Kristallnacht

[fireofice]

Unfortunately it appears that the most recent thread for Kristallnacht on the old forum is gone, so I figured I would start a thread on Kristallnacht here.

There is no set "revisionist position" on Kristallnacht. Even the most mainstream interpretation, that it was instigated by the Nazi leadership, is not out of line with revisionist views on the holocaust. In fact, if the Nazi leadership did instigate Kristallnacht, that wouldn't entirely surprise me nor would I think that it would be any kind of moral leap for them to have done so. After all, under the revisionist view of things, the Nazis did implement policies that led to the deaths of many Jews regardless. Mattogno documents in his book on the Einsatzgruppen that Nazis instigated pogroms on the eastern front. So instigating pogroms was not out of the realm of actions that Nazi leadership would consider morally impermissible. On the lowest end of the spectrum, it's estimated that about 91 Jews died. On the higher end of the spectrum, including effects of the pogrom (things like suicide and other causes) and not just direct killings, between 1,000-2,000 died. While tragic for those who died, this very small compared to even revisionist estimates on what happened to Jews later.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristallnacht

On top of that, the Nazi leadership clearly didn't care much about the sanctity of Jewish property rights given how they would plunder Jewish property during the war.

The revisionist position does not deny the pogrom itself, although I did find this amusing article that does so:

https://mileswmathis.com/kristall.pdf

If you look through his website, it looks like he's just someone who denies literally all events in history. Not a very serious position in my opinion and clearly not a typical revisionist.

Here is a more sane revisionist position on the matter:

https://holocaustencyclopedia.com/event ... night/462/

The most extensive revisionist treatment of Kristallnacht is Ingrid Weckert's book Flahpoint. She also has a shorter article here:

https://ihr.org/journal/v06p183_weckert-html

Weckert takes the position that none of the Nazi leadership were directly involved. David Irving on the other hand takes the position in his book Goebbels: Mastermind of the Third Reich that only Goebbels was directly involved. He also lays out his position in this article:

https://ihr.org/journal/v15n1p-2_irving-html

This video goes over the Kristallnacht episode from mostly Irving's perspective:



The mainstream position is summarized pretty well on the hdot.org site, which contains various entries as well as Richard Evans' position on it in his report. Here is a podcast giving a mainstream perspective on it as well:



In this video they reference a Himmler order not to wear official uniforms while rioting. I haven't heard of this order before, but if it's real it's not necessarily an endorsement of the rioting itself, just that if you are going to riot, don't implicate us. And if you see anyone in a uniform rioting, you should stop them so as not to bring harm to the party.

The main relevant documents for this episode are Goebbels diaries as well as various telexes sent out during the night.

Here is the full entry from Goebbels diary:

https://www.tracesofwar.com/articles/52 ... r-1938.htm

According to this entry, Hitler said to pull back the police and not interfere with the riots. Even this is not an "order" to carry out the riots. Goebbels also says here that he orders Wächter to smash up a synagogue. The one part of the diary I find kind of strange is where he says "German property is not endangered". How would he know that? Seems like a silly thing for Goebbels to assume. It could indicate a lack of authenticity, or perhaps Goebbels was just prone to fantasizing in this jubilant moment. But in that case, that casts doubt on the accuracy of this whole account even if it's authentic.

From what I recall, Weckert said that that glass plates for the November entries in particular are missing. If that's the case, then that is also a reason to doubt the authenticity of this passage. All in all, I lean towards this being authentic mainly because I think the rest of the dairies are authentic. If any mainstream historians out there can confirm the existence of the glass plates for this entry, that would increase my confidence in their authenticity much more.

Goebbels also wrote this to Hitler, according to Irving:

In the twenty years that I have been with you, particularly in 1938 and 1939, I have occasioned you much private grief. You always responded with a nobility and charity that today still fill me with deep emotion when I think of them.

This seems to be in part a reference to Kristallnacht. One possible interpretation is that Goebbels became a willing scapegoat, even if he wasn't directly responsible.

Richard Evans' book Lying About Hitler contains this:

The Nazi Party’s own Supreme Party Court later found that all party officials present apparently understood Goebbels to mean that “the Party should not appear to the outside world as the originator of the demonstrations, but should in reality organize them and carry them out.” It added that it was customary to read out of such a command more than the actual words that had been put into it, “just as, in the interest of the Party, it is also in many cases the custom of the person issuing the command–precisely in cases of illegal political demonstrations–not to say everything and just to hint at what he wants to achieve with the order.”

This indicates to me that there was no explicit order from above to carry out pogroms from Goebbels or anyone else. The court's finding that there was no order but they "read into it" an order even though none was actually given seems pretty silly to me and indicates confusion on their part.

