”? Hitler regarded both as subhuman, if not quite as subhuman as Jews, and in spite of Himmler regarding Islam as a good religion for soldiers. Any triumph of the Japanese, IIRC, he regarded a misfortune for the “white race.”

      You cannot help but notice, then, that in the real world, ideological preferences have to contend with power balances and the achievement of other aims. In this case, it is not seriously arguable that Hitler didn’t support the Zionists in the 1930s and vice versa. Just to labour the point, this does not imply that either side liked the other, nor that the marked similarities between the two doctrines and the more brutal aspects of their realisation mean they are one and the same. Mutual support of the Nazis and Zionists remains an objective historical fact.

      You refer to a land the Zionists had “never forgotten” as if this mystical nostalgia for a time about which no 19th or 20th century European Zionist knew anything, confers upon them the right to ethnically cleanse Palestine, to massacre, torture and oppress in every conceivable way those who, through no fault of their own, occupied that land.

      While Zionist creation myth has nourished the West’s media in its efforts to justify the existence of its imperialist outpost in the Middle East, the criminality by which Israel was created and how it is maintained is no longer contentious in reputable academic circles, that is, among those adhering to the historical discipline Blake’s article so falsely professes to defend.

      Equating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism is the principle propaganda tool of Zionism in deflecting attention from its inherent criminality. To this, we can now add, it is a means to witch-hunt what remains of the soft-left from New Tories.

      1. You have a strange idea of “supporting”. So if you make discriminatory laws against someone after slandering them and blaming them for the world’s troubles. Then you make sure they don’t work in the professions and you institute a boycott against them. Then you take cash from them so that they can go to the place they have regarded as a historic and cultural home , you are “supporting” them? To use a couple of your own examples, were Japanese or Italians treatedthat e that?
        “Palestine” and a “Palestinian people” are a lot more mythological than the well documented attachment of the Jewish people to the land of Israel, their removal by various invaders and their continued presence in the land.
        If you look at the evidence I am convinced you will find that your claims about Jews ethnic cleansing Arabs, and of massacre, torture and oppression are mythological, too. In fact it was Jews who were ethnically cleansed from Jerusalem,the West Bank and Gaza in 1948. With the assistance of Britain in the first two cases.
        Jews were never allowed to settle in Jordan. Again with British approval.

        1. Once again, a Zionist conflates Jews with their racist ideology and political movement. Zionism is a racist political doctrine, in no way synonymous with the Jewish people.

          It mattered not to Zionists that the Nazis persecuted the Jews, as Haavara clearly shows, this persecution served Zionist aims, pushing some Jews into the arms of Zionism and their ethnic cleansing policy in Palestine.

          Really, how strange is my definition of “support?”

          verb
          to help someone … in a practical way

          http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/support

          noun

          2. material assistance.

          https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=dictionary%20support

          It seems even language must be twisted to conform with the Zionist narrative.

          Once again, a Zionist argues with some selected facts and half truths stripped of their context- where this argument began- along with racial mysticism and downright lies. Zionism was not the only nationalism in Palestine, there was another, far more domestic. Palestinian Arab nationalism was also unfolding and, given the threat posed to it by Zionist desires, which were well known, it did so in a way more antagonistic to Jews (Zionists are unfortunately not the only people given to conflating) than to the occupying British.

          The right to national self determination and self-government has never been determined- except in the sentimental mysticism of several far right ideologies- by “well documented attachment,” that is, immaterial or imagined connection, to land.

          Quoted in N. Finkelstein’s “Beyond Chutzpah”, The Palestine Royal Commission Report of 1937-

          “Nor is the conflict in its essence interracial conflict, arising from any old instinctive antipathy of Arabs towards Jews. There was little or no friction… between Arab and Jew in the rest of the Arab world until the strife in Palestine engendered it. And there has been precisely the same political trouble in Iraq, Syria and Egypt- agitation, rebellion and bloodshed- where there are no “[Jewish] National Homes.” Quite obviously, then, the problem of Palestine is political. It is, as elsewhere, the problem of insurgent nationalism. The only difference is that in Palestine Arab nationalism is inextricably woven with antagonism to the Jews. And the reasons for that, it is worth repeating, are equally obvious. In the first place, the establishment of the National Home [for Jews] involved at the outset a blank negation of the the rights implied in the principle of national self-government. Secondly, it soon proved to be not merely an obstacle to the development of national self-government, but apparently the only serious obstacle. Thirdly, as the Home has grown, the fear has grown with it that, if and when self-government is conceded, it may not be national in the Arab sense, but government by a Jewish majority. That is why it is difficult to be an Arab patriot and not hate the Jews.”

