So, I'm a noob and I prefer... Debian?


Yeah, I'm just another one of those who has recently switched to Linux. And, as many, what I did was to go for a distro catered for beginners. I chose Ubuntu at first because I had briefly used it like eleven years ago at high school as part of computer class, and actually liked it back then, and, all in all, I do like Ubuntu's current GNOME adaption.

However, I decided after a few days to move on to a community-based distro as it aligns more with my way of thinking (as well as for a couple of issues which were Ubuntu/GNOME related), and the obvious choice, having tried Ubuntu, was Mint. And I do like Mint, even more than Ubuntu; I especially like Mint's adaption of the Xfce DE and I would definitely use it if I had a low-powered computer.

What didn't quite convince me, though, was the limited DE selection available. While learning about all the Linux stuff I came to know about desktops, and I felt like, if I wanted to ever use a different one, yes, it could be installed the hard way, but I would rather have a distro that can be installed with my desired desktop by default, and the one that got my attention was KDE.

And that's how I've ended up on Debian. Yeah, not your usual recommendation for beginners but... I don't see anything bad about it? Like, yeah, I have Nvidia, but I honestly wouldn't mind going through the hassle of installing the GPU's driver through the terminal (and I haven't even bothered yet cause I don't really game much anymore). But, apart from that, I'm delighted with what I see. I could've gone with Fedora, which was my next choice, but I actually like Debian's slow update cycle, as I don't want to be bothered often with setting up my system again. I want something as close as "set it and forget it" as possible. Plus, it is also the one I have felt the most at ease with thanks to KDE indeed.

So that's my story! It's been an intense few days of learning, installing, deleting, and reinstalling OSes on my system, but I now feel at ease and will be installing my favourite programmes or searching alternatives for the ones I used on Windows.

Thank you for reading and have a nice evening!

This entry was edited (3 hours ago)

Ace of Base - All That She Wants


The media in this post is not displayed to visitors. To view it, please go to the original post.

Taken from the album "The Sign" / "Happy Nation". Produced in November 1992 by director Matt Broadley.

🎤 Lyrics:
She leads a lonely life
She leads a lonely life

When she woke up late in the morning
Light and the day had just begun
She opened up her eyes and thought
O' what a morning
It's not a day for work
It's a day for catching tan
Just laying on the beach and having fun
She's going to get you

All that she wants is another baby
She's gone tomorrow boy
All that she wants is another baby
All that she wants is another baby
She's gone tomorrow boy
All that she wants is another baby

All that she wants - all that she wants

So if you are in sight and the day is right
She's a hunter you're the fox
The gentle voice that talks to you
Won't talk forever
It's a night for passion

But the morning means goodbye
Beware of what is flashing in her eyes
She's going to get you

All that she wants...

© 1993 Mega Records, a division of Playground Music Scandinavia AB

#aceofbase #musicvideo #pop

This entry was edited (3 hours ago)

Can I use a Linux laptop to connect a Mac to wifi through an Ethernet cable?


I suddenly need a wired connection for a job starting very soon but it won't be hooked up for quite some time. I have my neihbors wifi password though. Iknow this is a longshot, but would I be able to use my laptop to change a wireless connection into a wired connection?

It's an older desktop Mac managed by the company. My laptop is an HP omen 15 with arch Linux on it

This entry was edited (4 hours ago)
in reply to sorrybookbroke

Assuming that:
- your Linux Laptop uses wlan0 for its wireless connection and your home network uses 192.168.1.x for IP space.

On the Linux laptop:
- as root or with sudo -- enable IP forwarding and load the change with sysctl -p.

sudo sysctl net.ipv4.ip_forward
sudo sysctl -p


  • if you have ufw installed and running -- setup a NAT masquerading rule for any hosts forwarding IPv4 traffic to it.
    add this line to /etc/ufw/before.rules file right after the "*nat" line


:POSTROUTING ACCEPT [0:0]

-A POSTROUTING -s 192.168.1.1/24 -o wlan0 -j MASQUERADE


On the mac:
- set your IP address manually to be on the same LAN as the Linux laptop, but for the gateway address... point that at the IP for the Linux Laptop.

This entry was edited (24 minutes ago)

Crazy Frog - Funny Song


The media in this post is not displayed to visitors. To view it, please go to the original post.

Stream/Buy @crazyfrog Music tube.matrix.rocks/w/p/fH7pDyj8…
Enjoy more Crazy Frog Videos tube.matrix.rocks/w/p/fH7pDyj8…
✘ Feel free to share it and don't forget to hit the 🛎️

@crazyfrog Official Video PLAYLISTS:
► Crazy Frog all official Videos tube.matrix.rocks/w/p/fH7pDyj8… ◀︎
► Crazy Frog все официальные песни tube.matrix.rocks/w/p/fH7pDyj8… ◀︎
► Crazy Frog todas as músicas oficiais tube.matrix.rocks/w/p/fH7pDyj8… ◀︎
► Crazy Frog tất cả các bài hát chính thức tube.matrix.rocks/w/p/fH7pDyj8… ◀︎
► क्रेजी फ्रॉग सभी आधिकारिक गाने https://tube.matrix.rocks/w/p/fH7pDyj8jetRGygmyEnGfM◀︎
► Crazy Frog tüm resmi şarkıları https://tube.matrix.rocks/w/p/fH7pDyj8jetRGygmyEnGfM◀︎
► Crazy Frog tous les morceaux officiels https://tube.matrix.rocks/w/p/fH7pDyj8jetRGygmyEnGfM◀︎

2023 (p)&(c) Mach1 Records GmbH & Co KG
All music tracks are produced by Reinhard Raith, Henning Reith and Wolfgang Boss for voodoo music GmbH

All videos directed by Sigfrid Söderberg and Andreas Wicklund and produced by Kaktus Film, Stockholm for Mach 1 Records Gmbh & Co KG

Special Thanks for your support:

AtanoK Si (IG: @atanoksism)
Ben (IG: @bcfdoesstuff)
David (IG: @alecsocky)
Ian (IG: @ianwiltdotcom)
Vadim (X: @GTPunkNW)
Rebecca (IG: @iceybec)
Taylor (IG: @thecroissantdev)

We are grateful to Cavendish Music and the original Author Thomas Hewitt Jones for publ. permission of this track.

Crazy Frog - Funny Song (Official Video)
#CrazyFrog #FunnySong #funny

Crazy Frog - Axel F Beverly Hills Cop


The media in this post is not displayed to visitors. To view it, please go to the original post.

Stream/Buy @crazyfrog tube.matrix.rocks/w/p/fH7pDyj8…
Axel F and @crazyfrog have been an iconic duo since 2005. Crazy Frog is back with a new music video for the peerTube Film Beverly Hills Cop: Axel F starring Eddie Murphy, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Taylour Paige, Judge Reinhold, John Ashton, Paul Reiser, Bronson Pinchot, and Kevin Bacon. Try getting the song out of your head.
The original Beverly Hills Cop theme was composed by Harold Faltermeyer.