Finally, there are the telexes that were given throughout the night. This page summarizes the relevant portions:

https://www.hdot.org/debunking-denial/kn3-hitler-stop/

As far as I can tell (I am willing to be corrected on this) none of these documents show that there was an order to carry out pogroms, but that the police were held back. It's not that uncommon for police to withdraw from large riots. Riots are acts of mass violence and it's not always possible for the police to contain it with their resources. I remember this during the BLM riots that happened a few years ago. It also happened with the LA riots with blacks rioting all over the city with very little police presence. For Kristallnacht, the Nazi leadership for obvious reasons were more concerned with damage to German property than Jewish property and probably wanted them to focus their resources on that.

At 2:56 a.m., Rudolf Hess gave this message:

On express orders issued at the very highest level, there are to be no kind of acts of arson or outrages against Jewish property or the like on any account and under any circumstances whatsoever.

It doesn't just refer to arson but "outrages" which includes any kind of destroying of property.

The only reference to ordering property damage that I can find comes from Goebbels diary, but the accuracy of that is questionable to me given what the Supreme Court said.

All in all, it appears to me that the top Nazi leadership did not order the riots, but they did for a little bit focus on protecting German property at the expense of Jewish property before changing course a few hours later and ordering the protection of Jewish property. Afterwards, they had the Jews pay for the damage and sent thousands of them to concentration camps. Certainly not very nice to say the least, but not a Nazi ordered pogrom. Of course, it's possible I am wrong or that I missed something. I am more than willing to see what all the documentation says in this matter and revise my opinion accordingly.

[TlsMS93]

Obviously Hitler was against pogroms, he said so in a letter in 1919 on the Jewish question to Gemlich. And by promulgating the Nuremberg laws he hoped that this would calm the most radical members of the party.

As for Crystal Night itself, it seems to me that they expected it to be just a riot without major repercussions against the death of the diplomat in Paris, I believe that when they realized that it was taking on a dimension that would cause damage to their image in the international community, they intervened by ordering the protection of Jewish properties.

It doesn't make much sense for the regime to have organized this since neither Goebbels nor Hitler had anything to say the next day, if it had been something planned they would have done a well-designed piece of propaganda.

As for Ingrid Weckert, she believes that there was an external conspiracy by LICA to provoke this in Germany, harboring the murderer of the German diplomat in Paris to obtain international support as plans to settle more Jews in Palestine were very resistant at the time due to opposition. Arabic.

[Callafangers]

It is a common view that 'Kristallnacht' cannot have been justified since, beyond the ~100 Jews killed and ~200 synagogues burned in these attacks (which seem to have spawned at first from local initiatives rather than being organized at a high level), Hitler/Germany subsequently banned insurance companies from paying out for structural damages to insured Jews and then further imposed a fine upon all Jews in Germany to cover for these damages.

Only when taken out of context, however, can the events of 'Kristallnacht' appear especially harsh or abusive compared to what Germans endured as innocent victims to Jewish actions within the same period and preceding years. Providing the truth in-context eviscerates the common portrayal of this event as a 'vicious and unprovoked attack' against Jews in Germany. That said, it is necessary to understand that both Jews and Germans in this time period viewed one another (and themselves) collectively rather than as individuals, so any measure of cruelty or guilt must be understood and applied on collective (group) terms.

It is well-known that Germany faced immense challenges in the aftermath of World War I, with the Treaty of Versailles imposing unjustifiable 'reparations' upon Germany, leading in part to economic devastation and hyperinflation that shattered the livelihoods of millions of Germans (leading to many unfortunate deaths). The economic collapse was exacerbated by Jewish exploitation and influence within the financial sector. Jewish corruption in other sectors largely spearheaded the Weimar Republic, marked by political instability and social unrest, further deepening the crisis, and arguably justifying the rise of the National Socialist government, which sought to restore order and national dignity.

With Jews being disproportionately responsible for the extreme suffering of the German people through their involvement in international finance/politics/media/etc., tensions steadily increased. The National Socialist government, aiming to consolidate power and address these extraordinary threats, implemented policies to curb Jewish influence, which were met with Jewish-led opposition both domestically and internationally. Jews throughout the 1930s globally stoked hostility against Germany, sabotaging Germany's foreign relations and hopes to prevent another World War, directly exacerbating the tensions that led to 'Kristallnacht' in 1938.