          The link below is to killings and massacres from Tel Hai in 1920, onwards. Tel Hai was defended by Zionists who had remained neutral as Syrian nationalists revolted against French rule. Zionist settlement years before brown shirts were smashing windows and beating up Jews, when many Jewish veterans of the war in opposing countries wore their medals with a misplaced sense of pride.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_and_massacres_in_Mandatory_Palestine

          But thank you for acknowledging that you regard Palestinian people as mythological. It’s a thread that runs through Zionist propaganda from beginning to end- what’s real is fiction and what is fiction is real. What you don’t explain is that the Palestinian Jews, that is, not the Zionist colonists, had lived more rather than less peacefully with the Arabs for many hundreds of years, without thought to subjugating their Arab neighbours.

          I do not and never have denied that Arabs committed atrocities against Jews. That is not the essence of the situation, however, and the cause of anti-Jewish hatred (we cannot speak of anti-Semitism as both Jews and Arabs are Semitic) is the fear of subjugation by Zionists, a fear which proved well founded.

          As for denying the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians as a state and ideological policy, you join the ranks of the Holocaust deniers and Nazi apologists. Nobody serious in the field of historical research disputes this any more. Not even Zionist historian Benny Morris-

          “A Jewish state would not have come into being without the uprooting of 700,000 Palestinians. Therefore it was necessary to uproot them. There was no choice but to expel that population. It was necessary to cleanse the hinterland and cleanse the border areas and cleanse the main roads. It was necessary to cleanse the villages from which our convoys and our settlements were fired on.”

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benny_Morris

          1. Your comments seem long on polemics and short on facts.
            The word “antisemitism” was made up by a German writer deliberately and specifically to refer to anti Jewish racism. It’s always been used that way and it’s pretty pointless to change meanings now.
            Benny Morris has done plenty of research since your quote was written. His later conclusions were somewhat different and his more recent statements suggest a different reading. Any expulsions were of hostile or potentially hostile populations in the context of a war.
            In Haifa the Arabs were asked to stay, but preferred to leave.
            Most Arabs left either to stay out of the way of the fighting, or because they were asked to leave.
            Speaking of myths the peace between Muslim and Jew in Palestine previous to 1918 was contingent on the Jews being unarmed and obeying the humiliating rules which Islamic law has for non Muslims.
            Bat Ye’or has many examples and a lot of evidence a feasible from her site:

            http://www.dhimmitude.org

            Why do you think your definition of Zionism supersedes the Jewish definition? Your idea of Zionism is fanciful and unrealistic.

          2. The Jews donnot have an “imagined connection” to the land. Far from it, their culture refers specifically to it, and there are many aspects of their culture which can only be performed in the land of Israel.
            The link you gave to a definition of “support” gives the example of financial support. As we already established, the Germans did not financially support the Haavara agreement or the Zionists. In fact the Zionists had to pay up, and, as with all other Jews, their money and property was confiscated.

          3. In 1948 the “The Nation” magazine presented a memorandum to the US. The whole thing is worth reading, but it is made clear at the beginning of this article that the Arabs, far from seeing Zionism as fascism, claimed to be fighting communist infiltration by opposing the Zionists.
            http://emperors-clothes.com/history/br.htm

      2. Hebron 1929. Nearly twenty years before the modern State of Israel. After Muslims, including Muslims in the Palestine Police which Britain had formed to protect the Mandate, had massacred unarmed Jewish men, women and children in the most brutal and savage way, Britain’s response was to evict, not the Arabs, but the Jews. Ethnic cleansing of a city which had had a Jewish community for many centuries and which is the second most treasured site in the Jewish culture. These were not newcomers, but established families.
        How can anyone think that antisemitism plays no part?
        Less than twenty years later another uniformed force raised and trained by the British was shelling the Old City of Jerusalem, the Jewish quarter. The Arab Legion had leadership provide by Britain. A British general was in command and the guns and ammunition were provided by Britain.
        The Arab Legion expelled all the Jews from the Old City and destroyed many synagogues and burial sites, some very old.
        Jordan annexed the city and banned Jews from entering. This annexation held for nineteen years. Only one country in the world other than Jordan recognised this Jew free annexation: Britain.
        So there are no Jews living in Jordan, none in the PA controlled areas. There are none in Gaza and none in Saudi Arabia. There are, however, many Arabs in Israel. They participate in all levels of society.
        Ethnic cleansing?

