S
Sophia
Guest
[QUOTE]...it is clear that Hitler protected and
cooperated with the Zionists
for the purposes of implementing the final solution:
the mass transfer of J*ws to the Middle East. [/QUOTE]
http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptori...es/jdecwar.html
According to Jewish historian Walter Laqueur and many others, German J*ws were far from convinced that immigration to Palestine was the answer. Furthermore, although the majority of German J*ws refused to consider the Zionists as their political leaders,
t is clear that Hitler protected and cooperated with the Zionists for the purposes of implementing the final solution: the mass transfer of J*ws to the Middle East.
Edwin Black, in his massive tome Th
e Transfer Agreement (Macmillan, 1984), stated that although most J*ws did not want to flee to Palestine at all, due to the Zionist
movement's influence within Nazi Germany a Jew's best chance of getting out of Germany was by emigrating to Palestine. In other words, the Transfer Agreement itself mandated that Jewish capital could only to go Palestine.
Thus, according to the Zionists, a Jew could leave Germany only if he went to the Levant.
The primary difficulty with the Transfer Agreement (or even the idea of such an agreement) was that the English [!!!; Scriptorium] were demanding, as a condition of immigration, that each immigrant pay 1,000 pounds sterling upon arrival in Haifa or elsewhere. The difficulty was that such hard currency was nearly impossible to come by in
a cash-strapped and radically inflationary Germany. This was the main idea behind the final Transfer Agreement. Laqueur writes:
A large German bank would freeze funds paid in by immigrants in b
locked accounts for German exporters, while a bank in Palestine would control the sale of German goods to Palestine, thereby providing the immigran
ts with the necessary foreign currency on the spot. Sam Cohen, co-owner of Hanoaiah Ltd. and initiator of the transfer endeavors, was however subjected to long-lasting objections from his own people and finally had to concede that such a transfer agreement could only be concluded on a much higher level with a bank of its own rather than that of a private company. The renowned Anglo-Palestine Bank in London would be included in this transfer deal and create a trust company for [this] purpose.
Of course, this is of major historical importance in dealing with the relationship between Zionism and National Socialism in Germany in the 1930s. The relationship was not o
ne merely of mutual interest and political favoritism on the part of Hitler, but a close financial relationship with German banking families and financial institutions as well. Black writes:
<b
r>It was one thing for the Zionists to subvert the anti-Nazi boycott. Zionism needed to transfer out the capital of German J*ws, and merchandise was
the only available medium. But soon Zionist leaders understood that the success of the future Jewish Palestinian economy would be inextricably bound up with the survival of the Nazi economy. So the Zionist leadership was compelled to go further. The German economy would have to be safeguarded, stabilized, and if necessary reinforced. Hence, the Nazi party and the Zionist organizers shared a common stake in the recovery of Germany.
Thus one sees a radical fissure in world Jewry around 1933 and beyond. There were, first, the non-Zionist J*ws (specifically the World Jewish Congress founded in 1933), who, on the one hand, demanded the boycott and eventual destruction
of Germany. Black notes that many of these people were not just in New York and Amsterdam, but a major source for this also came from Palestine proper.
On the other hand, one can see the jud
icious use of such feelings by the Zionists for the sake of eventual resettlement in Palestine. In other words, it can be said (and Black does hint at
this) that Zionism believed that, since J*ws would be moving to the Levant, capital flight would be necessary for any new economy to function.
The result was the understanding that Zionism would have to ally itself with National Socialism, so that the German government would not impede the flow of Jewish capital out of the country.
It served the Zionist interests at the time that J*ws be loud in their denunciations of German practices against the J*ws to scare them into the Levant, but, on the other hand, Laqueur states that "The Zionists became motivated not to jeopardize the German economy or currency." In other words, the Zionist leadership
of the Jewish Diaspora was one of subterfuge and underhandedness, with only the advent of German hostility towards Jewry convincing the world's J*ws that immigration was the only escape.
The fact is that the ultimate establishment of the state of Israel was based on fraud. The Zionists did not represent anything more than a small minority of German J*ws
in 1933.
On the one hand, the Zionist fathers of Israel wanted loud denunciations of Germany's "cruelties" to the world's J*ws while at the same time demanding moderation so that the National Socialist government would remain stable, financially and politically. Thus Zionism boycotted the boycott.
For all intents and purposes, the National Socialist government was the best thing to happen to Zionism in its history, for it "proved" to many J*ws that Europeans were irredeemably anti-Jewish and that Palestine was the only answer: Zionism came to represent the overwhelming majority of J*ws solely by trickery and
cooperation with Adolf Hitler.
