Discussion in 'History' started by desi, Mar 5, 2011.
If so, was Nazi Germany defending itself in WWII?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
No to the thread title and no the question.
It was a trick question thread title. The fact is, as asinine as it sounds, they did.
Evidence please. Links.
Which "Jews" and when?
An economic boycott isn't war.
Only authorised governments can declare war.
And that article also says that the economic boycott was called for due to being stabbed in the back by Hitler & co.
I.e. the boycott was retaliation.
While the overall basis of that article has some fact to it, there's a "revisionist" tone to the entire site.
WWII started because of the invasion of Poland, which was not inspired or prompted by the Jews, nor could that invasion be called a response to the boycott.
Sort of invalidates that site's claim that "This truly could be described as "the first shot fired in the Second World War."
But, yes. My apologies for the abrupt dismissal. The thread title does hold some truth.
Hitler said the Jews were acting against Germany, most people think he was nuts for saying that. He maintained that stance from before WWII was officially recognized as started. Could it be that the history books we read are revisionist and that WWII started from an Jewish economic attack on Germany?
Keep in mind the Bolshevik Revolution which was recent history to Hitler was incited by Jews in Russia. So the idea that Jews are poor weak people who Germany was mean to was not the prevailing idea yet. At the time they were recognized as intelligent, affluent and sometimes subversive to the societies in which they lived.
Hitler was saying that well before he got into power.
Was that "economic attack" implemented? How well did it work?
How did a "Jewish economic attack" on Germany prompt the invasion of Poland?
It took 6 years to gear up the Wehrmacht and then the order was "The Jews in America tried to wreck our economy! The Poles must pay!" :shrug:
Nothing to do with the lousy conditions then?
It had been Hitler's "prevailing idea" since at least the publication of Mein Kampf (1925) that the Jews were responsible for a lot of things. I doubt that a declared (but apparently not implemented) "economic attack" was responsible for much.
Hitler took that attack seriously. The Jews took it seriously as they initiated it. Either it was much ado about nothing or it is very pertinent to WWII. Before you go looking for answers you better decide if you will be okay going where that rabbit hole might lead you to.
The Jews saw what Hitler was doing and going . They tried to show everyone that his intentions were no good in the long run and spoke about their worries to their countrymen. They refused to give up their monies into his ideas for they saw only problems coming from what he planned. They moved their money out of Germany to try and stop Hitler from using it to start the war but were only criticized by the MEDIA when they did. The MEDIA were responsible for making the Jews the center of attention instead of Hitlers plans for world domination and his being supplied money from the Vatican as well.
(added) @The OP, not cosmic.
True, and justifiable, but not in a literal sense. And not on Germany, but on the Nazi control of Germany. Many patriotic Jews fought in the first World War, and hoped that when they arrived at the death camps that it would do them some good to show their medals, including Iron Crosses. It didn't.
To "declare war" on something is not the same as a military declaration of war.
So, for example, to declare war on poverty is to see poverty as an enemy, and wish to see it ended.
No German Jew would see "Germany" or the German people as an enemy.
Every German is a human being, and different, the same as Jews.
In fact, despite all their suffering at Nazi German hands, they still don't blame Germans.
Nazi-ism was the enemy.
Interesting new angle, however, and I hope you are given a good chance to put your arguments before you are banned.
Are you refering to me? If so banned for what?
As above. Yes they "took it seriously" in that they "initiated it". But did they implement it? If it was implemented what effect did it have?
It wasn't (apparently) sufficiently serious to rate a mention in this book.
And the real answer would be: much ado about nothing.
The racist policies of Hitler preceded the Jewish reaction. An economic boycott was tame compared to what Hitler was doing to them, effectively excluding them from public life.
It's like when Scott Walker goes after public worker's unions to effectively shut them down, so the unions protest and he uses that as justification for his original attack.
You all should know Desi's MO from way back, he's some form of white supremacist racist who used to get banned for linking storm-front articles.
Yes, he's starting by attacking our soft underbelly. (Not you Cosmic, the OP)
It's a new approach to me though, and worth letting him have his run I think.
For having a bouncy cat avatar. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
But it's not just any bouncy cat - surely you recognize it. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Even at my advanced age (68) I'd know the Cheshire anywhere. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! (Three grown kids, 5 grandchildren.)
Hush! I deliberately didn't mention that because it's a hanging offence, not just a banning one!
And I prefer Tim Burton's rolling-over-in-mid-air version anyway.
From your link I can not reproduce because it is under copyright but read the second sentence.
Yes, of course, that is why they invaded Poland, (on 1 September 1939) they only defended themselves.
And so began the World War II, because they have fighting back.
One point which is usually overlooked is that it was American Jews or more specifically the Zionist Organisation of America which planned and executed the boycott while both the US government and the German Jews were not really in favour of it.
Separate names with a comma.