The absurdity of the irrational mass: presented with X, they will believe Y as long as an authority say "it is Y"

[Waldgänger]

Thanks to Codoh, I have spent nearly the last 3 years developing an increasing awe at the inability of people (thanks to comprehensive state education?) to think on the most basic rational level. It is as if most humans are walking around in a stupor, a fog, a mist. The most obvious statement of X can be presented to their face, but all it takes is an "authority" to declare X to be Y, and they will go hoarse and blue in the face defending this "Y".

All of us are familiar with the joke that is Wikipedia, but I enjoy perusing it as a sign of what is acceptable to say, or not to say, about a subject. Here is an absurd entry about the diaries of the Doctor Minister of Propaganda Goebbels.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goebbels_ ... ontroversy

Ironically, Irving's research into Goebbel's diaries provided some of the best evidence for the Holocaust. The diaries reveal Goebbels was copied on the Wannsee Conference protocol, a January 1942 conference of Nazi leaders held to decide the final solution. Holocaust deniers claim the protocol is a fabrication. The diary entry of March 27 1942 states, “Beginning with Lublin,” he states, “the Jews are now being deported eastward from the General Government [occupied Poland]. The procedure is pretty barbaric and one that beggars description, and there’s not much left of the Jews. Broadly speaking one can probably say that 60 percent of them will have to be liquidated, while only 40 percent can be put to work”. The Moscow plate is identical to that held by the Hoover Institution, meaning there is no way the text could have been faked.

The mainstream narrative says that those who were gassed were entirely within the realm of the GG. By definition, if the Jews are deported eastward from the GG, they are being moved outside the GG, away from alleged death camps. Whether 'evacuate', 'liquidate', et. al., are code-words or not, they cannot mean "genocidal killing" if they are applied to Jews being moved away from the GG. Liquidate here clearly means "physically remove". Deport. Evacuate in the literal sense. The context of the rest of Goebbels' diary clearly supports this.

Now, wiki shows evidence for this in the diary entry, then says "it is evidence for the contrary". It is as if one produced a photograph of an empty field, says "this is a photo of murdered jews", and the entire crowd weeps and moans, "moving! profound! the depths of evil!"

What hope can there be, when the clearest, simplest statement for truth is taken for a falsity and gleefully accepted?

[Nazgul]

I have spent nearly the last 3 years developing an increasing awe at the inability of people to think on the most basic rational level. It is as if most humans are walking around in a stupor, a fog, a mist. ?

Wiki cannot be trusted as a reliable source as you mentioned. Here is another example of how wiki contributors manipulate the truth.

I will refer to the article on the Hungarian Jewish boy Peter Lantos.

The wiki article states:

Peter was five, his family were deported to Bergen-Belsen concentration camp because of the Holocaust. At the concentration camp, the Nazis murdered his father through gruelling forced labor.Peter and his mother were sent back to Hungary on a train that was meant to go to a death camp

link



Those who have read this Hungarian's autobiography of his WWII experiences would know that the red highlights above are not true. His father, a chain smoker, constantly exchanges his bread for cigarettes, dies of starvation, not gruelling forced labour. He and his mother survived and were transported on a train to Theresienstadt. After six days of travel, the train stopped near the village of Farsleben in Germany, near the city of Magdeburg. The passengers were liberated by the US Army outside Magdeburg which soon afterwards became the Soviet zone of occupation. After several months of uncertainty, they escaped from the Russians who tried to keep them prisoner.

[hermod]

All of us are familiar with the joke that is Wikipedia, but I enjoy perusing it as a sign of what is acceptable to say, or not to say, about a subject. Here is an absurd entry about the diaries of the Doctor Minister of Propaganda Goebbels.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goebbels_ ... ontroversy

Ironically, Irving's research into Goebbel's diaries provided some of the best evidence for the Holocaust. The diaries reveal Goebbels was copied on the Wannsee Conference protocol, a January 1942 conference of Nazi leaders held to decide the final solution. Holocaust deniers claim the protocol is a fabrication. The diary entry of March 27 1942 states, “Beginning with Lublin,” he states, “the Jews are now being deported eastward from the General Government [occupied Poland]. The procedure is pretty barbaric and one that beggars description, and there’s not much left of the Jews. Broadly speaking one can probably say that 60 percent of them will have to be liquidated, while only 40 percent can be put to work”. The Moscow plate is identical to that held by the Hoover Institution, meaning there is no way the text could have been faked.

The mainstream narrative says that those who were gassed were entirely within the realm of the GG. By definition, if the Jews are deported eastward from the GG, they are being moved outside the GG, away from alleged death camps. Whether 'evacuate', 'liquidate', et. al., are code-words or not, they cannot mean "genocidal killing" if they are applied to Jews being moved away from the GG. Liquidate here clearly means "physically remove". Deport. Evacuate in the literal sense. The context of the rest of Goebbels' diary clearly supports this.

Goebbels said "will have to be liquidated," not "are being liquidated." Goebbels was notoriously a radical anti-Semite. He was expressing a personal wish, not a German policy in force at that time, when he wrote those words. That's just the kind of things radical anti-Semites say. No big deal. Goebbels deplored on several other occasions that the German treatment of Jews was too soft in his opinion.

The people who mistakenly believe that Goebbels' diaries proved the Holocaust should read Thomas Dalton's paper Goebbels on the Jews.

Goebbels on the Jews
by Thomas Dalton
https://codoh.com/library/series/goebbe ... e-jews/en/
https://codoh.com/library/document/goeb ... part-1/en/
https://codoh.com/library/document/goeb ... part-2/en/

If that is "some of the best evidence for the Holocaust," don't even try to imagine what the worse & worst evidence for it look like...

[Lamprecht]

Goebbels said "will have to be liquidated," not "are being liquidated." Goebbels was notoriously a radical anti-Semite. He was expressing a personal wish, not a German policy in force at that time, when he wrote those words. That's just the kind of things radical anti-Semites say. No big deal. Goebbels deplored on several other occasions that the German treatment of Jews was too soft in his opinion.

A point I have made in various threads. NFrNJ made a big deal about that particular entry, and it exposed him as a complete fool.
Goebbels mentions a policy of deporting and resettling Jews over and over again; the Final Solution. He also hears of executions of Jews and makes no effort to disguise it. Indeed, he is just giving his opinion here that these Jews are useless. The explanation I have been given is that Goebbels didn't even know about the "Holocaust."

[Hektor]

Thanks to Codoh, I have spent nearly the last 3 years developing an increasing awe at the inability of people (thanks to comprehensive state education?) to think on the most basic rational level. It is as if most humans are walking around in a stupor, a fog, a mist. The most obvious statement of X can be presented to their face, but all it takes is an "authority" to declare X to be Y, and they will go hoarse and blue in the face defending this "Y".

All of us are familiar with the joke that is Wikipedia, but I enjoy perusing it as a sign of what is acceptable to say, or not to say, about a subject. Here is an absurd entry about the diaries of the Doctor Minister of Propaganda Goebbels.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goebbels_ ... ontroversy

Ironically, Irving's research into Goebbel's diaries provided some of the best evidence for the Holocaust. The diaries reveal Goebbels was copied on the Wannsee Conference protocol, a January 1942 conference of Nazi leaders held to decide the final solution. Holocaust deniers claim the protocol is a fabrication. The diary entry of March 27 1942 states, “Beginning with Lublin,” he states, “the Jews are now being deported eastward from the General Government [occupied Poland]. The procedure is pretty barbaric and one that beggars description, and there’s not much left of the Jews. Broadly speaking one can probably say that 60 percent of them will have to be liquidated, while only 40 percent can be put to work”. The Moscow plate is identical to that held by the Hoover Institution, meaning there is no way the text could have been faked.

....

Appeal to authority works with most people. Even if that authority is clearly wrong.
But generally 'authorities' will have some sort of justification of what they are saying. Terms get then shifted towards the desired narrative.
Also, what contradicts the narrative from the evidence will be ignored. E.g. that the Jews are 'deported eastward from the General Government' (occupied Poland).

The Wiki crowd insists on 'reputable secondary sources'... And that gets a closed loop system after a while. 'Reputable' is only what confirms the narrative, critique there of is 'irreputable'. That's how religions, myths and dogmata were established and perpetuated.

On the Wannsee conference:

DR. SEIDL: The Prosecution submitted an extract from Frank's diary in evidence under Number USA-281 (Document Number 2233(d)-PS.) This is a discussion of Jewish problems. In this connection Frank said, among other things:

"My attitude towards the Jews is based on the expectation that they will disappear; they must go away. I have started negotiations for deporting them to the East. This question will be discussed at a large meeting in Berlin in January, to which I shall send State Secretary Dr. Buehler. This conference is to take place at the Reich Security Main Office in the office of SS Obergruppenfuehrer Heydrich. In any case Jewish emigration on a large scale will begin."

I ask you now, did the Governor General send you to Berlin for that conference; and if so, what was the subject of the conference?

BUEHLER: Yes, I was sent to the conference and the subject of the conference was the Jewish problem. I might say in advance that from the beginning Jewish questions in the Government General were considered as coming under the jurisdiction of the Higher SS and Police Leader and handled accordingly. The handling of Jewish matters by the state administration was supervised and merely tolerated by the Police.

During the years 1940 and 1941 incredible numbers of people, mostly Jews, were brought into the Government General in spite of the objections and protests of the Governor General and his administration. This completely unexpected, unprepared for, and undesired bringing in of the Jewish population from other territories put the administration of the Government General in an extremely difficult position.
Accommodating these masses, feeding them, and caring for their health-combating epidemics for instance-almost, or rather, definitely overtaxed the capacity of the territory. Particularly threatening was the spread of typhus, not only in the ghettos but also among the Polish population and the Germans in the Government General. It appeared as if that epidemic would spread even to the Reich and to the Eastern Front.

At that moment Heydrich's invitation to the Governor General was received. The conference was originally supposed to take place in November 1941, but it was frequently postponed and it may have taken place in February 1942.

Because of the special problems of the Government General I had asked Heydrich for a personal interview and he received me. On that occasion, among many other things, I described in particular the catastrophic conditions which had resulted from the arbitrary bringing of Jews into the Government General. He replied that for this very reason he had invited the Governor General to the conference. The Reichsfuehrer SS, so he said, had received an order from the Fuehrer to round up all the Jews of Europe and to settle them in the Northeast of Europe, in Russia. I asked him whether this meant that the further arrival of Jews in the Government General would cease, and whether the hundreds of thousands of Jews who had been brought into the Government General without the permission of the Governor General would be moved out again. Heydrich promised me both these things. Heydrich said furthermore that the Fuehrer had given an order that Theresienstadt, a town in the Protectorate, would become a reservation in which old and sick Jews, and weak Jews who could not stand the strains of resettlement, were to be accommodated in the future. This information left me definitely convinced that the resettlement of the Jews, if not for the sake of the Jews, then for the sake of the reputation and prestige of the German people, would be carried out in a humane fashion. The removal of the Jews from the Government General was subsequently carried out exclusively by the Police.

I might add that Heydrich demanded, particularly for himself, his office, and its branches, the exclusive and uninterrupted competence and control in this matter.

DR. SEIDL: What concentration camps in the Government General did you know about during your activity as State Secretary?

BUEHLER: The publications in the press during the summer of 1944 called my attention to the Maidanek camp for the first time. I did not know that this camp, not far from Lublin, was a concentration camp. It had been installed as an economic establishment of the Reichsfuehrer SS, in 1941 I think. Governor Corner came to visit me at that time and he told me that he had objected to the establishment of this camp when he talked to Globocznik, as it would endanger the power supply of the city of Lublin; and there were objections, too, on the part of the Police with regard to the danger of epidemics. I informed the Governor General of this and he in turn sent for Globocznik. Globocznik stated to the Governor General that certain workshops for the needs of the Waffen-SS at the front had been erected on that site by him. He mentioned workshops for dressing furs but he also mentioned a timber yard which was located there.

In these workshops for dressing furs, as I heard, fur articles from the collection of furs were altered for use at the front. At any rate, Globocznik stated that he had installed these workshops in compliance with Himmler's command.

The Governor General prohibited the erection of any further installations until all questions were settled with the police in charge of building and blueprints had been submitted to the state offices, in other words until all rules had been complied with, which apply to the construction of buildings. Globocznik never submitted these blueprints. With regard to the events inside the camp, no concrete information ever reached the outside. It surprised the Governor Gener

al just as much as it surprised me when the world press released the news about Maidanek.
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/04-23-46.asp

The Buehler statement wasn't exactly contradicted during those proceedings. The 'Trial record' actually contradict the popularized narrative.
Resettlement not Extermination was the policy. But again, this probably will be ignored by most people right now... As long as the narrative is perpetuated.

[hermod]

Goebbels said "will have to be liquidated," not "are being liquidated." Goebbels was notoriously a radical anti-Semite. He was expressing a personal wish, not a German policy in force at that time, when he wrote those words. That's just the kind of things radical anti-Semites say. No big deal. Goebbels deplored on several other occasions that the German treatment of Jews was too soft in his opinion.

A point I have made in various threads. NFrNJ made a big deal about that particular entry, and it exposed him as a complete fool.
Goebbels mentions a policy of deporting and resettling Jews over and over again; the Final Solution. He also hears of executions of Jews and makes no effort to disguise it. Indeed, he is just giving his opinion here that these Jews are useless. The explanation I have been given is that Goebbels didn't even know about the "Holocaust."

I think we can even say that Goebbels was giving his opinion that the useless Jews (i.e. those not needed for the German war industries) should be killed without too much delay. No surprise from a radical anti-Semite like him. But Goebbels was not a policy-maker of the Third Reich regarding the Jewish problem. He was the Minister of Propaganda & Public Enlightenment and the Gauleiter of Berlin. So his own opinion on the best way to solve the Jewish problem is irrelevant and his private/non-public statements on the Jews are almost as off topic for Holocaust research as the opinion and statements of an American minister of agriculture on NASA missions.

[Waldgänger]

I will refer to the article on the Hungarian Jewish boy Peter Lantos.

Thank you Nazgul for your interesting exemplar. One does not even need to verify these claims with other sources; they are prima facie absurd when considered rationally, placing one in the situations claimed and asking "as a human being with experience of how real life works, does this make any sense?". In this case, "oops", the Death Train took the wrong course and they were saved!

I have pointed out before on this forum what amusements can be had perusing Wiki articles about persons labelled victims of the Holocaust, here: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=13267&p=96612#p96612

[Waldgänger]

Goebbels said "will have to be liquidated," not "are being liquidated." Goebbels was notoriously a radical anti-Semite. He was expressing a personal wish, not a German policy in force at that time, when he wrote those words. That's just the kind of things radical anti-Semites say. No big deal. Goebbels deplored on several other occasions that the German treatment of Jews was too soft in his opinion.

The people who mistakenly believe that Goebbels' diaries proved the Holocaust should read Thomas Dalton's paper Goebbels on the Jews.

Thank you as always for your contribution and excellent recommendation hermod.

Your point about Goebbels being the most radical antisemite of the whole Party is taken well in this context. His opinions as a private person don't matter, certainly, but even these are not indicators of a systematic extinction of Jews, since even this radical was sure the Jewish question would be postponed until after the War. As far as he seems to have understood it, what was being done during the war was very simple. Groups of Jews were considered to have been liquidated once they passed east of the borders of the Generalgouvernement, to new settlements beyond. The brutality and harshness he speaks of is clearly the rather rough way they were treated, given little warning or time to prepare to move, shoved around in cattle cars, and all the rest. This is indeed not nice, but it is no genocidal extermination. Once the war was won, he seems to have supported gathering evacuated Jews up once more, from Belarus, Ukraine, and western Russia, and to move them to Madagascar. This is the impression I get from his diaries.

I will read this paper, thanks.

Goebbels was not a policy-maker of the Third Reich regarding the Jewish problem. He was the Minister of Propaganda & Public Enlightenment and the Gauleiter of Berlin. So his own opinion on the best way to solve the Jewish problem is irrelevant and his private/non-public statements on the Jews are almost as off topic for Holocaust research as the opinion and statements of an American minister of agriculture on NASA missions.

You have a way with words... very convincing, I like this analogy a lot.

[Waldgänger]

The Wiki crowd insists on 'reputable secondary sources'... And that gets a closed loop system after a while. 'Reputable' is only what confirms the narrative, critique there of is 'irreputable'. That's how religions, myths and dogmata were established and perpetuated.

Fascinating examples Hektor. And yes, this closed loop is why I find Wiki fascinating as an organ of the generalised worldview of the parties that make up mainstream government, economics, civil society, and jurisprudence. They are the Pravda of the internet age, after a fashion.

I had not known about Bühler's testimony until now. I had only heard of him once, in the 2001 HBO propagandafilm "Conspiracy". For one who was at Wannsee, the real man is an invaluable treasury for what really happened there, prior to the "discovery" of the minutes by an interested party years later.

[Nazgul]

In this case, "oops", the Death Train took the wrong course and they were saved!

I have heard this oops explanation before. Three transports with about 2 thousand in each left Hungary; the Lantos family paid their own fare. Two of those transports arrived in Austria while one went towards Poland. Lantos mentions Auschwitz. They disembarked working in a labour camp, treated well.