Stream/Buy @crazyfrog Music tube.matrix.rocks/w/p/fH7pDyj8…

Enjoy more Videos tube.matrix.rocks/w/p/fH7pDyj8…
✘ Feel free to share it and don't forget to hit the 🛎️

Crazy Frog Official Video PLAYLIST:
► Crazy Frog all official Videos tube.matrix.rocks/w/p/fH7pDyj8… ◀︎
► Crazy Frog все официальные песни tube.matrix.rocks/w/p/fH7pDyj8… ◀︎
► Crazy Frog todas as músicas oficiais tube.matrix.rocks/w/p/fH7pDyj8… ◀︎
► Crazy Frog tất cả các bài hát chính thức tube.matrix.rocks/w/p/fH7pDyj8… ◀︎
► क्रेजी फ्रॉग सभी आधिकारिक गाने https://tube.matrix.rocks/w/p/fH7pDyj8jetRGygmyEnGfM◀︎
► Crazy Frog tüm resmi şarkıları https://tube.matrix.rocks/w/p/fH7pDyj8jetRGygmyEnGfM◀︎
► Crazy Frog tous les morceaux officiels https://tube.matrix.rocks/w/p/fH7pDyj8jetRGygmyEnGfM◀︎

Music is produced by Reinhard Raith, Henning Reith and Wolfgang Boss for voodoo music GmbH

Video produced by Kaktus Film - Stockholm
Kaktus Film team:
Andreas Wicklund
Sigfrid Söderberg
Antoine Perichon
Steven Lecomte
Per Jonsson

2024 (p)&(c) Mach1 Records GmbH & Co KG

The Crazy Frog character is used under license from CF Entertainment AB.
This video includes scenes from the original movie 'Beverly Hills Cop 4: Axel F'

Thx to Jerry Bruckheimer and Harold Faltermayer

Crazy Frog - Beverly Hills Cop Axel F (Official Video)
#crazyfrog #axelf #beverlyhillscop

This entry was edited (4 hours ago)

Crazy Frog - Blasts Off into Space (Short Film)


The media in this post is not displayed to visitors. To view it, please go to the original post.

Crazy Frog flees Earth’s robots, hops into a rocket, and zooms off into space. In this cosmic escapade, he faces them in a grand showdown on Mars. And in that final moment, he has his great awakening. Call it a very f(r)oggy Space Odyssey

Music and SFX produced by Henning Reith, Reinhard Raith and Wolfgang Boss for voodoo music GmbH
Special Thanks goes to Scotty @djscottyofficial for remixing the music tracks.

Videocontent produced by Kaktus Film - Stockholm & Team:

Andreas Wicklund
Sigfrid Söderberg
Antoine Perichon
Steven Lecomte
Per Jonsson
Steffi Scheill

2025 (p)&(c) Mach1 Records GmbH & Co KG

More about @crazyfrog :

► Crazy Frog all official Videos tube.matrix.rocks/w/p/fH7pDyj8… ◀︎
► Crazy Frog все официальные песни tube.matrix.rocks/w/p/fH7pDyj8… ◀︎
► Crazy Frog todas as músicas oficiais tube.matrix.rocks/w/p/fH7pDyj8… ◀︎
► Crazy Frog tất cả các bài hát chính thức tube.matrix.rocks/w/p/fH7pDyj8… ◀︎
► क्रेजी फ्रॉग सभी आधिकारिक गाने tube.matrix.rocks/w/p/fH7pDyj8… ◀︎
► Crazy Frog tüm resmi şarkıları tube.matrix.rocks/w/p/fH7pDyj8… ◀︎
► Crazy Frog tous les morceaux officiels tube.matrix.rocks/w/p/fH7pDyj8… ◀︎

✘ Subscribe here: tube.matrix.rocks/w/p/fH7pDyj8…
✘ Hit the bell for new videos ▲ ▲ ▲

The Crazy Frog character is used under license from CF Entertainment AB.

Get ready for a crazy adventure with Crazy frog rising in outer space and travelling to another Planet ! This short film features a mixdown of his latest songs combined with space ambient sounds as Crazy Frog explores the cosmos. 🌟

⁨#crazyfrog #shortfilm #spaceodyssey

This entry was edited (4 hours ago)

MAX, a Kremlin Telegram replacement


The media in this post is not displayed to visitors. To view it, please go to the original post.

Russia is the most sanctioned country in the world.
Youtube is blocked in Russia.
Moscow court fines Google in $20,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
Google allows MAX, a Russian state surveillance app, on the Play Store.
Irony?

play.google.com/store/apps/det…

This entry was edited (5 hours ago)

MAX, a Kremlin Telegram replacement


The media in this post is not displayed to visitors. To view it, please go to the original post.

cross-posted from: lemmy.ml/post/43600678

Russia is the most sanctioned country in the world.
Youtube is blocked in Russia.
Moscow court fines Google in $20,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
Google allows MAX, a Russian state surveillance app, on the Play Store.
Irony?

play.google.com/store/apps/det…

Seeking guidance on BTRFS RAID


I'm installing 3x2TB HDDs into my desktop pc. The drives are like-new.

Basically they will replace an ancient 2tb drive that is failing. The primary purpose will basically be data storage, media, torrents, and some games installed. Losing the drives to failure would not be catastrophic, just annoying.

So now I'm faced with how to set up these drives. I think I'd like to do a RAID to present the drives as one big volume. Here are my thoughts, and hopefully someone can help me make the right choice:

  • RAID0: Would have been fine with the risk with 2 drives, but 3 drives seems like it's tempting fate. But it might be fine, anyhow.
  • RAID1: Lose half the capacity, but pretty braindead setup. Left wondering why pick this over RAID10?
  • RAID10: Lose half the capacity... left wondering why pick this over RAID1?
  • RAID5: Write hole problem in event of sudden shutoff, but I'm not running a data center that needs high reliability. I should probably buy a UPS to mitigate power outages, anyway. Would the parity calculation and all that stuff make this option slow?

I've also rejected considering things like ZFS or mdadm, because I don't want to complicate my setup. Straight btrfs is straightforward.

I found this page where the person basically analyzed the performance of different RAID levels, but not with BTRFS. larryjordan.com/articles/real-… (PDF link with harder numbers in the post). So I'm not even sure if his analysis is at all helpful to me.

If anyone has thoughts on what RAID level is appropriate given my use-case, I'd love to hear it! Particularly if anyone knows about RAID1 vs RAID10 on btrfs.

in reply to GnuLinuxDude

I run an 8 disk 90tb BTRFS RAID0 and its been going strong for over a year. I hesitate to actually encourage anyone to live this dangerously but its mainly a media server and if i needed to i could restore any lost data from usenet or torrents using my arr stack which is on a different drive. If you can handle the risk its a nice speed boost.
This entry was edited (5 hours ago)

HollyBraidStitch


The media in this post is not displayed to visitors. To view it, please go to the original post.

Holly Braid Stitch is described and very well diagrammed in Jacqui Carey's book "Elizabethan Stitches", but as a braidmaker, her workflow feels a bit odd to embroiderers. I hope that anyone interested will be able to use the video together with Jacqui's diagrams to make sense of it more quickly than I did!

Lenovo Ditches Windows (somewhat) For Linux [Video][18mins]


Bill Gates is reportedly furious as the world's largest PC manufacturer, Lenovo, makes a historic break from Windows, replacing it with Linux as the default operating system on millions of laptops. This move shatters a 30-year industry norm, turning Windows from the automatic standard into a paid upgrade for the first time in modern PC history. And the most shocking part: Lenovo is doing this because Linux makes more money, creates fewer problems, and exposes just how costly Windows has become for the companies that build the world’s computers.

(URL replace addon enabled for X, YouTube, Instagram and some news sites.)

This entry was edited (8 hours ago)
in reply to rockSlayer

They've been doing that for over 5 years. Also, "ditches Windows" would mean not offering Windows.

neowin.net/news/lenovo-is-goin…

This entry was edited (6 hours ago)

Crazy Frog - Hands Up (Explode)


The media in this post is not displayed to visitors. To view it, please go to the original post.

