Fallacies of Philosemitism: 1930s Germany to Present

[Callafangers]

In some discussion, here: viewtopic.php?t=193

...an argument was raised which pointed out the fact that not all Jews of Germany in the 1930s and prior were wealthy or in key positions of influence or corruption. The suggestion was, therefore, that it was necessarily abusive and immoral for Germany to target all of the nation's Jews in the initial economic restrictions (and, subsequently, in more aggressive policies as international Jewry applied pressure to Germany).

As mentioned in the linked thread, however, it is important to consider one critical distinction between National Socialist Germany and international Jewry of that period, in comparison to Western nations of today:

NS Germany and Jews in general thought, behaved, and regarded one another as collectives -- they were not individualists.

Thus, a moral lens which considers the unique circumstances of individuals anecdotally has no place in a moral analysis of Germany's relationship to Jews (at home or globally).

More importantly, though, on the topic of whether Germany could be seen as 'justified', is the question of whether Jews really had wronged Germany in the way myself (and Germany, and others) have at times claimed they had. Numar Patru responded to my relevant assertions as follows:

Don't give me generalities. Explain how hyper-inflation in the early 1920s or the economic collapse in 1929 didn't affect German Jews.
[...]
Even if everything you allege was true -- and it's not -- it wouldn't justify expelling all Jews from any country, and that you believe it's warranted say far fucking more about you than about anything else.

Numar indicates that because not all Jews were involved in these subversive activities, that it is inappropriate or unjustified to treat them as a collective. To be clear, Germany was well-aware that it was "not all Jews" (Himmler, 1943 Posen speech):

In Germany we have millions and millions of people who each have their "one good Jew."

The problem was not the many Jews who do not participate overtly in these corrupt schemes but, rather, that:

1. The most nationally-debilitating and subversive schemes consistently have Jews at the very center (as founders, leaders, key players)
2. Jews more broadly, despite being closer socially to these corrupt schemes, are generally not protesting them
3. Jews are a tiny percentage of the population (around 1% in Germany), making the suggestion of 'coincidence' in any apparent disproportion (especially across nations, over time) virtually impossible

The above is the perspective held by Hitler and NS Germany, from the very beginning, and is reflected in Hitler's own words in Mein Kampf (this harrowing rendition below from Mein Kampf and in Hitler's own voice, adapted into English by AI):



Altogether, the issue is not that every single Jew of 1930s Germany (or into today) was ever as overtly corrupt as any other. The issue is a convergence of some who are so corrupt and others who, in general, do nothing to meaningfully protest the activities of these problematic Jews within their close-knit network, all the while still indirectly benefiting from this second-degree corruption. This is all despite Jews in general being very aware of their ethnic history insofar as the allegations commonly made against them.

If Jews in general wanted the most corrupt among them to be exposed and held accountable, there would be a history of such efforts by Jews in doing so. But no such history exists. Instead, we find long histories of defamation toward any of the accusers (labeled 'antisemites'), upheld by most Jews of that nation, wherever the people acknowledge a problem about Jews and their disproportionate behavioral trends.

[Callafangers]

I should add, there is also the problem of systemic efficiency (or lack thereof). It is not possible to simply arrest the 10% or so of Jews doing the most corrupt activities, since without tracking other Jews, and with awareness and acknowledgement that their patterns have persisted across borders and over many generations, there is every reason to presume that the same exact activities (or nearly-identical) would be reproduced by other Jews within a matter of years. The pattern matters and provided compelling rationale for Germany to decide upon the course of action which it did. Gambling with the lives and future of the German people (who had already suffered so greatly) was not an option.

[bombsaway]

1. The most nationally-debilitating and subversive schemes consistently have Jews at the very center (as founders, leaders, key players)
2. Jews more broadly, despite being closer socially to these corrupt schemes, are generally not protesting them
3. Jews are a tiny percentage of the population (around 1% in Germany), making the suggestion of 'coincidence' in any apparent disproportion (especially across nations, over time) virtually impossible

This is still dealing in generalities. The qualifiers "nationally-debilitating and subversive" are subjective. I could say that Nazis once in power "schemed" to present themselves as peaceful but secretly built up the German military for expansionist ends. In terms of nationally debilitation, this expansionist drive led to the total destruction of Germany, the deaths of millions of non-Jewish Germans. They were among the worst offenders here in world history, in this framing, wrecking their own country in an almost unprecedented way.