          1. And there we have it. In a few long posts yet again the original article is borne out and the almost desperate attempts to paint zionism and thus Israel and thus all jews who support the existence of Israel as racists and fellow travelers with nazism. And for good measure an apologia for the Germans and an awesomely simplistic attempt to explain 1920-45 in terms of class struggle.
            Morris would be very surprised to see his work used this way. What he really says is that it wasn’t black and white. Israel wasnt all good and the palestinians weren’t all bad. Israel certainly attacked some arab villages, drove some out, and used scare tactics to get others to move. But many palestinians fled of their own accord to get away from fighting and because they assumed they would be attacked. They were also told by their leader that this would happen though Morris debunks the myth that they were given an instruction to flee with intention of returning them a few months later. And given the large number of arabs still in Israel the idea that there was an official cleansing policy as opposed to individual initiatives doesn’t look very convincing. After all no one ever accused the Israelis of being inefficient. Morris is also writing with an agenda: he is all for Greater Israel and wants to write history in terms of that being the plan all along and being inevitable.
            Jacobson in his BBC interview sums it all up nicely.

          2. In which way does the Wikipedia article contradict what I said? Did you read it?

    2. EL Husseini wasn’t so much supported by the Brits as mistakenly given the position. They thought that it would be easier to manage the “palestinians” through their own leaders and they felt that the Mufti was the ideal position for that. Unfortunately they had misread the role and worse made a complete mistake in promoting EH. They realize that fairly soon but it was too late. So to say they supported him is an exaggeration – the were stuck with him and kept in thinking that he would be reasonable.
      The fact that Wannsee was just after his meeting with Hitler was entirely coincidental. Wannsee was not the point they switched from exile and transfer. They had already embarked on mass killing but it was “inefficient” and the ghettos were too slow and carried disease risk (the Germans were almost paranoid about disease and not just among the jews).

      1. In 1920 El Husseini was found guilty of instigating murderous anti -Jewish riots and sentenced to ten years in prison.
        One year later the British not only pardoned him by promoted him to the position of Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. In fact they added the “Grand” part themselves especially for him. He wasn’t really qualified religiously but the British ignored that.
        The British created the Muslim Supreme Council for which El Husseini was prime candidate was President and was duly elected.
        After the war the British and French missed an opportunity to put him on trial as the Jews requested and allowed him to flee to Egypt.
        This is a quote from “Hitler’s Shadow” by Norman Goda and Richard Breitman based on declassified Army and CIA documents:

        “At around this time (1945), the British head of Palestine’s Criminal Investigation Division told an American military attaché that the Mufti might be the only person who could unite the Palestinian Arabs and ‘cool off the Zionists’.”

  36. “In which way does the Wikipedia article contradict what I said? Did you read it?”

    Were Blake’s original article anything but disingenuous in its profession to “historical discipline” I would find such a statement from its defender breathtaking. Clearly it is not what you have said but what you have omitted that is noteworthy.

    The context referred to in the Wiki reference is that of Zionism threatening the (rightful and historically progressive) nationalist aspirations of the Arab peoples.

    “Since the Balfour Declaration of 1917, tensions had been growing between the Arab and Jewish communities in Palestine.[21] … Though Jews had suffered numerous vexations in the past, and this hostility was to take an anti-Zionist turn after the Balfour Declaration,[22] a peaceful relationship existed between both communities.[23] During the riots of 1920 and 1921, Hebron’s Jews had been spared the violence that broke out elsewhere.[24]

    “In mid-August 1929, hundreds of Jewish nationalists marched to the Western Wall in Jerusalem shouting slogans such as The Wall is Ours and raising the Jewish national flag.[19] Rumours spread that Jewish youths had also attacked Arabs and had cursed Muhammad.”

    History is replete with examples of “primitives” committing atrocities against rapacious invaders, colonists and occupiers. Leaving aside the violence of the latter, such atrocities do not erase the inalienable right of all people to self-determination in THEIR lands. The source of the violence was fear of subjugation by an influx of Arab hating Zionists. That fear, which has been amply validated, not just by you and your fellows here, who write Palestinian in inverted commas and refer to them as “mythical” but by subsequent history.