Enjoy more Videos tube.matrix.rocks/w/p/fH7pDyj8…
✘ Feel free to share it and don't forget to hit the 🛎️

✘ Homepage: crazyfrog.tv

Crazy Frog Official Video PLAYLIST:
► Crazy Frog all official Videos tube.matrix.rocks/w/p/fH7pDyj8… ◀︎
► Crazy Frog все официальные песни tube.matrix.rocks/w/p/fH7pDyj8… ◀︎
► Crazy Frog todas as músicas oficiais tube.matrix.rocks/w/p/fH7pDyj8… ◀︎
► Crazy Frog tất cả các bài hát chính thức tube.matrix.rocks/w/p/fH7pDyj8… ◀︎
► क्रेजी फ्रॉग सभी आधिकारिक गाने https://tube.matrix.rocks/w/p/fH7pDyj8jetRGygmyEnGfM◀︎
► Crazy Frog tüm resmi şarkıları https://tube.matrix.rocks/w/p/fH7pDyj8jetRGygmyEnGfM◀︎
► Crazy Frog tous les morceaux officiels https://tube.matrix.rocks/w/p/fH7pDyj8jetRGygmyEnGfM◀︎

Music is produced by Reinhard Raith, Henning Reith and Wolfgang Boss for voodoo music GmbH
All music videos directed by Andreas Wicklund and Sigfrid Söderberg.
Produced by Kaktus Film - Stockholm

2024 (p)&(c) Mach1 Records GmbH & Co KG

The Crazy Frog character is used under license from CF Entertainment AB.

Crazy Frog - Hands Up (Explode) (Official Video)

#crazyfrog #explode #handsup

Get ready to dance with Crazy Frog in the official video for "Hands Up (Explode)"! Join the fun and groove to a mashup of Jordan & Baker and Black & White brothers

Day 4 Bassegoda Peak!


The media in this post is not displayed to visitors. To view it, please go to the original post.

Here I hiked from the Talaixa Refuge to Bassegoda Peak, which is the first (or last) peak you can hike on the GR11 trail. I hid my big backpack in the forest near the Sant Aniol River, and camped there after coming down the mountain.
This entry was edited (10 hours ago)

Présentation de PDP Libre : Rôle et ambitions


The media in this post is not displayed to visitors. To view it, please go to the original post.

Pour ce 2ème live, on parlera du projet "PDP Libre", avec des sessions de questions / réponses tout au long du live.
La genèse
Ce qu'on propose
Les groupes de travail
Groupement d'achat
Une ambition de PA Libre
La gouvernance
Les prochains mois

Intervenants :
Alex Danvy
Créateur d'Altoviz
altoviz.com/
Florent Pellet
Vice-Président PDP Libre et CTO & Co-fondateur Superindep
superindep.fr/
Philippe Scoffoni
Fondateur & Dirigeant Easya Solutions et Président PDP Libre
easya.solutions/

Chapitres :
00:00 Intro
00:40 Présentation des intervenants
02:33 Rappels sur la réforme de la facturation électronique
06:48 C'est quoi PDP Libre ? Pourquoi la création de PDP Libre ?
16:54 Ce que nous proposons
19:59 Veille et vulgarisation
32:52 Groupes de travail techniques
40:19 Constitution d'un groupement d'achat
45:47 Une Plateforme Agrée libre en alternative
50:01 Gouvernance et association
56:38 La suite
57:42 Rejoignez le mouvement
1:00:20 Remerciements

--
PDPLibre.org est une association à but non lucratif dédiée à rendre la facturation électronique accessible à tous. Nous croyons que le droit de recevoir et d'émettre des factures est essentiel pour les entreprises, sans dépendre du bon vouloir d'un tiers privé.
Site web pdplibre.org/
Liste de diffusion pdplibre.org/liste/
Inscription au forum Contactez-nous – PDP Libre

This entry was edited (4 days ago)

A guide to the ‘Honorary Aryans’


The Japanese, while currently a great and pure race, are non‐Aryan, and as such should be grateful to their superiors, without whom they would have very little advancement to speak of. This weird, unwritten historical opinion about some kind of ‘equal relationship’ between the [German Fascists] and the Japanese, which everyone brings up during drunken historic debates in the pub, is a hilarious myth.

It’s pretty simple: In the [German Fascist] ideological perspective the Japanese were, in essence, inferior but still not as corrupted by the Jews or communists to become unsalvageable. That combined with typical white boy orientalist obsession, like Himmler wanting the SS to be like the samurai, makes for a perfect potential ally. While most academics argue that the Japanese pact was one born exclusively out of geopolitical convenience, I believe that it can be easily argued that the ideological ground was conveniently set there to an extent as well.

The [Imperial] Japanese already garnered some respect among the higher echelons of [Fascist] societ[ies], even before World War II was looming. Conveniently enough, they were also far away enough to not be perceived as a threat to the purity of the Nordic race. While inferior, they were still a powerful nation in the eyes of ideologues who respected nothing but power, and as such could be considered a worthy ally. An ally which will one day likely have to be completely eradicated, but an ally which can easily be sold both to the heavily indoctrinated members of the [NSDAP], as well as to the wider German populace.

Ironically, the [Imperial] Japanese were a perfect partner to the German Fascists exactly because they were so different. The [German Fascists’] superiority over people who looked a lot more like them, like the Jew or the Slav, required action, victory, domination as proof of superiority. The Japanese, just simply based on racial aesthetics, and a strange ‘Eastern’ culture, were someone that the Germans already were so different to that it was never a question of whether the German eagle could defeat the Japanese panda [sic?], the question was only when.


:::spoiler Click here for events that happened today (November 5).
1886: Sadae Inoue, Axis general who commanded the Imperial forces at the Battles of Peleliu and Angaur, was born.
1895: Walter Wilhelm Gieseking, Axis composer, started his life.
1930: Luigi Facta, Italy’s last prefascist Prime Minister (but later member of the Fascist Senate), expired.
1934: Carl Friedrich Goerdeler became the Third Reich’s Price Commissioner in response to complaints of price gouging.
1935: Heavy rains halted the Fascist offensive in northern Abyssinia for two days.
1936: Berlin published a new penal code introducing heavy penalties for slandering Adolf Schicklgruber or the memories of the late Paul von Hindenburg, Horst Wessel and Albert Leo Schlageter. This code also subtracted duelling from the list of offenses.
1937: As thirty thousand Imperial troops landed practically unopposed at Hangzhou Bay, and Berlin and Warsaw signed a joint declaration on minorities, guaranteeing proper reciprocal treatment and protection of the Polish minority in the Reich and the German minority in Poland, Schicklgruber announced his plan at a secret meeting in the Chancellery in Berlin for an expansionist foreign policy to secure Lebensraum by force.
1940: The Axis pocket battleship Admiral Scheer sunk the British armed merchant cruiser HMS Jervis Bay.
1943: An aircraft bombed the Vatican, but it remains unclear if the vehicle was Allied or Axis.
1990: Rabbi Meir Kahane, Hebrew neofascist, was murdered.
:::


The Third Reich’s racism against the Japanese


In the Third Reich’s imagination, Japanese people were somewhere between Germanic gentiles and Jews. In public, Reich officials treated the Japanese courteously, but in private their feelings about the Japanese were mixed at best.

Hitler explained that if mankind were to be divided into three groups — culture‐founders, culture‐bearers, and culture‐destroyers — only the Aryan would qualify for the first category. The Japanese would be culture‐bearers for the following reasons:
It is not the case, as some people claim, that Japan adds European techniques to her culture, but European science and techniques are trimmed with Japanese characteristics. But the basis of actual life is no longer the special Japanese culture but it is the enormous scientific and technical work of Europe and America, that is, of Aryan peoples. Based on these achievements alone the East is also able to follow general human progress […]

But if, starting today, all further Aryan influence upon Japan should stop then the source [of a further development of Japan's present rise in science and technology] would dry out, […] its culture would stiffen and fall back into the sleep out of which it was startled seven decades ago by the Aryan wave of culture. […] the present Japanese development owes its life to Aryan origin[.]¹⁵

Thus in Hitler's eyes, the Japanese, as a “race”, were clearly inferior to the Aryans. Presseisen mentions that the above words were expressed in Hitler's early days before his speeches were circumscribed by political expediency. Thus they may come closest to his genuine feelings.¹⁶


What follows is a clue on why the Third Reich allied with the Empire of Japan:

At the same time, Hitler identified with the Japanese on one essential point: both Germany and Japan, he thought, were victims of the Jewry. In the section called “Japan and Jewry” in the chapter “German Policy of Alliance After the War,” Hitler wrote:
The Jew knows only too accurately that […] he has it well within his power to undermine European peoples only he would hardly be in a position to subject an Asiatic national State like Japan to this fate […] He dreads a Japanese national State in his millennial Jew empire, and therefore wishes its destruction in advance of the founding of his own dictatorship. Therefore, he is now inciting the nations against Japan, as against Germany[.]¹⁷



You see, rather than blaming Imperial America and the British Empire—both of which the Fascists admired—for snatching gains away from the Empire of Japan, the German Fascists instead blamed “the Jews”, who presumably “corrupted” both of the Anglophone empires to some extent or another. Remember that at the time both of the Anglophone empires officially held Asian territories such as Singapore, India, the Philippines, and Hong Kong, among others; the Japanese bourgeoisie had to settle for tablescraps like Korea and Taiwan.