In other words, 'Kristallnacht' itself was not an isolated incident but a culmination of these escalating tensions. The event reflects a period where Germany was increasingly threatened by Western powers, which were manipulated overwhelmingly by Jewish interests to instigate a second world war against Germany. The imposition of fines on Jews after 'Kristallnacht' reflected the broader sentiment that Jews, as a group, bore significant responsibility for Germany's suffering.

Thus, while 'Kristallnacht' is typically viewed as an act of aggression against Jews as a collective, it is essential to consider the backdrop of collective German suffering and the proven, irrefutable Jewish role in it. The National Socialist response was not even a proportionate reaction to the dire, existential threat experienced by most Germans, and was reflective of the legitimate historical grievances and national struggle that motivated Germany's actions during this period.

[TlsMS93]

It is a common view that 'Kristallnacht' cannot have been justified since, beyond the ~100 Jews killed and ~200 synagogues burned in these attacks (which seem to have spawned at first from local initiatives rather than being organized at a high level), Hitler/Germany subsequently banned insurance companies from paying out for structural damages to insured Jews and then further imposed a fine upon all Jews in Germany to cover for these damages.

Only when taken out of context, however, can the events of 'Kristallnacht' appear especially harsh or abusive compared to what Germans endured as innocent victims to Jewish actions within the same period and preceding years. Providing the truth in-context eviscerates the common portrayal of this event as a 'vicious and unprovoked attack' against Jews in Germany. That said, it is necessary to understand that both Jews and Germans in this time period viewed one another (and themselves) collectively rather than as individuals, so any measure of cruelty or guilt must be understood and applied on collective (group) terms.

It is well-known that Germany faced immense challenges in the aftermath of World War I, with the Treaty of Versailles imposing unjustifiable 'reparations' upon Germany, leading in part to economic devastation and hyperinflation that shattered the livelihoods of millions of Germans (leading to many unfortunate deaths). The economic collapse was exacerbated by Jewish exploitation and influence within the financial sector. Jewish corruption in other sectors largely spearheaded the Weimar Republic, marked by political instability and social unrest, further deepening the crisis, and arguably justifying the rise of the National Socialist government, which sought to restore order and national dignity.

With Jews being disproportionately responsible for the extreme suffering of the German people through their involvement in international finance/politics/media/etc., tensions steadily increased. The National Socialist government, aiming to consolidate power and address these extraordinary threats, implemented policies to curb Jewish influence, which were met with Jewish-led opposition both domestically and internationally. Jews throughout the 1930s globally stoked hostility against Germany, sabotaging Germany's foreign relations and hopes to prevent another World War, directly exacerbating the tensions that led to 'Kristallnacht' in 1938.

In other words, 'Kristallnacht' itself was not an isolated incident but a culmination of these escalating tensions. The event reflects a period where Germany was increasingly threatened by Western powers, which were manipulated overwhelmingly by Jewish interests to instigate a second world war against Germany. The imposition of fines on Jews after 'Kristallnacht' reflected the broader sentiment that Jews, as a group, bore significant responsibility for Germany's suffering.

Thus, while 'Kristallnacht' is typically viewed as an act of aggression against Jews as a collective, it is essential to consider the backdrop of collective German suffering and the proven, irrefutable Jewish role in it. The National Socialist response was not even a proportionate reaction to the dire, existential threat experienced by most Germans, and was reflective of the legitimate historical grievances and national struggle that motivated Germany's actions during this period.

Goring justified the 1 billion Reichsmark fine as compensation for the unjustifiable international Jewish boycott in 1933.

That story of the stab in the back cannot be treated as mere opportunism of the national-conservative wing that we read in the media. Both Benjamin Freedman and Chaim Weizmann confirmed the Zionist involvement as the deciding factor in the First World War and the involvement of German communist Jews in revolutionary uprisings in 1918 with strikes and agitation.

So, to say that the German acts were unjustifiable cannot be true.

[Numar Patru]

Oh… armes Deutschland. “Unjustifiable” Jewish boycott? Why wouldn’t Jews boycott Germany after elevating Hitler to the chancellery?

[Callafangers]

Oh… armes Deutschland. “Unjustifiable” Jewish boycott? Why wouldn’t Jews boycott Germany after elevating Hitler to the chancellery?

Aren't Jews loyal, patriotic citizens of the countries they respectively live in, rather than some international monolith? Your suggestion is antisemitic.

Moreover, you're leaving out what happened in the preceding years, all the Germans who had suffered. The relationship between Germany and its Jews was no longer salvageable, hence Germany's attempt to simply expel them without any necessity nor intention toward physical harm. This is even after decades of Jewish subversion costing countless German lives. Rather than assist Germany in separating itself from its unwanted Jews, global Jewry chose instead to start a second world war.