    It is unfortunate that throughout history innocents have again and again paid for the crimes of the guilty and no progressive movement has ever failed to cause loss to innocents and bystanders. Nevertheless, such details as Jewish families being given refuge by Arab families are reluctantly conceded even by such pathological anti-Arab racists as Morris. To depict the event as you have is just another tabloid propaganda exercise to depict Arabs as insane savages and Zionists as poor, innocent, put upon victims. To depict the Hebron massacre as you have is an example of genuine racism, not the faux racism Blake invents.

    “The Jews donnot have an “imagined connection” to the land. Far from it, their culture refers specifically to it, and there are many aspects of their culture which can only be performed in the land of Israel ”

    I am no champion of eternal bourgeois property rights. Nevertheless, in the sense that they impose some degree of, at least theoretical regulation over “I want it so I’ll take it,” they represent an advance over what preceded them.

    Though where they conflict with the interests of the ruling elites, these rights and the laws that flow from them have clearly been flouted and worked around since the first bourgeois regimes, cultural references and religious practices do not, in the post enlightenment world, confer ownership of, let alone the right to ethnically cleanse anyone else from their land. Such pre-historical, infantile notions of right belong right at the bottom of the dustbin of history.

    “The link you gave to a definition of “support” gives the example of financial support. As we already established, the Germans did not financially support the Haavara agreement or the Zionists. In fact the Zionists had to pay up, and, as with all other Jews, their money and property was confiscated.”

    Did I ever say otherwise? If it is not that you have a problem understanding anything that conflicts with your dogma, perhaps your intention is to obfuscate? What I have pointed to time and again was the mutual interest expressed in the Haavara Agreement and the two definitions I provided, while not exhausting all definitions of “support” demonstrate just that.

    “Your comments seem long on polemics and short on facts… …[B. Morris’s] later conclusions were somewhat different and his more recent statements suggest a different reading. Any expulsions were of hostile or potentially hostile populations in the context of a war.
    In Haifa the Arabs were asked to stay, but preferred to leave.
    Most Arabs left either to stay out of the way of the fighting, or because they were asked to leave.
    Speaking of myths the peace between Muslim and Jew in Palestine previous to 1918 was contingent on the Jews being unarmed and obeying the humiliating rules which Islamic law has for non Muslims.
    Bat Ye’or has many examples and a lot of evidence a feasible from her site:

    http://www.dhimmitude.org

    You have to laugh. In place of references to reputable scholars and undisputed Wiki sources which you yourself implicitly accept, you offer unsubstantiated assertions and a link to a Zionist propaganda site. I get the picture…. again.

    “The word “antisemitism” was made up by a German writer deliberately and specifically to refer to anti Jewish racism. It’s always been used that way and it’s pretty pointless to change meanings now.”

    Well, I don’t know who invented the word “support” but you haven’t relented from your attempts to change its meaning. As you well know, regardless of what it’s creator intended, as used by Wilhelm Marr “anti-Semitic” is a misnomer coined by this Jew hating bigot. It’s funny how you accept the word of such a person against the rational, literal meaning of the term which includes all Semitic people. It wouldn’t be that you wish to distance yourself from our Arab brothers who you regard as sub-human, now, would it?

    “Benny Morris has done plenty of research since your quote was written. His later conclusions were somewhat different and his more recent statements suggest a different reading. Any expulsions were of hostile or potentially hostile populations in the context of a war.”

    Oh, has he airbrushed his findings since then? Can’t think why he would.

    “Why do you think your definition of Zionism supersedes the Jewish definition? Your idea of Zionism is fanciful and unrealistic.”

    Excuse me, I am a Jew, therefore my definition of Zionism is a Jewish definition.

    It is neither fanciful or unrealistic but bases itself upon real social relationships and conflicting interests. The reactionary nature of Zionism, recognised by, often Jewish Marxists, more than a century ago, has been entirely borne out by history.

    No self definition is in any case the final word. Anything but. External reality exists independently of consciousness, and because all people are to some degree conscious does not imply for a moment that they are self-aware.

  37. Still unable to speak of all the details, an Israeli veteran regrets ethnic cleansing in 1948 and indicts his Zionist leaders –

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *