Should history books mention that the Jews started WW2 in Europe because the Jewish worldwide trade boycott against Germany was actually a declared war against Germany as it was headlined in the newspapers ( that started on March 24, 1933 ) and that was also in violation of the 1919 Versailles Treaty since the Versailles Treaty stated no more war with Germany and the Treaty required Germany to make regular money payments and this Jewish declared worldwide trading war prevented Germany from making these required payments ?
Also this Jewish declared trade war eventually involved violence and persecution of Jews in Germany as rich German Jews were motivated to use the associated and connected August 1933 Transfer Agreement by rising violence against Jews in Germany. And Innocent Jews were persecuted in Germany due to this worldwide trade war.
This 1933 worldwide trade boycott war against Germany was begun by the worldwide WW1 Jewish War Veterans to end Nazi Germany. But the Jewish Zionists got involved later to bribe Germany into accepting the Haavara Agreement-Transfer Agreement, which ended this worldwide declared trade war within the bargaining of the August 1933 Transfer Agreement.
Most Jews in Germany in 1933 were anti-Zionist, and they did not want to go to Israel. It was only the Zionist Jews who made agreements with Germany and stated falsely that the Zionists Jews represented all of the Jews in Germany. It was by persecution that the rich German Jews were forced to go to Israel and use this Transfer Agreement. The main goal of the Zionist was to convert the majority worldwide anti-Zionist Jews into pro-Zionist Jews by using temporary persecution of some Jews, to demonstrate the need for a Jewish homeland in Israel. This temporary persecution worked as most world Jews reversed and became pro-Zionist by 1945. The purpose of today's Holocaust lie is to remind all Jews about a possible persecution if they become anti-Zionist or leave the faith. The world Zionist needed the support of the majority of the world Jews in order to have taken Israel in 1948 and to keep control of the land of Israel today.
Should history books mention that the Zionist Jews successfully bribed Germany into accepting the 1933 Haavara Transfer Agreement by using the Jewish promise to stop the Jewish worldwide trade boycott war against Germany that was begun by the WW1 JWV on March 24, 1933 ?
Ref: "Transfer Agreement" by Edwin Black and other books by Lenni Brenner
Did the Jews actually start WW2 in Europe ?
Moderator: Moderator
Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
-
Otium
Re: Did the Jews actually start WW2 in Europe ?
Did Jews start WW2 in Europe? No. Did they help ferment the environment which resulted in war? Yes. They also had an ear lent to them by the American president who was instrumental in provoking the conflict, so their share isn't necessarily negligible, but it isn't solely theirs either as ultimately if Roosevelt was more scrupulous he wouldn't have succumbed to the snake whispering little nothings into his ear.
The truth is that in no war is there truly a single guilty party, and I would even say that the argument could be made that there's not really any guilty parties at all, just different interests vying with each other.
Hitler merely lit the match, but the wood and kindling had already been piled up by the Allies.
The "Judea Declared War on Germany" thing is in my opinion, overplayed. The effect on Germany that early on wasn't negligible as some claim and Edwin Black certainly refutes, the boycott did harm Germany economically, but a boycott war isn't the same as a war with troops. Also, "Judea" isn't a country, and not all Jews I'm sure would've agreed with such a policy. They're an interest group but not a sovereign state, so a declaration of war in the sense that two armies will go up against each other isn't a valid interpretation.
The truth is that in no war is there truly a single guilty party, and I would even say that the argument could be made that there's not really any guilty parties at all, just different interests vying with each other.
Hitler merely lit the match, but the wood and kindling had already been piled up by the Allies.
The "Judea Declared War on Germany" thing is in my opinion, overplayed. The effect on Germany that early on wasn't negligible as some claim and Edwin Black certainly refutes, the boycott did harm Germany economically, but a boycott war isn't the same as a war with troops. Also, "Judea" isn't a country, and not all Jews I'm sure would've agreed with such a policy. They're an interest group but not a sovereign state, so a declaration of war in the sense that two armies will go up against each other isn't a valid interpretation.
Re: Did the Jews actually start WW2 in Europe ?
It was a real declared war against Germany as the Jews repeatedly stated the intent to destroy the German government and to remove Hitler. Germany can not grow enough food to feed it's people, and the Germans were starving because of this five month trade boycott war and starvation is a real weapon of war. Also there was not any negotiations to try to resolve any differences, and the war was a worldwide quick assault on Germany without any warning or any negotiations, that came from many different countries that were all controlled by the Jews.
Another proof that this was actually the start of WW ll, is how this 1933 Jewish boycott trade war ended, by deception. It ended with a few Zionist Jews representing to the German government, the majority of the German Jews who were mostly all anti-Zionist and who did not want to go to Israel but wanted to stay in Germany ( ask Edwin Black ). These few representing Zionist Jews bribed Germany into accepting the August 1933 Haavara Transfer Agreement by using the promise bribe to completely end the 1933 boycott trade war against Germany, which shows that the Zionist had other hidden intentions. Germany did accept this Transfer agreement with the bribe.
What was the actual real problem that the Zionist Jews were having ?
The Zionist wanted to take over the control of the land of Israel, and the Zionist could only accomplish this task by obtaining the support of the majority of the world Jews who were mostly anti-Zionist in 1933, and by converting the anti-Zionist Jews to being pro-Zionist Jews.
It was by the continuous increase of persecution against a few Jews that the world Jews were converted to being pro-Zionist by 1945, and they then mostly converted and believed in the need for a homeland for the Jews ( that is Zionism ).
Jews were mostly anti-Zionist before 1933 because most Jews were doing very well in business and they were generally not very interested in religion, but were interested in business. It was the increase of violence against Jews in Germany, that was the motivation force as to why the rich German Jews chose to go to Israel by using the 1933 Transfer Agreement. The land of Israel was undeveloped and dangerous, and in 1933 it was not an inviting place for anyone to move to.
I conclude then that the need to persecute some Jews in a deceptive convincing manner in order to convert most all Jews to pro-Zionism, was the real reason for WW ll and the real start of WW ll, which actually started with the declared Jewish boycott trade war against Germany that involved many different countries.
Ref: https://www.essaydocs.org/table-of-cont ... ml?page=26
https://historyofyesterday.com/150-000- ... 0?gif=true
Another proof that this was actually the start of WW ll, is how this 1933 Jewish boycott trade war ended, by deception. It ended with a few Zionist Jews representing to the German government, the majority of the German Jews who were mostly all anti-Zionist and who did not want to go to Israel but wanted to stay in Germany ( ask Edwin Black ). These few representing Zionist Jews bribed Germany into accepting the August 1933 Haavara Transfer Agreement by using the promise bribe to completely end the 1933 boycott trade war against Germany, which shows that the Zionist had other hidden intentions. Germany did accept this Transfer agreement with the bribe.
What was the actual real problem that the Zionist Jews were having ?
The Zionist wanted to take over the control of the land of Israel, and the Zionist could only accomplish this task by obtaining the support of the majority of the world Jews who were mostly anti-Zionist in 1933, and by converting the anti-Zionist Jews to being pro-Zionist Jews.
It was by the continuous increase of persecution against a few Jews that the world Jews were converted to being pro-Zionist by 1945, and they then mostly converted and believed in the need for a homeland for the Jews ( that is Zionism ).
Jews were mostly anti-Zionist before 1933 because most Jews were doing very well in business and they were generally not very interested in religion, but were interested in business. It was the increase of violence against Jews in Germany, that was the motivation force as to why the rich German Jews chose to go to Israel by using the 1933 Transfer Agreement. The land of Israel was undeveloped and dangerous, and in 1933 it was not an inviting place for anyone to move to.
I conclude then that the need to persecute some Jews in a deceptive convincing manner in order to convert most all Jews to pro-Zionism, was the real reason for WW ll and the real start of WW ll, which actually started with the declared Jewish boycott trade war against Germany that involved many different countries.
Ref: https://www.essaydocs.org/table-of-cont ... ml?page=26
https://historyofyesterday.com/150-000- ... 0?gif=true
-
Otium
Re: Did the Jews actually start WW2 in Europe ?
Hopeingod wrote:It was a real declared war against Germany as the Jews repeatedly stated the intent to destroy the German government and to remove Hitler. Germany can not grow enough food to feed it's people, and the Germans were starving because of this five month trade boycott war and starvation is a real weapon of war. Also there was not any negotiations to try to resolve any differences, and the war was a worldwide quick assault on Germany without any warning or any negotiations, that came from many different countries that were all controlled by the Jews.
This is the most relevant portion of your disagreement to which I will respond.
First of all, who were the Germans to negotiate with to achieve a détente? The second problem is that "the Jews" are not a signatory to any pacts or agreements of war, they don't have a government which represents them, they're found in many countries which do have very real governments, interests, limitations, and other citizens to consider. The Jews had no military with which to fight a "war", nor could the Germans fight against a force with no military. They could wage a symbolic cultural war, which they did, perhaps a war of influence, but not a war in the way one usually conceptualises it.
The Jews who opposed the Germans did so from an irreconcilable position, what would negotiations achieve even if there was a Sanhedrin to which all Jews agreed to defer their interests? They took intrinsic issue with the ideology of the German government, no such agreement could possibly have been made to satisfy "the Jews".
I would agree that starvation is a weapon of war, but a boycott is not. If you lead a boycott you're essentially protesting in the hopes that others will voluntarily join you, it isn't enforced by government decrees, but by popular influence. If Jews, and philo-semites wanted to choose not to buy German products then they had the ability to do as they wished, boycott or not. You cannot equate a boycott with a blockade, the latter of which, like in the case of America's blockade against Japan can lead to a very real militarised conflict.
Edwin Black for example, whom you defer, does point out that there were very real effects of the boycott, but there is no proof that it lead to mass starvation.
The biggest problem with all of this is that the boycott had nothing to do with the outbreak of war in September 1939. An autarkic economic ideal was already being followed,
Re: Did the Jews actually start WW2 in Europe ?
Otium,
Thank you for your feedback.
There is another important part about this 1933 Jewish trade war that I did not mention and I should have. This other important part is mentioned several times in the reference web link that I gave, and here is the web link again below as followers:
https://www.essaydocs.org/table-of-cont ... ml?page=26
What I failed to mention is that the Jews also received massive help in their 1933 trade boycott against Germany from many other non-Jews by "threatening" these many others in many different countries with boycott and harm and injury if they traded with Germany.
Since most people prefer to do private business without violence, as the world Jews promised violence if these others traded with Germany, many others also then obeyed the will of the Jews and also boycotted trading with Germany.
The Jews were not a country, but their combined influence in their deception and dirty tricks magnified the worldwide Jewish influence to be as if they were one large country on the earth.
Right now, I can not remember where I read that Germany could not grow all of the food that it needed. It may have possibly been due to some of the many limitations and demands on Germany from the Versailles treaty.
Thank you for your feedback.
There is another important part about this 1933 Jewish trade war that I did not mention and I should have. This other important part is mentioned several times in the reference web link that I gave, and here is the web link again below as followers:
https://www.essaydocs.org/table-of-cont ... ml?page=26
What I failed to mention is that the Jews also received massive help in their 1933 trade boycott against Germany from many other non-Jews by "threatening" these many others in many different countries with boycott and harm and injury if they traded with Germany.
Since most people prefer to do private business without violence, as the world Jews promised violence if these others traded with Germany, many others also then obeyed the will of the Jews and also boycotted trading with Germany.
The Jews were not a country, but their combined influence in their deception and dirty tricks magnified the worldwide Jewish influence to be as if they were one large country on the earth.
Right now, I can not remember where I read that Germany could not grow all of the food that it needed. It may have possibly been due to some of the many limitations and demands on Germany from the Versailles treaty.
Re: Did the Jews actually start WW2 in Europe ?
Hopeingod wrote:What was the actual real problem that the Zionist Jews were having ?
The Zionist wanted to take over the control of the land of Israel, and the Zionist could only accomplish this task by obtaining the support of the majority of the world Jews who were mostly anti-Zionist in 1933, and by converting the anti-Zionist Jews to being pro-Zionist Jews.
It was by the continuous increase of persecution against a few Jews that the world Jews were converted to being pro-Zionist by 1945, and they then mostly converted and believed in the need for a homeland for the Jews ( that is Zionism ).
Jews were mostly anti-Zionist before 1933 because most Jews were doing very well in business and they were generally not very interested in religion, but were interested in business. It was the increase of violence against Jews in Germany, that was the motivation force as to why the rich German Jews chose to go to Israel by using the 1933 Transfer Agreement. The land of Israel was undeveloped and dangerous, and in 1933 it was not an inviting place for anyone to move to.
I conclude then that the need to persecute some Jews in a deceptive convincing manner in order to convert most all Jews to pro-Zionism, was the real reason for WW ll and the real start of WW ll, which actually started with the declared Jewish boycott trade war against Germany that involved many different countries.
Correct conclusion. Britain passed the MacDonald White Paper in May 1939, a new policy unambiguously stating that there would never be such a thing as a Jewish state in Palestine and that an Arab-dominated unitary state of Palestine would be established before May 1949. In other words, the Zionist enterprise was doomed to fail without a second world war and any continuation of peace amounted to the death warrant of Zionism.
Samuel Untermyer, the leader of the anti-German boycott, was also the former president of the Keren Hayesod (a major Zionist fundraising organization).
And Stephen Wise, the founder of political Zionism in America, feared above all in 1934 that the Nazis would not persecute the Jews of Germany and so "would disarm worldwide Jewish protest" for the Zionist seizure of Palestine.
In 1933, Nahum Sokolow, the president of the World Zionist Organization, said that "Hitlerism enables us to convert all Jews to Zionism.". And 15 years later, Dorothy Thompson, a formerly-Zionist journalist, bitterly deplored that Hitler's persecution of the Jews in Europe had driven the assimilationist (i.e. anti-Zionist) Jews into the Zionist camp, even labelling Hitler as "perhaps the most dynamic contributor to Zionism." Dorothy Thompson's conclusion was vastly based on Holohoax propaganda lies, but it still showed the success of the Zionist scheme for the radicalization of the Jews.
"[Austen Chamberlain] has done western civilization a great service by refuting at least one of the slanders against the Germans
because a civilization which leaves war lies unchallenged in an atmosphere of hatred and does not produce courage in its leaders to refute them
is doomed. "
Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, on the public admission by Britain's Foreign Secretary that the WWI corpse-factory story was false, December 4, 1925
because a civilization which leaves war lies unchallenged in an atmosphere of hatred and does not produce courage in its leaders to refute them
is doomed. "
Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, on the public admission by Britain's Foreign Secretary that the WWI corpse-factory story was false, December 4, 1925
Re: Did the Jews actually start WW2 in Europe ?
