Special feature: How Republicans can help Netanyahu

Published by carolyn on Sun, 2015-10-25 02:03

Benjamin Netanyahu graciously receives one of his many standing ovations from a joint session of Congress (minus 58 miscreants of the Democrat Party) earlier this year.

How Republicans can help Netanyahu

By Hadding Scott

On October 20th, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu stirred major controversy by declaring before the 37th World Zionist Congress that Adolf Hitler never wanted to kill all the Jews of Europe, and that it was the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem who made him do it, because the Mufti did not want more Jews coming to Palestine.

Hitler didn’t want to exterminate the Jews at the time; he wanted to expel the Jews. And Haj Amin al-Husseini went to Hitler and said: “If you expel them, they’ll all come here.” “So what should I do with them?” he asked. He said: “Burn them!”


Given the great esteem with which all Christian Zionists and Republicans, and especially Republican congressmen, regard the Israeli Prime Minister, this statement and the reaction to it must be a source of great concern.

It is disappointing, however, that I have not heard anyone on Republican-oriented talk-radio even mentioning Netanyahu's statement, much less defending it. In particular I cannot recall hearing Rush Limbaugh, normally a highly vocal admirer of Prime Minister Netanyahu, mention it at all.

I suppose that they are at a loss. I want to help the Republicans and the Christian Zionists by showing them how they can defend Netanyahu in this controversy – at least to some degree.

There are three points in Netanyahu's statement: (1) Hitler did not want to kill all the Jews in Europe; (2) Hitler intended to deport the Jews from Europe; (3) the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem forced Hitler to change his plan from mass-deportation to mass-murder.

Two out of three of those points can be validated!

After the National-Socialists came to power in Germany in 1933, many Jews left the country. Then measures were taken against Jewish power in Germany. Jews were removed from positions of influence and deprived of citizenship, so that they had the status of resident aliens. Especially after Kristallnacht in November1938, Jews were encouraged to leave.

But where should they go?

Early Zionists contemplated various possible locations for a future Jewish homeland: they were not limited to Palestine. When however Uganda, which was much less populated with Blacks in 1903 than today, was offered by the British Empire to the Zionists, they rejected it. The view that ultimately prevailed among Zionists was that the Jews must make their homeland in Palestine.

For centuries there had not been many Jews living in Palestine, but under the influence of Zionism Jews began leaving Europe and settling there in the late 19th century.

Since Palestine was not an entirely unoccupied land, friction gradually developed between the immigrant Jews and the people who already lived there.

After the First World War, Palestine was taken away from Turkey and placed under British administration. Recognizing the problem of continually worsening ethnic friction, the British banned further Jewish immigration to Palestine in the late 1930s.

In February 1939, Alfred Rosenberg, the NSDAP's Commissioner for Ideological Education, suggested that the major colonial powers, Britain and France, should offer either British Guiana or Madagascar as a “reservation” for Jews. Dr. Rosenberg, like the British, was opposed to an independent Jewish state in Palestine, declaring:

Palestine is too small to take all the Jews. A Zionist state as contemplated aims not at making a home for the Jews in Palestine, but at creating a Pan-Jewish center of power in the Near East.” [AP, 7 February 1939]

Rosenberg was clearly supporting Jewish emigration. The press treated Rosenberg's proposal as worthy of consideration:

Room would be made for 12,000,000 to 15,000,000 Jews under the Rosenberg plan which he advanced to diplomats with the assertion Germany was still determined to get rid of every Jew.

The entire problem narrows down to these two territories,” Rosenberg declared in an exposition of the most specific proposal yet advanced by a high Nazi official. (Britain previously had under consideration the possibility that Guiana might be a home for German refugees but no definite action was taken.) [AP, 9 February 1939]

The total defeat of France in June 1940 was used by the German government to make Madagascar (at that time a French colony) available as a Jewish homeland. Only a few days after the French surrender, Franz Rademacher, head of the German Foreign Office's Jewish Department, declared the following in a memo:

In the Peace Treaty France must make the island of Madagascar available for the solution of the Jewish question, and to resettle and compensate the approximately 25,000 French citizens living there. The island will be transferred to Germany under a mandate. [F. Rademacher, memo of 3 July 1940, Jewish Virtual Library]

Such a treaty, although contemplated, was never signed, perhaps postponed until cessation of hostilities with Britain.

The prospect of deporting Jews to Madagascar began to fade when the United States entered the war in late 1941. After Britain occupied the French colony of Madagascar in May of 1942 on the ridiculous premise that they were protecting it from the Japanese, it became impractical to send Jews to that island, at least for the time being.

The famous “Luther Memorandum” of 21 August 1942, from Germany's Assistant Foreign Minister, Martin Luther, narrates the history of National-Socialist Germany's policy of Jewish emigration – first from Germany to anywhere outside of Germany, then, after the fall of France, from Europe to Madagascar, and finally to “the East”:

The principle of the German Jewish policy after the seizure of power consisted in promoting with all means the Jewish emigration. For this purpose in 1939 Marshal General Goering in his capacity as Commissioner for the Four Year Plan established a Reich Control Office for the Jewish emigration....


The present war gives Germany the opportunity and also the duty of solving the Jewish problem in Europe. In consideration of the favorable course of the war against France, D III proposed in July, 1940, as a solution: the removal of all Jews from Europe and the demanding of the Island of Madagascar from France as a territory for the reception of the Jews.


The fact that the Fuehrer intends to evacuate all Jews from Europe was communicated to us as early as August 1940 by Ambassador Abetz after an interview with the Fuehrer (compare D III 2298)


In the [Wannsee] conference [of 20 January 1942] Gruppenfuehrer Heydrich explained ... that the Fuehrer instead of emigration has now authorized the evacuation of the Jews to the East as the solution (compare page 5 of the attachment to D III 29/42 Secret). [Translation of Document No. ND-2586-(J)]

The Jewish Holocaust is supposed to have begun in late 1941 or early 1942, but as late as 24 July 1942 Hitler himself has been noted as favoring emigration as the solution for the Jews:

Nach Beendigung des Krieges werde er [Europa] sich rigoros auf den Standpunkt stellen, dass er Stadt für Stadt zusammenschlage, wenn nicht die Drecksjuden rauskämen und nach Madagaskar oder einem sonstigen jüdischen Nationalstaat abwanderten.” [quoted e.g. by Heinrich Haertle, Freispruch für Deutschland (1965), p. 167]

After the conclusion of the war let Europe take a rigorous stand on the position that city after city will be smashed if the cruddy Jews don't come out and emigrate to Madagascar or some other Jewish nation-state.”

The fact that Hitler made such a statement is widely acknowledged, for example by Heinz Peter Longerich, who dismisses its significance as follows:

In fact, the plan to deport Jews to Madagascar (occupied by British troops in May), had been officially abandoned in February 1942; according to the files of the Foreign Office, it was Hitler who had taken this decision. The fact that Hitler referred in the same statement to the fact that Lithuania had been made "free of Jews" (in fact the vast majority had been murdered, only those forced to work for the Germans had been spared) gives us a clear idea what the term "emigrate" represented.[Heinz Peter Longerich, Hitler's Role in the Persecution of the Jews by the Nazi Regime(electronic version)]

Obviously the point that Hitler had by that time, due to circumstances, abandoned the specific plan of sending Jews to Madagascar does not constitute a disproof of Hitler's general intention to see the Jews emigrate, since he did also say: “or some other Jewish nation-state.” That was most likely a self-correction after having said “Madagascar” from force of habit.

As for the interpretation of emigrate as a codeword for murder, that is typical of Holocaust-scholarship. The "Wannsee Protocol" and several other of what are supposed to be major documents for the Jewish Holocaust only support the Jewish narrative when interpreted through the presumption that some of the words mean something more or something other than their lexicographic meanings.