Japan could have been next on the Anglosphere’s chopping block, a possibility that no doubt continued to concern some Japanese Imperialists, yet they remained resilient. The author continues:

Kirby further mentions:
Although the Japanese were said to owe their progress largely to ‘Aryan influence,’ the book [Mein Kampf] showed grudging admiration for the accomplishments of a Japanese state that had remained impervious to the machinations of ‘international Jewry’ and had so completely defeated Russia in 1904–5.¹⁹

Kirby's statements as well as Hitler's beliefs as expressed in Mein Kampf and other sources lead one to conclude that Hitler's attitude toward the Japanese encompassed more than just plain racism. While there was no question that Hitler despised the Japanese as “racially inferior,” he admired the Japanese state as an administrative unit. The irony was that these “racially inferior” Japanese made and ran the “admirable” Japanese state of which he was even envious.


Berlin’s mixed feelings towards the Empire of Japan exposes the Fascists’ suppressed Anglophilia:

Japan's victory in Singapore was welcome news to Hitler, since he hoped that this victory would cause “a crisis for the British Empire.”²⁴ However, on the very same day he made the aforementioned comment to Goebbels, he told a former president of Romania: “I rejoice, yet am terribly sad at the same time.”²⁵ Apparently, Hitler's deep‐rooted racism did not allow him to heartily welcome successes of the “racially inferior” Japanese.

Furthermore, the former ambassador to Italy and anti‐Nazi Ulrich von Hassell²⁶ recorded on March 22, 1942 that Hitler was apparently not happy with the enormous successes of the [Imperial] Japanese army against the British, and that “he would rather send twenty army divisions to England to roll back the yellow race.”²⁷ Therefore, while the [Axis] victories in the Pacific were clearly welcomed as far as [the Third Reich’s] Realpolitik was concerned, Hitler could not heartily rejoice in any advances of “the yellow race.”

Evidence of Hitler's seemingly contradictory reactions regarding the [Axis] victory in Singapore shows that Hitler's admiration for [Imperial] achievements had no bearing whatsoever on his disdain and fearful, racial hatred of the Japanese.


Although Reich officials tried to be polite in public, ordinary Germans were not always so accommodating; there were many recorded cases of discrimination against Japanese people in the Third Reich, sometimes momentarily complicating relations between the Reich and the Empire of Japan. For example:

Councillor Fujii mentioned several instances of racial discrimination against Japanese and Japanese‐German individuals. […] The first instance of discrimination involved a member of the Biologische Reichsanstalt für Land‐ und Forstwirtschaft (Institute of Biology for Agriculture and Forestry), Dr. Otto Urhan, who was dismissed on May 18, 1933 because his mother was Japanese.⁴⁹ […] The second publicized discrimination case, which took place in Berlin in October 1933, involved the nine‐year‐old daughter of Dr. Takenouchi, a sales representative of the Sumitomo Group. According to Councillor Fujii, the girl was insulted and eventually hit by other children on her way to school because she was “colored.”⁵⁵


Contrary to popular belief, the Fascists (even strictly within the confines of their own fatherlands) did not agree on everything, nor did they have to do so:

For instance, the prominent historian of East Asian art Otto Kümmel⁵⁹ implicitly argued against [the] racism toward [the] Japanese in a lecture [that] he gave at the Society for Germanic Pre‐ and Early History: he emphasized the worthiness of the Japanese people by pointing out that their roots went back to Western Europe — hence the Aryan race — in prehistoric times.⁶⁰ Also, in a lecture entitled “The People and Race of the Great Japanese Empire” given at the DJG and probably also at a lecture‐series open to the public at the Institute for Oriental Languages, Dr. Fritz Härtel stated:
Racial differences are not absolute […] The worth of a race is to be judged less by physical features (i. e. color), than by its cultural and ethical achievements […] Today in the East, Japan is the guardian, not only of the eastern, but also of the western culture‐world[.]⁶¹

Most notably, in October 1934, [Fascist] writer and journalist Dr. Johann von Leers produced a twelve‐page “DJG Memorandum on the Question of the Application of the Racial Laws to the Offspring of the German–Japanese Mixed Marriages” (Denkschrift der DJG zur Frage der Anwendung der Rassengetzgebung auf die Abkömmlinge aus deutsch‐japanischen Mischehen).⁶²

Dated October 25, it was sent the next day by Admiral Paul Behncke, the President of the DJG, to Minister of the Interior Wilhelm Frick, Foreign Minister Freiherr von Neurath, Reichsminister and Führer's Secretary Rudolf Hess, and four days later to Walter Gross, the Head of the Racial Policy Office (Rassenpolitisches Amt der NSDAP). The aim of the Memorandum was to persuade [Reich] authorities to exempt the Japanese from [the] racism toward all non‐Aryans.


This memorandum triggered a debate within the Foreign Ministry. (Admittedly, Dr. Johann von Leers’s status as a respected Fascist, and the fact that the Third Reich was not yet involved in a war, were likely the most important factors that removed the likelihood of any authorities pestering him.) Nevertheless, it is worth noting that even after the Anticomintern Pact’s signature in 1936, the Foreign Ministry failed to affect the Reich’s racial laws.

What is interesting about the laws is that marriages between Germans and Japanese were technically possible (if strongly discouraged, both implicitly and explicitly):

[T]here was no explicit, universal legal restriction on the marriage of a German to a Japanese. As Walter Gross had mentioned in his letter to the DJG, such a marriage was officially highly “unerwünscht” — undesirable. Although this claim came up again and again in [Fascist] papers dealing with race issues, it never became a law.


Several Reich officials drafted a law designed to further tighten restrictions between German gentiles and everybody else, but having already pissed off Tokyo by signing a nonaggression treaty with Moscow, the Fascist bourgeoisie didn’t want to try anything else that might further upset its Imperial ally, so it remained unimplemented. For now, an annoying impediment would have to suffice: bureaucracy.

Japanese capitalists, diplomats, and politicians would suffer no ostensible discrimination while visiting the Third Reich, for obvious reasons. Such tolerance did not always extend to the less ‘important’ people, though:

That racism toward all non‐Aryans had permeated some German communities is evidenced by the experience of Hilde O.¹²², a half‐Japanese German citizen. She reported to the DJG in January 1936 that she and her Japanese mother had been verbally insulted on the open streets in the rural town of Naumburg, in particular by one retired civil servant and his wife, who yelled after them: “‘Asian, German‐Japanese mish‐mash, African‐Chinese […] Japanese out’, etc.”¹²³

Ms. O. wrote that even their friends had come to alienate them since anybody who interacted with them would be committing a Rassenschande. In such a rural town as Naumburg, she wrote, psychological association between her and a Rassenschande spread so fast that consequently, she was not able to get a job, nor would she be able to marry. Therefore, she requested an official passport‐like certificate proving that she was German.