For the Zionists, both the denunciations of German policies towards J*ws (to keep J*ws frightened), plus the reinvigoration of the German economy (for
the sake of final resettlement) was imperative for the Zionist movement. Ironically, today the Zionist leaders of Israel complain bitterly about the horrific and inhuman regime of the National Socialists. So
the fraud continues.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
cooperated with the Zionists
for the purposes of implementing the final solution:
the mass transfer of J*ws to the Middle East. [/QUOTE]
http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptori...es/jdecwar.html
According to Jewish historian Walter Laqueur and many others, German J*ws were far from convinced that immigration to Palestine was the answer. Furthermore, although the majority of German J*ws refused to consider the Zionists as their political leaders,
t is clear that Hitler protected and cooperated with the Zionists for the purposes of implementing the final solution: the mass transfer of J*ws to the Middle East.
Edwin Black, in his massive tome Th
e Transfer Agreement (Macmillan, 1984), stated that although most J*ws did not want to flee to Palestine at all, due to the Zionist
movement's influence within Nazi Germany a Jew's best chance of getting out of Germany was by emigrating to Palestine. In other words, the Transfer Agreement itself mandated that Jewish capital could only to go Palestine.
Thus, according to the Zionists, a Jew could leave Germany only if he went to the Levant.
The primary difficulty with the Transfer Agreement (or even the idea of such an agreement) was that the English [!!!; Scriptorium] were demanding, as a condition of immigration, that each immigrant pay 1,000 pounds sterling upon arrival in Haifa or elsewhere. The difficulty was that such hard currency was nearly impossible to come by in
a cash-strapped and radically inflationary Germany. This was the main idea behind the final Transfer Agreement. Laqueur writes:
A large German bank would freeze funds paid in by immigrants in b
locked accounts for German exporters, while a bank in Palestine would control the sale of German goods to Palestine, thereby providing the immigran
ts with the necessary foreign currency on the spot. Sam Cohen, co-owner of Hanoaiah Ltd. and initiator of the transfer endeavors, was however subjected to long-lasting objections from his own people and finally had to concede that such a transfer agreement could only be concluded on a much higher level with a bank of its own rather than that of a private company. The renowned Anglo-Palestine Bank in London would be included in this transfer deal and create a trust company for [this] purpose.
Of course, this is of major historical importance in dealing with the relationship between Zionism and National Socialism in Germany in the 1930s. The relationship was not o
ne merely of mutual interest and political favoritism on the part of Hitler, but a close financial relationship with German banking families and financial institutions as well. Black writes:
<b
r>It was one thing for the Zionists to subvert the anti-Nazi boycott. Zionism needed to transfer out the capital of German J*ws, and merchandise was
the only available medium. But soon Zionist leaders understood that the success of the future Jewish Palestinian economy would be inextricably bound up with the survival of the Nazi economy. So the Zionist leadership was compelled to go further. The German economy would have to be safeguarded, stabilized, and if necessary reinforced. Hence, the Nazi party and the Zionist organizers shared a common stake in the recovery of Germany.
Thus one sees a radical fissure in world Jewry around 1933 and beyond. There were, first, the non-Zionist J*ws (specifically the World Jewish Congress founded in 1933), who, on the one hand, demanded the boycott and eventual destruction
of Germany. Black notes that many of these people were not just in New York and Amsterdam, but a major source for this also came from Palestine proper.
On the other hand, one can see the jud
icious use of such feelings by the Zionists for the sake of eventual resettlement in Palestine. In other words, it can be said (and Black does hint at
this) that Zionism believed that, since J*ws would be moving to the Levant, capital flight would be necessary for any new economy to function.
The result was the understanding that Zionism would have to ally itself with National Socialism, so that the German government would not impede the flow of Jewish capital out of the country.
It served the Zionist interests at the time that J*ws be loud in their denunciations of German practices against the J*ws to scare them into the Levant, but, on the other hand, Laqueur states that "The Zionists became motivated not to jeopardize the German economy or currency." In other words, the Zionist leadership
of the Jewish Diaspora was one of subterfuge and underhandedness, with only the advent of German hostility towards Jewry convincing the world's J*ws that immigration was the only escape.
The fact is that the ultimate establishment of the state of Israel was based on fraud. The Zionists did not represent anything more than a small minority of German J*ws
in 1933.
On the one hand, the Zionist fathers of Israel wanted loud denunciations of Germany's "cruelties" to the world's J*ws while at the same time demanding moderation so that the National Socialist government would remain stable, financially and politically. Thus Zionism boycotted the boycott.
For all intents and purposes, the National Socialist government was the best thing to happen to Zionism in its history, for it "proved" to many J*ws that Europeans were irredeemably anti-Jewish and that Palestine was the only answer: Zionism came to represent the overwhelming majority of J*ws solely by trickery and
cooperation with Adolf Hitler.
For the Zionists, both the denunciations of German policies towards J*ws (to keep J*ws frightened), plus the reinvigoration of the German economy (for
the sake of final resettlement) was imperative for the Zionist movement. Ironically, today the Zionist leaders of Israel complain bitterly about the horrific and inhuman regime of the National Socialists. So
the fraud continues.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~