We can side with Netanyahu here. When Hitler said emigrate, he meant emigrate.

(Faced with the problem of why Hitler was still talking about emigration in July 1942 when, as we are all compelled to believe, the great Holocaust of the Jews had begun no less than six months earlier, we may take refuge in the solution that David Irving has espoused with only a brief interruption since the late 1970s: Hitler didn’t know!)

Like Copernicus contemplating the convoluted Ptolemaic universe with its epicycles, Binyamin Netanyahu, contemplating the theory of codewords, has found a simpler explanation: there are no codewords; what those documents said is what they meant!

It is the bold and earnest man who gets at the truth. It seems that Binyamin Netanyahu has always had that knack for zeroing in on truths that should be obvious but somehow escape general notice, as for example when he declared in April 2008 that the 9-11 attacks were good for Israel.

The difficulty that remains, however, is to explain how a relatively minor figure like the Mufti could have forced Hitler to do anything, and also why Hitler did not simply tell the Mufti that the plan at that time (November 1941) was not to send the Jews to Palestine but to Madagascar (and why, after the Mufti made Hitler kill Jews instead of deporting them, Hitler did not know about it). These problems will remain for future great minds to untangle.

But for now, Republicans should not be afraid to raise their voices to say, in regard to at least two out of three points: Netanyahu is right!


It wasn't the Mufti.
In fact, it wasn't even it.

Jett Rucker, your Holocaust-Denial is shocking!
My article is to support Netanyahu. Republicans must support Netanyahu.

Drecksjude means Dirty Jew, and has the same meaning, basically ignoble spirit. 

When I translated that a few years ago, I was aware that I had not rendered the term literally, but "dirty Jew" or "filthy Jew" seems extremely harsh in English. I doubted that it was felt to be quite that harsh in German. That's an important consideration, not just the literal meaning but how words function and the impression that words create in the original language, compared to the translation.
I also wasn't sure if Hitler was distinguishing Drecksjuden as a particular type of Jew -- the unwashed Jewish rabble as opposed to the bourgeois or rich Jews. I was inclined to think that this was what he had in mind, and on that account I considered that "trash-Jews" conveyed the meaning better than "dirty Jews."

Drecksjude is very harsh in German as well. I looked up "dreck", the term is used in American English as well, from the Yiddish. You can literally translate it Dreck-Jew, I suppose. 
It's not clear if Hitler speaks only about "the bad Jews" here or "the Jew" as a whole, and interpretation is speculation, imo. 

Apparently Hitler was not referring to a specific class of Jews and that the use of Drecksjuden expresses exasperation with Jews in general. I am recommending a change to reflect that.

Netanyahu's affirmation that it was the Grand Mufti who bears greater historical responsibility for "the Holocaust" is motivated by anti-Palestinian sentiment. His principal aim is to shift US public sentiment further against Israel's enemies. If the GOP does indeed come to endorse Netanyahu on this issue, it will not only be logically consistent but also very likely causally interconnected with a broader endorsement of Israel's actions in the region. Strengthening Israel, not historical truth, has always been Netanyahu's principal aim.

As a good Republican, you should not imply that Nettie is wrong about anything.

The Mufti forced Hitler to burn Jews using hypnotism. This also explains why Hitler didn't know what he had done.

Your new hypnotism-hypothesis should be of great interest to David Irving, who undoubtedly runs into enormous skepticism when he argues that the Holocaust happened in spite of Hitler's not knowing.

one wonders what the hell is going on..maybe a pat on the head for Germanies suicide- and it certainly seperates Hitler from Germany to a degree even though normalizing Hitler -weird...after all Israel depends on German servitude and support.

I think it's largely just the fact, as I demonstrate in the article, that there is tons of evidence for the intention to deport Jews, and there is the well known fact that many Jews did leave.
The documentation of this intention persists past the date when the Holocaust is supposed to have begun, which is why the priests of the Holohoax had to invent the theory of codewords.
Netanyahu is a bungler who has let the cat out of the bag and embarrassed other Jews before. I alluded to that fact too.