Naturally most people here would probably place responsibility for these events on the Jews, so it's an argument. That's the problem with statements like the above.

[TlsMS93]

I was going to mention this curious fact. There is practically no mass Jewish demonstration against the behavior of members of their race, whether religious or not.

Nobody wants to know that Epstein is one of them, or the first rulers of the USSR, they simply deny that they were Jewish, treating them as atheists or converts to Christianity.

But Nobel Prize winners are very vehemently public about their ethnic origin.

If they were vigilant and active in denouncing their fifth columns, perhaps they would have had a homeland a long time ago. But there is a religious tradition of them not to denounce other Jews, which is why we see reports of sexual abuse in synagogues, usually because a traitor (in their sick minds) opened his mouth in violation of this rabbinical commandment. It is difficult to say whether this is restricted to the religious scale or permeates even the most secular Jewish communities, but the coincidence is interesting.

[Callafangers]

1. The most nationally-debilitating and subversive schemes consistently have Jews at the very center (as founders, leaders, key players)
2. Jews more broadly, despite being closer socially to these corrupt schemes, are generally not protesting them
3. Jews are a tiny percentage of the population (around 1% in Germany), making the suggestion of 'coincidence' in any apparent disproportion (especially across nations, over time) virtually impossible

This is still dealing in generalities. The qualifiers "nationally-debilitating and subversive" are subjective. I could say that Nazis once in power "schemed" to present themselves as peaceful but secretly built up the German military for expansionist ends. In terms of nationally debilitation, this expansionist drive led to the total destruction of Germany, the deaths of millions of non-Jewish Germans. They were among the worst offenders here in world history, in this framing, wrecking their own country in an almost unprecedented way.

Naturally most people here would probably place responsibility for these events on the Jews, so it's an argument. That's the problem with statements like the above.

They are indeed subjective but we can come to an agreement of a threshold or criteria to define "nationally-debilitating" as well as "subversive". So long as that definition is within reason, I am certain an objectively valid case can be presented to demonstrate that Jewish behavior has fully aligned with this criteria. If you disagree, please provide your own definitions for "nationally-debilitating" and "subversive", in this context.

The expansionist drive ('Lebensraum') was secondary to the primary goals and initiatives which put the recovery and general well-being of the German people front-and-center. Reclamation of particular territories (e.g. Danzig) was a necessity, unless one disregards the value of racial/ethnic heritage and responsibility entirely (Germany had a responsibility to the Germans suffering greatly under Polish rule). Beyond that, there is limited evidence that if initial agitation against Germany had not persisted and war had not broke out, that Germany would not have sought 'Lebensraum' through more legitimate means (rather than wartime annexation). Hitler's peace offers tell the essential story. Only with careful curation and omissions can the portrayal of Germany as a 'tyrannical, expansionist empire' be upheld at all.

[bombsaway]

The expansionist drive ('Lebensraum') was secondary to the primary goals and initiatives which put the recovery and general well-being of the German people front-and-center. Reclamation of particular territories (e.g. Danzig) was a necessity, unless one disregards the value of racial/ethnic heritage and responsibility entirely (Germany had a responsibility to the Germans suffering greatly under Polish rule). Beyond that, there is limited evidence that if initial agitation against Germany had not persisted and war had not broke out, that Germany would not have sought 'Lebensraum' through more legitimate means (rather than wartime annexation). Hitler's peace offers tell the essential story. Only with careful curation and omissions can the portrayal of Germany as a 'tyrannical, expansionist empire' be upheld at all.

Nah I think it's arguable, eg in this memo which ends with a call for massive rearmament

https://ghdi.ghi-dc.org/sub_document.cf ... nt_id=1551

Germany’s economic position is, however, in the briefest outline, as follows:

1) We are overpopulated and cannot feed ourselves from our own resources.

