You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
2
Vlad_The_Impaler on scored.co
1 month ago2 points(+0/-0/+2Score on mirror)2 children
Very good question.
Do you have your own theory?
My vague understanding is that as early as 1933 when that agreement was signed, both the zionists and nazis had similiar desire for segregation. Nazis allowed jews to leave with most of their assets in tact.
But an agreement between who exactly? jews were in power in Germany with ability to negotiate? A persecuted poor people would have no power to bring to a table for negotiation. This indicates that jews must have had lots of power in Germany in 1933 to negotiate their end of a deal.
And does this necessarily mean nazis were zionist? Would you argue that the nazi position evolved?
I do remember that later on that Hitler gave a speech to the Palestinians and they seemed to be allies. So at some point Hitler was siding with the Palestinians, not the jews invading Palestine. So that sort of contradicts nazis sending jews to palestine 10 years earlier. Right?
I had not heard that quote before so my previous theory was Hitler was being kind, 'we don't want you in Germany, you have nowhere to go? What about your precious promised land? Go there!' But not sure that holds up now.
Certainly Nazi positions changed throughout the Reich. You guys can't claim Hitler just wanted to set Jews free once you find evidence like in the OP.
Make it make sense? It's all fucked up. Capricious. Unjust.
Might be possible to trace the steps of how things changed, just don't assume every change was implemented uniformly throughout the Reich until the next change. Life was and is far more complex than that.
I think that people usually have bad morals and inconsistent standards today when discussing this. Germans had no OBLIGATION to host jews in their nation just like White Americans have no obligation to host non-Whites in our nations today. People who wag their fingers and call White people names because we hint that we don't like non-Whites in our communities are all immoral hypocrites because they do not demand any other race to do this or obligate any other race on the planet to host large numbers of a foreign race in their nations. It's a racist, hateful standard only pinned on Whites. To claim Germans not wanting jews in their nation is "fucked up, capricious or unjust" is not something I agree with. It was fucked up, capricious and unjust that any jews ever entered into Germany and ever behaved as anything but humble, gracious guests. Opposed to walking into someone else's home, saying you own the place and shitting on the floor.
> Germans had no OBLIGATION to host jews in their nation
This isn't about obligation to host. This is about the claim Hitler never wanted to kill any jews, he just wanted them all to go to Israel or someplace. Obviously it's not that simple, and truly the official narrative villainizes him and oversimplifies things to a ridiculous extent.
It's very understandable to want to know what actually happened, rejecting obvious bs. My whole point on the subject is don't reject one false official narrative just to replace it with another. WWII started in 1931 with Japan invading China, and it's really weird how that started. Hitler's military career started in 1914. While he isn't recorded as starting writing Mein Kampf until 1924 you know it came from ideas he'd had since childhood. Even ignoring all that, his preparation for war started on January 31 1933. No narrative can cover what happened til the end of WWII, it's a complex history.
> I think that people usually have bad morals and inconsistent standards today when discussing this.
Learning requires discretion to ignore all that noise that does certainly exist, and pay attention to those seeking truth. They evaluate information honestly rather than being exclusive to confirmation bias, for starters.
Do you have your own theory?
My vague understanding is that as early as 1933 when that agreement was signed, both the zionists and nazis had similiar desire for segregation. Nazis allowed jews to leave with most of their assets in tact.
But an agreement between who exactly? jews were in power in Germany with ability to negotiate? A persecuted poor people would have no power to bring to a table for negotiation. This indicates that jews must have had lots of power in Germany in 1933 to negotiate their end of a deal.
And does this necessarily mean nazis were zionist? Would you argue that the nazi position evolved?
I do remember that later on that Hitler gave a speech to the Palestinians and they seemed to be allies. So at some point Hitler was siding with the Palestinians, not the jews invading Palestine. So that sort of contradicts nazis sending jews to palestine 10 years earlier. Right?
Make it make sense? It's all fucked up. Capricious. Unjust.
Might be possible to trace the steps of how things changed, just don't assume every change was implemented uniformly throughout the Reich until the next change. Life was and is far more complex than that.
This isn't about obligation to host. This is about the claim Hitler never wanted to kill any jews, he just wanted them all to go to Israel or someplace. Obviously it's not that simple, and truly the official narrative villainizes him and oversimplifies things to a ridiculous extent.
It's very understandable to want to know what actually happened, rejecting obvious bs. My whole point on the subject is don't reject one false official narrative just to replace it with another. WWII started in 1931 with Japan invading China, and it's really weird how that started. Hitler's military career started in 1914. While he isn't recorded as starting writing Mein Kampf until 1924 you know it came from ideas he'd had since childhood. Even ignoring all that, his preparation for war started on January 31 1933. No narrative can cover what happened til the end of WWII, it's a complex history.
> I think that people usually have bad morals and inconsistent standards today when discussing this.
Learning requires discretion to ignore all that noise that does certainly exist, and pay attention to those seeking truth. They evaluate information honestly rather than being exclusive to confirmation bias, for starters.