Since I read his book "Parallel Lines", described by Lantos as a memoir, not a "survivor" book, I discovered a large number of labour camps in Austria entirely for Hungarian Juden. I hypothesised that most of the Jews did not arrive at Auschwitz as claimed. Butterfangers has noticed that many of those camps were for children.

[hermod]

Thank you as always for your contribution and excellent recommendation hermod.

You're welcome, Waldgänger. Glad I could help.

As far as he seems to have understood it, what was being done during the war was very simple. Groups of Jews were considered to have been liquidated once they passed east of the borders of the Generalgouvernement, to new settlements beyond.

I disagree on that. IMO, when he said "liquidated," he meant "killed." But that was something he wanted, not something his colleagues working on the Jewish problem were perpetrating (unlike what Holohoaxers claim for propagandistic purposes).

Goebbels' diaries:

May 15, 1942 (II.4.293) **
A report from Paris informs me that a number of those who staged the last acts of terror have been found. About 90 percent [sic: 99%] of them are eastern Jews [Ostjuden]. A more rigorous regime is now to be applied to these Jews. As far as I am concerned, it would be best if we either evacuated (abschöben) or liquidated (liquidierten) all eastern Jews still remaining in Paris. By nature and race they will always be our natural enemies anyway.

Mar 6, 1942 (II.3.423, 425-426) **
An SD [Sicherheitsdienst] report informed me about the situation in occupied Russia. It is, after all, more unstable than was generally assumed. The partisan danger is increasing week by week. The partisans are in command of large area in occupied Russian and are conducting a regime of terror there. [...] Everywhere the Jews are busy inciting and stirring up trouble. It is therefore desirable that many of them must pay with their lives for this (mit ihrem Leben bezahlen müssen). Anyway, I am of the opinion that the greater the number of Jews liquidated (liquidiert), the more consolidated will be the situation in Europe after this war. One must have no mistaken sentimentality about it.

The brutality and harshness he speaks of is clearly the rather rough way they were treated, given little warning or time to prepare to move, shoved around in cattle cars, and all the rest. This is indeed not nice, but it is no genocidal extermination.

That's how I had understood those words too.

Once the war was won, he seems to have supported gathering evacuated Jews up once more, from Belarus, Ukraine, and western Russia, and to move them to Madagascar. This is the impression I get from his diaries.

I think Goebbels preferred the slaughter of all the Jews during and after WWII. But as an obedient man and ardent National Socialist, he was eager to go with any policy chosen and orderred by the Führer, that is, with the postwar transfer of all the Jews to a large and remote new ghetto where they could no longer corrode, subvert and exploit any other people.

[Waldgänger]

Is there anything in Goebbels' words publicly or privately that definitionally distinguishes "evacuated" from "liquidated", as metaphors? If he really used the L-word to mean genocidal killing, at least in his diaries, does that not strengthen rather than weaken the "code-word culture" the extermination narrative insists upon? The revisionist side has spent so long trying to debunk that.

I was sure I recalled him using the liquidate metaphor for rounding up the Jews of Berlin (late 42-early 43?) and deporting them, not killing them. But I will have to look it up. Maybe I am confusing him with Himmler, who said that the Jews must not be moved to a harsh location like Siberia, as that would only increase their life-urge and will to struggle, making them stronger. They should be put in Africa so the warm climate will make them lazy like the natives there.

[Hektor]

Is there anything in Goebbels' words publicly or privately that definitionally distinguishes "evacuated" from "liquidated", as metaphors? If he really used the L-word to mean genocidal killing, at least in his diaries, does that not strengthen rather than weaken the "code-word culture" the extermination narrative insists upon? The revisionist side has spent so long trying to debunk that.
....

Liquidation got more than one meaning in German. If you liquidate a company, you sell the assets and take the money. It seizes to exist, but it doesn't mean that the previous owners or employees were killed. But there is also cases that to liquidate can be used as an euphemism for killing.

One should consider that Dr. Goebbels had a grudge against the Jews, due to his experiences with them in the Weimar period (he wasn't always an 'Anti-Semite' only became that later). So privately his wording may have been a bit more inflammatory and aggressive. Consider that he was one of the National Socialists who was more aggressively anti-Jewish. Many simply were not, they were not really invested into 'Anti-Semitism' at all.