2) When our nation has 6 or 7 million unemployed, the food situation improves because these people are deficient in purchasing power. It naturally makes a difference whether 6 million people have 40 Marks a month to spend or 100 marks. It should not be overlooked that a third of all who earn their living is involved, that is to say that, taken as a proportion of the total population, through the National Socialist economic policy about 20 million people have been afforded an increase in their former standard of living of, on an average, from at most 50 Marks a month to at least 100–120 Marks. This means an increased and understandable run on the foodstuffs market.

3) But if this rise in employment fails to take place, then a higher percentage of the people must gradually be deducted from the body of our nation, as having become valueless through undernourishment. It is, therefore, in spite of our difficult food situation, the highest commandment of our economic policy to see to it that, by incorporating all Germans into the economic process, the precondition for normal consumption is created.

4) In so far as this consumption applies to articles of general use, it is possible to satisfy it to a large extent by increasing production. In so far as this consumption falls upon the foodstuffs market, it is not possible to satisfy it from the domestic German economy. For, although numerous branches of production can be increased without more ado, the yield of our agricultural production can undergo no further substantial increase. It is equally impossible for us at present to manufacture artificially certain raw materials which we lack in Germany, or to find other substitutes for them.

5) It is, however, wholly pointless to keep on noting these facts, i.e., stating that we lack foodstuffs or raw materials; what is decisive is to take those measures which can bring about a final solution for the future and a temporary easing for the transitional period.

6) The final solution lies in extending living space of our people and/or the sources of its raw materials and foodstuffs. It is the task of the political leadership one day to solve this problem.

So too, right before the invasion of Poland (when according to many here the Germans were likely doing everything they could to avoid war), Hitler said this

"Whoever has pondered over this world order knows that its meaning lies in the success, of the best by means of force. And the German people belong to the best races of the earth. Providence has made us the leaders of this people and thereby given us the task of securing the necessary living space for the German people who are compressed 140 persons to a square kilometre." -

Raeder 27

One can see clearly the foolishness of the proposition with the success of modern day Germany, or even West Germany during the Cold War era. None of this military build up or ensuing attacks were necessary for the well being of Germans. In this framing the Nazis messed up not because they were "evil" but because they were dumb dumbs. Results matter though, and the war ended up destroying Germany.

[Numar Patru]

In some discussion, here: viewtopic.php?t=193

...an argument was raised which pointed out the fact that not all Jews of Germany in the 1930s and prior were wealthy or in key positions of influence or corruption.

You’re conflating a lot here. Being wealthy in and of itself or having influence can’t just be lumped together with corruption.

NS Germany and Jews in general thought, behaved, and regarded one another as collectives -- they were not individualists.

Thus, a moral lens which considers the unique circumstances of individuals anecdotally has no place in a moral analysis of Germany's relationship to Jews (at home or globally).

Unfortunately, doing so upends a couple hundred years of punishing people for crimes that they as individuals have committed, rather than imposing collective punishment.

I’ve written here before on the challenge posed to both European society and to Jews specifically by the Jewish question (in the 19th century understanding of the term — that is, whether could Jews fully participate in European society and remain distinct in some way).

During the French Revolution, the issue was put rather succinctly by a member of the National Assembly, ie, that Jews were entitled to equality as individuals but to nothing as a group. Note that this agreement implies two things: that Jews not seek group rights and that society generally — and government specifically — not treat Jews differently.

The minute you look at an ecumenical political movement, whether mainstream or extreme, and identify it as “Jewish” because there are Jewish people participating, but you’ve violated that agreement.

This is a long way of getting back to the case of Germany and who wronged whom first. Assume that 1871 Germany made the same deal to Jews that France did nearly 100 years earlier. Assume that in particular because that’s what actually happened. Who broke the deal? I’d argue that certain segments of German society never honored it in the first place. You’d argue the opposite. I’m asking for proof.

Numar indicates that because not all Jews were involved in these subversive activities, that it is inappropriate or unjustified to treat them as a collective.

Correct.

I view the remainder of your post aa irrelevant absent evidence for your claims.

You claimed Jews started WWI and that they were responsible for German economic misery after the war. Please offer some evidence.

[Numar Patru]

The pattern matters and provided compelling rationale for Germany to decide upon the course of action which it did. Gambling with the lives and future of the German people (who had already suffered so greatly) was not an option.