Otium wrote:Did Jews start WW2 in Europe? No.
Really?
Otium wrote: they help ferment the environment which resulted in war? Yes. They also had an ear lent to them by the American president who was instrumental in provoking the conflict, so their share isn't necessarily negligible, but it isn't solely theirs either as ultimately if Roosevelt was more scrupulous he wouldn't have succumbed to the snake whispering little nothings into his ear.
They had more than an ear lent to them by Roosevelt. Ditto for Winston Churchill. As Masons, both warmongers were mental Jews anyway...
President Roosevelt's Campaign to Incite War in Europe
The Secret Polish Documents
by Mark Weber
Published: 1983-07-01
https://codoh.com/library/document/pres ... war-in/en/
The Secret Polish Documents
by Mark Weber
Published: 1983-07-01
https://codoh.com/library/document/pres ... war-in/en/
Otium wrote:The "Judea Declared War on Germany" thing is in my opinion, overplayed. The effect on Germany that early on wasn't negligible as some claim and Edwin Black certainly refutes, the boycott did harm Germany economically, but a boycott war isn't the same as a war with troops.
Trade wars lead to real wars where the strong prey on the weak – economists to RT
7 Apr, 2018
The Dutch burning English ships during the Raid on the Medway, 20 June 1667. oil on panel, Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam © Global Look Press
The growing battle of tit-for-tat exchanges of tariffs between the US and China has raised fears of a possible trade war that could have a damaging economic impact globally.
On Tuesday, the White House pledged to slap an additional 25 percent tariff on a long list of Chinese products, including metals. Within hours Beijing retaliated with the promise to hike levies on $50 billion worth of US imports by 25 percent. The Chinese list includes soybeans, automobiles, chemicals and aircraft. In response, President Donald Trump threatened an additional $100 billion in tariffs against China.
According to the expert, historically, many trade wars have led to actual wars. “It exacerbates tensions, cuts economic linkages and interdependencies, and when economies are severed and opinions heated with chauvinistic rhetoric, then military action could start,” Laborde told RT.
https://www.rt.com/business/423460-trad ... s-experts/
Otium wrote:Also, "Judea" isn't a country, and not all Jews I'm sure would've agreed with such a policy. They're an interest group but not a sovereign state, so a declaration of war in the sense that two armies will go up against each other isn't a valid interpretation.
You're wong. The Jews of that time regarded themselves as a distinct nation, and they still do. And your argument amounts to saying that no nation is responsible for the outbreak of a war as long as 100% of its citizens don't favor that war.
"[Austen Chamberlain] has done western civilization a great service by refuting at least one of the slanders against the Germans
because a civilization which leaves war lies unchallenged in an atmosphere of hatred and does not produce courage in its leaders to refute them
is doomed. "
Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, on the public admission by Britain's Foreign Secretary that the WWI corpse-factory story was false, December 4, 1925
because a civilization which leaves war lies unchallenged in an atmosphere of hatred and does not produce courage in its leaders to refute them
is doomed. "
Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, on the public admission by Britain's Foreign Secretary that the WWI corpse-factory story was false, December 4, 1925
-
Otium
Re: Did the Jews actually start WW2 in Europe ?
hermod wrote:Really?
Yes.
None of what you posted is new to me, which would be evident if you've seen other posts of mine. Like I said at the beginning, the Jews didn't start the war, but they did "help ferment the environment which resulted in war." And did so through their intrigues among Allied governments. None of which I dispute. But nonetheless it isn't the whole story, the war against Germany was mutually beneficial for the interests of the philosemitic leaders of the Allied powers in WW2, but also for the select few of Jewish individuals who wanted to see the destruction of Nationalsocialist Germany (obviously with powerful support from other Jews and gentiles opposed to Germany).
Churchill was a warmonger, there's no denying that. In this connection the diary of Henry 'Chips' Channon, a close confidant of Chamberlain reports on this in his diary. But the fact is Churchill was kept out of Chamberlain's cabinet as a supposed act of good faith according to the British ambassador to Germany, Sir Neville Henderson. If it was up to Churchill there would've been war with Germany after the Anschluss, that this didn't happen means his, and his Jewish collaborators in 'the focus' could only do so much to influence events, hoping to chip away at the credibility of those around Chamberlain and his "appeasement" group. It's much more complicated a situation than a few poorly edited graphics will allow to come across.
A lot of what you post doesn't even have any relevance to the topic at hand. For example, it's well known that the Allies favoured the policy of unconditional surrender, the secret Polish documents are incriminating, Churchill did want to achieve and retain power etc. None of which has anything to do with Jewish responsibility for the war. And in other cases you're just pointing out that Churchill and Roosevelt loved, and were loved by Jews, a fact already widely known but still has nothing to do with the allegation that Jews 'started' WW2.
hermod wrote:
The Dutch burning English ships during the Raid on the Medway, 20 June 1667. oil on panel, Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam © Global Look Press
The growing battle of tit-for-tat exchanges of tariffs between the US and China has raised fears of a possible trade war that could have a damaging economic impact globally.
On Tuesday, the White House pledged to slap an additional 25 percent tariff on a long list of Chinese products, including metals. Within hours Beijing retaliated with the promise to hike levies on $50 billion worth of US imports by 25 percent. The Chinese list includes soybeans, automobiles, chemicals and aircraft. In response, President Donald Trump threatened an additional $100 billion in tariffs against China.
According to the expert, historically, many trade wars have led to actual wars. “It exacerbates tensions, cuts economic linkages and interdependencies, and when economies are severed and opinions heated with chauvinistic rhetoric, then military action could start,” Laborde told RT.
https://www.rt.com/business/423460-trad ... s-experts/
This is true, but irrelevant to the point I was making.
In-fact I stated quite clearly that blockades lead to war. A boycott isn't the same systematic decision as a tariff war or a blockade, and it isn't even a trade war. Although trade is affected. Nonetheless, if a war results from any of the former three examples who exactly would it be against in the case of the boycott of 1933? It couldn't be "the Jews", otherwise Germany would've had to pick a fight with nearly every country in Europe, as well as the United States and dominions. The point of the boycott was to be a coalition in all countries against German goods, and even though the Jews are doing it, they're individuals at the helm of the campaign not governments. Your "argument" is nonsensical because it isn't even a fair comparison. Germany couldn't go to war with "the Jews", they could only go to war against other countries and governments, the majority of whose citizens weren't Jewish. It wouldn't be a war against the Jews in that case, it would be a war between Germany and the governments of every Western country.
hermod wrote:Otium wrote:Also, "Judea" isn't a country, and not all Jews I'm sure would've agreed with such a policy. They're an interest group but not a sovereign state, so a declaration of war in the sense that two armies will go up against each other isn't a valid interpretation.
You're wong. The Jews of that time regarded themselves as a distinct nation, and they still do.
No, you're wrong. It doesn't matter what "the Jews" thought of themselves, the fact is they weren't a country and had no authority to speak for other Jews who didn't consider themselves apart of whatever "nation" they thought themselves to be apart of. If they had no government, no sovereignty, then they simply couldn't be at war with Germany, and Germany couldn't be at war with them. The Jews who did consider themselves "at war" with Germany did so as individuals, which isn't the same thing as a country with whom one can fight back with and negotiate.
You have also not presented any evidence that the boycott is at all related with the resultant war in 1939. You will find no such evidence in Hitler's motivations.
hermod wrote:And your argument amounts to saying that no nation is responsible for the outbreak of a war as long as 100% of its citizens don't favor that war.
That's not my argument at all. Although a "country" participates in war, those responsible for bringing it about are individuals. But a nation rises and falls on the backs of such men. So in a sense, individuals are to blame, while the mass of mostly helpless civilians are just along for the ride.
Re: Did the Jews actually start WW2 in Europe ?
Otium wrote:Yes.
None of what you posted is new to me, which would be evident if you've seen other posts of mine. Like I said at the beginning, the Jews didn't start the war, but they did "help ferment the environment which resulted in war." And did so through their intrigues among Allied governments. None of which I dispute. But nonetheless it isn't the whole story, the war against Germany was mutually beneficial for the interests of the philosemitic leaders of the Allied powers in WW2, but also for the select few of Jewish individuals who wanted to see the destruction of Nationalsocialist Germany (obviously with powerful support from other Jews and gentiles opposed to Germany).
Churchill was a warmonger, there's no denying that. In this connection the diary of Henry 'Chips' Channon, a close confidant of Chamberlain reports on this in his diary. But the fact is Churchill was kept out of Chamberlain's cabinet as a supposed act of good faith according to the British ambassador to Germany, Sir Neville Henderson. If it was up to Churchill there would've been war with Germany after the Anschluss, that this didn't happen means his, and his Jewish collaborators in 'the focus' could only do so much to influence events, hoping to chip away at the credibility of those around Chamberlain and his "appeasement" group. It's much more complicated a situation than a few poorly edited graphics will allow to come across.
Poorly edited graphics? Didn't you rather mean full texts you chose not to address directly?
The destruction of National Socialist Germany wasn't the main reason for WWII. The establishment of a Jewish colonization base in Palestine (state of Israel) and a second one-world government (United Nations) - two fundamental pillars of the Zionist-Globalist scheme - was. Churchill wasn't put in charge in Britain before 1940 because the British government wasn't compelled by Arab resistance to pass its anti-Zionist White Paper (itself built on the ashes of the failed Arab-Zionist London Conference of February-March 1939) before May 1939. In other words, there was no ground for a second world war before 1939. That's why WWII didn't break out before the second part of the year 1939 on a ludicrous pretext worthy of the pretext for WWI.
Otium wrote:A lot of what you post doesn't even have any relevance to the topic at hand. For example, it's well known that the Allies favoured the policy of unconditional surrender, the secret Polish documents are incriminating, Churchill did want to achieve and retain power etc. None of which has anything to do with Jewish responsibility for the war. And in other cases you're just pointing out that Churchill and Roosevelt loved, and were loved by Jews, a fact already widely known but still has nothing to do with the allegation that Jews 'started' WW2.
Did I mention the Allied policy of unconditional surrender (devised to make the war last as long as needed)?
Churchill and Roosevelt were not only loved by Jews. They were puppets backed and empowered for the advancement of their age-long Zionist-Globalist agenda. Gentile straw men don't matter. WWII was as much a Jew-led Zionist-Globalist war as the Anglo-American wars fought against Iraq by 2 Bush straw men and their accomplices in the 1990s and 2000s were.
Otium wrote:This is true, but irrelevant to the point I was making.
In-fact I stated quite clearly that blockades lead to war. A boycott isn't the same systematic decision as a tariff war or a blockade, and it isn't even a trade war. Although trade is affected. Nonetheless, if a war results from any of the former three examples who exactly would it be against in the case of the boycott of 1933? It couldn't be "the Jews", otherwise Germany would've had to pick a fight with nearly every country in Europe, as well as the United States and dominions. The point of the boycott was to be a coalition in all countries against German goods, and even though the Jews are doing it, they're individuals at the helm of the campaign not governments. Your "argument" is nonsensical because it isn't even a fair comparison. Germany couldn't go to war with "the Jews", they could only go to war against other countries and governments, the majority of whose citizens weren't Jewish. It wouldn't be a war against the Jews in that case, it would be a war between Germany and the governments of every Western country.
One can go to war against nations, not only countries. And nations can go to war against countries.
nation: a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language
country: a nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory
Otium wrote:No, you're wrong. It doesn't matter what "the Jews" thought of themselves, the fact is they weren't a country and had no authority to speak for other Jews who didn't consider themselves apart of whatever "nation" they thought themselves to be apart of. If they had no government, no sovereignty, then they simply couldn't be at war with Germany, and Germany couldn't be at war with them. The Jews who did consider themselves "at war" with Germany did so as individuals, which isn't the same thing as a country with whom one can fight back with and negotiate.
Not true. The Jews had a government and sovereignty in 1939. They were called the Jewish Agency for Palestine and the World Jewish Congress (WJC). Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, the founder and leader of the WJC, lead the anti-German boycott and agitation in America. And he had numerous collaborators doing the same job in England and elsewhere. Chaim Weizmann, the president of the Jewish Agency for Palestine and later the 1st president of Israel, publicly declared on Germany in the name of all the Jews in September 1939. And he unambiguously embroiled the Jews as an Allied nation in the military conflict between the warring European countries. As a real statesman and the acknowledged leader of the Jewish nation, Weizmann was also the negotiator who had rejected Hitler's plan for the mass evacuation of the 'German' Jews after Kristallnacht.
https://postimg.cc/yDbxqhqd
https://postimg.cc/2qYkN0cC
https://postimg.cc/cvHjgwvf
https://postimg.cc/479RKtFW
(Sorry for the addition of more poorly edited graphics.)
Otium wrote:You have also not presented any evidence that the boycott is at all related with the resultant war in 1939. You will find no such evidence in Hitler's motivations.
You'll find no such evidence in Hitler's motivation because Hitler wanted no such thing as a second world war. But the anti-German boycott was mostly a Zionist propaganda campaign devised for the warmongering agitation of the masses in America and Britain. And there are evidence that that campaign had reached its goals. Jews know how to create war hysteria among their Gentile cattle.
Otium wrote:That's not my argument at all. Although a "country" participates in war, those responsible for bringing it about are individuals. But a nation rises and falls on the backs of such men. So in a sense, individuals are to blame, while the mass of mostly helpless civilians are just along for the ride.
Leaders, especially in wartime, are the incarnation of whole nations at specific times. That 'individuals & helpless civilians' thing sounds like another 'woke' BS. No offense intended.
"[Austen Chamberlain] has done western civilization a great service by refuting at least one of the slanders against the Germans
because a civilization which leaves war lies unchallenged in an atmosphere of hatred and does not produce courage in its leaders to refute them
is doomed. "
Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, on the public admission by Britain's Foreign Secretary that the WWI corpse-factory story was false, December 4, 1925
because a civilization which leaves war lies unchallenged in an atmosphere of hatred and does not produce courage in its leaders to refute them
is doomed. "
Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, on the public admission by Britain's Foreign Secretary that the WWI corpse-factory story was false, December 4, 1925
-
Otium
Re: Did the Jews actually start WW2 in Europe ?
hermod wrote:Poorly edited graphics? Didn't you rather mean full texts you chose not to address directly?
There was nothing to address, like I said, many of them had little to nothing to do with your position.
hermod wrote:The destruction of National Socialist Germany wasn't the main reason for WWII. The establishment of a Jewish colonization base in Palestine (state of Israel) and a second one-world government (United Nations) - two fundamental pillars of the Zionist-Globalist scheme - was. Churchill wasn't put in charge in Britain before 1940 because the British government wasn't compelled by Arab resistance to pass its anti-Zionist White Paper (itself built on the ashes of the failed Arab-Zionist London Conference of February-March 1939) before May 1939. In other words, there was no ground for a second world war before 1939. That's why WWII didn't break out before the second part of the year 1939 on a ludicrous pretext worthy of the pretext for WWI.
Well, when you can establish a body of evidence to prove even 50% of what you wrote here, perhaps I'll take it seriously. As for right now, it's tenuous and unfalsifiable. Although I have to say, claiming WW2 was about Palestine is a new one. But it makes little sense. If the Jews had all this power and influence to which you ascribe to them so they could get what they wanted, it makes little sense for them to have contrived a war with Germany when they already had the ear of powerful Englishman who controlled Palestine. It also makes little sense for the philosemitic British government to block the transfer of Jews from Germany to Palestine. None of this seems to make any sense.
I imagine WW2 comes into your conception of events due to the belief that the Jews and globalists intended to contrive a conflict in order for the Jews to be victimised and thus be granted their own state? Is that what you think? Otherwise why on earth would a world war with Germany as the villain be necessary? Surely it has something to do with the Jews victimising themselves? And if so, then you need to prove not only that it was planned in advance to 1. unleash a war, 2. would have to trace the origins of the plan, which I suppose in your conception of the origins of the Holocaust story is much more conspiracy (I mean this literally, not as an insult) orientated than a simple propaganda ploy based on wartime propaganda to justify a war ex post facto.
For all the power you gives to the Jews, it sure seems unnecessary to do all this.
The motivation of the Churchill clique for the war was shown in a very real document, a letter, written by Robert Vansittart to Halifax. The historian Martin Allen writes:
On receiving news of Hitler's overtures, the Foreign Secretary's Chief Diplomatic Adviser Sir Robert Vansittart rejected them outright.
Sixty years on, Vansittart’s letter to Lord Halifax still makes uncomfortable reading, for it makes it clear that the mandarins of Whitehall had a totally different perception of what Britain was fighting for than did the majority of politicians, or the population at large. Britain’s leading civil servants and politicians, including Vansittart and especially Churchill, had viewed Germany - and not particularly Nazism — as a threat for a very long time. This emanated from the nineteenth-century German policy of ‘Drang nach Osten', which came with the fall of the Ottoman Empire, when Moltke and later the Kaiser became convinced that Germany could fill the resultant power-vacuum. In the eyes of men like Vansittart, Britain had been constantly pitted against German efforts to encroach into the Middle and Near East - 'the German Reich concept' - ever since the 1980s. Now, with the Nazis at the helm, the dangers were far greater.
Vansittart's letter read:"Secretary of State. URGENT.
I hope that you will instruct Mr. Mallet that he is on no account to meet Dr. Weissauer. The future of civilisation is at stake. It is a question of we or they now, and either the German Reich or this country has got to go under, and not only under, but right under. I believe it will be the German Reich. This is a very different thing from saying that Germany has got to go under; but the German Reich and the Reich idea have been the curse of the world for 75 years, and if we do not stop it this time, we never shall, and they will stop us. The enemy is the German Reich and not merely Nazism, and those who have not yet learned this lesson have learned nothing whatsoever, and would let us in for a sixth war even if we survive the fifth. I would far sooner take my chances of surviving the fifth. All possibility of compromise has now gone by, and it has got to be a fight to the finish, and to a real finish.
I trust that Mr Mallet will get the most categorical instructions. We have had much more than enough of Dahlerus, Goerdeler, Weissauer and company.”
Martin Allen, The Hitler/Hess Deception: British Intelligence's Best-Kept Secret of the Second World War (London: Harper Perennial, 2004), pp. 79-80; Günther W. Gellermann, Geheime Wege zum Frieden mit England: Ausgewählte Initiativen zur Beendigung des Krieges 1940/42 (Bernard & Graefe, 1995).
At the end of the day, your arguments rest on implications that run deep and cannot be "proven" by making baseless suppositional claims and filling in the gaps because you've found that philosemitic historical figures on the Allied side were sympathetic to world Jewry. That simply isn't enough.
hermod wrote:Did I mention the Allied policy of unconditional surrender (devised to make the war last as long as needed)?
No, you didn't mention it, but you posted an image about it. But it's not relevant as nobody disputed that that was the aim of the Allied policy of unconditional surrender.
hermod wrote:One can go to war against nations, not only countries. And nations can go to war against countries.nation: a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language
country: a nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory
I already made the distinction between a country and a nation. Like I said, the Jews weren't a country, and not all Jews considered themselves apart of the Jewish nation, and certainly not in the way of a hivemind the way you're conceiving of it. Jews will support Jewish interests, but not all Jews agree about what is best serving Jewish interests.
"The Jews" had no government, no country, nothing by which a war with bullets, tanks, guns and bombs could be waged. To talk of 'war' when you know the implications of that word is simply dishonest.
hermod wrote:Not true. The Jews had a government and sovereignty in 1939. They were called the Jewish Agency for Palestine and the World Jewish Congress (WJC). Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, the founder and leader of the WJC, lead the anti-German boycott and agitation in America. And he had numerous collaborators doing the same job in England and elsewhere. Chaim Weizmann, the president of the Jewish Agency for Palestine and later the 1st president of Israel, publicly declared on Germany in the name of all the Jews in September 1939. And he unambiguously embroiled the Jews as an Allied nation in the military conflict between the warring European countries. As a real statesman and the acknowledged leader of the Jewish nation, Weizmann was also the negotiator who had rejected Hitler's plan for the mass evacuation of the 'German' Jews after Kristallnacht.
Weizmann pledged his support for the allied cause. Weizmann didn't determine the outbreak of the war, nor does Weizmann's word that he's speaking on behalf of Jewry mean he should be taken at his word simply because it's convenient for you to lump all Jews in behind Weizmann when it's not that simple.
hermod wrote:(Sorry for the addition of more poorly edited graphics.)
I forgive you.
In this case, none of these poorly edited graphics are relevant to the topic whatsoever. The alleged quote from 'Gutle' is unsourced, the quotes from Wilson and allegedly from Roosevelt are unsourced and don't refer to Jews at all. You're just filling in the blanks.hermod wrote:Leaders, especially in wartime, are the incarnation of whole nations at specific times. That 'individuals & helpless civilians' thing sounds like another 'woke' BS. No offense intended.
In wartime yes. But no, leaders aren't always the incarnation of the will of the people, hence why Roosevelt had to lie his way into office by promising peace and eroding the laws to break America's policy of neutrality.
There's nothing 'woke' about it, hearing the word 'individual' isn't synonymous with some leftist talking point. The fact of the matter is that negotiations and policy is argued and conducted among individuals, interest groups are represented by individuals regardless of what the majority think. Not every citizen is a diplomat for their country, and not every diplomat is a representative of their populace.
Re: Did the Jews actually start WW2 in Europe ?
Otium wrote:There was nothing to address, like I said, many of them had little to nothing to do with your position.
That's because you hadn't understood my position or chose to pretend that you hadn't.
Otium wrote:Well, when you can establish a body of evidence to prove even 50% of what you wrote here, perhaps I'll take it seriously.
I did that. But why would I make the effort to do it even more? You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. Those who are eager to 'drink' it have enough 'water' to quench their thirst with the documentary material I provided in my previous posts.
Otium wrote:As for right now, it's tenuous and unfalsifiable. Although I have to say, claiming WW2 was about Palestine is a new one. But it makes little sense. If the Jews had all this power and influence to get what they wanted and that WW2 wasn't about the destruction of NS-Germany it makes little sense for them to have contrived a war with Germany when they already had the ear of powerful Englishman who controlled Palestine. It also makes little sense for the philosemitic British government to block the transfer of Jews from Germany to Palestine. None of this seems to make any sense.
They had the ear of the British statesmen who controlled Palestine, but the strong Arab resistance against the Zionist enterprise (see the Palestine riots of 1936-39) prevented the British statesmen from giving the Zionists what they wanted without jeopardizing the British Empire itself. There were many millions of Muslims in the British Empire and the plight of their Palestinian fellows was deeply disturbing them. The great agitation caused by the Zionist seizure of Palestine in the Muslim world had become a very serious threat to the British Empire. Hence the reluctant passing and maintenance of the British White Paper of May 1939 until the British withdrawal of 1948.
Otium wrote:I imagine WW2 comes into your conception of events due to the belief that the Jews and globalists intended to contrive a conflict in order for the Jews to be victimised and thus be granted their own state? Is that what you think? Otherwise why on earth would a world war with Germany as the villain be necessary? Surely it has something to do with the Jews victimising themselves? And if so, then you need to prove not only that it was planned in advance to 1. unleash a war, 2. would have to trace the origins of the plan, which I suppose in your conception of the origins of the Holocaust story is much more conspiracy (I mean this literally, not as an insult) orientated than a simple propaganda ploy based on wartime propaganda to justify a war ex post facto.
Doesn't the huge Zionist grip on the White House (notorious and proven enough) and the large involvement of the White House in the outbreak WWII (vastly demonstrated, among other things, by the diplomatic documents captured by the Germans when they captured Warsaw and mentioned earlier in this thread) prove that???
As far as the Holocaust story is concerned, I believe that it's both a Zionist 'conspiracy' (propaganda campaign) based on the political needs of the Zionists and basic war propaganda based on the Allied atrocity propaganda lies of WWI. The Zionists of WWII knew that the Allied leaders would welcome any good story for the demonization of their enemies. WWI had vastly demonstrated that.
As far as the Zionist 'conspiracy' is concerned, I can't fail to notice that the founder of political Zionism in America himself (as the cofounder of the Federation of American Zionists in 1897) is also the guy who 'revealed' the Holocaust in November 1942. That guy was Rabbi Stephen S. Wise. By an amazing cohencidence, Rabbi Wise was also the guy who had kickstarted the use of the notorious six-million figure in the 20th century. By another amazing cohencidence, Rabbi Wise had also 'predicted' 3 years before Hitler became Germany's chancellor that a second world war was coming and that America would "be forced into it". And I can't fail either to notice that the Bergson Group (Zionist activists of the Irgun and followers of Vladimir Jabotinsky) did a big job to propagandize the Holocaust in the United States during WWII. I have many documents about those things. I can post some of them in this thread if you wish.
As far as the basic war propaganda based on the propaganda lies of WWI is concerned, it's good to know that even an anti-revisionist Holocaust historian like Walter Laqueur couldn't fail to notice and mention that fact.
https://i.postimg.cc/69kqwr12/Holocaust ... ed-for.jpg
https://postimg.cc/Hr9b13FT
https://postimg.cc/3WsBRWdD
Otium wrote:hermod wrote:One can go to war against nations, not only countries. And nations can go to war against countries.nation: a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language
country: a nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory
I already made the distinction between a country and a nation. Like I said, the Jews weren't a country, and not all Jews considered themselves apart of the Jewish nation, and certainly not in the way of a hivemind the way you're conceiving of it. Jews will support Jewish interests, but not all Jews agree about what is best serving Jewish interests.
Yes, most (if not all) Jews considered themselves a part of the Jewish nation, a chosen nation with a divine mission, they believe. That's the essence of Judaism. The accusation of dual loyalty against the Jews was not born with the establishment of the state of Israel. The Jews were a dispersed nation (a nation in galuth, they say) and regarded themselves as such long before they had a country again.
Of course not all Jews agree about what is best for Jewish interests. The members of all nations do that, but that doesn't invalidate the existence of those nations.
Otium wrote:"The Jews" had no government, no country, nothing by which a war with bullets, tanks, guns and bombs could be waged. To talk of 'war' when you know the implications of that word is simply dishonest.
They had a government, the Jewish Agency for Palestine, and an army, the Haganah. And the main demand of the Irgun boys in America (Bergson Group) was the establishment of a Jewish army fighting as an independent nation on the side of the Allies. The Bergson Group even established an embassy of the Hebrew nation (in their own words) at Washington in 1943. Ironically, the buiding they turned into the embassy of the Hebrew nation was the former Iranian embassy in the United States.
That being said, using the bullets, tanks, guns, bombs and gullible cannon fodder of some nations for the interests of another nation is no small guilt. Proxy wars are wars too.
Otium wrote:Weizmann pledged his support for the allied cause. Weizmann didn't determine the outbreak of the war, nor does Weizmann's word that he's speaking on behalf of Jewry mean he should be taken at his word simply because it's convenient for you to lump all Jews in behind Weizmann when it's not that simple.
Not all Americans were behind Trump and not all Americans are behind Biden. So Trump and Biden were/are not the real presidents of the United States. Is that what you mean?
Otium wrote:hermod wrote:Leaders, especially in wartime, are the incarnation of whole nations at specific times. That 'individuals & helpless civilians' thing sounds like another 'woke' BS. No offense intended.
In wartime yes. But no, leaders aren't always the incarnation of the will of the people, hence why Roosevelt had to lie his way into office by promising peace and eroding the laws to break America's policy of neutrality.
Just shows that in a democracy the will of the people is to be manufactured (see "the manufacture of consent" of the Jewish deceivers Walter Lippmann and Edward Bernays) and is easily turned upside down by intriguers like Roosevelt and his bosses.
Otium wrote:There's nothing 'woke' about it, hearing the word 'individual' isn't synonymous with some leftist talking point. The fact of the matter is that negotiations and policy is argued and conducted among individuals, interest groups are represented by individuals regardless of what the majority think. Not every citizen is a diplomat for their country, and not every diplomat is a representative of their populace.
That's a democratic delusion. Populaces don't make history. And the will of the peoples is just a flattering democratic name for the product of their own indoctrination. Free thinker, real free thinkers, are an extremely rare oddity not to say an abnormality. The sheeple 'think' what they're told to 'think'.
"[Austen Chamberlain] has done western civilization a great service by refuting at least one of the slanders against the Germans
because a civilization which leaves war lies unchallenged in an atmosphere of hatred and does not produce courage in its leaders to refute them
is doomed. "
Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, on the public admission by Britain's Foreign Secretary that the WWI corpse-factory story was false, December 4, 1925
because a civilization which leaves war lies unchallenged in an atmosphere of hatred and does not produce courage in its leaders to refute them
is doomed. "
Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, on the public admission by Britain's Foreign Secretary that the WWI corpse-factory story was false, December 4, 1925
Re: Did the Jews actually start WW2 in Europe ?
Otium,
Regarding your statement:
""The biggest problem with all of this is that the boycott had nothing to do with the outbreak of war in September 1939. An autarkic economic ideal was already being followed"".
The Jewish boycott was the beginning foundation of the goal of the Jewish Zionist ( and WW2 ) which was to cause a few Jews to deceptively suffer greatly, in order to justify the supposed need for a new and safe Israeli homeland for the Jews, and to convert most Jews to being pro-Zionist, from mostly being formerly anti-Zionist.
The foundation that the 1933 Jewish boycott accomplished was to make very bad emotions between both the Germans and Jews, as in addition to preventing the worldwide trading of Germany, the Zionist Jews also advertised a massive amount of negative propaganda about Germany ( as demonstrated in the web link below ), such as repeatedly expressing the Jewish desire to destroy Germany, and other negative statements against Germany.
If you look at the great deceptive slaughter that happened to the innocent Jews after the 1939 and the 1941 WW2 broke out, there is the strong suspicion that the Jewish Zionist designed goal of WW2 was being accomplished.
I am of the opinion that there is proof that the Jewish Zionist were guilty for this intended Jewish slaughter because (1) there were 150,000 Jewish Soldiers in the German army and some very high ranking level soldiers who knew what was happening and did not help, (2) the many Jewish WW2 survivor videos of today made by the many museums all say the same thing that the WW2 suffering Jews did nothing to the Germans and the suffering WW2 Jews were completely innocent, and (3) the Jewish Zionist were watching their perfectly designed plans unfolding and they did nothing to help the innocent WW2 suffering Jews who knew nothing about the 1933 Jewish declared worldwide trading boycott war with Germany and the massive 1933 Jewish Zionist negative propaganda that was distributed against Germany.
Ref: https://www.essaydocs.org/table-of-cont ... ml?page=26
https://historyofyesterday.com/150-000- ... 0?gif=true
Regarding your statement:
""The biggest problem with all of this is that the boycott had nothing to do with the outbreak of war in September 1939. An autarkic economic ideal was already being followed"".
The Jewish boycott was the beginning foundation of the goal of the Jewish Zionist ( and WW2 ) which was to cause a few Jews to deceptively suffer greatly, in order to justify the supposed need for a new and safe Israeli homeland for the Jews, and to convert most Jews to being pro-Zionist, from mostly being formerly anti-Zionist.
The foundation that the 1933 Jewish boycott accomplished was to make very bad emotions between both the Germans and Jews, as in addition to preventing the worldwide trading of Germany, the Zionist Jews also advertised a massive amount of negative propaganda about Germany ( as demonstrated in the web link below ), such as repeatedly expressing the Jewish desire to destroy Germany, and other negative statements against Germany.
If you look at the great deceptive slaughter that happened to the innocent Jews after the 1939 and the 1941 WW2 broke out, there is the strong suspicion that the Jewish Zionist designed goal of WW2 was being accomplished.
I am of the opinion that there is proof that the Jewish Zionist were guilty for this intended Jewish slaughter because (1) there were 150,000 Jewish Soldiers in the German army and some very high ranking level soldiers who knew what was happening and did not help, (2) the many Jewish WW2 survivor videos of today made by the many museums all say the same thing that the WW2 suffering Jews did nothing to the Germans and the suffering WW2 Jews were completely innocent, and (3) the Jewish Zionist were watching their perfectly designed plans unfolding and they did nothing to help the innocent WW2 suffering Jews who knew nothing about the 1933 Jewish declared worldwide trading boycott war with Germany and the massive 1933 Jewish Zionist negative propaganda that was distributed against Germany.
Ref: https://www.essaydocs.org/table-of-cont ... ml?page=26
https://historyofyesterday.com/150-000- ... 0?gif=true
-
Otium
Re: Did the Jews actually start WW2 in Europe ?
Hopeingod wrote:The Jewish boycott was the beginning foundation of the goal of the Jewish Zionist ( and WW2 ) which was to cause a few Jews to deceptively suffer greatly, in order to justify the supposed need for a new and safe Israeli homeland for the Jews, and to convert most Jews to being pro-Zionist, from mostly being formerly anti-Zionist.
The foundation that the 1933 Jewish boycott accomplished was to make very bad emotions between both the Germans and Jews, as in addition to preventing the worldwide trading of Germany, the Zionist Jews also advertised a massive amount of negative propaganda about Germany ( as demonstrated in the web link below ), such as repeatedly expressing the Jewish desire to destroy Germany, and other negative statements against Germany.
You cannot prove any of this. The boycott lasted a few months in 1933, did no irreparable damage to Germany, and led to nothing. The boycott didn't accomplish "bad emotions" between the Germans and Jews, because the boycott was the result of these already pre-existing antagonisms. What you wrote makes no sense.
Everything you wrote isn't supported by any actual evidence. You've presented unfalsifiable point, after point. Saying something that sounds plausible, doesn't make it true. Hence why there's that idiom "correlation doesn't equal causation". It doesn't necessarily follow that because the media portrayed Germany badly that it led to war in 1939. There had to be a catalyst, you couldn't simply go to war against another country because you disliked them. For another thing, despite the relentless propaganda by Jews abroad, there is no reason to think that this contributed enough power to go to war in 1939, it certainly didn't after the Czech crisis of 1939. The American public was still largely isolationist despite their dislike of Germany.
The three things you mention have no bearing, or even any relation to the outbreak of war. That you're talking about these people "doing nothing" to prevent war, I guess, is ridiculous. If the pretext was a deadlock between the resultant territorial disputes in Europe from the Versailles treaty, there's nothing this miniscule amount of Jews could do. And in-fact, the "very high ranking" traitors in the German army were trying to prevent the war, by making offers to the Allied governments which went unrequited.
Re: Did the Jews actually start WW2 in Europe ?
Otium,
Regarding the issue of the possible starvation of the German population due to the 1933 private worldwide Jewish trade boycott war against Germany, it is documented in Edwin Black's book "The Transfer Agreement" on page 188, that I have paraphrased as follows:
Paraphrase: Germans may face starvation due to the boycott. The boycotters developed a slogan to the effect: Will Germany end due to the boycott. Note: the referenced address link given below gives more of the actual true content of the page 188 about the possible starvation of Germans, and this content is located a few sentences below the heading "THE EFFECT ON THE GERMAN ECONOMY". Therefore to find more of the actual content of page 188, first search for this heading title at the referenced address link given below.
Another proof of the importance and substance of the Jewish boycott is that the timelines given of the Jewish Holocaust by many of the Holocaust museums completely leave out the dates of and do not mention at all the 1933 Jewish boycott and the Jewish negative propaganda against Germany. Only if the 1933 Jewish boycott was "not" significant, and only then would the Holocaust museums ever mention the 1933 Jewish boycott. By the Holocaust museums saying nothing, it is proof that the Jewish boycott was very significant.
The museum videos of the many Holocaust survivors state or imply that the survivor Jews were completely innocent and that they had done nothing harmful to Germany. But shouldn't the 1933 Jewish boycott and all of the negative propaganda toward Germany be mentioned ?