In a classic liberal maneuver, the Foreign Ministry offered her this advice:

The Foreign Ministry informed O. via DJG that she was definitely not Aryan¹²⁴, and therefore she should apply to be treated as an exception to the racial laws. This official statement that she was non‐Aryan clearly refuted the often cited rumor that Japanese were “honorary Aryans.” Regarding verbal insults in public, the Ministry advised her to file a libel complaint. As for her employment, Ms. O. would have to have a proof that she was denied a job because of her Japanese descent — i. e. a rejection letter from a company. Evidently, the Foreign Ministry's response to O.'s case did nothing to improve her situation. What exactly happened with her afterwards is not recorded by the DJG.


(Emphasis added in all cases.)

See also: ‘A guide to the ‘Honorary Aryans’


:::spoiler Click here for events that happened today (August 30).

1940: The Second Vienna Award reassigned the territory of Northern Transylvania from the Kingdom of Romania to the Kingdom of Hungary.
1941: The Third Reich and the Kingdom of Romania signed the Tighina Agreement, a treaty regarding administration issues of the Transnistria Governorate.
1942: The Battle of Alam el Halfa commenced.
1945: The Axis occupation of Hong Kong came to an end. (Coincidentally, General Douglas MacArthur landed at Atsugi Air Force Base while the Allied Control Council, governing Germany after World War II, came into being.)
1954: Alfredo Ildefonso Schuster, Fascist sympathizer, expired.
:::


The Third Reich’s racism against the Japanese


In the Third Reich’s imagination, Japanese people were somewhere between Germanic gentiles and Jews. In public, Reich officials treated the Japanese courteously, but in private their feelings about the Japanese were mixed at best.

Hitler explained that if mankind were to be divided into three groups — culture‐founders, culture‐bearers, and culture‐destroyers — only the Aryan would qualify for the first category. The Japanese would be culture‐bearers for the following reasons:
It is not the case, as some people claim, that Japan adds European techniques to her culture, but European science and techniques are trimmed with Japanese characteristics. But the basis of actual life is no longer the special Japanese culture but it is the enormous scientific and technical work of Europe and America, that is, of Aryan peoples. Based on these achievements alone the East is also able to follow general human progress […]

But if, starting today, all further Aryan influence upon Japan should stop then the source [of a further development of Japan's present rise in science and technology] would dry out, […] its culture would stiffen and fall back into the sleep out of which it was startled seven decades ago by the Aryan wave of culture. […] the present Japanese development owes its life to Aryan origin[.]¹⁵

Thus in Hitler's eyes, the Japanese, as a “race”, were clearly inferior to the Aryans. Presseisen mentions that the above words were expressed in Hitler's early days before his speeches were circumscribed by political expediency. Thus they may come closest to his genuine feelings.¹⁶


What follows is a clue on why the Third Reich allied with the Empire of Japan:

At the same time, Hitler identified with the Japanese on one essential point: both Germany and Japan, he thought, were victims of the Jewry. In the section called “Japan and Jewry” in the chapter “German Policy of Alliance After the War,” Hitler wrote:
The Jew knows only too accurately that […] he has it well within his power to undermine European peoples only he would hardly be in a position to subject an Asiatic national State like Japan to this fate […] He dreads a Japanese national State in his millennial Jew empire, and therefore wishes its destruction in advance of the founding of his own dictatorship. Therefore, he is now inciting the nations against Japan, as against Germany[.]¹⁷



You see, rather than blaming Imperial America and the British Empire—both of which the Fascists admired—for snatching gains away from the Empire of Japan, the German Fascists instead blamed “the Jews”, who presumably “corrupted” both of the Anglophone empires to some extent or another. Remember that at the time both of the Anglophone empires officially held Asian territories such as Singapore, India, the Philippines, and Hong Kong, among others; the Japanese bourgeoisie had to settle for tablescraps like Korea and Taiwan.

Japan could have been next on the Anglosphere’s chopping block, a possibility that no doubt continued to concern some Japanese Imperialists, yet they remained resilient. The author continues:

Kirby further mentions:
Although the Japanese were said to owe their progress largely to ‘Aryan influence,’ the book [Mein Kampf] showed grudging admiration for the accomplishments of a Japanese state that had remained impervious to the machinations of ‘international Jewry’ and had so completely defeated Russia in 1904–5.¹⁹

Kirby's statements as well as Hitler's beliefs as expressed in Mein Kampf and other sources lead one to conclude that Hitler's attitude toward the Japanese encompassed more than just plain racism. While there was no question that Hitler despised the Japanese as “racially inferior,” he admired the Japanese state as an administrative unit. The irony was that these “racially inferior” Japanese made and ran the “admirable” Japanese state of which he was even envious.


Berlin’s mixed feelings towards the Empire of Japan exposes the Fascists’ suppressed Anglophilia:

Japan's victory in Singapore was welcome news to Hitler, since he hoped that this victory would cause “a crisis for the British Empire.”²⁴ However, on the very same day he made the aforementioned comment to Goebbels, he told a former president of Romania: “I rejoice, yet am terribly sad at the same time.”²⁵ Apparently, Hitler's deep‐rooted racism did not allow him to heartily welcome successes of the “racially inferior” Japanese.

Furthermore, the former ambassador to Italy and anti‐Nazi Ulrich von Hassell²⁶ recorded on March 22, 1942 that Hitler was apparently not happy with the enormous successes of the [Imperial] Japanese army against the British, and that “he would rather send twenty army divisions to England to roll back the yellow race.”²⁷ Therefore, while the [Axis] victories in the Pacific were clearly welcomed as far as [the Third Reich’s] Realpolitik was concerned, Hitler could not heartily rejoice in any advances of “the yellow race.”

Evidence of Hitler's seemingly contradictory reactions regarding the [Axis] victory in Singapore shows that Hitler's admiration for [Imperial] achievements had no bearing whatsoever on his disdain and fearful, racial hatred of the Japanese.


Although Reich officials tried to be polite in public, ordinary Germans were not always so accommodating; there were many recorded cases of discrimination against Japanese people in the Third Reich, sometimes momentarily complicating relations between the Reich and the Empire of Japan. For example:

Councillor Fujii mentioned several instances of racial discrimination against Japanese and Japanese‐German individuals. […] The first instance of discrimination involved a member of the Biologische Reichsanstalt für Land‐ und Forstwirtschaft (Institute of Biology for Agriculture and Forestry), Dr. Otto Urhan, who was dismissed on May 18, 1933 because his mother was Japanese.⁴⁹ […] The second publicized discrimination case, which took place in Berlin in October 1933, involved the nine‐year‐old daughter of Dr. Takenouchi, a sales representative of the Sumitomo Group. According to Councillor Fujii, the girl was insulted and eventually hit by other children on her way to school because she was “colored.”⁵⁵


Contrary to popular belief, the Fascists (even strictly within the confines of their own fatherlands) did not agree on everything, nor did they have to do so:

For instance, the prominent historian of East Asian art Otto Kümmel⁵⁹ implicitly argued against [the] racism toward [the] Japanese in a lecture [that] he gave at the Society for Germanic Pre‐ and Early History: he emphasized the worthiness of the Japanese people by pointing out that their roots went back to Western Europe — hence the Aryan race — in prehistoric times.⁶⁰ Also, in a lecture entitled “The People and Race of the Great Japanese Empire” given at the DJG and probably also at a lecture‐series open to the public at the Institute for Oriental Languages, Dr. Fritz Härtel stated:
Racial differences are not absolute […] The worth of a race is to be judged less by physical features (i. e. color), than by its cultural and ethical achievements […] Today in the East, Japan is the guardian, not only of the eastern, but also of the western culture‐world[.]⁶¹

Most notably, in October 1934, [Fascist] writer and journalist Dr. Johann von Leers produced a twelve‐page “DJG Memorandum on the Question of the Application of the Racial Laws to the Offspring of the German–Japanese Mixed Marriages” (Denkschrift der DJG zur Frage der Anwendung der Rassengetzgebung auf die Abkömmlinge aus deutsch‐japanischen Mischehen).⁶²

Dated October 25, it was sent the next day by Admiral Paul Behncke, the President of the DJG, to Minister of the Interior Wilhelm Frick, Foreign Minister Freiherr von Neurath, Reichsminister and Führer's Secretary Rudolf Hess, and four days later to Walter Gross, the Head of the Racial Policy Office (Rassenpolitisches Amt der NSDAP). The aim of the Memorandum was to persuade [Reich] authorities to exempt the Japanese from [the] racism toward all non‐Aryans.