That's why this is such a useful article, Hadding. It takes advantage of a well-publicized news story to give the facts about the deportation vs the "extermination" of Jews in Europe. Too bad it can't get wider mainstream exposure, because I think it would really surprise a lot of people if they could read it.

I posted the link in comments sections on some news-sites.
It's a shame that this moment is being allowed to pass without much exploitation. The Prime Minister of Israel hands us something on a silver platter, and we're too scared to use it.

In some cases scared, indeed, in other cases too lazy or otherwise occupied. Most also don't know anything to say except the obvious, but you managed to create something worthy of the occasion. I guess you're the only one, though.

Some people, for some reason, are just rigidly stuck in the conviction that there is no productive way to dispute the Holohoax.
Obviously they are not speaking from experience, but I have found that it is quite possible to get people to realize that the Jewish Holocaust story is at least questionable.
The key is in how you approach it. Be relaxed and casual and pleasant about it. Put the facts out for consideration without seeming fanatically concerned that everyone must accept your conclusion -- preferably after SOMEBODY ELSE has raised the subject. The facts themselves are persuasive, if you happen to be addressing the type of person who cares about facts.

There is also a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument that I see in the Jerusalem Post, which seems to have tried to do damage-control for Netanyahu. They say, yes Hitler wanted to deport the Jews, and yes the Mufti met with Hitler in November 1941 and there was a change of plans about what to do with Jews after that, in December 1941. The conclusion is, there is some reason to think that the Mufti might have influenced this decision -- because post hoc ergo propter hoc -- but it cannot be proven. http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Historian-Netanyahu-right-on-...
Of course the much more obvious reason for abandoning the plan of deporting Jews to Madagascar was US entry into the war, which meant that peace with Britain was not imminent.
Jews have decided that from December 1941 on, every reference to evacuation of Jews to the East really means killing Jews. Given the deficiency of physical evidence, the whole Holocaust story depends on that theory of codewords.
The problem that they have with Hitler's utterance from the summer of 1942 is that he didn't use any supposed codewords. Therefore they take the position that Hitler was deceiving his guests when he said that the Jews should go to a Jewish nation-state after the war.


[Netanyahu] went on: “Contrary to the impression that was created, I did not mean to claim that in his conversation with Hitler in November 1941 the Mufti convinced him to adopt the Final Solution. The Nazis decided on that by themselves.”

But he clearly did mean to claim exactly that. He said,

“Hitler didn’t want to exterminate the Jews at the time — he wanted to expel the Jews,”

Hitler asked, “So what should I do with them?” The mufti replied, “Burn them,”

There is no admission of wrong-doing on his part. God forbid he could ever be wrong.

It's a shame for Netanyahu that irresponsible people go around creating impressions about what he said! They should stop that! In particular, they should stop reposting videos of him saying it!
This happens from time to time: when some Jew steps out of line on an important issue, the other Jews slap him around and make him take it all back. It happened when Congressman Stephen Solarz (another Sephardic Jew, like Netanyahu) went to the Philippines and came back saying that despite all the propaganda Ferdinand Marcos was really not a bad guy after all. Very quickly Solarz forgot what he knew and acted as if he'd never said it: I infer that he was subjected to pressure.
What Netanahu espoused was slightly more rational than the usual story, which doesn't seem to give any real cause at all for why Hitler should swing from deporting Jews to gassing them.
But when you try to make sense out of Hitler's actions, that's the beginning of a huge revision. Once you start taking account of circumstantial influences on Hitler's actions, you are on the road to seeing him as a human being responding in a humanly comprehensible manner to circumstances rather than as a subject for demonology. And making Hitler humanly comprehensible also means trying to understand his position on Jews. This is a road that the Jews don't want anyone to take.