Posing with a smile is not something you may associate with Adolph Hitler but this picture sent a train of thought running in my mind.
Before Hitler began on his territorial ambitions to rule Europe, if not the world, it was a well documented fact that anyone not fitting into the Aryan idea of racial perfection was probably destined for an appointment with a death chamber, Jews, Gypsies, Homosexuals, severley disabled were being put to death as a matter of routine. But then he started on his plan to dominate Europe and came to a sticky end in 1945, with Germany in ruins and the third Reich crushed in its own rubble. So what if he had not invaded Poland, backed down at the last minute and went back to his own brand of ethnic cleansing within his own borders. Would ‘we’ have intervened to save the Jews and the others or would we have just put it down to ‘It’s their business, let them get on with it’?
Boadicea's Chariot 
OMG
“Peace for our time”
Would Europe have intervened and tried to stop/prevent his ‘domestic ethnic cleansing programme’, probably but not before he had wiped out most of those he wanted to.
It has happened so many time since the end of WWII, Russia, China, Iraq, Rwanda etc.
Always a case of too little too late!
OMG – I once read somewhere of the “Tommy” who didn’t shoot Corporal Hitler in a WW1 trench and spared his life. How different history might have been.
I’ll see if I can find the story on t’Interweb and give it the clickety thing.
OZ
The Nazis were very keen to keep the fate of the Jews et al quite quiet. Most of the extermination camps were built in Poland. So if Hitler had not invaded that country, or any other, the Nazis would have been hard pressed to keep their extermination on the massive scale they wanted hidden from their own people. This would presumably mean that knowledge of such activities would have spread to the rest of Europe more quickly. If Chamberlain had still been in power, we might not have done anything. If Hitler has still been building up German arms stocks, perhaps Churchill, who recognised how evil the National Socialists were, would have been pushing for action.
You have to remember that anti-semitism was widespread throughout Europe. Reading novels of the twenties and thirties can often reveal how casually contemptuous many were of Jews.
It appears from history that the majority of British people were anti semitic pre- 1939. The Victorian asylums were still full of people locked up for any aberrant behaviour until the 1970s. Gypsies were routinely harassed off in my childhood.
So, the answer is probably no we wouldn’t have done a thing about it!
Interestingly because Hitler got rid of all their antecedents, there was a far lower rate of mental defectives and people with hereditary diseases in Germany after the war and their health service was far cheaper to run because of it. This was quite acknowledged until modern times, of course, not now with PC!
christina
That is a very interesting point you have raised about the lower rate of mental defectives and I can see why that would not sit comfortably with some PC types today.
There was also the issue of the SS ‘baby farms’ that produced a very high rate children with defects but not much is said about this now.
Hello Tina: apologies OMG, but I just wanted to ask Tina is she is feeling any better.
Araminta
Feel free, hope you are feeling better Tina, now for a bit of catchy upee on the iPlayer.
I imagine that if Hitler had not invaded Poland, there would have been no war. He would not therefore have had the momentum to carry out to its full extent, the Final Solution. In which case the persecuted Jews would have emigrated/fled the country over the course of several years/decades. With no Holocaust there would have been no political motivation to create the state of Israel. Without Israel there would not have been Arab Israeli conflict and we would not have suffered from the effects of Muslim Fundamentalist terrorism as we do today.
I’m glad to see that no one here has dismissed the anti-Semitism of pre-war England as ‘mere golf-club snobbery’. It was prevalent through all walks of society.
As Christina rightly points out, people with any form of ‘anti-social’ behaviour were routinely locked away in asylums, prisons or other institutions, from practising homosexuals to single mothers. It was what European countries did with their ‘problem’ people.
I’m of the opinion is that had Hitler not invaded Poland, the rest of Europe would have just let him deal with his ‘internal problems’ as he wanted. There was, as far as I’m aware, no precedent for any nation to go to war over the way any country treated its own citizens.
The US Holocaust Museum site:
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10005161
reckons there were about half a million Jews in Germany in 1933, whereas there were around 3 million in Poland. The figures are worth checking out.
It sounds dreadful, but Hitler could probably have dealt with Germany’s half-a-million without too much trouble. By invading Poland and other countries, the numbers of Jews and other ‘undesirable’ increased immensely and almost certainly led to the ‘industrialisation’ (I can’t think of any other way to describe it) of murder.
As a footnote, I find it incredibly sad that the reason that there were so many Jewish communities in Poland was because Jews were given refuge and protection there during the anti-Semitic programs of the Middle Ages.
Even in the ’50s there was overt anti-Semitism in the UK; witness a schoolmaster who was a refuge from Germany and the three sons of an academic from ‘central Europe’. They were treated to many exhibitions of odious behaviour often passed off a ‘just a joke’.
Boadicea, ‘the reason that there were so many Jewish communities in Poland was because Jews were given refuge and protection there during the anti-Semitic programs of the Middle Ages.’ I cannot help feeling that there is a lesson here that is not being learned by our political masters. My point is this. The Jewish people, for whatever reason, did not integrate with the wider community, even after 500 years. By keeping themselves separate they automatically set up a “them and us” situation. Integration breaks down social and cultural barriers, segregation strengthens them. I do not doubt that the Jews were in many cases encouraged and ultimately forced to live in ghettos, but I strongly suspect that these grew up as a result of Jews living together in order to practise their faith and their business. Jews, as a rule marry other Jews; they exclude other faiths and cultures rather than include them. By dressing the way they did and in some cases still do, they deliberately differentiated themselves. It is almost inevitable that the rest of society developed feelings of antipathy. I am not saying that these feelings, let alone the persecution are in anyway justified, of course they are not but I believe that they do go some way to explaining why they took and continue to take place. One might compare it to a beautiful young girl in ‘pussy pelmet’ and cut-off t-shirt hanging around outside a working mens’ club after closing time. She may have every right to be there, but lets be honest, it is not very clever thing to do. The lesson to be learned is that multi culturalism does not work. Nobody likes to be told that the way they lead their lives is wrong or inferior, but that is what happens all the time in multicultural societies. 3
Sipu
What you seem to fail to understand is that Jews were not permitted to integrate into the broader community. Jews throughout Europe were subjected to all sorts of restrictions as to where they could and where they could not live, what occupations they could follow and could not follow. They were often taxed more heavily than the indigenous population.
Jews lived and worked amongst the general population, wore exactly the same clothes as everyone else, and spoke the same language as their host country. They obeyed the laws and did not ask (let alone demand) special treatment for their religious beliefs.
You say they did not intermarry…it is estimated that virtually every noble house in Spain had Jewish ancestry – even that scourge of converted Jews, Torquemada, is reputed to have had Jewish blood.
Might I also remind you that the Catholic Church supported anti-Semitism for many centuries, and, indeed, I have found evidence of it still being taught on the Church’s web-site. I have no time for the ‘blame the victim for the crime’ mentality especially when both Church and State were responsible for the crimes committed against these people.
Sure they could have given up their faith, but in places like Spain, they were still persecuted.
I have yet to hear you say that it was the Catholics’ fault that they were persecuted by Protestants. Yet they too could have changed their faith, and avoided persecution. Bit of double-standards being applied here, me thinks.
I will respond to this later.
Sipu
I look forward to that!
The Germans weren’t the only people to persecute Jews. The Poles were pretty good at it likewise the French and a couple of other Eastern Block countries.
On the other hand Stalin’s security chief Lavrenty Beria was Jewish and I guess he and his boss persecuted just about anyone.
Sorry, I was going to write this last night, but got hijacked and had to go out for the evening.
There are a several points.
I do not recall that I have ever whinged about the persecution of the Catholics, except perhaps when somebody was whingeing about the Catholics treatment of the Prots. I am realistic enough to know that whoever holds power is likely to abuse it. It is the way of mankind, not just Catholics. Thus I have never had a reason to blame them for not converting. In any event, if you think about it, the family of every Protestant was once Catholic but converted and I dare say that the conversions were not all of the Damascene variety. Those that did not were persecuted to a greater or lesser extent. They did not get the vote until the 19th century and they still cannot marry into the Royal Family. While that has no practical impact it is of symbolic significance.
Secondly, the main gist of my post was this. ‘My point is this. The Jewish people, for whatever reason, did not integrate with the wider community, even after 500 years.’ ‘The lesson to be learned is that multi-culturalism does not work’. Whether they were forced to or whether they chose to live apart, the truth of the matter is that those Jews who did not integrate were more susceptible to persecution than those that did not.
Thirdly, despite the level of caution in the above, I did express a belief that the Jews were partly responsible for their own isolation. I stand by that. I accept that much, even most of it may have been beyond their control, but many chose to live, act, worship and dress differently. They read the Torah, they celebrated their feasts and practised their beliefs. They persevered with maintaining their cultural identity. Because they were not Christian they were not subject to all its regulations such as being fined for not going to Church. The fact that many must have left the Jewish faith and integrated into the rest of society implies that more could have done the same. Yes it would have meant abandoning their faith and culture, but if that’s what it takes to integrate, that’s what it takes. To use a sporting analogy, if you are the only cricket player in country that plays baseball, you are not going to get to play unless you learn the home game.
Please don’t get me wrong and think that I am saying that this is morally justified. What I am saying is that dominant societies behave in certain ways. Join us or watch out. That is apparent even in the playground. Peace and prosperity tends to exist in nations when all people share the same creed. While the Jews existed outside of the Church they posed a threat to it.
I do not think it is significant to state that every noble house in Spain had Jewish blood. As I keep saying, if one goes back a sufficient number of generations, we can all find ancestors in common. 20 generations (circa 14th century) produces a total of about 2,000,000 potential ancestors. It would be very odd if none of them were Jewish.
The fourth point I would make concerns your claims about the Catholic Church and anti-Semetism. I acknowledge that it happened in the past. Of that there can be no doubt. But that is entirely logical. The Church was a means to hold power. It had been since Constantine. It was not just Jews who were persecuted. Even Christian heretics were burned. Many of the Popes were corrupt megalomaniacs. The purpose of the Church was to unify the world under one faith, to create one empire. Its ambitions were similar to those of the Roman Empire; except that rather than do it through conquest they did it through religion. Pax Romana was a good thing, but it took a lot of killing to get there. England thrived under Queen Elizabeth, once she had firmly established control of the Church there.
But the Catholic Church has moved on. It is no longer concerned with power on earth, but in the faith of the people on earth. When you say ‘, I have found evidence of it still being taught on the Church’s web-site.’, are you suggesting that the Vatican is consciously endorsing a policy of anti-Semitism? I find that very hard to believe. Again, I will accept that rogue elements within the Church may be doing so, but I doubt very much that the Pope is behind it. Of course it depends on what you mean by anti-Semitism. Let me make it clear, I do not practise any faith and I feel that a belief in some sort of divine creator is based on superstition. To the intelligent, educated person, it is illogical. However, I do not see religion as being irrational nonsense. It serves a purpose. We can choose to disagree on that, but that is beside the point. If one takes the premise that there are those who firmly believe in specific religious dogmas that demand exclusivity, then surely it makes sense to argue that anyone who does not share those beliefs are wrong. I might belong to a society of ‘flat earthers’. It does not make me right, but if I am sincere in my belief, then anyone who does not share it is wrong, as far as I am concerned. With that in mind, would it be outrageous for me to declare that globalists are mistaken?
I would not find it outrageous if the Church preached that Judaism was wrong. In the eyes of the Church it must be wrong, just as I, an atheist, am wrong. Catholics believe in ONE true faith. By its very existence, Judaism prevents people from believing in the Christian faith. (Do not forget, the Jewish faith is as illogical as the Christian faith. Jews believe that God selected them as the One Chosen Race. It does not get much more supremacist than that.)
Taking things further, I would not find it outrageous if the Church declared that Israel’s policy towards the Palestinians was wrong. However, I would not expect the Church to make a causal link between Judaism and Zionism. I would not expect the Church to state that the Jews are behind the worlds problems and that they control all the banks etc.
I would be interested to see the anti-Semitic evidence that you are referring to. I would be disappointed if it as malevolent as you imply and if it is endorsed by the Vatican. Having said that my only interest in defending the Catholic Church is to do so in relation to other faiths. Anti Catholic sentiment is as pernicious as anti-Semitism. I cannot abide hypocrisy.
Finally, you say, “I have no time for the ‘blame the victim for the crime’ mentality”. It is not a question of blaming anyone. It is a question of observing nature. Human society follows certain natural laws. Those laws are a solid as the law of gravity. It is all to do with survival. Behavioural patterns may change according to the political or social environment, but ultimately it boils down to the same thing. We all do what we think will be best for us. If I set myself up in Africa as a white farmer amongst a black majority, I will eventually be eliminated, unless I integrate. Of course, integration is not going to be easy because my children will be of mixed race and they will be persecuted. Eventually though, they will be assimilated.
Generally speaking I am a realist. The one thing that irritates me more than almost anything, is hypocrisy. When I occasionally rage about subjects such as Africa, it is because of the double standards and deceit shown by politicians and journalists.
Sipu
“…double standards and deceit shown by politicians and journalists…..”
Unfortunately deceit and duplicity are the tools of their trade and I don’t see sign of that changing .
There si quite a lot of information around that suggests that the Gas Chamber thing is a bot of a myth. NOT BECAUSE MILLIONS OF JEWS WERE NOT KILLED. But because the gassing of human beings on a mass scale as has been suggested doesn’t make sense. The Germans are nothing if not practical and it makes far more sense to to starve and work people to death, to let them die of neglect or to shoot them (No shortage of ammunition).
Gassing and cremating millions of humans is a massive undertaking consuming hundreds of thousand of tons of fuel and apparently there is no sign of the infrastructure needed to support such an operation.
Yes, I thought this debate might stall. It’s difficult isn’t it? There are some subjects that we just don’t talk about (or only obliquely). Which is a pity because it allows a lot of guilty folk to walk free and increases the likelihood of atrocities in the future.
jazz
I don’t think the argument has stalled, more like the site has stalled, there is a regular cohort on here but the site needs more contributors if it is to flourish, not sure how we achieve this but this site is worth nurturing, perhaps we should ‘advertise’ more on the Mother Ship.
This and others are always going to be difficult subjects to discuss. People are terrified of presenting a view that in any way may seem to be against that of conventional thinking, for fear of being labelled a bigot or social deviant. Playing devil’s advocate can be damaging to one’s health. So, if all one can do is agree, there is no point in attempting to debate the matter. I find it amazing how often people who rant against prejudice will themselves be so resistant to open debate. Suspicions are raised as to one’s motives and name calling swiftly follows. Certain people on The Other Place were particularly bad in this respect. As an example, I once attempted to argue against Gurkhas being given the right of residence in the UK. I was described as being nasty and mean spirited without my argument being countered. I don’t mind being proved wrong, but I don’t see that it helps to call me names just because you disagree with me.
Sipu
People blogging tend to say things to others that they would not dream of saying if face to face. The timid become bold, the bold become reckless and the reckless explode all over the place. To me it is just pixels dancing across a screen and I wonder why folk get so insulted and worked up if someone has a go at them. Of course you always get the ones who like to be ‘cock of the walk’ regardless of whether they are talking or blogging and they cannot bear anyone to deviate from what they conioder to be correct and therfore sacred. Does an interactive blog site such as this reflect the ‘real’ blogger, in some cases yes, in some cases no. In my case, it’s me, because I do not take take any one digging me out on here to heart, it’s only pixels, not daggers.
OMG, I do not take it to heart, but it bothers me that one cannot debate those subjects that one SHOULD be able to debate here. I understand that at a dinner party one may want to stay clear of certain subjects, but on a blog site, where as you say we are just pixels, I become irritated by those who attack the person rather than the message. They detract from the debate and distract others. That was one of the reasons I came here.
I think this actual blog about the Nazis and Jews suffers from a lack of contributors rather than a lack of those prepared to put a view and that is not a cotradiction but a fact. Most of the ‘regulars’ on here have made comments and it is a bit like a stuck record, it needs a bit of a nudge from others to make it broadcast more views and perhaps realise its potential.
OMG – I’ve done a bit of research re my #3 above.
“On September 28, 1918, a wounded Lance Corporal Hitler, withdrawing from the French village of Marcoing, was in the rifle sights of Private Henry Tandey, 5th Bn, Duke of Wellington’s (West Riding) Regiment, who “didn’t have the heart to shoot a wounded man”. In later years, both Hitler and Tandey were fully aware of each other’s identity.”
“Private Tandey had led a bayonet charge against outnumbering enemy troops which helped bring fighting to an end. As the battle wound down and enemy troops surrendered or retreated, a wounded German soldier limped out of the maelstrom and into Private Tandey’s line of fire, the battle weary man never raised his rifle and just stared at Tandey resigned to the inevitable. “I took aim but couldn’t shoot a wounded man. so I let him go.” The young German soldier nodded in thanks and the two men took diverging paths. Hitler retreated with the remnants of German troops. Tandey put that encounter out of his mind and rejoined his regiment, discovering that he had won the Victoria Cross.”
The incident is also recorded, albeit as “ambiguously possible”, in Max Arthur’s authorative reference book on the Victoria Cross, “Symbol of Courage”, pp. 326-7, a copy of which is here on my bookshelves. It is a matter of historical fact that Tandey did indeed win the VC on the date in question, presumably for the bayonet charge mentioned above.
OZ
OMG – I suppose it will remain one of those great unsolved mysteries, such as whether Canadain pilot Captain Roy Brown or one of several unidentified Australian infantrymen shot down the “Red Baron”, Manfred von Richthoven.