Dr. Goebbels on why NS opposed the Jews:

Why are we enemies of the Jews?
We are enemies of the Jews because we are warriors for the freedom of the German people. The Jew is the cause and the beneficiary of our slavery. He has used the social troubles of our broad masses in order to widen the split between the Right and Left among our people, he has split Germany into two halves. Here is the real reason for the loss of the World War on one side and for the betrayal of the revolution on the other side

The Jew has no interest in the solution of the questions regarding the German fate. He can’t, since he exists only because they remain unsolved. Once you turn the German people into a unified community and give them freedom on the world stage, there would no longer be a place among us for the Jew. He holds the better cards when a nation lives in domestic and foreign slavery than when it is free, hard-working, self-confident and united. The Jew has caused our misery, and today he makes a living from it.

That is the reason why as nationalists and as socialists we are enemies of the Jew. He has tainted our race, spread moral rot, undermined our morality, and broken our strength. Thanks to him we are the pariahs of the entire world today. As long as we were Germans, he was a leper among us. Since we have forgotten our Germanic character, he has triumphed over us and our future.

The Jew is the malleable demon of decline. Wherever he scents debris and rot, he comes out of hiding to begin his criminal butchery among the people. He wears the mask of those whom he wants to deceive, pretends to be the friend of this victim, and before the unsuspecting victim knows it, he has broken his neck.

The Jew is uncreative. He does not produce anything, he merely trades in goods. With rags, clothes, pictures, precious stones, stocks and bonds, shares in mining operations, people and states. And everything he trades in he has stolen somewhere at some point. While he is launching an attack on a state, he is a revolutionary, yet as soon as he is in possession of power, he preaches peace and order so he can leisurely devour his prey.

What has antisemitism to do with socialism? I’m asking in turn: what has the Jew to do with socialism? Socialism is the doctrine of work. Who ever saw a Jew work and not plunder, steal, sponge (schmarotzen) and profit from the sweat of another man’s brow? As socialists we are enemies of the Jews, because we see in the Hebrew the incarnation of capitalism, i.e. the abuse of the goods belonging to the people.

What has antisemitism to do with nationalism? I’m asking in turn: what has the Jew to do with nationalism? Nationalism is the doctrine of blood, of race. The Jew is the enemy and the destroyer of unity created by blood, the deliberate destroyer of our race. As nationalists we are enemies of the Jews, because in the Hebrew we see the eternal enemy of our national honor and our national freedom.

“But Jews are human beings, too.” Certainly, and none of us has ever doubted it. We only doubt that he is a decent human being. He doesn’t belong with us. He lives according to different inner and outer laws. The fact that he is a human being is not a good enough reason for us to allow him to oppress and bully us in the most inhuman manner. He is indeed a human being – but what kind? If someone beat your mother in the face with a whip would you then say: “Thank you, he’s only human?” That is no human being, that is a brute (Unmensch)! How much worse has the Jew done to our mother Germany and how much worse does he still do today?

Antisemitism is un-Christian. So that means that it is Christian to look on as the Jew cuts bootstraps from our skin and to let him add insult to injury. Being a Christian means: Love your neighbor as you love thyself! My neighbor is of the same nationality and blood as I. If I love him, then I must hate his enemies. He who thinks like a German must despise the Jew. One results from the other.

Christ himself once saw that love is not the answer in all situations. When he came across the jobbers and profiteers in the temple, he didn’t say: “Children, love each other!” Instead he took a whip and drove the pack away. We are enemies of the Jews because we stand up for the German people. The Jew is our greatest misfortune.

That is going to change, as sure as we are Germans.
https://ghdi.ghi-dc.org/sub_document.cf ... nt_id=4655

In toto that's of course a caricature (human behavior is always over a spectrum). But that Jews did misbehave in Weimar more than previously can be assumed to be true simply because there was more opportunity to do so than under the Kaiser, when they were actually treated exceptionally well. Today it is insinuated that the attitude of National Socialists towards Jews was simply irrational and that Jews were model citizens in Germany previously. That wasn't how Germans did remember this. They just didn't want to talk too much about this after WW2 as to avoid controversy and repercussions. On the other hand there were plenty of Germans that didn't have any direct experience with Jews or the ones they knew were experienced as unproblematic. That's why dealing with them on a blanket basis was considered quite controversial. It boils down to the 'but not all are that bad'-argument. That does however not consider the ethnocentric, collectivistic culture of the Jews. They get into positions of power, because they cooperate more effectively and efficiently than more individualistic people as e.g. the Germans.