Just be aware that, by demanding collective punishment, you imperil your own internal consistency.

I can maintain my position and also claim that deporting 14 million German-speaking people from their homes after World War II was unjust ethnic cleansing without moral or legal justification.

You cannot.

[Numar Patru]

Nobody wants to know that Epstein is one of them, or the first rulers of the USSR, they simply deny that they were Jewish, treating them as atheists or converts to Christianity.

Well, that’s an easy one because, unlike Epstein, the first rulers or the USSR were in fact mostly not Jewish, and of those who were, they were in fact atheists.

But there is a religious tradition of them not to denounce other Jews, which is why we see reports of sexual abuse in synagogues, usually because a traitor (in their sick minds) opened his mouth in violation of this rabbinical commandment.

You say you’re from Brazil, a mostly Catholic country. Do you not see this behavior as also happening in the Catholic Church?

[Numar Patru]

The expansionist drive ('Lebensraum') was secondary to the primary goals and initiatives which put the recovery and general well-being of the German people front-and-center.

I’m sorry but that’s just not true, and it’s not even specific to Hitler and the Nazis, who emerged within the larger Drang nach Osten colonial tradition. Hitler enunciated the need for Lebensraum in Mein Kampf.

[TlsMS93]

Nobody wants to know that Epstein is one of them, or the first rulers of the USSR, they simply deny that they were Jewish, treating them as atheists or converts to Christianity.

Well, that’s an easy one because, unlike Epstein, the first rulers or the USSR were in fact mostly not Jewish, and of those who were, they were in fact atheists.

But there is a religious tradition of them not to denounce other Jews, which is why we see reports of sexual abuse in synagogues, usually because a traitor (in their sick minds) opened his mouth in violation of this rabbinical commandment.

You say you’re from Brazil, a mostly Catholic country. Do you not see this behavior as also happening in the Catholic Church?

Weren't they? You've got to be kidding. Now you know what a Jew is, please define it, even they are eager to hear your excellency make a decision on this.

Yes, Catholicism is stuck in this problem, precisely because it imposes that priests do not have families, but it is more concentrated in European Catholicism than here, perhaps for a reason of lack of supervision that we do not have, but I doubt that we are free from this.

[TlsMS93]

The expansionist drive ('Lebensraum') was secondary to the primary goals and initiatives which put the recovery and general well-being of the German people front-and-center.

I’m sorry but that’s just not true, and it’s not even specific to Hitler and the Nazis, who emerged within the larger Drang nach Osten colonial tradition. Hitler enunciated the need for Lebensraum in Mein Kampf.

The concept of Lebensraum exists, but how was it structured, the timetables for implementation, the locations, the relationship with the natives? All of this is nebulous but serves the purpose of propaganda for the Allied war effort. Not even Viktor Suvorov, a Russian, claims that Lebensraum drove Hitler's decision to invade the USSR, arguing that what he outlined in Main Kampf corresponded to a direction but not when, how and where it would be implemented, saying that its implementation would occur over generations, centuries and not in Hitler's lifetime.

[Numar Patru]

Weren't they? You've got to be kidding. Now you know what a Jew is, please define it, even they are eager to hear your excellency make a decision on this.

You made the allegation, dummy. You prove it.

[Numar Patru]

Not even Viktor Suvorov, a Russian, claims that Lebensraum drove Hitler's decision to invade the USSR, arguing that what he outlined in Main Kampf corresponded to a direction but not when, how and where it would be implemented, saying that its implementation would occur over generations, centuries and not in Hitler's lifetime.

Don’t know if you’re aware of it, but historians don’t take Suvorov seriously.

[TlsMS93]

Not even Viktor Suvorov, a Russian, claims that Lebensraum drove Hitler's decision to invade the USSR, arguing that what he outlined in Main Kampf corresponded to a direction but not when, how and where it would be implemented, saying that its implementation would occur over generations, centuries and not in Hitler's lifetime.

Don’t know if you’re aware of it, but historians don’t take Suvorov seriously.

And why should I trust these conformist historians in spurious Nuremberg documentation who believe in false speeches, fabricated memory documents, unofficial post-war planning plans, testimonies of German resistance officers?