Hundred Years of War against Germany

By Steffen Werner

In August 1895, a series of articles began in the British weekly The Saturday Review, which called for the annihilation of Germany and whose disastrous greed for German plunder still reverberates to the present day.

With the Second Reich, a German state came into being which was rapidly creating a modern economy which imperiled the economic predominance of Great Britain. Coal and steel were the two indicators by which national economies were measured prior to the First World War. The production of raw materials in Germany grew by 334% in the quarter-century before the First World War, from 4 million to 17.8 million tons, while the figures for Great Britain rose from 7.7 to 9 million, therefore an increase of 17%. During the same period the mining of coal in Germany increased from 76.2 to 255.8 million tons (240%) but in Britain only 60%, to 240 million tons. Germany's foreign trade was reaching proportions alarming to Great Britain. An investigation by the English Parliament in 1885 noted that the Germans produced more cheaply and their products were geared to the preferences of their buyers. Knowledge of languages, tirelessness and flexibility were considered to be the merits of the German commercial travelers. A trademark law was passed in England as a counter-measure, which prescribed that German products be marked "Made in Germany," yet the British middlemen and consumers nevertheless still often preferred the German goods, on which account the obligatory mark was modified to "Foreign made."[1]

That this new development was no accident was discovered by Paul Valéry in a British commissioned work from the year 1896, in which the reasons for this new development would be raised to a dogma:[2]

"One learns that the military victories through which this [German] nation established itself are small when compared with the economic triumphs which it has already wrested; already their many markets in the world are more tightly held than the territories which it owes to its army [...] one grasps that Germany has turned to industry and trade as it once did to its military: with level-headedness and resolve. One senses that it is omitting no means. If one wishes to explain this new [...] greatness, then one should call to mind: constant hard work, most precise investigation of the sources of wealth and unrelenting manufacturing of the means for producing it; exact topography of the favorable sites and most convenient connecting routes; and above all, perfect obedience, a subordination of all motives under a sort of simple, exclusive, powerful thought - which is strategic in form, economic in purpose, scientific in its profound design and its realm of authority. Thus does the totality of the German enterprises have its impact upon us."

The European upper classes saw their indolent life imperiled by this upswing of the German economy. They were living, according to Max Scheler, in a Paradise:[3]

"For our Eastern neighbors there was more dreaming, plotting, feeling, praying, and quiet submission to the yoke of fate, but also the drinking of schnapps, strolling romantically through life, careless and illicit coarse enjoyment [...] For the English, it was easy to buy and sell, according to the old way, accustomed to winning, and in the manner of old grand merchants, proud of the old proven types of goods, without adapting to the needs of customers in the world market [...] it was also, however, to enjoy life in sports, wagering, gaming, country life, traveling, to end the week's work on Friday evening and to go to the sports stadium [...] - but to do all this with a matter-of-fact feeling, grounded in the situation and geography of the island, of having been divinely chosen to be Lord of the Sea [...] not as a member of Europe, but as a power equal to all of Europe, indeed, a power which was a match for the entire world, equal to guiding the nations outside of Europe, of leading them and of being their political arbiter. And the same paradise meant for France: increasing financial wealth with few children, pensions after 20-30 years of work, great colonial empire, time and idle leisure for luxury, intellect, outward appearances, adventures full of sensuality with beautiful women."

The terror which the German power of achievement set loose in these European upper classes, was captured by Max Scheler in the parable:

"There [...] appeared on their every horizon [...] the image of a new, strange archangel, the face [...] as severe and iron-like as the old one of the myth, but otherwise quite different [...] He bore the stamp of a plain workman, with good, tough fists, he was a man who labored and kept working, on and on, according to the inner testimonial of his own convictions, not in order to outdo or for the sake of some sort of renown, and not for enjoyment apart from or after the work, nor in order to contemplate and admire the beauty of the world in that spare time following work, but quietly and slowly, immersed in his labor, yet with a terror-exciting steadiness, exactitude and punctuality when seen from the outside, and wholly lost within himself and his task, he worked, worked on and kept working - and this the world was least able to grasp - out of pure joy in boundless work in itself - without goal, without purpose, without end. What will become of us, what shall happen to us - felt the nations [...] How shall we exist, faced by these new masses? Shall we change ourselves, seeking to emulate him? No and again no! We cannot obey this new demand! But we do not want it and shall not do it!"

In 1895 these upper classes, beginning with Great Britain, formed a War Party against Germany which is still at work today and which will be documented by citations from the years 1895 to 1994.

Delendam, Delendam, Delendam!

The Saturday Review of 24 August 1895:[4]

"OUR TRUE FOREIGN POLICY.

[...] As we have before pointed out, the dominant fact of the situation with regard to our foreign policy is the steadfast enmity of France. We can call this enmity unreasonable or untimely, but its existence is not to be doubted. Some papers, therefore, recommend that England should at once join the Triple Alliance; that Lord Salisbury should promise the German Emperor assistance and support in case of any attack made upon the estates or interests of the Allies in Europe, on condition that the Allies should support England in case of any aggression upon her territories in other parts of the world. For various reasons this policy, although eminently safe, does not altogether please us. First of all, we English have always made war hitherto upon our rivals in trade and commerce; and our chief rival in trade and commerce to-day is not France but Germany. In case of a war with Germany, we should stand to win much and lose nothing; whereas, in case of a war with France, no matter what the issue might be, we stand to lose heavily."

The Saturday Review of 1 February 1896:[5]

"A Biological View of our Foreign Policy by a Biologist.

The record of the past history of life upon the catch has made us familiar with one phase in the drama of evolution. For countless generations a number of species may have been struggling on tolerably equal terms, now one, now the other, securing some little advantage, when suddenly a turn in the kaleidoscope of the world gives one of them an advantage of real moment. The lucky species multiplies rapidly; it spreads over the land and the seas, its rivals perishing before it or being driven into the most inhospitable corners; [...]

The great nations of the earth are local varieties, species in the making. It is not necessary that there should be anatomical distinctions among them; although, indeed, the English, Germans, French, Russians and Americans, Chinese and Japanese, have each their distinct groups of average characters. [...]

The world is rapidly approaching the epoch of these last wars, of wars which cannot end in peace with honour, of wars whose spectre cannot be laid by the pale ghost of arbitration. The facts are patent. Feeble races are being wiped of the earth, and the few great, incipient species arm themselves against each other. England, as the greatest of these - greatest in geographical distribution, greatest to expansive force, greatest in race-pride - has avoided for centuries the only dangerous kind of war. Now, with the whole earth occupied and the movements of expansion continuing, she will have to fight to the death against successive rivals. [...]

Of European nations, Germany is most alike to England. In racial characters, in religious and scientific thought, in sentiments and aptitudes, the Germans, by their resemblances to the English, are marked out as our natural rivals. In all parts of the earth, in every pursuit, in commerce, in manufacturing, in exploiting other races, the English and the Germans jostle each other. Germany is a growing nation; expanding far beyond her territorial limit, she is bound to secure new foothold or to perish in the attempt. [...] Were every German to be wiped out to-morrow, there is no English trade, no English pursuit that would not immediately expand. Were every Englishman to be wiped out tomorrow, the Germans would gain in proportion. Here is the first great racial struggle of the future: here are two growing nations pressing against each other, man to man all over the world. One or the other has to go; one or the other will go. [...]

The biological view of foreign policy is plain. First, federate our colonies and prevent geographical isolation turning the Anglo-Saxon race against itself. Second, be ready to fight Germany, as Germania est delenda [Germany must be destroyed]; third, be ready to fight America when the time comes. Lastly, engage in no wasting tears against peoples from whom we have nothing; to fear."

The Saturday Review of 11 September 1897:[6]

"England and Germany

Prince Bismarck has long recognised what at length the people of England are beginning to understand - that in Europe there are two great, irreconcilable, opposing forces, two greet nations who would make the whole world their province, and who would levy from it the tribute of commerce. England, with her long history of successful aggression, with her marvellous conviction that in pursuing her own interests she is spreading light among nations dwelling in darkness, and Germany, bone of the same bone, blood of the same blood, with a lesser will-force, but, perhaps, with a keener intelligence, compete in every, corner of the globe. In the Transvaal, at the Cape, in Central Africa, in India and the East, in the islands of the Southern sea, and in the fair North-West, wherever - and where has it not ? - the flag has followed the Bible and trade has followed the flag, there the German bagman is struggling with the English pedlar. Is there a mine, to exploit, a railway to build, a native to convert from breadfruit to tinned meat, from temperance to trade gin, the German and the Englishman are struggling to be first. A million petty disputes build up the greatest cause of war the world has ever seen. If Germany were extinguished to-morrow, the day after to-morrow there is not an Englishman in the world who would not be the richer. Nations have fought for years over a city or a right of succession; must they not fight for two hundred million pounds of commerce?

[...] Our work over, we need not even be at the pains to alter Bismarck's words to Ferry, and to saw to France and Russia 'Seek some compensation. Take inside Germany whatever you like: you can have it.' [...] 'Germania esse delendam.' [Germany must be destroyed[7]]"

Secret speech of Winston S. Churchill in March 1936 in the Lower House:[8]

"For four hundred years the foreign policy of England has been to oppose the strongest, most aggressive, most dominating Power on the Continent [...]. Faced by Philip II of Spain, against Louis XIV under William III and Marlborough, against Napoleon, against William II of Germany, it would have been easy and must have been very tempting to join with the stronger and share the fruits of his conquest. However, we always took the harder course, joined with the less strong Powers, made a combination among them, and thus defeated and frustrated the Continental military tyrant whoever he was, whatever nation he led. Thus we preserved the liberties of Europe [...].

Observe that the policy of England takes no account of which nation it is that seeks the overlordship of Europe. The question is not whether it is Spain, or the French Monarchy, or the French Empire, or the German Empire, or the Hitler régime. It has nothing to do with rulers or nations; it is concerned solely with whoever is the strongest or the potentially dominating tyrant. Therefore, we should not be afraid of being accused of being pro-French or anti-German. If the circumstances were reversed, we could equally be pro-German and anti-French. It is a law of public policy which we are following, and not a mere expedient dictated by accidental circumstances, or likes and dislikes, or any other sentiment.

The question, therefore, arises which is today the Power in Europe which is the strongest, and which seeks in a dangerous and oppressive sense to dominate. Today, for this year, probably for part of 1937, the French Army is the strongest in Europe. But no one is afraid of France. Everyone knows that France wants to be let alone, and that with her it is only a case of self-preservation. Everyone knows that the French are peaceful and overhung by fear. [...]

Germany, on the other hand, fears no one. She is arming in a manner which has never been seen in German history. She is led by a handful of triumphant desperadoes. The money is running short, discontents are arising beneath these despotic rulers. Very soon they will have to choose, on the one hand, between economic and financial collapse or internal upheaval, and on the other, a war which could have no other object, and which, if successful, can have no other result, than a Germanised Europe under Nazi control. Therefore, it seems to me that all the old conditions present themselves again, and that our national salvation depends upon our gathering once again all the forces of Europe to contain, to restrain, and if necessary to frustrate, German domination. For, believe me, if any of those other Powers, Spain, Louis XIV, Napoleon, Kaiser Wilhelm II, had with our aid become the absolute masters of Europe, they could have despoiled us, reduced us to insignificance and penury on the morrow of their victory."

Report of Carl J. Burkhardt of a conversation on 15 August 1938 with the Polish foreign minister Beck:[9]

"The Poles are waiting in apparent calm. Beck, during our nocturnal journey, made me privy to his plans to some extent. Furthermore, he is playing his double-game. It is no German game, as many French and the Polish opposition believe. It is a game in which the greatest profit is hoped for Poland, a profit which is supposed to come out of a final and unavoidable German catastrophe. For this reason, the Germans are being encouraged in their wrong actions, and in Danzig they are enjoying letting the extremists triumph while at the same time they repeatedly stress adherence to the outer form of the treaties. One day there will be a reckoning, interest and compound interest will be demanded. Already now, by collaborating in this way with the National Socialists, they have succeeded in creating a solidarity of aversion toward any revision of the treaties in the whole West, in France, England and America. [...] That was entirely different in 1932. At that time Western opinion in the great democracies for the most part supported the German minorities. People got excited over badly drawn borders, over isolated provinces. Thanks to the excessive methods of Nazism, all of that has ended, and now in Warsaw they are hoping not only for the unconditional integration of Danzig into the Polish state territory, but for much more, for all of East Prussia, for Silesia, even for Pomerania. In the year 1933 they still spoke in Warsaw of Polish Pomerania, but now they say 'our Pomerania.' Beck makes a purely Polish policy, ultimately an anti-German policy, a policy of only a seeming Polish-German détente, since the occupation of the Rhineland and the French passivity at the occasion of this event. But they are making efforts to encourage the Germans quite methodically in their errors."

Note of Eduard Benesch of August 23/24, 1939, in London:[10]

"It was a properly tough tactic, to drive Hitler to war."

Report of Friedrich Grimm concerning a visit in May 1945:[11]

"In May 1945, a few days after the collapse, I had a memorable discussion with an important representative of the opposing side. He introduced himself to me as a university professor of his nation who wished to talk with me about the historical foundations of the war. It was a conversation on an elevated level that we were having. Suddenly, he broke off and pointed to the leaflets which were lying on the table in front of me, with which we were flooded in the first days after the surrender and which were mainly concerned with the concentration camp atrocities. 'What do you say to that?' he asked me. I replied: 'Oradour and Buchenwald? You're beating a dead horse with me. I am an attorney and condemn injustice wherever I meet it, but most of all when it occurs on our side. Nonetheless, I know how to make a distinction between facts and the political usage made of them. I know what atrocity propaganda is. After the First World War, I read all publications of your experts concerning these questions, the writings of the Northcliff bureau, the book 'From War to Peace' of the French finance minister Klotz, in which he describes how the fairy tales about the hacked-off children's hands were invented, and what use was made of them, the enlightening writings of the magazine Crapouillot, which compares the atrocity propaganda of 1870 with that of 1914/1918, and finally the classic book by Ponsonby: 'Falsehood in Wartime.' In it, it is revealed that in the previous war they already had magazines in which artificial mountains of corpses were arranged by means of a photo montage with dolls. These pictures were distributed. In doing so, the captions were left blank. They were later inserted telephonically by propaganda headquarters according to need.' My visitor exploded: 'I see I've come across an expert. Now I also want to say who I am. I am no university professor. I am from the headquarters of which you have spoken. For months I have been conducting what you have correctly described: atrocity propaganda - and with it we have won the total victory.' I replied: 'I know and now you must stop!' He responded: 'No, now we are just properly beginning! We will continue this atrocity propaganda, we will increase it until no one will have a good word to say about the Germans any longer, until any of the sympathy you have had in other countries will have been destroyed, and until the Germans themselves will have fallen into such confusion that they no longer know what they are doing!' I ended the conversation: 'Then you will be taking a great responsibility upon yourself!'"

The British magazine Sunday Correspondent on September 17, 1989, for the fiftieth anniversary of the start of the Second World War and of the reunification marking it:[12]

"We must now be honest about the German question, as uncomfortable as it may be for the Germans, for our international partners and even ourselves [...] The question remains, in essence, the same. Not how do we prevent German tanks from rolling over the Oder or the Marne, but how Europe will deal with a people whose number, talent, and efficiency is allowing it to become our regional super-power. We did not enter the war in 1939 in order to save Germany from Hitler or the Jews from Auschwitz or the Continent from Fascism. As in 1914, we entered the war for the no less noble reason that we were not able to accept a German predominance in Europe."

Lech Walesa in an interview with the Dutch newspaper Elsevier of April 7, 1990:[13]

"I do not shrink even from making a declaration which makes me unpopular in Germany. If the Germans destabilize Europe anew in one way or another, one should no longer resort to a division, but rather simply eradicate the nation from the map. The East and the West possess the necessary advanced technologies to carry out this sentence."

Henry Kissinger in the Welt am Sonntag of November 13, 1994:

"President Clinton's idea of the USA and Germany as Partners in Leadership was not exactly very wise [...] Actually, this notion drives everyone to the barricades, for in the final analysis two world wars were waged in order to prevent just that, a dominant role of Germany."

The citations imply that all the wars, revolutions, persecutions and expulsions of the 20th century were matter-of-factly initiated by rationally planning nations or were tolerated, for the sake of power and money. In view of the apocalyptic terror and horror resulting from these undertakings, a clear analysis appears more practical than moral accusations.

For the British upper class - and their international partners - war is an entirely normal activity. The British pragmatically ask: How did our forebears hold it? What was their advantage? Did they not, for four hundred years, wage war against their main rival or the strongest continental power? One weighs, like a merchant: is it advantageous to wage war against France, can Austria hurt us? What will war against Germany bring us? 250 million pounds = 5 million marks per year? The security of our predominance? Must we fight against the USA later?

The thought of whether a war is morally defensible does not even occur! For it is, in any case, "tough" to drive someone to war. For war becomes a game, a double-game. For one places snares by quite methodically encouraging the opponent in his errors. In this 'game,' the 'greatest profit' entices. "Take inside Germany whatever you like": that's how one buys allies; for oneself, one takes money. Is it not better that the other, the enemy, totally disappears? Does he not destabilize the situation, imperil the loot, if he has recovered? Is it not better to exterminate the Germans at once? Is it not smarter to eradicate Germany from the map? Germania esse delendam! One has the advanced technologies - by which the neutron bomb is probably meant: the Germans would be dead and the loot intact.

For there is no honorable peace permitted. For the atrocity propaganda is to be continued and increased until no one will any longer have a good word to say about the enemy. The enemy becomes Evil in himself. The objection of Friedrich Grimm, which generally applies to such actions: "Then they will take a great responsibility upon themselves" - fails here. Responsibility toward the enemy does not exist and guilt not at all. Guilt, in this system, is merely a question of power. God isn't needed here, there is no God permitted! "Thou shalt not kill" devolved into meaningless chatter. Man puts himself in God's place.

The sponsors embracing such ideas are: a high British politician, Navy Minister of the First World War and Prime Minister of the Second World War; a former Czech state President; a Polish foreign minister of the year 1938; a Polish President of 1990; and a former American Secretary of State.

The continuity with which these ideas are pursued from 1895 to 1994 is alarming, and the matter-of-fact attitude with which not only the ideas, but also their acceptance, are still presumed in 1989 by a probably broad public of a British weekly paper. Baffled, with Kissinger, that here it is no longer preventing a German predominance, which is discussed, since even the thought of a Germany as partner of the USA is pronounced dangerous.

...

http://vho.org/tr/2003/4/Werner373-385.html

The Anglophiles should read this.

I love the British. I hate their form of government. Liberalism destroyed the British Empire. Winston Churchill pushed it off the cliff with Lend-Lease.

I love the British. I hate their form of government.

Are you saying that the British bear no responsibility for their form of government?

Its a nice article, but does it need to be a sticky?
Do Germans bear no responsability for their form of Government? What a question. A healthy racially concious man will find no representation in our current Jewish puppet Governments, be them Brit or German. In exceptional situations nations are able to throw off the jewish joke set upon them and in other not and most likely keep working as a Jewish puppet. I have no doubt that would tomorow, say, Switzerland become a Racialist nation that Germany would be amongst the first to destroy her. I do not hold the Brits genetically programed to be less able to produce a man of the statue of Hitler than the Germans, its just that they have been under a stronger Jewish hold for a longer period of time since it has been for a longer era a cohesive nation.

Do Germans bear no responsability for their form of Government? What a question.

Yes, what a question. The British have not been destroyed by the jewish-Anglo/American conspiracy, were not ruthlessly dismembered and occupied after WW II and did not have their political system and laws imposed on them by the same subterranean powers.

Its a nice article, but does it need to be a sticky?

Does pointing out historical, long-standing English perfidy and crimes offend your confused "pan-European National Socialist" Mickey Mouse "ideology"?

(Don't you have the ever burning question of the status of Gibraltar to worry about somewhere?)

Do Germans bear no responsability for their form of Government? What a question.

Yes, what a question. The British have not been destroyed by the jewish-Anglo/American conspiracy, were not ruthlessly dismembered and occupied after WW II and did not have their political system and laws imposed by the same subterranean powers.

I do not believe for one second that the rank and file Brit is an inch worse than the average German. Britain acted as a tool of International Jewry which had a Iron hold on her decisions already for quite some time. The destruction of Germany was the result of the Jew throwing one white nation against the other for its goals.
Do you think the British citizen is genetically programed to be more evil than the German? Blame the Jew and its installed puppet regimes and their brainwashing rather than the "people".

Does pointing out historical, long-standing English perfidy and crimes offend your confused "pan-European National Socialist" Mickey Mouse "ideology"?

(Don't you have the ever burning question of the status of Gibraltar to worry about somewhere?)

I asked you a very simple question FB without resorting to childish antics and petty insults totally unbecomming for someone who holds the position of "Super Moderator". Care to answer the simple question?

Ad hominem attacks should be avoided such as the one above as it degrades the poster, and his forum position, rather than the object of the rant. If you do have a personal problem please take it to the Mod forum for further clarification. I would like to remaind him also that we have no "Hell" forum anymore for such slurs and personal attacks. I invite you to delete now your slurs and my answer regarding that and focus to the valid question made.

I do not believe for one second that the rank and file Brit is an inch worse than the average German.

I do, and I have consistently.

Britain acted as a tool of International Jewry which had a Iron hold on her decisions already for quite some time.

Yes, because Britain and Holland were the two European nations stupid enough to welcome the Jews in with open arms.


The destruction of Germany was the result of the Jew throwing one white nation against the other for its goals.


Britain was thrown against Germany, not vice versa. That's obvious to any even remotely objective amateur researcher.

Do you think the British citizen is genetically programed to be more evil than the German?

I don't know, but there has always been something 'off' about the English, the same way there was always something 'off' about the Dutch and the Americans. All 3 are historically philo-Semitic and have been subject to periodic waves of Protestant dementia and Puritanical fervor. All 3 also gained their empires largely thanks to the Jew. 2 of those 3 empires have entirely vanished and the 3rd appears to be moribund.

IMHO I think we are confusing The British Goverment with its subjects. While you are correct that Jews went into those nations, its was their Goverments who welcomed them, not their populance. In this sense I do not blame the rank and file Brit for being a servant to the Jews who have corrupted, inflitrated and degraded the Britsh ruling classes.

Britain was thrown against Germany, not vice versa. That's obvious to any even remotely objective amateur researcher.

True, my bad, you are indeed correct. That still does not make the average Brit more evil, just more enslaved. Nowadays all of our nations are and as I said, would, by some turn of the providence, a people free itself from their grip and become a healthy Jew free white nation, then I have no doubt that the Jewish controlled Germany would be amongst the most willing invasors of these people...just like the Brits before them.
Germany is very degreaded nowadays and millions are ready to be put against a fireing squad..but I would not think for a moment that they are truly "guilty" of their degradation and being pawns of the Jew. It would only make me more determined to exterminate the origin of all this evil, and that is the Jew, not their host people.

Wherever there is a thread speaking for Germany, you will Find Ebus standing firm and fighting vigerously.......on the other side!

:: Are you saying that the British bear no responsibility for their form of government?

Pretty much. I don't buy into the democratic notion that the masses are autonomous, rationally-calculating individuals who think for themselves. Original thought is actually quite rare. The responsibility lies with the British leadership. I don't hate the masses for being the masses, in other words.

Wherever there is a thread speaking for Germany, you will Find Ebus standing firm and fighting vigerously.......on the other side!

Please forgive that I do not see the British populance as an evil horde bound to destroy Germany. You are all doing us an ill favor by not pointing out the real culprits of our situation and keep playing your Napoleonic table games. By now we all here should know better. Aparently not so.

Compare Germans under National Socialism to Germans living in the Federal Republic. The masses are more or less the same. The leadership changed. Observe the difference. Its the leadership that moulds the masses, not the other way around. So it makes no sense to hate people simply because they have poor leaders.

Compare Germans under National Socialism to Germans living in the Federal Republic. The masses are more or less the same. The leadership changed. Observe the difference. Its the leadership that moulds the masses, not the other way around. So it makes no sense to hate people simply because they have poor leaders.

If the "mass" under Hitler were the same as of the "federal Republic", he wouldn't even received 2% of the votes. Back then even socialists and Communists were more "right wing" than todays "conservatives". There is even a communist song "roter Wedding", which has the refraint "So that Germany belongs to the Germans again!". Try saying that today in public, and they would stone you to death and then throw your battered body into prison.
Anyone that would have dared to go on the street with a poster "Germany Perish!" wouldn't have gotten two steps out of the front door alive.

The attitude of the English has been the same towards us for over 100 years. Today we are a "democratic" Country, still occupied by their army, and contrary to the niceties the corrupted politicians tell each other and international meetings, the "masses" of the brits (and Yanks) considers us as the same bloodthirsty, goose-stepping Huns, as 80 years ago.

It's "in" to bash the "Krauts". Everyone can take part. Anyone is free to slander and insult us. It has the blessing of all establishments. And no one has to fear any "hate legistlation" like if you would say the "N" or "J" Word.

This sugarcoated talk of indifferent "masses" does not hold up to reality. The "funny" thing is, that the the so called "muds" and "ragheads" in India and the Arab World are probably the only ones that have friendly views towards us and are able to show respect. Our so called "white brethren" would exterminate us if they would consider us a threat again. The leaders in german-hating are Jews and Anglos. Thats why it realy isn't surprising that they have always formed a firm alliance against us.
Pro German, or "fair and indifferent" Anglos are the very very rare exceptions to the rule.

:: This sugarcoated talk of indifferent "masses" does not hold up to reality.

How so? The boundries of acceptable discourse are set by elites. The so-called opinions of the masses are nothing but an artifact of those who control the discursive means of production. The masses do nothing but regurgitate the views of their leaders. They do not think for themselves.

:: The "funny" thing is, that the the so called "muds" and "ragheads" in India and the Arab World are probably the only ones that have friendly views towards us and are able to show respect.

Yet the mass media in the Arab World and India (China too) is controlled by patriotic local elites as opposed to Jews and powerful capitalists. They have been able to maintain their collective independence because they exclude aliens from gaining control over the circulatory system of their culture, the media. Well. There has actually been some breakdown in this system. The radical Islamists are always complaining about how Western values are corrupting their youth.

This talk about how the "masses" and "populations" are really just interchangeable blobs goes too far and is ahistoric. There is something called the “national character” of a people forged and formed by climate, environment, and common historical experiences. A racially homogeneous nation (as all European nations were until the ‘50s) is very much like an extended family and families share common characteristics and personality traits. Moreover, races have what Jung christened a “collective unconsciousness” lodged in their innermost souls, the fruit of their shared experiences and blood. The Brits, Germans, Hungarians, Japanese, Zulus, etc., etc., etc., have characteristics proper to them, just like families do.

I love the British. I hate their form of government. Liberalism destroyed the British Empire. Winston Churchill pushed it off the cliff with Lend-Lease.

The British Empire was an abomination from the beginning; it never should have come into existence and was of course thoroughly saturated with Jews. Your Anglophilia endemic to Southerners is showing through; I'm still wondering why you think it would have been better for America to remain under the British crown during the Revolution. Many Southerners felt the same way, though; it was a hornet's nest of Tory sentiment.

I dislike the British AND their form of government. A lot of pretentious Anglo-Saxon crap about "God, King and Law" when in actuality it was always profit over principle. Are you one of those people who admires Cecil Rhodes?

:: This talk about how the "masses" and "populations" are really just interchangeable blobs goes too far and is ahistoric.

I disagree. There is actually a good amount of literature on this issue. What is truly ahistoric is projecting essentialist national identities back into the Early Middle Ages and Antiquity.

:: There is something called the “national character” of a people forged and formed by climate, environment, and historical experiences.

Yet these "national characters" of yours did not even exist several centuries ago and only recently became political relevant. A good example of this is French. For centuries, the French upper classes denied they were descended from the Gauls. A similar situation existed in Poland where the upper classes denied they were Slavs.

:: A racially homogeneous nation (as all European nations were until the ‘50s) is very much like an extended family and families share common characteristics and personality traits.

Then compare Germans under National Socialism to Germans living today in the Federal Republic. While Germans are more or less biologically the same people, they have been utterly transformed.

:: Moreover, races have what Jung christened a “collective unconsciousness” lodged in their innermost souls, the fruit of their shared experiences and shared blood.

Jung was also exposed as a fraud.

:: The Brits, Germans, Hungarians, Japanese, Zulus, etc., etc., etc., have characteristics proper to them, just like families do.

Which are artifacts of the traditions of elites.

:: The British Empire was an abomination from the beginning

The British Empire was the greatest political accomplishment in European history. No other people have ever come close to matching it in sheer magnitude and historical legacy. The Roman Empire was at best a regional bully. Even Hitler could not help but admire the astute political sense of the English, which is why he pressed so hard for an alliance with the British.

:: it never should have come into existence and was of course thoroughly saturated with Jews.

Why? Did the British infringe upon the rights of the poor indian savages and aboriginies? The British Empire was no more saturated with Jews than the German Empire under Bismarck.

:: Your Anglophilia endemic to Southerners is showing through

I am an Anglo. What else would I be? :|

:: I'm still wondering why you think it would have been better for America to remain under the British crown during the Revolution.

Because rule from London is infinitely preferable to rule from Washington, D.C., Hollywood, and New York City.

:: Many Southerners felt the same way, though; it was a hornet's nest of Tory sentiment.

To be honest, the American Revolution was never really our fight, as the principal threat to our culture has never come from overseas. Many wise men warned of the mistake that was being made at the time.

:: I dislike the British AND their form of government.

Green with envy, Stribog? :p

:: A lot of pretentious Anglo-Saxon crap about "God, King and Law" when in actuality it was always profit over principle.

I think you are confusing England with Massachusetts.

:: Are you one of those people who admires Cecil Rhodes?

He wasn't so bad. :)

I disagree. There is actually a good amount of literature on this issue. What is truly ahistoric is projecting essentialist national identities back into the Early Middle Ages and Antiquity.

The literature you mention is probably of the same sort that argues that race is nothing but a social construct; and I wasn’t talking about “essentialist national identities” (see below).

Yet these "national characters" of yours did not even exist several centuries ago and only recently became political relevant. A good example of this is French. For centuries, the French upper classes denied they were descended from the Gauls. A similar situation existed in Poland where the upper classes denied they were Slavs.

An Ethnie is an objective classification for human groups who share many features.

Some of the more important ones are:

a) Common ancestry of at least some of the group = kinship;

b) Linguistic affinities;

c) Commom historical, cultural and/or mythological/religious heritage/identity;

d ) Close relationship between their sociological structures and material cultures;

Etc., etc., etc.

So even if people don’t see these relationships, they are still real and something else than just political arrangements.

Ethnies are historically grown units who share as a group specific characteristics.

The said groups don’t have to be related to political systems even if this is possible.

If you look at the points I made, and accept them as at least a partly correct definition of "ethnies" than Celts, Germanics and Slavs were and are ethnies and I’m puzzled to find you among people who want to destroy the whole idea of ethnies and kinship for political reasons.

And then you’ve got the genetic evidence, isn’t it remarkable that Germanics, Celts, and Slavs (to take just these three major European groups) are closer to each other than to their neighbours? Germanics share similar Y-chromosome and mtDNA markers (with an overlap between Western Slavs and East Germans, but that’s to be expected after a 1000 years of living side by side)?

More later...

The British Empire was the greatest political accomplishment in European history. No other people have ever come close to matching it in sheer magnitude and historical legacy.

I care not for 'political accomplishment' as it's a completely vague and useless term. The British Empire did not produce the high culture at any point in its existence that rivalled either Italy or Germany. Where is Britain's answer to Bach, Beethoven, Mozart and Wagner? Vivaldi, Rossini, Paganini and Verdi? Russians, too, constantly ridiculed as backwards by the 'enlightened English,' produced infinitely more literature and music of lasting substance than any English 'gentleman' ever did.

Even Hitler could not help but admire the astute political sense of the English, which is why he pressed so hard for an alliance with the British.

Hitler was afflicted with the same unfortunate malady that had plagued the Kaiser 25 years before: he trusted the English, believed they were honorable people and decent Germanics who would come to their senses and accept the hand of friendship which Germany repeatedly extended. What neither of them realized was that Britain, in addition to being entirely culturally Semitized by that time, was in fact not even predominantly Germanic genetically.


Why? Did the British infringe upon the rights of the poor indian savages and aboriginies?

No, of course the 'civilized' English treated everyone with their characteristic decorum. :rolleyes: This would include such honorable practices as introducing the concentration camp to the world to detain Dutch women, children and elderly during the Boer War so that the Jew... er. 'British' Empire could loot the diamonds without disruption, siding with the Turks against Russia consistently during the latter half of the 19th century, the 100 years' war against France, the excursions into Ireland, Scotland and Wales, and of course the moral hypocrisy to posture over Belgium as a pretense for war with Germany. There is also the issue of the slave trade, which perhaps does not concern you, but does demonstrate a Semitic worldview which the British historically possessed and which lends itself to the treatment of other humans as property. Regardless of racial differences, slavery is an appalling practice and one that is alien to true Northern Europeans. Of course there is also the irony that British slavery is what brought you the diversity you experience every day in Alabama.


Because rule from London is infinitely preferable to rule from Washington, D.C., Hollywood, and New York City.

LOL, yeah, Rothschild, Disraeli, Warburg, Moses, Baum, Samuels, Oppenheimer, Barnato, Jack Straw and Ashley Montagu, to name a few, are infinitely preferable to the Weinsteins, Goldman-Sachs, Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer. There's really a world of difference there, rofl.

:: I dislike the British AND their form of government.

Green with envy, Stribog? :p


Yes, I envy and resent the British for their dishonorable usurpation of power and money in the same way that I envy and resent the Jews for the same thing.

:: A lot of pretentious Anglo-Saxon crap about "God, King and Law" when in actuality it was always profit over principle.

I think you are confusing England with Massachusetts.

Refresh my memory, please. Who founded and settled Massachusetts? Do you see much difference between Oliver Cromwell and Jonathan Edwards?

:: Are you one of those people who admires Cecil Rhodes?

He wasn't so bad. :)

Is that a fact... perhaps some Boers would disagree with you there.

:: I care not for 'political accomplishment' as it's a completely vague and useless term.

That would be what we political scientists call the extension of political power over geographic space. And the colonisation of North America, New Zealand, and Australia are hardly something I would describe as 'useless', from the standpoint of Western Civilisation.

:: The British Empire did not produce the high culture at any point in its existence that rivalled either Italy or Germany.

This is very interesting. Please cite your sources. I always cite mine.

:: Where is Britain's answer to Bach, Beethoven, Mozart and Wagner? Vivaldi, Rossini, Paganini and Verdi?

Mozart was a German? I did not know this. I also fail to see the correlation, so obvious to yourself, between the music of Beethoven and Bach and pathetic national chauvinists who have never accomplished anything in the field of music.

:: Russians, too, constantly ridiculed as backwards by the 'enlightened English

Well. In terms of overall accomplishments in the arts and sciences, according to Charles Murray, every nation on Earth is 'backwards' when compared to the English.

:: produced infinitely more literature and music of lasting substance than any English 'gentleman' ever did.

Well then. Who knows? With that kind of genius, maybe one day so many Russians will not live in poverty. ;-)

:: Hitler was afflicted with the same unfortunate malady that had plagued the Kaiser 25 years before: he trusted the English, believed they were honorable people and decent Germanics who would come to their senses and accept the hand of friendship which Germany repeatedly extended.

The Kaiser (whom I do not defend) was a moron and a belligerent snob who wrecked his nation by starting a useless arms race with the British. The British did not start the Great War. And the British DID NOT force the Kaiser to invade Belgium either and dishonour his nation by violating the rights of neutrals under international law. That conflict was entirely his baby.

:: What neither of them realized was that Britain, in addition to being entirely culturally Semitized by that time. . .

That's a pretty bold accusation you have there. Let us see your evidence, for it certainly does not correlate with any evidence I have seen.

:: in fact not even predominantly Germanic genetically

There is no such thing as being genetically 'Germanic', Stribog. Show me the gene that distinguishes Germanics from non-Germanics. Oh wait, you can't, because it does not exist outside of being a figment of your own imagination.

:: but consisted of a lamentably thin veneer of Teutonic blood over the indigenous substratum of relatively uncivilized Bruenns and Atlantids.

There is no such thing as 'Teutonic blood' in the first place, Stribog, but by all means persist in your delusions. No reputable historian anywhere accepts your tripe about 'uncivilized Bruenns and Atlantids' (as if LIVING in CITIES has anything to do with pedantic, outdated, anthropological categories).

:: The Pict painting himself blue and running around naked cutting off the heads of his rivals bears very little resemblance to the Teutons described by Tacitus.

LMAO you want to compare Celtic Europe to Germanic Europe during Antiquity? Have you been drinking, Stribog?

:: The vast majority of the population remains nothing more than a race of island apes in a backwards corner of Europe.

ROFLMAO do tell us. By all means, by what standard is Britain a 'backwards corner of Europe' in comparison to Russia?

:: No, of course the 'civilized' English treated everyone with their characteristic decorum.

Where is your buddy Ross, Stribog?

:: This would include such honorable practices as introducing the concentration camp to the world to detain Dutch women, children and elderly during the Boer War so that the Jew... er.

So let me get this straight: you have a problem, in principle, with concentration camps? Who gave the world the Gulag, Stribog? How about Auschwitz?

:: 'British' Empire could loot the diamonds without disruption, siding with the Turks against Russia consistently during the latter half of the 19th century

Who sided with the Japanese against the Australians?

:: the 100 years' war against France

Not a word about the Norman Conquest.

:: the excursions into Ireland, Scotland and Wales

Czechoslovakia, Austria, Poland

:: and of course the moral hypocrisy to posture over Belgium as a pretense for war with Germany.

LOL the British never forced that fanatic to declare war on Russia and France and invade Belgium.

:: There is also the issue of the slave trade, which perhaps does not concern you, but does demonstrate a Semitic worldview which the British historically possessed and which lends itself to the treatment of other humans as property.

Umm. I really hate to break it to you but slavery existed in Northern Europe long before Jews ever came there.

:: Regardless of racial differences, slavery is an appalling practice and one that is alien to true Northern Europeans.

Which is why Germanic war chieftans bartered their own people like cattle to the Romans for centuries, as they were later to do with the Wends who were ruthlessly crushed. The Russians and the Vikings were in the THICK of the slave trade for centuries. The Vikings were actually quite infamous for all the blonde woman they sold to the Arabs along the rivers of Eastern Europe in exchange for silver, hordes of which can still be found today in Scandinavia.

:: Of course there is also the irony that British slavery is what brought you the diversity you experience every day in Alabama.

Yet the British were at the forefront of the worldwide effort to abolish slavery. Negro slaves that were imported into the U.K. were also DEPORTED to Sierra Leone. It was the Yankees that forced integration and Negro equality upon us, not the British.

:: LOL, yeah, Rothschild, Disraeli, Warburg, Moses, Baum, Samuels, Oppenheimer, Barnato, Jack Straw and Ashley Montagu, to name a few, are infinitely preferable to the Weinsteins, Goldman-Sachs, Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer. There's really a world of difference there, rofl.

LOL there were far more Jews in Germany, Russia, and Poland than there ever were in the U.K. prior to the outbreak of World War 2.

:: Yes, I envy and resent the British for their dishonorable usurpation of power and money in the same way that I envy and resent the Jews for the same thing.

You seem to have a warped sense of history and honour.

:: Refresh my memory, please. Who founded and settled Massachusetts?

Religious fanatics exiled from England who tried to overthrow the government.

:: Do you see much difference between Oliver Cromwell and Jonathan Edwards?

Yes. Actually, I do. But I don't see much of a difference between Edwards and Schroeder.

:: Is that a fact... perhaps some Boers would disagree with you there.

And I am sure the Balts enjoyed the Communism imposed upon them by the Russians too.

I have never defended Communism, Marxism, Leninism or Stalinism as ideologies in themselves. I have defended ethnic Russians' (who happened to be living under Communism at the time) right to defend their families and their own lives. At the time I believed the German invasion of the USSR was unprovoked aggression. At this point I don't trust the propaganda from either side so I suppose I will never know.

Show me the gene that distinguishes Germanics from non-Germanics. Oh wait, you can't, because it does not exist outside of being a figment of your own imagination.

Here are some figures I dug up today...

German mtDNA markers
A 0
B 0
C .19
D .38
H 48.96
I 2.28
J 9.3
K 6.64
T 9.11
U 13.03
V 5.12
W 2.09
X .76
Z 0
Other 1.14

A, B, C, D and Z are Mongoloid. I know that the "Other" category includes some sub-Saharan lineages. Not sure how many though because I have't seen the raw data.

These results are almost idenical to those from Scandinavia.

German Y-chromosome markers

HG1 40%
HG2 20%
HG3 30%
HG9 3%
HG16 3%
HG26 3%

Now, another study said that Germans only had 6% of HG3 (Slavic marker).

This paragraph may interest you...

"Genetic difference between
Germans and Poles have been reported previously, based
on a 1-bp deletion at the Y-chromosomal marker M17
(haplotype Eu19; Semino et al. 2000), which has a high
frequency in Poles (56%) but a much lower frequency in
Germans (6%). However, other studies, using the Y-SNP
marker SRY-1532b (synonym SRY 10831b, haplogroup 3),
which characterises basically the same Y chromosome
lineage (Tyler-Smith 1999; Wheale et al. 2001; The Y Chro-mosome Consortium 2002), have found a much higher
frequency of ~30% in larger samples from Germany (M. Kayser, unpublished data; Rosser et al. 2000; Zerjal et al. 1999)..."

In terms of Tat-C (HG16), it seems it's very rare in Germany. Someone actually told me that it was sampled during a DNA test in Westphalia. Not sure why that would be, perhaps due to the migration of Baltic Germans to the west? But even here it was very rare (1-2% or something like that).

:: I have never defended Communism, Marxism, Leninism or Stalinism as ideologies in themselves.

And I do not foment hate against the Russian people because of Jewish Bolsheviks and people like Ross.

:: I have defended ethnic Russians' (who happened to be living under Communism at the time) right to defend their families and their own lives.

That's reasonable.

:: At the time I believed the German invasion of the USSR was unprovoked aggression.

It seems to me that Britain and France were responsible for bringing on the war in the first place with the unreasonable guarantee of Poland by Chamberlain. But I can't say the Soviet Union was responsible for the German attack. Don't get me wrong. I would love to have seen Bolshevism destroyed. Perhaps the only positive thing Churchill ever did was his determination to erradicate the menace when it first took root. But I am not convinced the attack upon the Soviet Union was motivated by such a motive. The debacle in the Ukraine is a good example.

:: At this point I don't trust the propaganda from either side so I suppose I will never know.

The war in the East was a real mess. I won't apologise for some of the stuff that went on there.

Braun,

Cite your sources. :)

P.S. I will get back to this thread later. The Cerb has replied.

And the colonisation of North America, New Zealand, and Australia are hardly something I would describe as 'useless', from the standpoint of Western Civilisation.

What have Australia and New Zealand contributed to European civilization?

:: The British Empire did not produce the high culture at any point in its existence that rivalled either Italy or Germany.

This is very interesting. Please cite your sources. I always cite mine.

Fine, name me any British composers that are regarded as the equal of Beethoven and Bach.

Mozart was a German? I did not know this.

So you buy into the idea that 'Austrian' is an ethnicity? :p

Well. In terms of overall accomplishments in the arts and sciences, according to Charles Murray, every nation on Earth is 'backwards' when compared to the English.

Indeed? And what are your and Mr. Murray's qualifications for these assessments? I don't consider dry, predictable Austen and Bronte novels to be the zenith of high culture. Dickens is entertaining but hardly profound.
The bulk of English philosophy is devoted to politics and human ethics, which I'm sure pleases you greatly, yet it tends to neglect epistemological and ontological issues which were best addressed by the Greeks and Germans.

Well then. Who knows? With that kind of genius, maybe one day so many Russians will not live in poverty. ;-)

It's probably a safe assumption that Russia will still exist long after England has voluntarily miscegenated itself out of existence and London is New Karachi or New Lagos.

The Kaiser (whom I do not defend) was a moron and a belligerent snob who wrecked his nation by starting a useless arms race with the British.

Yes, he was inbred, insecure and overly aggressive. However, his attempts to enter the colonialist game were what caused the British to conclude that Germany must be weakened, not a 'useless arms race.'

And the British DID NOT force the Kaiser to invade Belgium either

No, France and topography did.


and dishonour his nation by violating the rights of neutrals under international law.

"Violating the rights of neutrals under international law" was a clause that was only enforced when it is of use to Britain. Again, I refer to the Boer War.

That's a pretty bold accusation you have there. Let us see your evidence, for it certainly does not correlate with any evidence I have seen.

I'm sorry, what was Disraeli's ethnicity?


There is no such thing as being genetically 'Germanic', Stribog. Show me the gene that distinguishes Germanics from non-Germanics. Oh wait, you can't, because it does not exist outside of being a figment of your own imagination.

Don't condescend, please. There are no single genes that distinguish Negroes from Europeans, either. Everything in human genetics is a continuum determined by promoters, enhancers, and extended sets of genes.

Have you been drinking, Stribog?

Are you one to cast stones? :p

ROFLMAO do tell us. By all means, by what standard is Britain a 'backwards corner of Europe' in comparison to Russia?

I never said it was when compared to Russia. I am comparing it primarily to southern and central Germany, Austria, and northern Italy.

Where is your buddy Ross, Stribog?

Ross is not my 'buddy.'

So let me get this straight: you have a problem, in principle, with concentration camps?

I have a problem with putting Northern Europeans in concentration camps in order to loot their property, yes.

Who gave the world the Gulag, Stribog?

The Jew.

How about Auschwitz?

Since when do you or anyone else here shed crocodile tears over Auschwitz?

Since when do you or anyone else here shed crocodile tears over Auschwitz?
I think he was hinting toward asking you a similar question (replace Auschwitz with concentration camps in general).

I think he was hinting toward asking you a similar question (replace Auschwitz with concentration camps in general).

My point was that it is comparing apples to oranges.

Fade,

There's no doubt that the Brits have been thoroughly Semitized culturally and socially and even racially, they've been cooperating with jewish powers and labouring on behalf of common interests for a long time, see this thread for an example of their historical closeness (in case you missed it):

http://www.thephora.org/forum/showthread.php?t=2978

I don't consider dry, predictable Austen and Bronte novels to be the zenith of high culture.

Surely, you are joking. Jane Austen is the greatest female novelist to have ever lived and certainly one of the greatest, period.

I will agree that neither Bronte is particularly exceptional.

Beethoven was 1/4-1/2 Flemish. His name is actually an archaic Dutch word for "beet field", Stan did not even notice that until I pointed it out to him.

Is the quality of a nation's composers the ultimate arbiter of that nation's overall talent, and level of sophistication? Probably not, one could even make some sort of case for it, I suppose, but for the time being I'm rejecting such an assertion on it's face. A view taking into account the intergrated achievements of a nation sounds like a more reliable measure.

I do not like Dickens, Bronte or Austen, but be that as it may, I wouldn't pretend they are the best British literature has to offer. No less a figure than T.S Eliot pronounced "Dante and Shakespeare divide the world between them, there is no third". The German romantics and Goethe also evinced a great respect for Shakespeare, lest you think Eliot had an Anglophonic bias. Voltaire had a rather strong affinity toward the English philosophic and political notions you choose to treat so cavalierly.

Oh, Disraeli you say?
Have you looked at the great contributions from some German Jews? Wonderful people like Marx, Freud and Herzl. Oh heck, there must be something intrinsically wrong with the Germans to permit such Jews to craft their systems? Do you know how prominent Jews were in the Berlin stock exchange even in the early 1800s? What is the ethnicity of the man often considered to be Germany's finest poet? Where did the Rothschilds get their start? Do you know who abolished slavery in the French colonies? It was Adolphe Cremieux (Jew). Did you know that two French examples of Yahweh's masterpieces (Isaac and Emile Pereire) created the modern system of credit and built the first French railroad? You know who Leon Blum is, I'd assume. Likewise Dreyfuss. Early Zionists Hess, Smolenskin and Pinsker were from Germany and Russia. Do Jews write and paint posing as Europeans? I have a "remembrance" for a famous French semi-yid's position in world literature. What about Kafka? Chagal?

Oh, but its the English who are so Jewified?






:rolleyes:

Fade,

There's no doubt that the Brits have been thoroughly Semitized culturally and socially and even racially, they've been cooperating with jewish powers and labouring on behalf of common interests for a long time, see this thread for an example of their historical closeness (in case you missed it):

http://www.thephora.org/forum/showthread.php?t=2978

Here is another statement by Revilo Oliver himself on the degree of infiltration of Jews into 'merry olde England.' Rule, Britannia, indeed.

Remember that even in the time of the great King Edward I, who tried to clean up England in 1290, any Sheeny who was not a notoriously criminal usurer could scurry around to the nearest church and persuade or pay a credulous or venal clergyman to sprinkle him with magic water, which instantly made him an Englishman and beyond the King's power. A large number of Jews did precisely that, accumulated large fortunes, and married their lavishly dowered daughters to the sons of necessitous or greedy members of the landed gentry and not infrequently even to sons of peers. This calculated pollution of English blood had gone so far by the first decades of this century that Hilaire Belloc was sure that none of the great territorial families was without a Jewish admixture that was evident in the features of their young men.

Puts a rather different perspective on 'British Israelitism,' doesn't it? :p

http://www.revilo-oliver.com/rpo/Lost_Ten_Tribes.html

No less a figure than T.S Eliot pronounced "Dante and Shakespeare divide the world between them, there is no third". The German romantics and Goethe also evinced a great respect for Shakespeare, lest you think Eliot had an Anglophonic bias.

Good for T.S. Eliot. The fact remains that Shakespeare frequently employed bawdyhouse humor and did not reflect a particularly profound view of the world. The best English language writers weren't even English, e.g. Swift and Shaw.


Voltaire had a rather strong affinity toward the English philosophic and political notions you choose to treat so cavalierly.

Yes, and a fine mess those Enlightenment notions of universal brotherhood and equality have created.

Have you looked at the great contributions from some German Jews? Wonderful people like Marx, Freud and Herzl. Oh heck, there must be something intrinsically wrong with the Germans to permit such Jews to craft their systems?

Marx and Freud were both driven out of Germany because their cultural pollution was abhorred. And where did they both go to live out their days in peace? Why, mighty London, where they were heartily received! :p

Do you know how prominent Jews were in the Berlin stock exchange even in the early 1800s?

Yes, and Germans eventually got wise to it, unlike the Anglos.


Early Zionists Hess, Smolenskin and Pinsker were from Germany and Russia.

LOL and why were they Zionists? Because they wanted a homeland to which they could flee from German and Russian persecution. :p

Oh, but its the English who are so Jewified?

More than any other Europeans, yes. ;) Who was the first European country to have a Jewish leader, after all?

Good for T.S. Eliot.



Yeah, what impact did some nobody like Eliot have on literature and criticism anyhow?


Ezra Pound on Eliot:

"He was the true Dantescan voice-not honoured enough, and deserving more than I ever gave him....Am I to write 'about' the poet Thomas Stearns Eliot? my friend 'the possum'? Let him rest in peace. I can only repeat, but with the urgency of fifty years ago: READ HIM" (Pound's capitalization).

Eliot was one of the main influences on the school of criticism known as "new criticism" (now it is many years old of course) which was alongside decontructionism (with which it even shares some parallels) probably on of the the most influential views on literature during the 20th century . I could refer you to a number of his essays if you would care to read them and judge them on their merits.

The fact remains that Shakespeare frequently employed bawdyhouse humor and did not reflect a particularly profound view of the world. The best English language writers weren't even English, e.g. Swift and Shaw.

1) Swift was born in Ireland of English parents
2) These men weren't bawdy and did not tend toward earthy humour?

Swift: Celebration of a City Shower

Careful observers may foretell the hour
(By sure prognostics) when to dread a shower:
While rain depends, the pensive cat gives o'er
Her frolics, and pursues her tail no more.
Returning home at night, you'll find the sink
Strike your offended sense with double stink.
If you be wise, then go not far to dine,
You spend in coach-hire more than save in wine.
A coming shower your shooting corns presage,
Old aches throb, your hollow tooth will rage.
Sauntering in coffee-house is Dulman seen;
He damns the climate, and complains of spleen.

Mean while the South rising with dabbled wings,
A sable cloud a-thwart the welkin flings,
That swilled more liquor than it could contain,
And like a drunkard gives it up again.
Brisk Susan whips her linen from the rope,
While the first drizzling shower is born aslope,
Such is that sprinkling which some careless quean
Flirts on you from her mop, but not so clean.
You fly, invoke the gods; then turning, stop
To rail; she singing, still whirls on her mop.
Not yet, the dust had shunned the unequal strife,
But aided by the wind, fought still for life;
And wafted with its foe by violent gust,
'Twas doubtful which was rain, and which was dust.
Ah! where must needy poet seek for Aid,
When dust and rain at once his coat invade;
Sole coat, where dust cemented by the rain,
Erects the nap, and leaves a cloudy stain.

Now in contiguous drops the flood comes down,
Threatening with deluge this devoted town.
To shops in crowds the daggled females fly,
Pretend to cheapen Goods, but nothing buy.
The Templar spruce, while every spout's a-broach,
Stays till 'tis fair, yet seems to call a coach.
The tucked-up sempstress walks with hasty strides,
While streams run down her oiled umbrella's sides.
Here various kinds by various fortunes led,
Commence acquaintance underneath a shed.
Triumphant Tories, and desponding Whigs,
Forget their feuds, and join to save their wigs.
Boxed in a chair the beau impatient sits,
While spouts run clattering o'er the roof by fits;
And ever and anon with frightful din
The leather sounds, he trembles from within.
So when Troy chairmen bore the wooden steed,
Pregnant with Greeks, impatient to be freed,
(Those bully Greeks, who, as the moderns do,
Instead of paying chairmen, run them through.)
Laocoon struck the outside with his spear,
And each imprisoned hero quaked for fear.

Now from all Parts the swelling kennels flow,
And bear their Trophies with them as they go:
Filth of all hues and odours seem to tell
What streets they sailed from, by the sight and smell.
They, as each Torrent drives, with rapid force
From Smithfield, or St. Pulchre's shape their course,
And in huge confluent join at Snow-Hill ridge,
Fall from the conduit prone to Holborn-Bridge.
Sweepings from butchers stalls, dung, guts, and blood,
Drowned puppies, stinking sprats, all drenched in mud,
Dead cats and turnips-tops come tumbling down the flood.

A Modest Proposal and Gulliver's Travels are certainly not in a different tone.



Why was Mrs. Warren's Profession controversial Striborg?


Yes, and a fine mess those Enlightenment notions of universal brotherhood and equality have created.

I scarcely see how that could be blamed on the British. Maybe on a French misunderstanding of English government, but thats a nother matter, Lest we forget, what about such wonderful continentals as Rousseau, Kant and Saint-Simon? What hath Hegel's dialectic wrought?

Furthermore, would you really prefer those day's the alternatives of religious superstition and outdated feudalism? If the French hadn't governed as they did, perhaps there wouldn't have been a revolution, ever consider that?

Marx and Freud were both driven out of Germany because their cultural pollution was abhorred. And where did they both go to live out their days in peace? Why, mighty London, where they were heartily received! :p

No, Marx was driven out because he was an outspoken radical, not uncommon among continetal intellectuals, and he was a product of German culture, philosophy and education.


Marxism was always more popular among Germans than it was in England. You might also notice a lot of elected communists in France and Italy.

Freud was also not without a continental following and if he was in fact particularly singled out for deportion, I am not aware of it.

Yes, and Germans eventually got wise to it, unlike the Anglos.


Yeah, for a whopping 12 years well over a century later.


LOL and why were they Zionists? Because they wanted a homeland to which they could flee from German and Russian persecution. :p

By your own logic they should have just went to England, if this were the case. And, if you insist on making the point you are trying to make, we should regard zionism as a more or less positive thing.

Where is this wide spread persecution of Jews in 19th century Germany?

You want to have it both ways, if Jews did well and were influential the people "caught on to it eventually" yet if they were persecuted this is supposedly an example of inherent anti-jewish undertones in Germany.

Did the English emancipate French Jewry?

Did the English make the 18th century nobility of the Germanies so chummy with Jews such as Joseph von Sonnenfels, Austrian legislator and good friend of Maria Theresa and Joseph II?

Did the English force Charles V to make Jossl of Rosheim his minister of finance? Or Duke Charles I of Wurttemberg to make Joseph Suss Oppenheimer his finance minister?

Jews were banned from England when they were flourishing in Poland and Italy and for a time, Holland.

That another canonical European author, Fernando de Rojas , was Jewish, is that yet more English malfeasance? I challenge you to come up with a list of comparably well known English Jewish thinkers, writers, etc to contrast with the continental Jews I have detailed in this thread. If we were include scientists, the list would be even more lopsided.

More than any other Europeans, yes. ;)


Let's see some genetic evidence for widley dispersed jewish markers in the anglo gene pool, or at least compared to other European populations.

Did the English force .... Duke Charles I of Wurttemberg to make Joseph Suss Oppenheimer his finance minister?




No. But they didn't force anyone to hang him either.

http://www.judengasse.de/ibbilder/LZ406.jpg

2) These men weren't bawdy and did not tend toward earthy humour?


Swift's incorporation of coarse elements was to deliberately lampoon the absurd preoccupations of 'polite' society, as when Gulliver urinates on the fire and the Lilliputians are appalled, rather than grateful as they should be.

Shakespeare, on the other hand, frequently stoops to not-so-clever salty puns like "the lion deflowered her."

Yeah, for a whopping 12 years well over a century later.

All I can say is better late than never.



By your own logic they should have just went to England, if this were the case. And, if you insist on making the point you are trying to make, we should regard zionism as a more or less positive thing.

Where is this wide spread persecution of Jews in 19th century Germany?

You want to have it both ways, if Jews did well and were influential the people "caught on to it eventually" yet if they were persecuted this is supposedly an example of inherent anti-jewish undertones in Germany.

Did the English emancipate French Jewry?

Did the English make the 18th century nobility of the Germanies so chummy with Jews such as Joseph von Sonnenfels, Austrian legislator and good friend of Maria Theresa and Joseph II?

Did the English force Charles V to make Jossl of Rosheim his minister of finance? Or Duke Charles I of Wurttemberg to make Joseph Suss Oppenheimer his finance minister?

Jews were banned from England when they were flourishing in Poland and Italy and for a time, Holland.

That another canonical European author, Fernando de Rojas , was Jewish, is that yet more English malfeasance?

I never claimed that any continental country was free of Jewish influence, only that Britain displayed more of it in terms of imperialism and economic machinations.

I challenge you to come up with a list of comparably well known English Jewish thinkers, writers, etc to contrast with the continental Jews I have detailed in this thread. If we were include scientists, the list would be even more lopsided.

What about famous Jewish thinkers who moved to England, like Herschel, Born, Weizmann and Popper? Or do you want only Jews born in England?

Stribog, there was almost no antisemitism in Northern Germany either popular or by the state( or more accurately states) anytime in history other then the 3rd Reich. The one except being a brief expulsion in some Northern States after Luther turned anti semitic.

Stribog, there was almost no antisemitism in Northern Germany either popular or by the state( or more accurately states) anytime in history other then the 3rd Reich. The one except being a brief expulsion in some Northern States after Luther turned anti semitic.

I said above that I was concerned with Central and Southern Germany.

Stribog, there was almost no antisemitism in Northern Germany either popular or by the state( or more accurately states) anytime in history other then the 3rd Reich. The one except being a brief expulsion in some Northern States after Luther turned anti semitic.

Oh really?

There was indeed historically less anti-Semtism in Northern Germany than in Central or in the South - because there were far less Jewish communities in Northern German towns than in Central and South.

But they surely provoked there, where they were, not too little of that what they provoke everywhere.

Let's take e. g. Hamburg, where they were driven out in 1649:

It seems that until to the outburst of political liberalism in the middle of the 19th century it always had to be the Danish kings with their privileges or French occupation troops to protect the chosen people against discrimination by Hamburg's population and senate, and that equal political rights since the 19th century didn't stop anti-Semitism from keeping on existing and becoming then stronger again since the end of the 19th century. :D - From a history of the Jews in Hamburg, from the website of the Hamburgish Museum of History (I underlined the important parts; if you're interested in the details, translate that stuff by babelfish or some other ****; I havn't got the nerve for that):


Die ersten Juden kommen nach Hamburg

Die seit den 1580er Jahren in Hamburg lebenden portugiesischen Juden wurden als Christen angesehen und waren aufgrund ihrer Wirtschaftsverbindungen hochwillkommen. Zu ihnen gehörten der Gewürzhändler Ferdinand Dias, der nach Brasilien handelnde Kaufmann Emanuel Alvares, der Makler Adrian Gonzalves und der Zuckerimporteur Diego Gomes. Um 1612 lebten rund 125 Sepharden in Hamburg, um 1663 waren es bereits 600. Sie wurden erstmals 1603 offiziell als "Juden" bezeichnet, als die Bürgerschaft vom Senat ihre Ausweisung verlangte. [good entry :D] Diese Forderung wurde auch von seiten der Hamburger Geistlichkeit in den folgenden Jahrzehnten häufig wiederholt. Es kam immer wieder nicht nur zu Beschimpfungen, sondern auch zu tätlichen Angriffen auf die Juden durch die aufgewiegelte Bevölkerung. Als Begründung dienten die bereits seit dem Mittelalter gegen die Juden vorgebrachten Anschuldigungen: Die Schändung christlicher Frauen, Kirchen und Symbole sowie übergroßer Luxus. Es mischten sich traditionelle Vorurteile mit der Furcht vor wirtschaftlicher Konkurrenz. Der Senat warnte dagegen vor Übergriff en gegen die Juden. Ihm war die Bedeutung der finanzstarken Juden mit ihren internationalen Verbindungen für die Wirtschaft der Stadt bewusst. 1612 gestattete er den Juden gegen eine Zahlung von 1000 Mark für fünf Jahre den Aufenthalt, versagte ihnen aber die Ausübung ihrer Religion. In einem Reglement wurde ihnen dann 1650 die private Religionsausübung erlaubt, der Bau von Synagogen jedoch weiterhin verboten.Die Juden selbst bemühten sich um ein möglichst zurückhaltendes Auftreten in der Stadt, um zu keinen Widerständen Anlass zu geben. Vorsorglich nahmen sie das vom dänischen König Christian IV. angebotene Privileg an, sich im neu gegründeten Glückstadt niederzulassen, das der König als Handelskonkurrenz zu Hamburg an der Niederelbe hatte anlegen lassen. Hier boten sich ihnen viel großzügigere Freiheiten der Ansiedlung, Handel zu treiben und ihre Religion auszuüben. Die dortige portugiesisch-jüdische Ansiedlung blieb jedoch unbedeutend. Am Ende des 17. Jahrhunderts war ein Teil der einst angesehenen und einflussreichen sephardischen Persönlichkeiten in Hamburg verstorben. Als Senat und Bürgerschaft 1697 von den portugiesischen Juden hohe jährliche Abgaben für ihren Aufenthalt in Hamburg forderten und den Gottesdienst wieder stark einschränkten, wanderte ein Teil der reichen Familien in das tolerantere dänische Altona, nach Ottensen und weiter nach Amsterdam aus. Diese Entwicklung sowie Streitigkeiten in der Gemeinde führten im 18. Jahrhundert dazu, dass Zahl und Bedeutung der portugiesischen Juden in Hamburg weiter abnahmen. Aschkenasische Juden, die aus Altona stammten, sind in Hamburg wohl für das Jahr 1621 nachweisbar. Infolge des Dreißigjährigen Krieges flohen dann 1627 und 1644 weitere Altonaer Juden nach Hamburg, wurden jedoch wieder ausgewiesen und durften gegen den Kauf eines teuren Passierscheines nur ihrer Erwerbstätigkeit in der Stadt weiter nachgehen. Waren sie jedoch im Dienst der portugiesischen Juden in der Stadt, konnten sie bleiben, Aschkenasische Juden aus Wandsbek sind erstmals 1688 in Hamburg nachweisbar. Ihnen boten sich hier - wie den Altonaern - bessere Verdienstmöglichkeiten, aber schlechtere rechtliche Lebensbedingungen. Als dänische Schutzjuden konnten sie sich jedoch jederzeit wieder in den beiden Orten niederlassen.