[TlsMS93]

Oh… armes Deutschland. “Unjustifiable” Jewish boycott? Why wouldn’t Jews boycott Germany after elevating Hitler to the chancellery?

The Jewish boycott took place in March 1933, less than two months after Hitler took office. What massacre or widespread persecution occurred in that very short period of time? Perhaps at most the loss of positions in public sectors.

Benjamin Freedman argues that Jews wanted their previous important positions and issued an ultimatum to Germany to either dismiss Hitler or impose a trade embargo on the country where 1/3 of their food was imported. In other words, they wanted the same blackmail tactic as at the end of the First World War, when pressure for food was a determining factor in accepting the outrageous conditions of the Treaty of Versailles.

[Numar Patru]

The Jewish boycott took place in March 1933, less than two months after Hitler took office. What massacre or widespread persecution occurred in that very short period of time? Perhaps at most the loss of positions in public sectors.

The man put in power had written and published a book almost ten years earlier in which he had expressed his desire to remove Jews from German society.

That's sufficient reason for a boycott.

Benjamin Freedman argues that Jews wanted their previous important positions and issued an ultimatum to Germany to either dismiss Hitler or impose a trade embargo on the country where 1/3 of their food was imported.

He makes a lot of absurd arguments. For instance, he argues that the word for "Jew" used to be "Lew" because he didn't understand that earlier modern English used the letters I and J interchangeably.

In other words, they wanted the same blackmail tactic as at the end of the First World War, when pressure for food was a determining factor in accepting the outrageous conditions of the Treaty of Versailles.

And such a treaty benefitted Germany's Jews how, exactly? You're aware that virtually every political party in Germany opposed the Treaty of Versailles, right? Particularly the radical left wing?

[Numar Patru]

Aren't Jews loyal, patriotic citizens of the countries they respectively live in, rather than some international monolith? Your suggestion is antisemitic.

Not really, it isn't. German Jews were in fact largely against the boycott because they were concerned about how it might affect them personally. Worldwide, Jews were largely for a boycott because they were outraged at Hitler's appointment as chancellor.

Moreover, you're leaving out what happened in the preceding years, all the Germans who had suffered. The relationship between Germany and its Jews was no longer salvageable

Really? Be specific. What were German Jews doing to was to the detriment of Germany's overall population?

hence Germany's attempt to simply expel them without any necessity nor intention toward physical harm.

The notion that expulsion can happen without harm is ludicrous. It is totally detached from reality, simply moronic.

This is even after decades of Jewish subversion costing countless German lives.

Examples?

Rather than assist Germany in separating itself from its unwanted Jews, global Jewry chose instead to start a second world war.

"Rather than giving Germany the bullets with which to shoot them, the damned perfidious Jews insisted that they were human beings with actual rights"

Do you fucking listen to yourself?

[TlsMS93]

No, that is a reason to leave, it is assumed that a country is sovereign in its internal laws, this even involves the loss of rights, we can evaluate whether they are ethical but that is where it ends.

Is your only argument against Freedman your mistake with the word Jew?

I did not say that the treaty benefited them but rather that they would use the food embargo tactic as blackmail to regain their influence lost with the rise of the NS.

[Numar Patru]

Then to return to the point at hand, if a country violates the rights of a minority arbitrarily, don't other countries and members of the same minority group living abroad have every right to boycott that country?

[TlsMS93]

Yes, but bear the consequences, and the consequences for the Jews were quite modest, since the German counter-boycott of April 1, 1933, fell on a Saturday when Jewish stores are usually closed. It was practically a warning to change our approach. Furthermore, you are using Mein Kampf as an excuse for the boycott, but the question is, what did Hitler do to the Jewish community in less than two months of power, stripping them of their basic rights? Did the loss of citizenship only occur in 1935, or am I in a parallel universe where it was in 1933?

[TlsMS93]

In 2018, Israel passed laws that reinforce its status as a “Jewish State,” where only Jews have the right to decide the direction of the country and gave more emphasis to the Law of Return. In other words, Palestinians who have Israeli citizenship continue to be second-class citizens because Arabic has lost its status as an official language. Now, their ethnic composition outside of Israel has no right to react to this because it is anti-Semitism. Then you come and say that Jews outside of Germany had the duty to react in favor of who knows what, not even they define themselves as what they are.

[Numar Patru]

Yes, but bear the consequences, and the consequences for the Jews were quite modest, since the German counter-boycott of April 1, 1933, fell on a Saturday when Jewish stores are usually closed. It was practically a warning to change our approach. Furthermore, you are using Mein Kampf as an excuse for the boycott, but the question is, what did Hitler do to the Jewish community in less than two months of power, stripping them of their basic rights? Did the loss of citizenship only occur in 1935, or am I in a parallel universe where it was in 1933?

