The official blog of the site “Der Stürmer” – http://der-stuermer.org
Sunday, June 30, 2024
Thursday, June 27, 2024
The Talmud – Part I
„When we come to the Babylonian Gemara, we are dealing with what most people understand when they speak or write of the Talmud. Its birthplace, Babylonia, was an autonomous Jewish centre for a longer period than any other land; namely, from soon after 586 before the Christian era to the year 1040 after the Christian era - 1626 years.“ (Rabbi Hertz, English Edition of the Babylonian Talmud, the Soncino Talmud (1935), p. XXI, Rabbi Hertz).
„The Talmud must not be regarded as an ordinary work, composed of twelve volumes; it posies absolutely no similarity to any other literary production, but forms, without any figure of speech, a world of its own, which must be judged by its peculiar laws.
The Talmud contains much that is frivolous of which it treats with great gravity and seriousness; it further reflects the various superstitious practices and views of its Persian (Babylonian) birthplace which presume the efficacy of demonical medicines, or magic, incantations, miraculous cures, and interpretations of dreams. It also contains isolated instances of uncharitable judgments and decrees against the members of other nations and religions, and finally it favors an incorrect exposition of the scriptures, accepting, as it does, tasteless misrepresentations.
The Babylonian Talmud is especially distinguished from the Jerusalem or Palestine Talmud by the flights of thought, the penetration of mind, the flashes of genius, which rise and vanish again. It was for this reason that the Babylonian rather than the Jerusalem Talmud became the fundamental possession of the Jewish Race, its life breath, its very soul, nature and mankind, powers and events, were for the Jewish nation insignificant, non- essential, a mere phantom; the only true reality was the Talmud.“ (Professor H. Graetz, History of the Jews).
„The Talmud has been the banner which has served as a rallying sign to the Jews, dispersed in diverse countries; it has maintained the unity of Judaism.“ (Graetz, History of the Jews).
„Pharisaism became Talmudism...But the spirit of the Ancient Pharisee survives unaltered. When the Jew...studies the Talmud, he is actually repeating the arguments used in the Palestinian academies. From Palestine to Babylonia; from Babylonia to North Africa, Italy, Spain, France and Germany; from these to Poland, Russia and eastern Europe generally, ancient Pharisaism has wandered...“ (The Pharisees, by Louis Finkelstein, Foreword, Vol. 1).
„The Talmud derives its authority from the position held by the ancient (Pharisee) academies. The teachers of those academies, both of Babylonia and of Palestine, were considered the rightful successors of the older Sanhedrin...At the present time, the Jewish people have no living central authority comparable in status to the ancient Sanhedrins or the later academies. Therefore, any decision regarding the Jewish religion must be based on the Talmud as the final resume of the teaching of those authorities when they existed.“ (The Jews - Their History, Culture, and Religion, by Rabbi Louis Finkelstein, Vol. 4, p. 1332, Jewish Publication Society of America, 1949).
„The Talmud: Heart's Blood of the Jewish Faith...“ (November 11, 1959, New York Herald Tribune, based on The Talmud, by Herman Wouk).
„The Talmud is to this day the circulating heart's blood of the Jewish Religion. Whatever laws, customs or ceremonies we observe - whether we are orthodox, conservative, reform or merely spasmodic sentamentalists = we follow the Talmud. It is our Common Law.“ (The Talmud, by Herman Wouk).
Monday, June 24, 2024
Countering the Poison
If this video is not available in your country use TOR Browser to watch it – fight the jewish censorship!
by Dr. William L. Pierce
Today let’s talk more about a very disturbing phenomenon that we’ve discussed several times in the past few weeks, namely a conditioned inability of White people – or at least, a substantial percentage of White people – to defend themselves against non-Whites. When I first told you about the rapes and murders of those Whites in Wichita, Kansas, by two Blacks – rapes and murders the news of which was blacked out almost completely by the media outside of Wichita – I commented that the most shocking thing about this atrocity was the total lack of resistance by the White victims, their complete failure even to attempt to defend themselves against two Blacks armed only with one relatively anemic pistol. The White men just stood and watched the Blacks rape and abuse their women, and then they all knelt obediently in the snow when the Blacks told them to and let themselves be shot in the back of the head, one at a time.
For the past two weeks we’ve been talking about the Mardi Gras race riot in Seattle, where small groups of Blacks viciously attacked individual White men and women in an overwhelmingly White crowd. While the Blacks punched young White women to the ground and then kicked them senseless, and while they ripped the clothes off other White women and pawed and probed them, nearby White men just stared without attempting to intervene.
Now I want to read to you a letter that I received this week from a listener of my American Dissident Voices broadcast. He relates an experience that he had in New Jersey:
A Black mugger, in broad daylight, attempted to rob a young, White businessman at knife point as the latter was making a withdrawal from an automatic teller machine. Rather than submit quietly, as so many of our young, European males do these days, the strapping young White man, a six-foot, five-inch giant named Paul, unleashed a devastating knockout punch to the mugger’s face. The Black mugger, a muscular six feet, three inches or so himself, fell to the pavement like a ton of bricks. The White hero, however, received a nasty knife gash in his forearm as he was throwing his punch. He was bleeding profusely all over his white shirt and his suit. Nevertheless, Paul calmly took out his cell phone and called 911 to report the attempted robbery and his own wound.
As Paul was waiting for help to arrive, the Black thug began to regain consciousness and slowly raised his head off the sidewalk. Big Paul then stomped on the mugger’s head to make sure he stayed down and out. Upon seeing this, a White female, one of the group of eight to ten witnesses who had gathered, shrieked in horror and scolded our White hero for stomping on the Black criminal’s head! A wimpish White male yuppie then leaned anxiously over the downed Black to see whether or not he was still breathing!
I was utterly dumbfounded. Here was a White victim-turned-hero, covered in blood, and yet some of the Whites who witnessed this event were more concerned about whether or not the poor, knife-wielding Black animal had suffered a serious concussion. I and some others attended to the bleeding Paul, but it was a bizarre scene. Paul’s cut was nasty but not life-threatening. I assume that the knife-wielding Black got off with a slap on the wrist in court that was far less painful than Paul’s gash.
The inexplicable behavior of some of the White witnesses left a lasting impression on me. It wasn’t until I read some of your material that I fully understood the true source of the disgustingly wimpish behavior I witnessed that day. If more White Americans were made of the same stuff as Paul, Western civilization would be back on the right track in 30 days, don’t you think?”
Well, yes, if more White Americans reacted to non-White aggression the way Paul did, we would be in much better shape. And you know, White Americans, even those who weren’t six feet, five inches tall, used to behave the way Paul did. A century ago almost any able-bodied White male would have behaved the way Paul did. And it would have been inconceivable that two White witnesses would have behaved the way the White female and the White male yuppie did in the incident described in the letter I just read to you. Really inconceivable!
So what has happened to us? Have we been softened up by too much Christianity, too much turn-the-other-cheek preaching? Well, I don’t think so. At least, I don’t think that is the primary cause of our present malady. Certainly Christians are in the forefront of the wimp brigades these days, but the country as a whole is less Christian now than it was a century ago. A higher percentage of our ancestors were convinced Christians than in the general White population today, but not even the worst of the Bible-thumpers among the pioneers who settled this country had let themselves be emasculated by their religion. Though they may have carried a Bible in one hand as they headed west and claimed the land for themselves and their posterity, they carried a rifle in the other hand. They were self-respecting Christians.
Has it been too much easy living, too much luxury and comfort, that has made cowards of most of us and has turned some of us into partisans of our enemies? Well, I think that’s a part of the answer, but certainly not the whole answer. More than once, when speaking with people who already agree – in theory – with me on the racial issue and on the Jewish issue I have had the experience of seeing them recoil in horror when I talk about what ultimately needs to be done to clean up our society. When I talk about cleaning out the stables – when I talk about an inevitable civil war – they are horrified. I realize, of course, that we are in no position at this time to punish traitors and clean up our government. But even to contemplate a final solution for getting rid of the filth in the government and in the media horrifies my listeners. They will only consider solutions that don’t involve violence or bloodshed: only nice, peaceful, non-violent solutions that don’t hurt anyone’s feelings. When I talk about the eventual need for ethnic cleansing on a massive scale to undo the damage done by non-White immigration and miscegenation during the past century, again they are horrified. “Oh, we can’t do that,” they say: “That’s genocide!”
And I do think that this excessive squeamishness, which comes from living a soft and sheltered life, is to some degree responsible for paralyzing the will of our people. Maybe there’s some Christianity mixed in there too, which makes so many of our people unwilling to do what must be done to protect our race, our society, our civilization. But whether it’s Christianity or softness, the unwillingness to take effective action when needed is very real. In the Seattle Mardi Gras riot, for example, the Whites in the crowd certainly weren’t going to stop the Blacks from rampaging by appealing to the Blacks’ commitment to a multicultural society. They weren’t going to stop them by laying a hand gently on their shoulders and saying to them, “No, brother, no. You mustn’t abuse people this way.”
The only way to stop those Blacks would have been for a group of White men – and it would have needed only four or five sturdy White men – to arm themselves with baseball bats, fence posts, tire irons, pocket knives, or whatever other emergency weapons were at hand, and then to attack one gang of rampaging Blacks at a time and take them out – disable them – not by reasoning with them or by threatening them but by the decisive use of violence. That, of course, would have meant cracking Black skulls and drawing blood – and risking injury to themselves. And most White men aren’t up to that these days. They really haven’t been raised right.
It is the sheerest foolishness to imagine that America is a powerful nation because a 100-pound girl in a U.S. Army uniform can push a button in some command center and launch a missile that will destroy a city somewhere on the other side of the world. Americans have lost their manhood – or they are well on the way to losing it – and that is why we will not be able to defend ourselves from our internal enemies, who are the real threat to our existence.
It is essential, of course, for us to have missiles capable of taking out Peking or Tel Aviv. It is essential for us to have a high-tech military capability so that we can kill thousands or even millions of enemies for each one of our own casualties. That’s necessary because we foolishly have helped the non-White races of the planet reduce their death rates, industrialize themselves, and multiply until they greatly outnumber us, and we have helped the Jews develop Israel into a deadly arsenal of nuclear, chemical, and biological terror weapons. We need a high-tech military force to deal with this external threat. But what will destroy America is the enemy within, and against that enemy nuclear-tipped missiles and our other long-range weapons are useless. The enemy that will destroy us consists of the growing hordes of non-Whites already inside our borders and the White traitors in Washington and in every statehouse and every city hall and every newspaper office and every courthouse in the country who invited those hordes in and who now pamper and indulge them. That is the enemy that will destroy us, and to fight that enemy manhood is necessary.
Well, there’s one more reason why White Americans stand around with their hands in their pockets, gaping helplessly while gangs of Blacks attack other White men and sexually abuse White women. It’s the reason, I am sure, why that White woman in New Jersey was much more concerned about the welfare of the Black robber on the pavement than the welfare of the White man he had attacked with a knife. And, although I can’t be sure, I strongly suspect it’s also the most important reason why those White men in Wichita allowed the two Blacks to rape and abuse their women and then let themselves be killed without putting up a fight.
This most important reason for our inability or unwillingness to defend ourselves, our women, our nation, our civilization from the enemy within is that we have been psychologically conditioned all our lives – deliberately conditioned – not to defend ourselves against this enemy in our midst. What is the worst thing you can call a lemming, the thing that will make the average lemming turn pale with fright as he vehemently denies your charge? What label is guaranteed to make any politician or bureaucrat or Army officer or chief of police grovel and apologize and run for cover? That is the label of “racist,” of course.
It’s a label that was virtually never used 50 years ago, in the days when American society was supposedly racist through and through. Even 30 years ago White Americans could talk about race in an open and honest way, without fear. Even university professors, who these days are not noted for either courage or intellectual honesty, could talk about racial matters 30 years ago. I was a university professor, and I discussed with my colleagues the inevitable decline in academic standards which would accompany the government’s efforts to force universities to accept unqualified Black students and unqualified Black faculty members. In those days, even though some professors were flaming liberals, we could at least discuss racial matters. But within the past 30 years the iron curtain of Political Correctness has descended, not just on our university campuses, but on our whole society.
How did it happen? It happened because we were deliberately brainwashed, deliberately conditioned psychologically by clever propagandists. Television was the principal propaganda medium – and still is. The most popular television shows, which nearly every American viewed – shows such as All in the Family and M*A*S*H – were clever propaganda, designed deliberately to make “racism” a feared label and to put a whole range of other ideas and attitudes beyond the pale of acceptability, while at the same time making acceptable certain types of behavior which previously were abhorrent to most Americans.
All in the Family’s Archie Bunker was used to make White Americans with traditional ideas about race and sexuality seem ridiculous, to seem ignorant and small-minded. M*A*S*H, starring the leftist actor Alan Alda, was used to make Whites with traditional attitudes seem like vicious bigots, despised by all decent people. Tens of millions of White Americans watched these programs on black-and-white television screens week after week. I was one of those White Americans. The programs were genuinely funny, genuinely entertaining. And they were genuinely poisonous to the easily manipulated lemmings who made up the vast majority of the viewers.
And I hardly need to tell you that this brainwashing effort aimed against the White American majority was designed and implemented almost entirely by the tiny Jewish minority in our midst, who by the 1960s had gained virtually total control of the mass media of news and entertainment. They staffed the media at every level and pumped their poison into virtually every living room in America. All in the Family was the creation of Norman Lear. M*A*S*H was the creation first, as a Hollywood film, of Robert Altman and later, as a TV series, of Larry Gelbart. Lear, Altman, and Gelbart were all Jews, and so was virtually every other propagandist working behind the scenes of the media. Behind every media campaign of lies and deceit, behind every piece of poisonous propaganda, behind every piece of subversive filth being poured into American living rooms and American schoolrooms was a gaggle of scheming, hate-filled Jews bent on destroying our civilization and our race.
Well, All in the Family and M*A*S*H were just two examples of the media brainwashing blitz that shifted into high gear in the 1960s and is still accelerating. There were dozens of other TV series, some subtle and some not so subtle; there was the slanted network television news; there were Hollywood films and radio programs and popular magazines. And there were other propaganda themes besides racial equality and the promotion of homosexuality. There was the “Holocaust,” all about how the poor, persecuted Jews had suffered so terribly at the hands of the Germans – through no fault of their own, of course – and were deserving of all sorts of compensation and special consideration and exemption from blame.
There was the drive to “equalize” men and women in military service, in the workplace, and in every other way. This drive to equalize the sexes was not carried on just through political lobbying and demonstrations. Television entertainment played a major role by masculinizing the portrayal of women and feminizing the portrayal of men and by portraying as a bigot and a hater, as an object of contempt and ridicule, anyone who didn’t want to go along.
There was the drive for so-called “children’s rights,” the drive for unlimited permissiveness and against parental “repression” of children – and in fact, against any form of discipline or restraint. This drive was perhaps most visible in the efforts of radical youth-movement Jews such as Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin with their “kill your parents” slogan in the 1960s and 1970s, but it was Jewish television that promoted more subtly and also more effectively the attitudes that parental authority was old-fashioned and out of style and that self-discipline, responsibility, and good work habits were only for dull, narrow-minded people, that the modern attitude was, “if it feels good, do it.”
This Jewish propaganda blitz, this brainwashing campaign aimed at demoralizing White America, has been and still is a multi-front campaign. Its most important front may have been the racial front, and its next most important front may have been the sexual front, but every aspect of our society – every institution – that may have provided us with a sense of pride or solidarity has been and still is under attack. The aim has been not just to make Blacks equal to or a little better than Whites, to make women equal to or a little more powerful than men, to give children as much authority as parents; the aim has been to equalize, to democratize, to homogenize everything. Anything from the old order – anything from the White, patriarchal, hierarchical order – that stands out is to be attacked and pulled down: equalized, democratized, homogenized.
An interesting example of this is the recent drive to undermine the prestige and blur the identity of the Army’s elite Rangers, with their distinctive black berets and their extraordinarily martial and masculine esprit de corps. Anything that is elite is hated and disparaged by the partisans of the new world order – and especially something like the Rangers, long a hotbed of masculine, patriarchal, inegalitarian attitudes. Rather than making a direct, frontal attack on the Rangers, the Army’s politicians and bureaucrats decided as a first step to take away the Rangers’ distinctive appearance. They decreed that henceforth every member of the Army, including every Black female clerk and every mestizo cook, would wear a black beret, just like those worn by the Rangers. It would be a unifying move, the Army bureaucracy smirked.
The next step undoubtedly would be to require the Rangers to lower their standards and to have a quota for Black females and mestizos. The Rangers have been sharply criticized, along with the Army’s Special Forces and the Navy’s Seals, for being too White and too male. It’s past time for all of these elite groups to be equalized and feminized.
The Rangers, I am pleased to note, did not cave in quietly to the attempt to equalize them with the rest of the Army. They raised hell about it and won a good bit of support from many other people, including some influential people. The Army politicians refused to back down on their decision to give black berets to everybody, but under pressure they grudgingly gave permission, just a few days ago, for the Rangers to switch to tan berets, thus maintaining – for a while – their distinctiveness.
Aside from the Rangers, unfortunately, there aren’t many segments of our society who have had the pride and self-respect to stand up to the equalizers. Most have gone along quietly. Many have gone along enthusiastically, hoping to curry favor with the equalizers.
So what do we do? How do we go about restoring our manhood? Unfortunately, for America as a whole it’s not as simple as it would have been for the Whites in that Mardi Gras crowd in Seattle. It’s not just a matter of a few of us grabbing fence posts and splitting Black skulls. The first thing we must do is stop the flow of Jewish lies and Jewish poison and Jewish filth into every American living room and every American classroom. That is an enormous task, an extremely difficult task. We are taking now one small, first step toward the accomplishment of that task by countering the lies and the poison with these American Dissident Voices broadcasts. Only a small fraction of our people hears these broadcasts now. We need to reach many more of our people before we can take the next step. You can help us reach that next step sooner by telling your friends and neighbors and co-workers about these broadcasts. Please do it!
* * *
Saturday, June 22, 2024
Thursday, June 20, 2024
The Myth and the Reality of the Haavara Agreement
Source: https://www.renegadetribune.com/the-myth-and-the-reality-of-the-haavara-agreement/
by Karl Radl
The Haavara Agreement of 25th August 1933 is a subject which is often brought up in debates in and around Zionism and the modern state of Israel. It is a dramatically misrepresented piece of history as it is usually presented without any context whatsoever with key details completely absent and you are told how the ‘evil Zionists’ cooperated with the ‘evil Nazis’ to ‘oppress the Palestinians’.
The principal source for these claims is the American jewish Marxist and anti-Zionist Lenni Brenner’s two works on the subject: his 1983 book ‘Zionism in the Age of the Dictators’ and the follow-up 2002 book ‘51 Documents: Zionist Collaboration with the Nazis’.
Brenner’s work is however polemic and not historically solid nor well-researched and he ignores facts and context which contradicts his polemical attempt to associate the Third Reich and Zionism together.
The problem is that Brenner is simply wrong more often than not.
Traditionally the narrative about the Haavara agreement of 1933 has been broadly factual but also terse, dismissive and generally assumes it was a sideshow before the start of the Second World War.
Sachar writes how:
‘It is recalled that a unique transfer agreement permitted departing Jews to withdraw their savings in the form of German goods, which later were sold for British currency in Palestine.’ (1)
Dawidowicz describes more fully how:
‘The most significant instance of normal official procedures was the negotiations between the Ministry of the Economy and the Jewish Agency for Palestine, concluding in the so-called ‘Haavara agreements’ of August 1933. These were, in essence, a compromise on the issue of emigrants’ blocked accounts. Under this arrangement Jews emigrating to Palestine deposited their assets in special blocked accounts in Germany held by a Jewish trust company. Once in Palestine the emigrant would be paid off half the amount in Palestine pounds. The other half was credited towards the purchase of finished German goods by the Jewish Agency, which paid half the cost in Palestine pounds.’ (2)
‘The Haavara agreements were not regarded as an ideological matter related to the Jewish question, but rather a matter of the German economy. The arrangement was seen as boosting German production and German exports and discouraging a worldwide Jewish boycott of German goods.’ (3)
‘The Haavara agreements were regarded with favour in SD circles as an incentive to Jewish emigration, but the Auslands-organisation, the NSDAP branch dealing with Germans living abroad, strongly opposed it because it gave ‘valuable support for the formation of a Jewish national state with the help of German capital.’’ (4)
This is fairly accurate in that the Haavara agreement that allowed jews in Germany to take a greater portion of their wealth with them by placing the required amounts in special blocking accounts with the German Reichsbank which was then used on the Palestinian side to purchase German goods and then the money could then be withdrawn by the newly arrived immigrants when they were in Palestine.
Dawidowicz is also right to bring up a bit of context in that it broke the international jewish boycott of German goods which had begun on 27th March 1933, but which had been largely crushed by German diplomatic activity in the United States and Britain by early April 1933. (5) She is also incorrect in that the boycott wasn’t just a jewish affair, but the main power behind the boycott on German goods was actually the British trade union movement aligned with the British Labour party. (6)
But there is a lot of important detail left out of this narrative as well as Brenner’s simplistic ‘evil Nazi-Zionists’ alternative narrative.
Brenner in ‘Zionism in the Age of the Dictators’ and ‘51 Documents’ simply omits some very important historical context in his claims about what the Haavara agreement between the Third Reich and the Zionist movement proves.
As Francis Nicosia – the foremost academic expert on the relationship between the Third Reich, Palestine and Zionism – writes:
‘In 1931, the German government had enacted a ban on the removal of capital from Germany as a result of the world economic crisis. A year later, in 1932, Mr. Sam Cohen of Hanotaiah Ltd. of Tel Aviv, a private citrus growing firm in Palestine, entered into negotiations with the German government in an effort to permit German Jews who were willing to emigrate from Germany to Palestine to transfer a small portion of their blocked assets in the form of German machinery and other products needed for expanding orange groves in Palestine. Cohen’s initiative was not motivated primarily by anti-Jewish discrimination or any Jewish emergency in Germany in 1932; rather, it was focused on Palestine, the building of the National Home, and the desirability of finding new ways to promote the flow of Jewish capital and immigrants into Palestine in difficult economic times. These objectives, of course, did not change in any way as a result of the crisis in Jewish life in Germany after 30 January 1933. They were, however, reinforced by the new urgency of facilitating the movement of Jews and some of their assets out of harm’s way as expeditiously as possible.’ (7)
This all important historical context presents an almost insurmountable obstacle to Brenner’s argument about wholesale ‘Nazi-Zionist collaboration’ in relation to the Haavara agreement precisely, because it was put forward in its early form as a proposal in 1932 by Sam Cohen as the result of 1931 legislation triggered by the impact of the Wall Street Crash on Germany and had absolutely nothing to do with the Third Reich and everything to do with the Zionist movement’s desire to persuade more jews to emigrate to Palestine.
This means that the Haavara agreement was little to do with the Third Reich whose involvement was incidental and that had the government of Germany in 1933 been that of the Catholic Centre Party (Zentrum) or the Social Democratic Party (SPD) then they would have been presented with the same offer and may well have also agreed to it as the Third Reich did.
As Nicosia explains:
‘Of course, the Haavara Agreement came into existence first and foremost because the regime deemed it to be in its political and economic interest; but the initiative for such an arrangement came from the Yishuv, the Jewish community in Palestine, which enlisted the support of the World Zionist Organization; the German Consul General in Jerusalem, Heinreich Wolff; and ultimately the German government itself. It was a Zionist, that is, a Jewish, idea and initiative, not a Nazi one. The Zionists intended it to meeting an emergency by appealing to the mutual interests of the German government and the Zionist movement to promote Jewish emigration from Germany to Palestine, coupled with the opportunity for Jews to leave Germany with at least a small portion of their assets. This had become an even more urgent matter by 1933 given the harsh economic realities facing Jews seeking to emigrate from Germany during the Depression and the immigration requirements imposed by the British Mandatory authorities in Palestine.’ (8)
We can immediately see that the key motivation for the Haavara agreement from the Zionist side was both ideological (the desire to immigrate to Palestine and create a jewish national home) and practical (to ensure jewish immigrants to Palestine met the financial criteria for immigrants imposed by the British Mandatory authorities).
Meanwhile from a German perspective its origin was primarily economic (in that it broke the economic blockade of Germany that jews and British trade unions were trying to create) but it also had an ideological dimension to it.
However, it is dishonest to present the Third Reich’s motives as being ‘pro-Zionist’ because the German policy of using Zionism as a conduit and an ideological lever to push jews to emigrate from Germany to Palestine was not in fact part of the German decision-making in the Haavara agreement.
As Nicosia stresses the motive from the German side was that it would help stimulate the economy that the Third Reich had inherited because of the poor financial position of Germany in 1933 because of a lack of foreign currency and significant trade deficits as a result of the global and domestic economic depression since the Wall Street Crash of 1929. (9)
Indeed, the emigration of the jews posed a significant risk to the German economy due to the significant outflow of capital from the country, (10) but was prevented by the 1931 law preventing such an outflow but because the boycott was viewed as a threat to the economic recovery of Germany by both the Ministry of the Economy and the Foreign Ministry: (11) they were amenable to Cohen’s plan of 1932 that was re-presented via the (anti-Nazi) German Consul General in Jerusalem Heinrich Wolff in early 1933. (12)
The genesis of the famous trip of SS officer and German journalist Baron Leopold von Mildenstein to Palestine with Kurt Tuchler – a jewish judge and prominent member of the Zionist Federation of Germany – to Palestine in late 1933 to early 1934 occurred around this time with a Zionist organization – we don’t know for sure which – inviting von Mildenstein to Palestine to advertise the Zionist activities there as a potential solution to Germany’s desire to be free of jews. (13)
This was then publicized in a series of articles in Goebbels’ newspaper ‘Der Angriff’ between 27th September and 9th October 1934 which was advertised in part via the famous ‘Nazi-Zionist’ Palestine Memorial Coin as I’ve detailed in a separate article, (14) which is also often falsely used as ‘evidence’ of ‘Nazi-Zionist collaboration’.
The problem here for those promoting a link between the Haavara agreement and ‘Nazi-Zionist collaboration’ is that the policy of using Zionism as a conduit and ideological lever to push the jews out of Germany didn’t begin until Mildenstein was appointed as head of the SD’s Judenreferat in 1935 by Reinhard Heydrich on the back of his articles in ‘Der Angriff’ in late 1934 and his six-month trip to Palestine in late 1933 to early 1934. (15)
In other words: there is circa two-year difference between the Haavara agreement of August 1933 and the adoption of Zionism as a potential conduit and ideological lever to push the jews out of Germany by the Third Reich so the latter’s short-lived support of Zionism (it lasted from the summer of 1935 until July 1936) was not the reasoning behind nor the motivation for the Haavara agreement from the German side.
Indeed, the German Ministry of the Economy thought the Haavara agreement was the best way to combat the boycott of German goods and prevent any degradation of the German trade deficit, (16) but this was also the same ministry’s strategy before the Third Reich when they’d sought to use the initial Hanotaiah proposals of Cohen in 1932 to do exactly the same thing. (17)
The Haavara agreement was also a success from the German perspective and can be credited with stopping capital flight from Germany and helped prevent job losses in Germany’s export industries at a crucial time in Germany’s economic recovery. (18)
So how did the Haavara agreement work?
Well as Nicosia explains:
‘According to the agreement, the blocked assets of German Jews willing to leave Germany for Palestine were deposited in a special account at the Reichsbank. Importers in Palestine who wished to purchase German goods deposited the cost amount of the goods in £pal, with the Anglo-Palestine Bank. About half that amount was then transferred to the Reichsbank in Germany. The goods were paid for in Reichsmarks in Germany from the blocked assets of the Jewish emigrants going to Palestine, who in turn received partial compensation for their blocked assets when they arrived in Palestine. This compensation came from the remainder of the initial purchase funds originally deposited by Palestinian importers. Thus, German Jews immigrating to Palestine were able to meet the minimum financial requirements for immigration established by British Mandate authorities.’ (19)
This explanation makes it clear that by increasing the capital limits of what jews could take – which changed from the rather limited original Hanotaiah agreement of early 1933 and became the much more comprehensive Haavara agreement over July/August 1933 (20) before being officially signed on 25th August – (21) then Germany would benefit by having a captive sale of German goods to jews and non-jews in Palestine who paid Siegfried ‘Eliezer’ Hoofien of the Anglo-Palestine Bank of Tel Aviv the price of the goods in Palestinian pounds (22) and whose cost was then credited against the relevant special blocked accounts in the Reichsbank in Berlin, which jews had paid into via two jewish intermediary banks: M. M. Warburg of Hamburg and A. E. Wassermann of Berlin. (23)
Jewish emigrants could take £pal1000 (Palestinian Pounds) on them (circa $5,000 at the time) and transfer 20,000 RM (Reichsmarks) in the form of German goods via the Haavara agreement to Palestine. (24) Once they arrived in Palestine; these jewish immigrants would then receive circa 42/43 percent of the 20,000 RM with jewish agricultural and communal organizations keeping 39 percent of the 20,000 RM and purchasing more German goods with the additional funds with the balance kept by the German authorities to pay for the cost of travel and the visa. (25)
This then prevented significant capital flight from Germany as required by the 1931 law and Ministry of the Economy’s policy, while also breaking the boycott of German goods by acquiring a captive market in Palestine, generating capital for the German state via the confiscated assets of emigrating jews in excess of £pal1000 and 20,000 RM as well as generating much needed foreign currency for the Third Reich to use to replenish the reserves so heavily depleted in the years after the Wall Street Crash of 1929. (26)
However, why did the Zionists break the jewish boycott against Germany?
Doesn’t this seem paradoxical?
Well not really because the jewish boycott against Germany – as I’ve explained previously – was really only a phenomenon among the jews in the United States (27) and had been generally crushed by German diplomatic manoeuvres by early April 1933. (28)
However, it was still sporadic due to international – often jewish-owned – press and newspaper efforts to revive the boycott and push it (29) and was in fact a growing movement among jews in Palestine – (30) which Brenner makes much of – (31) but despite Brenner’s desperate efforts to claim otherwise quite a few non-American Zionists actually disagreed with the boycott of German goods promoted by jewish Zionists in the United States.
As Nicosia explains:
‘Most Zionists viewed the anti-German economic boycott as dangerous to the exposed and vulnerable position of all Jews in Germany. They also saw it as an impediment to the transfer approach they had recognized and pursued even before 1933 as an effective means of promoting Jewish immigration into Palestine and the influx of much-needed Jewish capital into the Jewish national home.’ (32)
Basically, most jewish Zionists saw the actions of the jewish Zionists in the United States as utterly irresponsible and reckless as well as needlessly antagonistic which just made the situation of the jews in Germany worse because all it achieved in reality was what we’d now call virtue signalling.
So, they acted to diffuse the situation by working with Cohen’s existing idea and creating the Haavara agreement out of it – as well as inviting Mildenstein to Palestine for a fact-finding trip – in August 1933 and won the battle with the majority of Zionist delegates voting in supported of during Eighteenth World Zionist Conference in Prague in September 1933. (33)
This was confirmed again during the Nineteen World Zionist Conference in Lucerne, Switzerland in 1935 by a vote forced by jewish Zionists from the United States – such as Rabbi Stephen S. Wise of the American Jewish Congress, the World Jewish Congress in its entirety and other major American jewish figures such as Rabbi Abba Hillel Silver – and despite ferocious lobbying from American jewry: it was a total loss for them. (34)
Zionists outside Germany did voice significant opposition – most notoriously Ze’ev Jabotinsky and his violently anti-gentile ‘Revisionist Zionist’ movement – (35) to the Haavara agreement which Brenner skirts over without much qualification or discussion (36) likely because it inconveniently directly contradicts his thesis of ‘Nazi-Zionist collaboration’.
Indeed, in many ways the Haavara agreement was the crowning moment of German diplomacy in 1933 superseding the bloodless crushing of the jewish (and the British trade union) boycott movement by the German Foreign Office in April 1933.
Since as Edwin Black put it:
‘The Transfer Agreement tore the Jewish world apart, turning leader against leader, threatening rebellion and even assassination.’ (37)
In other words: the German Foreign Office by being flexible with the Ministry of the Economy’s needs had set the Zionists of the world at each other’s throats and Black’s reference to assassination is not simply rhetorical either.
Since the murder of jewish Labour Zionist leader Victor (alternatively Chaim or Haim) Arlosoroff (who was one of those negotiating what later became the Haavara agreement and the former teenage boyfriend of Magda Behrend who later became Magda Goebbels) (38) on 16th June 1933 can be directly connected to Jabotinsky and his ‘Revisionist Zionist’ movement’s (39) – despite modern jews desperately trying to claim that it was in fact (bizarrely) orchestrated by Joseph Goebbels and the Third Reich not by Jabotinsky’s fanatics – (40) opposition to any such agreement with the Third Reich. (41)
We can thus see that the German Foreign Office had inadvertently split the entire Zionist movement in two and caused them to be at each other’s throats as well as to start to kill each other.
Also of note is further evidence that the Haavara agreement was viewed almost entirely as an economic measure apart from a short period between the summer of 1935 and 27th July 1936. (42)
This can be found in both in Mildenstein’s disenchantment with Zionism as a solution to the jewish problem in Germany and his resignation as the head of the SD’s Judenreferat on 27th July 1936 and his switch to the Propaganda Ministry as head of its Middle Eastern bureau and an ardent and vocal anti-Zionist till 1945. (43)
But also, in the switch in the opinion of the German Foreign Office which had originally been very supportive of the Haavara agreement and Zionism as a solution to the jewish question (44) along with sections of the NSDAP (45) had completely turned against it by 1936.