Aufklärung und Emanzipation

Als Ergebnis heftiger Auseinandersetzungen zwischen dem Senat, der Bürgerschaft und der Geistlichkeit über die Duldung der Juden in Hamburg erließ im Jahr 1710 eine kaiserliche Kommission ein Reglement, dass das Wohnrecht, die Besteuerung, die Erwerbstätigkeit und die Religionsausübung der Juden regelte. Diese Bestimmungen reichten aber nicht aus, um das Leben und Arbeiten der wachsenden jüdischen Bevölkerung zu sichern und die anhaltenden Proteste gegen sie seitens Gewerbetreibender, die ihre Konkurrenz fürchteten, und der Geistlichkeit einzuschränken. Es kam auch wieder - z.B. 1730 - zu antijüdischen Tumulten durch die Bevölkerung. Der Senat wiederum musste die Juden als Bewohner der Stadt mit begrenzten wirtschaftlichen und religiösen Rechten anerkennen. Trotz aller Widerstände gegen die Juden waren Hamburg und Altona im 18. Jahrhundert Zentren der Aufklärung. Hier gab es eine Minderheit von Vorkämpfern dieser auf Vernunft und Kritik, Mündigkeit, Menschlichkeit und Toleranz gegründeten Reformbewegung. Um 1760 fanden einzelne Juden, Freunde des Aufklärers Moses Mendelssohn, Anschluss an diese Kreise der Aufklärer. In der Patriotischen Gesellschaft von 1765 durften Juden seit 1800 Mitglied sein. Oie lebhafte Diskussion über die Emanzipation der Juden seit den 1790er Jahren wurde erst durch die französischen Behörden während der Besetzung Hamburgs 1806 bis 1813 in konkrete Maßnahmen umgesetzt. Die Juden erhielten die völlige bürgerliche und politische Gleichberechtigung, und es galt die Gewerbefreiheit. Viele Juden beteiligten sich andererseits an den Maßnahmen der Verbündeten gegen Napoleon und zahlten im Kriegsjahr 1813 fast ein Viertel aller geforderten Kontributionen an die Franzosen. Die Hoffnung der Juden auf eine Anerkennung ihrer Leistungen und Opfer während der Befreiungskriege wurde in den folgenden Jahren enttäuscht. Die französischen Gesetze hatten keine Gültigkeit mehr, und nach wie vor widersetzten sich Händler und Handwerkerzünfte sowie die 1,utherische Geistlichkeit einer Emanzipation der Juden. Die reaktionäre Entwicklung auch in den anderen deutschen Bundesstaaten förderte judenfeindliche Äußerungen, aus Süddeutschland erreichten 1819 die sog. "HeppHepp-Unruhen" auch Hamburg. Weitere antijüdische Tumulte folgten 1830 und 1835. Seit 1830 fand die Forderung nach der Gleichberechtigung der Juden wieder verstärkt Verbreitung. Im März des Revolutionsjahres 1848 forderte in Hamburg eine Volksversammlung unter Leitung von Gabriel Riesser und Isaac Wolffson u.a. die politische Gleichberechtigung aller Steuerzahler sowie die - Unabhängigkeit der politischen und bürgerlichen Rechte vom religiösen Bekenntnis. Riesser wurde 1848 in die konstituierende deutsche Nationalversammlung gewählt. Die in der Paulskirchenverfassung festgelegte Trennung des religiösen Bekenntnisses von den bürgerlichen Rechten wurde 1849 auch in das Hamburger Recht übernommen. 1859 trat in Hamburg die erste gewählte Bürgerschaft zusammen; unter den 192 Abgeordneten waren zehn Juden. In der neuen Verfassung von 1860 wurden dann die volle Glaubens- und Gewissensfreiheit gewährleistet und das religiöse Bekenntnis von den bürgerlichen Rechten getrennt. Mit einem Gesetz von 1864 wurde die legislative Emanzipation der Juden vorläufig abgeschlossen, die jüdischen Gemeinden galten nunmehr nur noch als Religionsgemeinschaften, in denen die Mitgliedschaft freiwillig war.

Im Deutschen Kaiserreich

Das jüdische Leben in Hamburg in den Jahren zwischen 1871 und 1918 war gekennzeichnet durch die formale Gleichberechtigung sowie die Wirksamkeit bekannter jüdischer Persönlichkeiten auf Wirtschaft und Kultur. Dennoch blieben Juden aus vielen Bereichen des beruflichen und gesellschaftlichen Lebens ausgeschlossen, wenn sie sich offen zu ihrem Glauben bekannten. Die rasanten Veränderungen infolge der Entwicklung Hamburgs zu einer modernen Handels- und Verkehrsmetropole am Ende des 19. Jahrhunderts führten bei Teilen der Mittelschicht zu Ängsten und Verunsicherungen, wovon antisemitische Parteien und Organisationen profitierten, die in den Juden Wegbereiter der Modernisierung und Feinde der Tradition sahen. Eine Verstärkung erhielt der politische Antisemitismus durch den zunehmenden Nationalismus, in dem deutschnationale Parolen auch auf die Ausgrenzung der Juden gerichtet waren. Der Nationalismus in den europäischen Staaten und die Verfolgungen der Juden in Osteuropa förderten aber auch ein jüdisches Selbstbewusstsein und den Wunsch nach einem eigenständigen jüdischen Staat, Ihren politischen und organisatorischen Halt fanden diese Ideen im Zionismus, dessen Verfechter die Gründung eines jüdischen Staates in Palästina anstrebten. 1909 fand in Hamburg der einzige Zionistenkongress im Deutschen Reich statt. Das Ziel der zahlreichen jüdischen Auswanderer, die über Hamburg Europa verließen, waren vor allem die USA, teilweise bereits auch Palästina. Der Erste Weltkrieg schien für die Juden eine Gelegenheit zu sein, ihre staatsbürgerliche Verlässlichkeit unter Beweis zu stellen. Zugleich wurde ein großer Teil von ihnen von der allgemeinen Kriegsbegeisterung mitgerissen und meldete sich freiwillig zum Kriegsdienst. Die in der Heimat Verbliebenen setzten ihre Wirtschaftskraft dafür ein, die Versorgung der Bevölkerung zu sichern. Ein Teil der Hamburger Juden, darunter der Reeder Albert Ballin, stand dem übersteigerten Nationalismus und den weitreichenden Kriegszielen des Deutschen Reiches aber distanziert gegenüber und geriet auch mit seiner Forderung nach einer Demokratisierung des Stadtstaates in Gegensatz zu den Hamburger Führungsschichten.

In der Weimarer Republik

Mit der Novemberrevolution 1918 und der Verfassung der Weimarer Republik von 1919 erhielten alle Männer und Frauen dieselben staatsbürgerlichen Rechte und Pflichten. Damit war nun - zumindest rechtlich - auch die Emanzipation der jüdischen Frauen festgeschrieben. Der nunmehr erreichten politischen Emanzipation aller Juden folgte jedoch nicht die soziale Gleichstellung, da die nationalistischen und antisemitischen Einstellungen aus dem 19. Jahrhundert fortwirkten. Der Hamburger Mittelstand verlor durch die Revolution von 1918 einen Teil seines politischen Einflusses und akzeptierte rasch die Behauptung, die Juden seien die Vorkämpfer der Revolution gewesen. Diese Sichtweise wurde durch die Tatsache gestützt, dass mit den durch das Bürgertum heftig bekämpften demokratischen Parteien, die nunmehr in die Bürgerschaft gewählt wurden, auch einige Juden in den Senat und in hohe Staatsämter gelangten. So konnte Hamburg zu einem Zentrum des Antisemitismus werden, der sich rasch in Berufsvereinigungen, Schulen und der Kirche ausbreitete. Die Demokraten waren so sehr mit der Lösung der vor allem wirtschaftlichen Probleme beschäftigt, dass sie nicht entschieden genug den judenfeindlichen Bestrebungen entgegentraten, Zwar setzte sich keine der großen Organisationen in der Weimarer Republik für die Juden ein, sie fanden in ihrer zunehmenden Isolation aber Rückhalt bei vielen Einzelnen. Sie erweiterten zugleich ihre vielfältigen Vereinsaktivitäten um Wirtschaftsschulungs- und Sprachkurse sowie im Sportbereich. Bereits im 1908 eingerichteten Kolonialinstitut waren jüdische Professoren tätig. Den internationalen Ruf der 1919 gegründeten Hamburger Universität bestimmten in den 1 920er Jahren dann u.a. der Jurist Albrecht Mendelssohn Bartholdy, der Kunsthistoriker Erwin Panofsky und der Physiker Otto Stern. Mit dem Philosophen Ernst Cassirer wurde 1929/30 erstmals ein Jude Rektor einer deutschen Universität. Eine besondere Bedeutung erlangte die von Aby M. Warburg angelegte Kulturwissenschaftliche Bibliothek.

A text from the homepage of the city of Oldenburg (Lower Saxony) on the Jewish history of the city. Plenty enough popular anti-Semitism and discrimination - when there were Jews there. It was also here especially the Danish crown (to which Oldenburg belonged for a period) and French occupation which promoted the Jews. Furthermore it is explicitely mentioned there that North West Germany - with the exception of Ostfriesland - was practically judenfrei for a couple centuries - after the Jews were forced to leave several towns there (:222) :

Zur Geschichte der Juden in der Stadt Oldenburg
Von Werner Vahlenkamp

Bereits im Mittelalter dürften Juden in der Stadt Oldenburg gelebt haben, worüber aber recht wenig bekannt ist. Eine erste Urkunde datiert vom 13. Dezember 1334. Danach beschlossen die Ratsleute und Ältesten der Stadt, fortan keine weiteren Juden mehr aufzunehmen und den bereits hier lebenden die gewährten Rechte nach Ablauf der Schutzbriefe nicht mehr zu erneuern.
Ob und inwieweit dieser Beschluß konsequent ausgeführt wurde, ist unbekannt. In der Stadtrechtsurkunde vom 6. Januar 1345 ist den Juden ein eigenes Kapitel gewidmet. Danach wurden sie keine Bürger der Stadt, sondern sie unterstanden weiter dem Landesherrn, der sie "hegen und beschützen "wollte. Sie durften jedoch nicht als Kaufleute tätig sein, sondern nur als Geldverleiher. Weiter ist aus dieser Zeit nichts Genaueres überliefert, es spricht aber einiges dafür, daß die Juden der Stadt, ähnlich wie fast überall in Nordwestdeutschland, infolge der Pest 1349/50 Oldenburg verlassen mußten. So wie in der benachbarten Stadt Wildeshausen, wo sie am 21. Juni 1350 ausgewiesen wurden, da man sie beschuldigte, das Trinkwasser vergiftet zu haben.

Lange gab es keine Juden in Oldenburg
Nordwestdeutschland, mit Ausnahme von Ostfriesland, blieb nun einige Jahrhunderte "judenfrei". Erst zu Ende des 17. Jahrhunderts, die Grafschaft und damit auch die Stadt Oldenburg gehörte zu dieser Zeit zum Königreich Dänemark, wurden einzelne jüdische Familien wieder zugelassen. Man versprach sich von einer Ansiedlung einen finanziellen Vorteil, und von etwa 1700 bis zur napoleonischen Zeit (1810) waren es in der Grafschaft und dem späteren Herzogtum Oldenburg konstant 23 Familien. Das Oberhaupt dieser Familien besaß den Schutzbrief und damit ein Niederlassungsrecht, wofür eine Sondersteuer zu zahlen war, die in die herrschaftlichen Kassen floß. Es handelte sich überwiegend um Großfamilien, mit dazugehörendem jüdischen Dienstpersonal, wie z. B. Knechte und Mägde. In der Stadt Oldenburg war es im wesentlichen die Familie Goldschmidt, deren Begründer Meyer Goldschmidt, aus Emden kommend, sich mit seiner Familie 1703 hier niederließ. Er gilt als der Begründer der ersten jüdischen Gemeinde der Neuzeit in Oldenburg, wenn sie es natürlich auch noch nicht im rechtlichen Sinne war.
So kam man sicherlich an den hohen Feiertagen in einem Privathaus zu einem Gottesdienst zusammen, aber an eine eigene Synagoge, einen Friedhof oder gar an die Anstellung eines Rabbiners war nicht nur aufgrund der behördlichen Auflagen, sondern auch aus finanziellen Gründen nicht zu denken. Denn der Handel, der den Juden als einzige Erwerbstätigkeit zugewiesen wurde, ernährte gerade die Großfamilien. Aber weiterer Spielraum war nicht gegeben, es reichte nur für schlecht bezahlte jüdische Lehrer, die den Kindern neben dem Religionsunterricht auch Elementarfächer beibrachten.
Für gewisse familienrechtliche Angelegenheiten und als Ratgeber in schwierigen Glaubensfragen war der Rabbiner von Altona zuständig, damals auch eine dänische Stadt. Der Friedhof für die Oldenburger Juden war der in Varel-Hohenberge.
Daran änderte sich auch nichts, als die Grafschaft Oldenburg, die sich kurz danach sich Herzogtum nannte, 1773 wieder ein selbständiges Land wurde und nicht mehr der dänischen Krone unterstand. Unter den ersten Herrschern der Gottorps änderte sich aber hinsichtlich der Stellung der Juden nichts. Erst die vorübergehende Zugehörigkeit Oldenburgs zum napoleonischen Kaiserreich von 181 0 bis 1813 machte aus den Juden gleichberechtigte Staatsbürger, da auch hier die fortschrittliche französische Gesetzgebung zur Anwendung gelangte. Alle Beschränkungen hinsichtlich des Zuzuges und der Niederlassung wurden aufgehoben, und viele Juden kamen nun in das noch weitgehend judenfreie " Oldenburg. Ihre Herkunftsorte lagen vor allem in Franken, Westfalen und Ostfriesland.