This memorandum triggered a debate within the Foreign Ministry. (Admittedly, Dr. Johann von Leers’s status as a respected Fascist, and the fact that the Third Reich was not yet involved in a war, were likely the most important factors that removed the likelihood of any authorities pestering him.) Nevertheless, it is worth noting that even after the Anticomintern Pact’s signature in 1936, the Foreign Ministry failed to affect the Reich’s racial laws.

What is interesting about the laws is that marriages between Germans and Japanese were technically possible (if strongly discouraged, both implicitly and explicitly):

[T]here was no explicit, universal legal restriction on the marriage of a German to a Japanese. As Walter Gross had mentioned in his letter to the DJG, such a marriage was officially highly “unerwünscht” — undesirable. Although this claim came up again and again in [Fascist] papers dealing with race issues, it never became a law.


Several Reich officials drafted a law designed to further tighten restrictions between German gentiles and everybody else, but having already pissed off Tokyo by signing a nonaggression treaty with Moscow, the Fascist bourgeoisie didn’t want to try anything else that might further upset its Imperial ally, so it remained unimplemented. For now, an annoying impediment would have to suffice: bureaucracy.

Japanese capitalists, diplomats, and politicians would suffer no ostensible discrimination while visiting the Third Reich, for obvious reasons. Such tolerance did not always extend to the less ‘important’ people, though:

That racism toward all non‐Aryans had permeated some German communities is evidenced by the experience of Hilde O.¹²², a half‐Japanese German citizen. She reported to the DJG in January 1936 that she and her Japanese mother had been verbally insulted on the open streets in the rural town of Naumburg, in particular by one retired civil servant and his wife, who yelled after them: “‘Asian, German‐Japanese mish‐mash, African‐Chinese […] Japanese out’, etc.”¹²³

Ms. O. wrote that even their friends had come to alienate them since anybody who interacted with them would be committing a Rassenschande. In such a rural town as Naumburg, she wrote, psychological association between her and a Rassenschande spread so fast that consequently, she was not able to get a job, nor would she be able to marry. Therefore, she requested an official passport‐like certificate proving that she was German.


In a classic liberal maneuver, the Foreign Ministry offered her this advice:

The Foreign Ministry informed O. via DJG that she was definitely not Aryan¹²⁴, and therefore she should apply to be treated as an exception to the racial laws. This official statement that she was non‐Aryan clearly refuted the often cited rumor that Japanese were “honorary Aryans.” Regarding verbal insults in public, the Ministry advised her to file a libel complaint. As for her employment, Ms. O. would have to have a proof that she was denied a job because of her Japanese descent — i. e. a rejection letter from a company. Evidently, the Foreign Ministry's response to O.'s case did nothing to improve her situation. What exactly happened with her afterwards is not recorded by the DJG.


(Emphasis added in all cases.)

See also: ‘A guide to the ‘Honorary Aryans’


:::spoiler Click here for events that happened today (August 30).

1940: The Second Vienna Award reassigned the territory of Northern Transylvania from the Kingdom of Romania to the Kingdom of Hungary.
1941: The Third Reich and the Kingdom of Romania signed the Tighina Agreement, a treaty regarding administration issues of the Transnistria Governorate.
1942: The Battle of Alam el Halfa commenced.
1945: The Axis occupation of Hong Kong came to an end. (Coincidentally, General Douglas MacArthur landed at Atsugi Air Force Base while the Allied Control Council, governing Germany after World War II, came into being.)
1954: Alfredo Ildefonso Schuster, Fascist sympathizer, expired.
:::

This entry was edited (6 months ago)

How Allied capitalists supplied Fascist Germany throughout World War II


At the same time, the Du Ponts developed the American Liberty League, a [fascist] organization whipping up hatred of blacks and Jews, love of Hitler, and loathing of the Roosevelts. Financed by Lammot and Irénée to the tune of close to $500,000 the first year, the Liberty League had a lavish thirty-one-room office in New York, branches in twenty-six colleges, and fifteen subsidiary organizations nationwide that distributed fifty million copies of its [fascist] pamphlets.

In September 1936, while Hitler at Nuremberg expressed his grand design for the Four-Year Plan, the Du Ponts and the American Liberty League poured thousands into backing Republican Alf Landon against Roosevelt in the election. Other backers were the American Nazi party and the German-American Bund.

This entry was edited (6 months ago)

On this day 82 years ago, the Axis committed history’s largest massacre of Lithuanian Jews


Quoting Arūnas Bubnys in The Vanished World of Lithuanian Jews, page 209:

In August 1941 Kaunas Jews were murdered in Kaunas Fourth Fort and from October 1941 in the Ninth Fort. Here executions were carried out until the very end of [Axis] occupation. The largest mass murder of Kaunas Jews took place on 29 October 1941. The evening before the murders the Gestapo selected Jews from the Kaunas ghetto. Around 10,000 people were selected for death. They selected families with many children, physically weak persons, old people and the sick for murder.

Members of the TDA, later called the First Police battalion, also took part in the selection of ghetto prisoners. On 29 October the condemned Jews were driven out of the ghetto to the Ninth Fort where they were shot in huge previously‐dug pits. According to Jaeger’s report 9,200 Jews were killed in the fort on 29 October of whom 2,007 were men, 2,920 were women and 4,273 were children. Jaeger referred to these murders cynically as “the cleansing of the ghetto from unnecessary Jews.”¹⁰


Yitzhak Arad’s The “Final Solution” in Lithuania in the Light of German Documentation:

Lithuania was the first country in occupied Europe in which mass extermination of Jews took place. During the first four and a half months of [Axis] occupation — from the end of June to the beginning of November 1941 — more than 80% of Lithuanian Jewry was killed.

This “achievement” was made possible by the fact that the Einsatzgruppen, S.D. and Security Police units, who carried out the mass murder and who all together numbered only several hundred men, were assisted by thousands of volunteers from among the local populace.

Thus, for example, Brigadeführer Stahlecker, the commander of Einsatzgruppe A, wrote in this report of October 15, 1941: “The active anti‐Semitism which flared up quickly after the German occupation did not falter. Lithuanians are voluntarily and untiringly at our disposal for all measures against Jews; sometimes they even execute such measures on their own.”¹⁹

[…]

Peschel, chief of the Labor Office, wrote to von Renteln in September or the beginning of October, urging him to allow the surviving Jews to continue working, and he approached the Wehrmacht authorities in Kovno with the same request. Gebietskommissar Cramer, favored leaving the Jewish artisans alive.

Thus, Herrman reported on a meeting (which was attended by von Renteln, Jäger, Cramer, Peschel, the Lithuanian First Councillor General in Lithuania, Petras Kubiliūnas and others) that took place in Kovno, at which it was decided to write to Riga and urge that the Jewish artisans and their families be left alive. Peshel went to Riga to intervene personally on behalf of those Jews who dwelt in the ghettos of Vilna, Kovno and Shavli.

An affirmative reply was received in Kovno on October 20 or 21. The Security Police and S.D. agreed to spare the artisans, but they insisted on the liquidation of intellectuals and members of the liberal professions as well as of those physically unfit for work.²⁶


Karen Sutton’s The Massacre of the Jews of Lithuania:

In Kaunas, the mass shootings continued unabated in August–October 1941. German records recount the use of auxiliary Lithuanian personnel much as in Vilnius. The “small ghetto” was liquidated in early October. According to Jäger’s summation, 315 Jewish men, 712 women and 818 children were shot on October 4.