Look at the documented negative propaganda statements by many Jews from around the world toward Germany that is listed at the following web address link.
Ref: https://www.essaydocs.org/table-of-cont ... ml?page=26
Regarding the issue of the possible starvation of the German population due to the 1933 private worldwide Jewish trade boycott war against Germany, it is documented in Edwin Black's book "The Transfer Agreement" on page 188, that I have paraphrased as follows:
Paraphrase: Germans may face starvation due to the boycott. The boycotters developed a slogan to the effect: Will Germany end due to the boycott. Note: the referenced address link given below gives more of the actual true content of the page 188 about the possible starvation of Germans, and this content is located a few sentences below the heading "THE EFFECT ON THE GERMAN ECONOMY". Therefore to find more of the actual content of page 188, first search for this heading title at the referenced address link given below.
Another proof of the importance and substance of the Jewish boycott is that the timelines given of the Jewish Holocaust by many of the Holocaust museums completely leave out the dates of and do not mention at all the 1933 Jewish boycott and the Jewish negative propaganda against Germany. Only if the 1933 Jewish boycott was "not" significant, and only then would the Holocaust museums ever mention the 1933 Jewish boycott. By the Holocaust museums saying nothing, it is proof that the Jewish boycott was very significant.
The museum videos of the many Holocaust survivors state or imply that the survivor Jews were completely innocent and that they had done nothing harmful to Germany. But shouldn't the 1933 Jewish boycott and all of the negative propaganda toward Germany be mentioned ?
Look at the documented negative propaganda statements by many Jews from around the world toward Germany that is listed at the following web address link.
Ref: https://www.essaydocs.org/table-of-cont ... ml?page=26
-
Otium
Re: Did the Jews actually start WW2 in Europe ?
Hopeingod wrote:Otium,
Regarding the issue of the possible starvation of the German population due to the 1933 private worldwide Jewish trade boycott war against Germany, it is documented in Edwin Black's book "The Transfer Agreement" on page 188, that I have paraphrased as follows:
Paraphrase: Germans may face starvation due to the boycott. The boycotters developed a slogan to the effect: Will Germany end due to the boycott. Note: the reference address link given below gives more of the actual content on page 188 about the possible starvation of Germans.
No mention is made of starvation actually occurring, only the possibility that in autumn or winter there may be a serious situation produced by the deteriorating economic situation and that the German government was concerned as to the export situation potentially producing a situation like she had faced in 1919 when she was blockaded by the Allies and indeed, starved:
The Nazis knew the answer to all these questions. If exports fell too low, Gerrnany as a nation would again be faced with starvation. It had happened just fourteen years earlier; it was still fresh in many minds. In the winter of 1919, a besieged Germany was blockaded into submission, starved into defeat. To the Nazis, the anti-German boycott of 1933 was in many ways a reminiscent tactic. There were no enemy ships in the seaways, no hostile divisions at the bridgeheads. But as effective as any blockading frigate or infantryman was this boycott that blocked German goods from being sold, blocked foreign exchange from being earned, and blocked the means of survival from entering Germany.
How many months could Germany survive once the boycott became global, once commerce was rerouted around Germany? The boycotters adopted a slogan: “Germany will crack this winter.” In Berlin many believed those words. On June 14, Britain’s Ambassador Sir Horace Rumbold reported to British Foreign Secretary John Simon on an hourlong conversation with former German Chancellor Heinrich Bruning. The meeting was held in great anxiety because Bruning was convinced his phones and mail were monitored. Rumbold conveyed Bruning’s belief “that economic conditions might deteriorate to such an extent in the autumn or winter as to produce a very serious situation in this country.” Rumbold added his own validation: “I have heard from a direct source that the Chancellor [Hitler] himself is very apprehensive of the economic conditions which are likely to obtain towards the end of the year.”
Edwin Black, The Transfer Agreement: The Untold Story of the Secret Agreement between the Third Reich and Jewish Palestine (New York: Macmillan, 1984), pp. 187-188.
The difference between fear and reality is important to distinguish, what Black writes is certainly not proof of your claim that "the Germans were starving because of this five month trade boycott war."
He blames this possibility more so on German economic measures than on the boycott itself.
And Black actually disputes the effect of the blockade in 1919:
Before the blockade was lifted, 800,000 malnourished German civilians perished. Actually, the blockade created less of a food shortage for Germany, which was 80 percent food self-sufficient before the war, than did the shortsighted policy of pulling Germans off the farms to fight without compensating for reduced food production. But the popular perception among Germans was that they had been starved into submission, defeated not on the battlefield but by political and economic warfare and connivance, by what became known as the “stab in the back.”
Ibid., p. 21.
This doesn't make it seem as if Black believed that Germany actually would starve if exports fell too low. There were already protectionist laws in place against other countries in Europe like Romania which were reciprocated in that country. Black basically spends these pages talking about the policies the Germans had in place and how they contributed to their situation, implying that if they wanted to prevent a crises they would need to change her policies, which could be done:
Or the Reich could broaden its artificial protection of domestic industries. Such protection already existed for numerous commodities such as eggs and wheat. But whenever the government banned competitive supplies from neighboring countries, those countries always retaliated with similar restrictions on German products. So one German economic sector would flourish for a moment, while several others paid the price. For example, trade with Rumania was almost nonexistent by June 1933 because Germany’s protectionist ban on many Rumanian farm products provoked a reciprocal ban on most German wares. How long could the Reich protect selected economic sectors at the expense of others?
"
Ibid., p. 186.
However the essential point is that no Germans were starving due to the blockade which is the claim you made.
Hopeingod wrote:Another proof of the importance and substance of the Jewish boycott is that the timelines given of the Jewish Holocaust by many of the Holocaust museums completely leave out the dates of and do not mention at all the 1933 Jewish boycott and the Jewish negative propaganda against Germany. Only if the 1933 Jewish boycott was "not" significant, and only then would the Holocaust museums ever mention the 1933 Jewish boycott. By the Holocaust museums saying nothing, it is proof that the Jewish boycott was very significant.
No, this is insane nonsense. Lack of proof isn't proof. You don't need a degree in law to know that you cannot indict or convict someone because you claim "that's what someone guilty would say!", or some such nonsense. That isn't proof, in-fact it's nothing. You could speculate endlessly on all the reasons Holocaust museums don't mention the anti-German boycott, most probably because they're not concerned about Germans, they're concerned about Jews and don't believe the boycott by the Jews is morally wrong. That's much more believable than them somehow admitting by omission that it was important, one could just as easily say it's the precise reason they didn't mention it was because they didn't think it was important. But even this is a pointless discussion, for the meaning of whatever the boycott was for them cannot be determined in this way. So you claim it means they're "admitting" it's important by saying nothing (which makes no sense), what exactly do the Holocaust museums find so important about it that they don't mention it? To this you'll just invent whatever you want that suits your speculative position, inventing more supposition to serve as "proof" in place of any real facts.
Negative propaganda statements don't mean anything, just saying there was negative propaganda doesn't let us draw any solid conclusions. You're assuming that because propaganda had a purpose that it's purpose was fulfilled as intended. Your assumptions aren't enough, nor do they have anything to do with the outbreak of war.
Return to “WWII Europe / Atlantic Theater Revisionist Forum”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