Neue Diskriminierungen
Entsprechend französischen Vorstellungen sollten alle Juden im Departement "Bouches du Weser", zu der auch die Stadt Oldenburg gehörte, zu einer Gemeinde zusammengefaßt werden. Der Oldenburger Maire (Bürgermeister) hatte dafür die acht höchstbesteuerten Juden der Stadt zu benennen. Sie sollten einem Gremium angehören, das für die Unterhaltung einer Synagoge in Bremen zuständig war. Außerdem hatten sie mit anderen Notabeln des Departements die Aufgabe, den Rabbiner und die Angelegenheiten der Gemeinde zu überwachen sowie alljährlich die Anzahl der militärpflichtigen Juden den Behörden zu melden.
Aber die französische Epoche ging schon 1813 zu Ende, und nach der Rückkehr des Herzogs Peter Friedrich Ludwig aus dem russischen Exil wurde der für die Juden recht günstige Rechtsstatus aufgehoben und das alte Schutzjudensystem mit allen Diskriminierungen wieder eingeführt. Die während der französischen Zeit eingewanderten Juden durften allerdings in der Stadt bleiben, wenn auch ein weiterer Zuzug fortan fast unmöglich war.
Die Zahl der Juden in Oldenburg umfaßte zu dieser Zeit etwa 80 Personen, die aus 16 Familien stammten. Man dachte daher in jüdischen Kreisen an die Gründung einer eigenen Gemeinde und der Kreis, der von der französischen Besatzungsmacht für das Gremium in Bremen vorgesehen war, dürfte dabei führend gewesen sein. Das genaue Datum der Gründung der ersten jüdischen Gemeinde in der Stadt ist nicht bekannt, ausgehen kann man aber wohl von dem Zeitraum von Herbst 1813 bis Frühjahr 1814. Denn im Frühsommer 1814 trat die "hiesige israelitische Gemeinde", wie es erstmals in den Magistratsakten hieß, an die Obrigkeit heran, um von einem Kötner auf der Wunderburg in der Landgemeinde Oldenburg, der späteren Gemeinde Osternburg, eine Fläche von 3/4 Scheffel Roggensaat für die Anlegung eines Friedhofes zu erwerben. Unterzeichnet wurde dieses Schriftstück von Samuel Josef Ballin, Meyer Goldschmidt und Heinemann Selig Wallheimer als Vorsteher der Gemeinde, dem dann auch entsprochen wurde.

1827 entstand die jüdische Gemeinde
Zwar war es noch keine Gemeinde im juristischen Sinne, sie konnte erst 1827 infolge der Verordnung über die Rechtsverhältnisse der Juden im Herzogtum Oldenburg geschaffen werden, aber dieses rechtliche Vakuum dürfte die Gemeindemitglieder nicht sonderlich gestört haben, denn die Behörden erkannten ihre Existenz an, und das war ja entscheidend. Es gab auch wohl schon einen gemieteten Raum für regelmäßigen Gottesdienst. Wo er sich allerdings befand, und andere Einzelheiten aus dieser Frühzeit sind nicht bekannt. Außerdem dürfte es als gemeindliche Einrichtung eine jüdische Schule gegeben haben, die dazu eingestellten Lehrer kamen überwiegend aus dem Ausland (darunter vor allem aus Polen), und der Aufenthalt wurde ihnen nur befristet genehmigt.
Die bereits erwähnte Verordnung von 1827 regelte erstmals im gesamten Herzogtum die rechtlichen Verhältnisse aller hier lebenden Juden. Zwar wurde das Schutzjudensystem grundsätzlich beibehalten, aber einige besondere diskriminierende Bestimmungen fielen, und vor allem in wirtschaftlicher Hinsicht traten einige Verbesserungen ein. Juden war es nun erlaubt, ein Handwerk zu erlernen und Land zu erwerben. Dadurch gab es auch einige jüdische Bauern, hauptsächlich jedoch geriet der Viehhandel in jüdische Hände. Er war bis in die 30er Jahre dieses Jahrhunderts der Haupterwerbszweig der Juden dieser Region, und auch in den Außenbezirken der Stadt wohnten Viehhändler.
Darüber hinaus wurden durch diese Verordnung flächendeckend im gesamten Lande Oldenburg neun rechtsfähige jüdische Gemeinden gebildet, der alle Juden angehören mußten und an deren Spitze ein Land-(später Landes-) Rabbiner stand, der den Status eines Staatsbeamten hatte und aus den weiterhin erhobenen Schutzgeldern besoldet wurde. Die Juden der Stadt und des Amtes Oldenburg bildeten eine Gemeinde, und der Rabbiner hatte in der Landeshauptstadt seinen Sitz zu nehmen. [...]

In Bremen the Jews settled first in 1803. The "enmities" of the German population started punctually in that year, the head of the Jews in Bremen moaned at the occasion of the 200th anniversary of the foundation of the Jewish community there.

Is there an english version available?

See Rule #6.

Thread Closed

Thread opened and being closely watched.

Is there an english version available?

Hardly. These texts are from the website of Hamburg's Museum of History and the the city of Oldenburg. I summarized the main assertion in English. Blow the underlined stuff through babelfish, if you want to know the details of historical anti-Semitism in these towns.

Jung was also exposed as a fraud.

By whom? Please indicate all the works of Jung that you've read, surely you don't speak from total ignorance. :|

He falsified his research by plagarizing a book about paganism he found in a library. I will provide detailed excerpts next week.

Fade, get a copy of Jung's Answer to Job, that short manuscrip blew me away. I can only compare it to Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals or Dostoyevsky's The Brothers Karamazov in terms of the profound effect it had on me.

Interesting.

"While the British were resolutely viewing an ex-enemy with benevolence and charity, their attitude toward their old ally and friend, France, grew colder. Towards her they adopted an exactly opposite kind of irrationality; darkly suspecting her aims and actions; seeing her as an ogre of militarism and power; ignoring or dismissing in a passing phrase the gigantic human and material losses she had suffered during the war, and which left her critically weakened. The post-evangelical English mind did not always seem to remember that whereas Christianity taught us to love our enemies, it did not at the same time require us to dislike and suspect our friends.

The Entente Cordiale between France and England, which since 1919 had been ever less founded on cordiality and understanding, finally collapsed, as a combination against Germany, in 1923. The French, under the premiership of Raymond Poincaré (who was by no means a romantic idealist) exasperated by what they took to be Germany's deliberate attempts to evade treaty obligations to pay reparations, proposed to occupy the Ruhr industrial region by way of applying torsion to the German arm. The English denounced such action as illegal and imprudent, and unavailingly did their best to dissuade Poincaré. As a consequence only the Belgians accompanied the French in their march into the Ruhr. The British suspected that the ulterior aims of French policy went well beyond the exaction of reparations. This was true. Germany, with her principal industrial area in French hands and her economic life hobbled, began to disintegrate; pulled apart by communist and nationalist putsches, and by renewed separatist movements in Saxony and Bavaria. The feeble parliamentary central government was dependent for survival on the sanction and bayonets of the Reichswehr. The French saw here their opportunity to achieve that division of Germany of which they had been balked by the British and Americans at the peace conference; and they encouraged a further separatist movement in the Rhineland.

Far from applauding these purposes, which might well have destroyed that German dominance of size which Bismarck had bequethed to Europe, the British Government and British opinion in general deplored them. Warren Fisher, then Head of the Civil Service, for example, believed that for the British to acquiesce in French actions would involve 'the most cynical disregard of the Treaty as interpreted by our highest legal authorities', treating it 'as a scrap of paper'. There was a fear that France -- France with her 1,500,000 dead and her eleven devastated departments which had been reconstructed only at colossal cost to herself -- might regain the European predominance she had enjoyed in the days of Richelieu, Louis XIV and Napoleon. Germany, on the other hand, the British saw not as much in terms of power, but as a potential market for Britain's ruined export industries. It followed that their first interest was to restore German prosperity. In any case it was only from a single and prosperous German state that in their view, there was hope of getting reparations. So, as Curzon informed the 1923 Imperial Conference, 'our attitude can only be the attitude of saying that anything done to disrupt the German Reich or the German state meets with our emphatic disapproval'. He drew a distinction between spontaneous separatist movements, such as had arisen in Bavaria, and the artifical régime set up in the Rhineland under French auspices; but the distinction was academic for he despatched a telegram to Paris, Brussels and Rome elaborating on 'the grave consequences' that would follow the setting-up of indepedent sovereign states out of territories in present-day Germany. The telegram also pointed out that it would be inconsistent with obligations under the peace treaty and the signatories' own interests to recognise such independent states; and the attempt to create them should not receive countenance.

Yet while the British Government was so sedulously preserving the unity of the German state, Curzon could say to the Imperial Conference -- though only briefly in passing -- that Germany 'is out for revenge and to rebuild herself'.

France, led by the stubborn Poincaré, eventually succeeded in her purpose of taking out of the Ruhr the reparations the Germans had been unwilling to make; on the other hand, and partly owing to British diplomatic opposition, the separatist movements failed. Germany survived politically intact, her hapless parliamentary régime preserved from its communist and nationalist enemies only by the intervention of the Reichswehr under its Junker leadership. And the French people themselves ceased to share Poincaré's readiness to act strongly and if necessary alone. In 1924 France too, under a new left-wing government, took the road of reconciliation with Germany, her hand held by Ramsey MacDonald, now Prime Minister in the first Labour administration; and with the aid of General Dawes, an American financier, a new plan for reparations was agreed between Germany and the victors."

Correlli Barnett, The Collapse of British Power (New York: William Morrow & Co., Inc, 1973), pp.325-327