On October 28, during the Grosse Aktion, approximately 9,200 were shot at Fort IX. This marked the last mass shooting of Jews from the Kaunas ghetto for over a year. During that time, instead of “cleansing local elements,” the execution squad of Einsatzkommando 3 exterminated thousands of Jews who had been transported from the Reich for “resettlement in the east.” A resident of the Kaunas ghetto recorded:

The next morning when I got up I went to the kitchen window, which faced the highway leading to the Ninth Fort and — God Almighty, there were columns of one hundred each slowly moving up the road […]. These were Austrian Jews being taken to the East for work. The Ninth Fort had suddenly become an execution ground for European Jewry. The local anti‐Semitic collaborators in the European countries helped the Nazis round up the Jews. The Germans then transported them to Lithuania and our local collaborators, our peaceful neighbors of years past, did the final shooting […]. God Almighty, was there ever a Jesus Christ who walked this earth of ours? Was this what He taught them?²⁰



(Emphasis added in all cases. I know that the text here says October 28, but it seems that the massacre probably continued into the early morning of October 29.)

Joachim Tauber in Complicated Complicity: European Collaboration with Nazi Germany During World War II, page 131:

In the district of Kaunas, Jewish properties were rented to “Aryan” inhabitants, with the contracts of the previous Jewish owners being openly noted in the records.⁴²

:::spoiler Click here for other events that happened today (October 29).
1879: Franz von Papen, conservative who was instrumental to the Fascists’ ascension to power in Berlin, existed.
1897: Joseph Goebbels, Reich Minister of Propaganda, blighted the world.
1942: In the United Kingdom, leading clergymen and political figures hold a public meeting to register outrage over the Third Reich’s persecution of Jews.
1944: The Axis lost the Dutch city of Breda to the 1st Polish Armoured Division, and its loss of Hungary was imminent as the Red Army entered it.
1955: Something, most likely an Axis mine, sunk the Soviet battleship Novorossiysk.
:::

This entry was edited (1 year ago)

On this day 83 years ago, the European Fascists and Japanese Imperialists signed the Tripartite Pact


The media in this post is not displayed to visitors. To view it, please go to the original post.

Pictured: ‘Representatives of the governments of Italy, Germany, and Japan sign the Three Power Pact, establishing the Rome–Berlin–Tōkyō Axis. Seated left to right are: Galeazzo Ciano (Italy), Joachim von Ribbentrop (Germany), and the Japanese ambassador, Kurusu.’ (Source.)

Quoting Christian Goeschel’s Performing the New Order: The Tripartite Pact, 1940–1945:

On 27 September 1940, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan signed the tripartite pact in Berlin. The signatories committed to ‘assist one another with all political, economic, and military means when one of the three Contracting Parties is attacked by a power at present not involved in the European war or in the Sino‐Japanese conflict’. The pact was a warning to the USA not to enter the wars in Europe and China. But [Washington] immediately saw the pact as the formal confirmation of Japan’s belligerence and so increased its military involvement in the Pacific.¹

The tripartite pact built on existing treaties, including the military alliance between Italy and Germany, formalized in the 1939 Pact of Steel, and the German–Japanese Anti‐Comintern pact, concluded in 1936 and joined by Italy in 1937. Hungary, Romania, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia (the latter country albeit only for twelve days) and then the Independent State of Croatia joined the tripartite pact subsequently, but the three main signatories denied the accessory states equal rank, thereby perpetuating their idea of a strictly hierarchical world order.²

[The Third Reich’s] non‐aggression pact with the Soviet Union in late August 1939 had greatly upset [Tōkyō]. But as the June 1940 defeat of France by [the Third Reich] had demonstrated, the defeat of liberal democracy seemed within reach of the Axis powers.³


At first the alliance with the Empire of Japan may looking puzzling, especially given that the German Fascists had mixed feelings on the Japanese, but given Imperial Japan’s fierce competition with liberal colonialism and its militant anticommunism, an alliance was too good to pass up:

Germany and Italy had previously maintained close links with China, but Japan’s increasing undermining of the liberal–internationalist order helped raise the possibility for the [Fascist] dictatorships to expand their territories.⁵



Pictured: ‘German Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop (standing at right), addresses the audience gathered to witness the signing of the Three Power Pact, establishing the Rome–Berlin–Tōkyō Axis. Seated from left to right are: the Japanese Ambassador Kurusu, Galeazzo Ciano (Italy), and German Chancellor Adolf Hitler.’ (Source.)

The signing of the pact was a triumph for Hitler. While he regarded the Japanese as racially inferior, he admired Japanese military achievements such as the 1905 victory over Russia. He saw an alliance with Nippon in strategic terms, or at least that is what he told his entourage in May 1942 when Germany, Japan and Italy dominated large swaths of Europe, East and Southeast Asia and North Africa.²³ Moreover, because of his racist views, he did not agree with Japan’s aim to drive European colonial powers from Asia; yet in this case he was prepared to subsume his racist principles to strategic considerations.²⁴

The pact’s signing in Berlin underlined Germany’s preponderant position in the alliance at the time. Despite the fanfare, reactions in Britain and the United States were cool overall. Joseph C. Grew, the U.S. ambassador to Tōkyō, drily stated that the pact ‘may be a diplomatic success for Germany’, but he could not see how Tōkyō would benefit from it.²⁵

Soon afterwards, in January 1941, the American historian A. Whitney Griswold commented on the pact in Foreign Affairs. For him, the pact had been Germany’s brainchild. Europe still held the reins over East Asian matters. The Times, while warning against the tripartite powers’ aggression to conquer living space, judiciously commented that in ‘political geometry, the Axis is an unstable figure’.²⁶


One conclusion that I find disagreeable—and I am well aware that I’m being iconoclastic for saying this—is that the Axis had ‘no common military strategy’. Even overlooking theaters such as North Africa, Greece, Yugoslavia, and the Eastern Front, the unimplemented invasions Kantokuen and Operation Orient suggest that that is at least questionable.

Quoting James William Morley in Deterrent Diplomacy: Japan, Germany, and the USSR, 1935–1940, pages 182–3:

On [Tōkyō’s] intent in signing the pact, […] Konoe as well as senior Foreign Ministry and navy officials were sincere in not wanting war with the United States. At the same time, especially after Germany’s victories in Europe, they were not prepared any more than were the army or the right wing radicals in the media and elsewhere in the bureaucracy to defer to American opposition or possible German greed and let China or the former European colonies in Southeast Asia slip from their grasp.

The pact was designed to solve this problem, that is, to confirm [Berlin’s] lack of ambition in these areas and, without war but by presenting an appearance of a formidable German–Japanese military combination, to dissuade the United States from pushing its opposition to Japan to a military showdown.


(Emphasis added in all cases.)

The most important lesson that we should draw from this is that the Axis’s creation was not purely a matter of choice. Nobody coerced another power into agreeing to the alliance, but that is beside the point: the Axis was a consequence of capital’s need to expand. When the Great Depression devastated Imperial Japan’s economy, warfare was the escape hatch. Thus:

The organic weaknesses inherent in Japanese capitalism have made its life span particularly violent and explosive; have driven it to a continuous series of wars since the first Sino‐Japanese war in the 1890s; have driven it far along the road of economic autarchy and [militarism].

These weaknesses and contradictions are primarily four in nature: (a) Necessity of seeking all vital raw materials beyond its natural frontiers (Japan, up to 1941, had to import 80 per cent of the twenty‐five strategic raw materials listed by Fortune as necessary for modern war; one‐half its copper, zinc, tin and scrap iron had to be imported; one‐fourth its pig iron; one‐third its aluminum; three‐fourths of its iron ore; 90 per cent of its lead and all its mercury and nickel). (b) A weak economic base at home, lacking heavy industries (iron and steel, chemicals, etc.). (c) A dependency on its export trade abroad out of which to accumulate profits to purchase the needed raw materials. (d) An inability to accumulate surplus capital with which to develop and exploit foreign conquests and for foreign investment.

