Confused malcontents swilling Chardonnay while awaiting the Zombie Apocalypse.
90% of my assertions and quotes are referenced - and from pro-Zionist sources.
Your quotes are usually problematic because they're not specific. You state a source, but need to quote page and paragraph if possible. You also need to make clear your real source when you present an apparent quote, that you've gleaned from another writer, especially when they are not historians. The most recent example was a Google link that seemed to be a quote about Deborah Lipstadt. Following your link took me to a Norman Finklestein book that you didn't reference as your source. The problem about Finklestein is that he's a polemicist, a political activist, not an historian.
".....and from pro-Zionist sources."
That makes them far less believable because the source is 'political'. (Like Finklestein (anti-Zionist) or Ben Hecht (Rabid Irgunist Zionist).) Of the two, Finklestein is the more reliable, but he's still driven by his political viewpoint so what he writes has to be handled with care.
Most modern historians are scrupulously accurate and present carefully referenced evidence. They present what they've discovered and don't 'push' a political point of view. They let the evidence speak. That doesn't mean they don't have private political views, but if they let those dictate the history they're writing, other historians would rip them apart.
" I've already got it coming from the leader of the Zionists in March 1933 "
Could you give me your source?
Helmut Kallmann, a Holocaust survivor whose family were murdered by the Nazis, wrote "German Jewish liberals in my childhood considered themselves German by nationality and ethnicity, Jewish by religion. Along came the Nazis and said: "Once a Jew, always a Jew" and the Jews cannot be Germans." He points out that some Zionists agreed with that statement, which is the inevitable reaction, I suppose, but he appears to be in no doubt that the statement originated with the Nazis.
Mapping Canada's Music: Selected Writings of Helmut Kallmann
By Helmut Kallmann
Chapter 16. The Matter of Identity. (Third page of chapter. No page numbers.)
"I'm not interested in the Jews, except as examples of people victimised by the Nazis - and by the Zionists.
My motivation is to learn the lessons of WW1 and WW2 and try to see that nothing like that happens again."
No doubt you think this is a praiseworthy objective but it betrays your political prejudices. You place Nazi and Zionist in the same category. That is: Nazis=Zionists.
"Hannah Arendt was a serious Zionist philosopher and strikes me as being obsessed with racism. She took it as an article of faith that Jews cannot be Germans. She was still quite clear about it years after the war."
I only know of Arendt's 'Banality of Evil' - her impressions of the Eichmann Trial. If you have any evidence that she believed 'Jews cannot be Germans' please post it.
"the Gaon of Vilna cannot possibly have driven Zionism since his works were lost for the crucial 188 years."
How is that relevant?
He spoke, he had followers, he was very influential in his day.
He died in 1797. He set out for Israel but got no farther than Germany.
On the other hand, his disciples, the Perushim, left Vilnius for Palestine in 1808 and 1809.
Their aims were:
"Rebuild Jerusalem as the acknowledged Torah center of the world,
Aid and speed the ingathering of the Jewish exile, and.
Expand the currently settled areas of the Land of Israel."
That sounds very Zionist to me and must reflect the views of their deceased leader, the Gaon of Vilna.
And if David Irving cheated much in his histories, you've been unable to show me any examples.
Don't be silly, Berry. Read the full transcript of the trial.
"Every "historian" of WW2 (certainly for the first 30 years) say nothing about the Holocaust!"
Dear oh dear: what stupidity.
They didn't use the word Holocaust because it wasn't current, but they do describe in detail the mass murder of Jews and others in the extermination camps..
Holocaust didn't become the accepted term until the later 1960s. Historians used other words to describe the Holocaust. The Jews called it 'The Shoah'; the Roma the Porajmos.
It was only during the late 1960s/early 1970s that the term Holocaust became generally accepted.
You seem to be arguing that because the word wasn't used for a period after WW2 that the mass factory killing of Jews, Gypsies and other victims didn't happen.
That puts you on the side of the IHR/Irving Holocaust denial faction.
The Gaon clashed with the long accepted theory (it can only be theory) that was held in the Jewish world and later adhered to by Hassidic groups , their Courts and Rabbinical leaders that the return to Israel could only occur when the Messiah had shown himself , the Gaon challenged this premise and stated that Jews should already be in Israel when the Messiah appears (ooh that set the cat amongst the pigeons) .
The upshot of all of this is that eventually Modern Political Zionism appeared as against Religious based Zionism , the Political foresaw the need for the requirement of Government and state along with the various essentials of state (police/Army a Judiciary etc) their aim ( the Political Zionists) would take state from faith and clash with religious Zionists who saw faith with state .