So Jews should only ever act in self-defense when they are physically or legally harmed first? Get fucking real.

In 2018, Israel passed laws that reinforce its status as a “Jewish State,” where only Jews have the right to decide the direction of the country and gave more emphasis to the Law of Return. In other words, Palestinians who have Israeli citizenship continue to be second-class citizens because Arabic has lost its status as an official language. Now, their ethnic composition outside of Israel has no right to react to this because it is anti-Semitism.

As soon as you see me defending literally anything Israel does, then you can use it against me in an argument. Until then, it's not relevant.

[Callafangers]

Aren't Jews loyal, patriotic citizens of the countries they respectively live in, rather than some international monolith? Your suggestion is antisemitic.

Not really, it isn't. German Jews were in fact largely against the boycott because they were concerned about how it might affect them personally. Worldwide, Jews were largely for a boycott because they were outraged at Hitler's appointment as chancellor.

Well, you're in a bit of a bind, then, aren't you? If Jews in Germany were against the boycott, why in the hell were Jews internationally not letting them self-determine?

And if these German Jews really were just too fearful to boycott (rather than recognizing Germany was correct in its concerns about Jewish collective behavior), why then would they not protest vehemently this external pressure (international Jewry) putting them at-risk?

What matters is whether Hitler was right (largely or in part) about the Jews. But of course, that is a conversation you are not willing to have, which exposes your bias outright.

Moreover, you're leaving out what happened in the preceding years, all the Germans who had suffered. The relationship between Germany and its Jews was no longer salvageable

Really? Be specific. What were German Jews doing to was to the detriment of Germany's overall population?

Some examples:

• German Jews were disproportionately influential (to a shocking degree) in sectors such as law, media, business, academia, and banking before World War I. They held significant positions in these areas despite being a tiny percentage of the population. The widespread corruption stemming from these sectors led to well-placed resentment among Germans who felt victimized by their own society.
• Jews used their wealth and influence to control economic matters through major banking families like the Rothschilds and Warburgs. These families sucked the life from Germany through domination of finance and business.
• Jewish activists were instrumental in the November Revolution of 1918, which led to the abdication of Kaiser Wilhelm II and the establishment of the Weimar Republic. Jewish individuals like Rosa Luxemburg and Kurt Eisner led socialist and communist movements, which tried to overthrow existing governments, causing instability and chaos. Jews were central to the licentious and morally depraved "Weimar culture," promoting criminal and degenerate behavior and social norms, harming the moral fabric of German society.
• Jews instigated social unrest and revolutions, both in Germany and abroad, to further their own interests. This is true, for example, of their efforts in Russia and Hungary as well, demonstrating a pattern of behavior aimed at causing broader European instability.
• Jews used their wealth and media control to push for WW1, aiming to benefit Zionist goals. They influenced US and German policies, pressured governments, and fueled revolutionary unrest across multiple nations, drawing Germany into the world war to realign global power in their favor. This was utterly devastating the German people, costing millions of lives.
• Jewish influence contributed to the harsh economic terms imposed on Germany at the end of World War I. This was part of a strategy to weaken Germany and benefit Jewish interests internationally. Countless Germans suffered and starved as a result.

Altogether, German Jews actively worked against the interests of the German people, leading to economic, social, and political harm. These actions contributed to the rise of National Socialism as a reactionary movement against corrupted Jewish dominance and interference in German affairs.

hence Germany's attempt to simply expel them without any necessity nor intention toward physical harm.

The notion that expulsion can happen without harm is ludicrous. It is totally detached from reality, simply moronic.

Expulsion was warranted and necessary to prevent further harm to the German people, who had already suffered greatly as Jews acquired power and got rich from German suffering.

Rather than assist Germany in separating itself from its unwanted Jews, global Jewry chose instead to start a second world war.

"Rather than giving Germany the bullets with which to shoot them, the damned perfidious Jews insisted that they were human beings with actual rights"

Do you fucking listen to yourself?

Human beings do not have the right to infiltrate, subvert, and turn the will of a nation against itself, costing the lives and livelihood of the people of that nation, in some parasitic and entitled relationship with a pattern of extraordinarily deadly global consequences. You must face the reality that Jews were a toxic, parasitic element in many of the nations they have occupied. Germany recognized this, and they were overwhelmingly correct and measured in their interpretation. The balance of morality has been firmly against the Jewish position, both in Germany and abroad.