OZ
OZ
I’m obliged for that account and it may well have happened as you describe, then again it may be jut a coincidence albiet documented that both men took part in the same battle and a historian or reaearcher with a sense of drama has married the incidents together, if true, history and the world turn on such small things.
May I make you aware of the following incident involving Churchill?
He was in Chicago in the mid thirties promoting a book tour and undertaking speaking engagements having lost a pile of money in the great Wall Street crash.
As he was crossing a street, a taxicab came around the intersection at speed and did not see him until the last moment, the driver slammed on his brakes and just struck Churchill enough for him to fall over without sustaining serious injury.
So what, you may say, happens all the time and you would be right. Only the taxicab had just been driven from a workshop having had a complete overhaul of the brakes which were then in tip-top condition enabling the vehicle to stop in an instant. It was later estimated that even if the brakes had suffered a quarter wear, the cab would have struck Chrchill with fatal results. Now I’ll let you speculate on the outcome of WWII had those brakes not been made top notch just before the cab struck WSC. On such small things the world turns.
OMG – “On such small things the world turns.”
Amen!
OZ
Hello OMG: Was Winnie hit twice on the streets of the US? Here’s one story as reported here.
Winston Churchill’s dangerous New York mistake
If you were to visit the Churchill Museum in London, you’d be reminded of the fact that one of the British prime minister’s most painful mistakes happened in New York City.
At about 10:30 p.m. on December 13, 1931, Winston Churchill was hit by a cab while crossing Fifth Avenue, landing him in the hospital for a week with an additional two weeks of bed rest at the Waldorf-Astoria.
The incident occurred on Fifth Avenue between 76th and 77th streets, according to the December 14, 1931 edition of the New York Times (available in pdf format with Times Select.) His intended destination, according to the same story was 952 Fifth Avenue.
Churchill was headed over to the home of financier Bernard Baruch, a place he had been two years earlier but on the night in question couldn’t recall the exact address, according to Martin Gilbert’s book “Churchill and America,” which describes how the accident happened, still 10 blocks from Baruch’s:
After riding up and down Fifth Avenue for nearly an hour, after what should have been a ten- or fifteen-minute journey, Churchill asked the driver to stop on the Central Park side of the avenue and to wait for him while he crossed the street to the building on the opposite, which he hoped was Baruch’s building. Getting out of the taxi in the middle of the street, he looked left instead of right, forgetting that American cars drove on the opposite side to British. Looking left, he saw the headlights of an approaching car more than two hundred yards away, and feeling quite safe, made for the sidewalk. Suddenly, from the right he was struck by an oncoming car and thrown to the ground.
Churchill, who acknowledged the accident was his own fault, suffered a severe scalp wound, two cracked ribs, and then developed a case of pleurisy.
http://www.newyorkology.com/archives/2007/08/winstons_church_1.php
Low Wattage
Not aware of the NY incident, sounds like someone in Nazi Germany had invented a time machine and had gone back twice to make Winnies death look like an auto accident.
OMG: I would not bet big money on the accuracy of either the New York or the Chicago newspapers in 1931, ’twas prohibition time (one of our stranger efforts at social engineering), all those poor reporters staring soberly at their manual typewriters with nothing to drink.
Sipu
Thank you for taking the time to post a lengthy response.
I fear that you are mixing times, places and anachronistic notions to support your argument.
We are not talking about multiculturalism, we are talking about multi-faith – the three religions, Islam, Judaism and Christianity, existed relatively peacefully side by side for some long time in Spain in the early middle ages. And my comments regarding the number of Spanish families with Jewish ancestors was simply to counter your statement that Jews did not inter-marry.
As far as I’m aware that only occurred in England in the 16th C under Elizabeth I, during which time the numbers of Jews in England was negligible and probably nil because they had been expelled in 1290 and were not invited to return until 1655 under Cromwell.
But you are right that Jews were not subject to the same laws as the indigenous population. As I said, they were restricted as to where they lived, and as to what occupation they followed and, furthermore, they usually paid far more tax than Gentiles.
This is exactly the argument given in the Catholic Encyclopedia to account for the persecution of Jews and Jewish converts. The Encyclopedia goes further and claims that the Jews were trying to Judaise the whole of Spain. Anyone who knows the first thing about Judaism, knows full well that Judaism does not take converts.
There is, in Europe, a tradition of respecting those who remained steadfast in their faith be they Catholic or Protestant. That respect does not seem to be accorded to Jews who, despite centuries of persecution, remained constant to their faith.