Today in the here and now , there are nearly 8 million Jews made up of every shade of Political view and Religious visions this also includes and this is perhaps most interesting the hardest of the hard line Anti Zionist Hassidic Groups who now call Israel home (even if they disagree with everything ) today the hard line Grand Rebbes see themselves increasingly in Israel as their Children and Grandchildren marry into existing Israeli Hassidic dynsasties
None of this would have been possible without the Gaon who is ACCLAIMED throughout the JEWISH WORLD as the genius who saw something which was radically different
The attack on the Gaon is merely a child who has had his candy taken from him - he can discuss with the Chief Rabbi of the UK or the Court of the Rabbis on this singular topic - he wont because he is a coward
ps - in not ONE of the idiots replies has he ever put up an argument with attached a counter Jewish argument all he is doing is giving his very anti Jewish opinion NEVER HAS HE ATTACHED ANY FORM OF COUNTER DEBATE showing his sources (which we both know who they are)
"Now, overwhelmingly, German Jews rejected Zionism and felt themselves to be German - but Hannah Arendt was a Zionist. She didn't feel German and she was loud in her belief that Jews could not be Germans. And this is what leads me to say that the Zionists were preaching "Jews cannot be Germans" and had probably done so since These people tell us that a version of "Jews cannot be Germans" was mainstream Zionist in 1920."
You haven't proved that at all. You've given a single example of Hannah Arendt and generalised to all Zionists.
You've stated that German Jews rejected Zionism. You're using the same false technique of generalising. Do you mean 'all' German Jews or 'some' German Jews or what? All you can prove is that German Jewry was divided and I wouldn't argue about that, because it's what the historical record shows.
"And this is what leads me to say that the Zionists were preaching "Jews cannot be Germans" and had probably done so since "
You're drawing conclusions from what a single person said. Generalising from one example. You need published examples from archives, documents or history books (with references) to prove that Zionists were preaching "Jews cannot be Germans". I have seen evidence of 'Jews cannot be Germans' as a Nazi slogan. You need to give examples of it being a Zionist slogan and you haven't done so.
"These people tell us that a version of "Jews cannot be Germans" was mainstream Zionist in 1920."
No, you haven't proved that at all. You're imagining things.
"We Jews are aliens ... a foreign people in your midst and we ... wish to stay that way. A Jew can never be a loyal German; whoever calls the foreign land his Fatherland is a traitor to the Jewish people".
I'm sure Klatzkin did say that but you're committing the same error again and again. You're generalising and saying that because that was Klatzkin's view, it was the view of all Zionists. And it wasn't.
"At the Nuremberg Trials of Major War Criminals, Nazi propagandist, Julius Streicher testified: "I did no more than echo what the leading Zionists had been saying", it is clear that he had told the truth. https://www.truetorahjews.org/zionism"
Well he would say that, wouldn't he? He was on trial for his life, accused of crimes against humanity so of course he blames his virulently anti-Semitic propaganda writings on the Jews. It's all their fault. These nasty Jews made me say the things I did. Pathetic and the court sentenced him to death so unlike you and the True Torah Jews, (apparently) they didn't accept his excuse.
Your referencing to True Torah Jews website is useless. You need to identify the precise document, not reference a website with thousands of pages on it.
"it is clear that he had told the truth." (Say the True Torah Jews about Julius Streicher.)
Shows what fruitcakes the TTJ are who are prepared to support a virulent anti-Semite Nazi propagandist who was executed for crimes against humanity because they think he criticised Zionism. Pathetic.
He's talking the usual nonsense about the Gaon of Vilna. I've dealt with it in post 97.
Be well! (Even if Berry's strange views and inability to learn anything frustrate!)
I agree with your post on the Gaon of Vilna. A great thinker, a proto-Zionist certainly. His teachings influenced the Perushim who ten years after the Gaon's death traveled to Israel to settle there.
Berry focuses on the Gaon's writings and totally ignores his oral teaching.
As usual, Berry is talking out of the top of his head.
The Gaon of Vilna (d. 1797) cannot be the inventor of and religious champion of Zionism as you claim - his never published works didn't even reach Palestine, they turned up in 1945 when the Russians found them. Nothing on his views ever appeared in print until an abstruse religious book in 1985. His sole real claim to fame is a hatred of Hasidics and his failure to stop them taking over in Lithuania. His beliefs are said to be Messianic, as may mean he sought to recognise Jesus as a prophet or may mean something else entirely.
The above is the utter unsubstantiated rubbish the poster has created , there is nothing but unmitigated bile from the man . The idiot is so far detached from factual religious history as to be almost a nazis in his utterings - apparently the Gaon may have recognised Jesus (that one takes the biscuit)
I agree. He doesn't know what he is talking about. So what's new?
Neturei Karta are 'certain' that the Gaon wasn't a Zionist. The 'messianic' bit comes from the TTJ.
We both know what he is reading, what is interesting is that he does not want to reveal his sources because he know from there it is down hill faster than usual .
He will be back telling us about Good Jews next (you know the Team that went to Iran for the Holocaust Conference duh and then duly got themselves excommunicated from the Jewish World , bleeding idiots they are and more important they are living here in Israel ranting and raving their nuts off)