This was because the German Foreign Office (and the Propaganda Ministry) felt that the Haavara agreement had served its purposes in defeating the boycott and was undermining the safety of German Christians in Palestine and also affecting the popularity of the Third Reich among the Palestinian Arabs. (46) Despite this the Ministry of the Economy continued to support it because it generated much needed foreign currency for the Third Reich (47) and an informal compromise was reached – via Hitler’s direct intercession – where the German Foreign Office and the Propaganda Ministry would continue vocal support for – and to promote – the Arab national cause in Palestine, while the SS made it as desirable and easy as possible for jews to emigrate from Germany to Palestine (such as most famously done by Adolf Eichmann’s personnel in Austria in 1938 after the Anschluss of 11th to 13th March of that year) while the Ministry of the Economy reaped the benefits of the confiscated jewish wealth above the £pal1000 and 20,000 RM limit set by the Haarava agreement. (48)
The Haavara agreement was only wound down after the German invasion of Poland in 1939 and advent of the Second World War. (49)
Thus, in summary we can see that the idea of – and proposal for – the Haavara agreement from Sam Cohen predates the Third Reich, was being negotiated by the German Ministry of the Economy before the Third Reich in 1932 and was based on a German law from 1931 that prevented capital flight from Germany in the wake of the Wall Street Crash of 1929.
Further we can see that the German motivation for the Haavara agreement during the Third Reich was almost exclusively economic and to help the German economy recover in spite of the attemped international (jewish) boycotts against it. Further we can see that the German Foreign Office pulled off something of a diplomatic coup with the Haavara agreement and split the entire Zionist movement by it.
Yet further we can see that the Zionist motivation for proposing and signing the Haavara agreement was entirely unrelated to the Third Reich’s anti-jewish policies, but their breaking of the boycott against German goods was inspired by the fact that this boycott was a primarily American jewish phenomenon that they felt only made things worse for the jews of Germany.
We can therefore see that the claims of ‘Nazi-Zionist collaboration’ are not only unfounded but almost entirely counter-factual.
Thank you for reading Semitic Controversies. This post is public so feel free to share it.
References
(1) Howard Sachar, 1991, ‘A History of Israel’, 1st Edition, Alfred A. Knopf: New York, p. 197
(2) Lucy Dawidowicz, 1975, ‘The War against the Jews 1933-45’, 1st Edition, Penguin: New York, p. 116
(3) Ibid.
(4) Ibid., p. 117
(5) See my article: https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/the-origins-of-the-german-boycott
(6) Francis Nicosia, 2008, ‘Zionism and Anti-Semitism in Nazi Germany’, 1st Edition, Cambridge University Press: New York, p. 83
(7) Ibid., pp. 82-83
(8) Ibid., p. 82
(9) Ibid., p 78
(10) Ibid.
(11) Ibid., p. 83
(12) Ibid., p. 89
(13) Joseph Verbovszky, 2013, ‘Leopold von Mildenstein and the Jewish Question’, Published Masters Thesis: Case Western Reserve University, p. 16
(14) See my article: https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/the-history-of-der-angriffs-famous
(15) Verbovszky, Op. Cit., pp. 7-8
(16) Nicosia, ‘Zionism’, Op. Cit., p. 88
(17) Ibid., pp. 88; 109
(18) Ibid., p. 89
(19) Ibid., p. 87
(20) Ibid., p. 86
(21) Ibid., p. 87
(22) Ibid., p. 86
(23) Ibid., p. 87
(24) Ibid.
(25) https://www.jta.org/archive/reich-migrants-to-palestine-get-back-42-of-funds-in-cash
(26) Nicosia, ‘Zionism’, Op. Cit., pp. 88-89
(27) See my article: https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/the-origins-of-the-german-boycott
(28) Ian Kershaw, 1998, ‘Hitler’, Vol. 1, 1st Edition, Penguin: New York, pp. 472-473
(29) For example: http://europe.newsweek.com/empire-hatred-nazis-462809
(30) Nicosia, ‘Zionism’, Op. Cit., p. 84
(31) Lenni Brenner, 2002, ‘51 Documents: Zionist Collaboration with the Nazis’, 1st Edition, Barricade: Fort Lee, pp. 97-99
(32) Nicosia, ‘Zionism’, Op. Cit., p. 83
(33) Ibid., p. 98
(34) http://reformjudaismmag.net/rjmag-90s/999eb.html; Aaron Berman, 1992, ‘Nazism, the Jews and American Zionism, 1933-1988’, 1st Edition, Wayne State University Press: Detroit, p.39
(35) Nicosia, ‘Zionism’, Op. Cit., p. 99
(36) Brenner, Op. Cit., pp. 100-101
(37) http://reformjudaismmag.net/rjmag-90s/999eb.html
(38) See my article: https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/magda-goebbels-victor-arlosoroff
(39) See my article: https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/who-murdered-victor-chaim-arlosoroff
(40) See my article: https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/did-the-nazis-murder-victor-chaim
(41) http://reformjudaismmag.net/rjmag-90s/999eb.html
(42) Verbovszky, Op. Cit., pp. 8-13
(43) Ibid.
(44) Ibid., p. 24; Francis Nicosia, 2000, ‘The Third Reich and the Palestine Question’, 2nd Edition, Transaction: New York, pp. 132-133
(45) Nicosia, ‘Zionism’, Op. Cit., pp. 89-90
(46) Ibid., pp. 128-129
(47) Ibid., pp. 130-133
(48) Ibid.; Nicosia, ‘The Third Reich’, Op. Cit., pp. 140-142
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)