In order for [Imperial] Japan to survive at all it was necessary to take certain measures, both industrial and political, to overcome the weight of these initial handicaps. It is our ignoring of the important industrial changes that largely accounts for the underestimation of [Imperial] Japan’s power.


(Emphasis original. Source.)

While the author did not comprehensively address the problem of war, Daniel Guerin’s Fascism and Big Business gives us clues. Page 330:

Export industry complains that it has been sacrificed. In spite of subsidies from the dumping fund, [Fascist] exports are declining in all the foreign markets, and this is aggravated by the circumstance that world economy is itself in decline. In a memorandum addressed to Chancellor Hitler in June, 1937, the spokesmen of the export industry, particularly of the Rhenish‐Westphalian coal barons, state their grievances.¹⁴⁰

Exports are strangled by all sorts of formalities that “transform the exchange of goods into a purely bureaucratic activity.” Export industry lacks raw materials: these are reserved almost exclusively for the armament industry. It lacks labor: “They insist on borrowing the best workers from certain branches of industry” in order to assign them to war or synthetic products industries. It lacks capital: it is unable to grant foreign customers the big credits made necessary by increasing competition. It lacks markets: the result of autarky is to isolate [the Fascist] economy from the world market.

“It has been shown,” the memorandum sadly notes, “that the foreign trade of the principal countries in the world does not necessarily depend on the German market…” So the export industry demands that engines be reversed and contact resumed with world economy.

But—and they do not mince words—it is impossible “to bring back into the orbit of world economy an economy functioning to the detriment of the domestic value of its currency and carrying on solely such activities as rearmament and autarky.”


Thus, the additions of Ethiopia, the Saar Basin, the Rhineland, Austria, and Sudetenland could not possibly have satiated Fascist capital forever, and when the fascists won the Spanish Civil War on April 1939, there was nowhere else to turn but total war.

:::spoiler
[Footnote]Finally, there is the anticommunist factoid that either Berlin seriously considered inviting Moscow to the Axis, for which we have little evidence. One example of this claim:

To bring a swift conclusion to the negotiations, Germany had offered to include the Soviet Union into the pact, an idea going back to earlier geopolitical visions of a solid totalitarian continental block against the US and the UK.


Goeschel, it seems, was referring to this:

Paradoxically, the setting up of the Axis during Schulenburg’s stay in Berlin only helped him to further his ideas. The Tripartite Part was clearly a vehicle for the establishment of the Continental bloc and initially assumed the inclusion of the Soviet Union by giving her ‘at the proper moment and in a friendly manner […] a free hand towards the south to fulfil any possible wishes in the direction of the Persian Gulf or India’.¹⁶ The prevailing feeling in the Wilhelmstrasse, best expressed by Weizsäcker, was:
We annoyed Russia with the guarantees to Romania […] and yesterday again with the tripartite pact of Germany, Italy, and Japan. It is necessary to compensate these surprises to Russia, if we do not want her to alter her attitude towards us. An attack by Russia is not to be feared because it is not strong enough militarily or as a régime. But Russia could still open its territory to English intrigues and, more importantly, stop the deliveries to us.



It might not have entirely been Goeschel’s fault given how misleadingly Gabriel Gorodetsky worded this, but the context should make it clear that the Tripartite Pact simply stipulated acquiescences to Moscow, not pact membership (in which case it would have been the Quadrupartite Pact). A few pages later, Molotov purportedly said that he ‘did not object to participating in various activities of the four powers but not in the Tripartite Pact, where the USSR was no more than an object’. (What ‘various activities’ he might have had in mind is unclear, but in case it isn’t obvious, ‘participation’ is not the same thing as membership.) Goeschel either misunderstood Gorodetsky’s clumsy writing or he lied, maybe to appease a publisher. In any case, this does not substantiate the rumor that Berlin seriously considered including its future Lebensraum into the pact, much less as ‘a solid totalitarian continental block against the US and the UK’ (ugh).
:::


:::spoiler Click here for other events that happened today (September 27).
1864: Andrej Hlinka, Slovakian fascist, was born.
1938: Franz Halder and other Wehrmacht officers set September 29, 1938 as the launch date of their revolt should Berlin lead the Third Reich into a war over the Sudetenland crisis. In the early afternoon, the Third Reich’s Chancellery moved several divisions to the German–Czechoslovakian border. In the late afternoon, it called for a military parade on the Unter den Linden boulevard in Berlin to rouse a patriotic sentiment; Berlin citizens responded coolly, however. Apart from that, the Third Reich passed law to revoke licenses to practice law for all Jewish attorneys, effective November 30, 1938; thereafter Jewish attorneys could only act as ‘consultants’ for other Jews on matters of law.
1939: Berlin ordered its top military leaders to begin planning for a war in the west, with a target launch date of November 12, 1939. The generals would complain that the date was too soon. As well, Reinhard Heydrich became the head of Reichssicherheitshauptamt, and the Dachau concentration camp temporarily closed until February 18, 1940 for use of training SS units; prisoners of Dachau transferred to Mauthausen.
1940: Julius Wagner‐Jauregg, Fascist eugenicist, dropped dead. At 0900 hours that day, eighty Axis bombers escorted by one hundred fighters flew over Kent toward London, but most of the bombers turned back near Maidstone and Tonbridge; some got through and released their bombs over London. Between 1200 and 1230 hours, three hundred Axis aircraft, mostly fighters, conducted a sweep and engaged in dogfights near London; a score of bombers within this group were able to bomb London. By the end of the day, the Axis lost twenty‐one bombers and thirty‐four fighters. Overnight, the Axis bombed London, Liverpool, Edinburgh, Birmingham, and Nottingham.
1941: The Axis and its collaborators exterminated 23,000 Jews at Kamenets‐Podolsk, Ukraine, and the Jager Report (issued on December 1, 1941) noted that the Axis slaughtered 989 Jewish men, 1,636 Jewish women, and 821 Jewish children in Eysisky, Lithuania (for a total of 3,446 people). Additionally, Axis submarine U‐201 attacked Allied convoy HG‐73 north of the Azores islands, sinking two merchant ships and the antiaircraft ship HMS Springbank; thirty‐two folk died but two hundred one survived. On the other hand, the Axis garrison at Wolchefit Pass in Ethiopia surrendered to British King’s African Rifles regiment, and Axis troops in plain clothes infiltrated the north gate of the walled city of Changsha, Hunan Province, China, but failed to complete their sabotage mission.
1942: Luftwaffe unit III./KG 4 (flying He 111 bombers) flew its last bombing sortie over Stalingrad. The unit would soon be transported out of its base in Morozovsk, Russia for the German Reich to undergo glider towing training. As well, Axis troops landed on Kuria, Gilbert Islands.
1943: One of the Axis officials in Rome demanded that the Jewish community pay one hundred pounds of gold within three dozen hours or three hundred Jews would become prisoners. The Vatican would open its treasury to help the Jews reach the required amount. Meanwhile the Wehrmacht started to withdraw all forces out of Ukraine to defensive positions on the west side of the Dnieper River, and Italy’s Axis occupation administration arrested thousands of rioters in Naples.
1944: Armeegruppe E withdrew from western Greece, and the Kassel Mission (which aimed to destroy the factories of the engineering works of Henschel & Sohn, which built tracked armoured vehicles and their associated infrastructure) resulted in the largest loss by a USAAF group on any mission in World War II.
2006: Helmut Kallmeyer, a chemist involved in Action T4, finally died.
:::

This entry was edited (1 year ago)

On this day 90 years ago, the Austrian, Hungarian & Italian govts. signed the Rome Protocols, strengthening Fascist capital


The media in this post is not displayed to visitors. To view it, please go to the original post.

Pictured: Tripartite conference in Rome consisting of Engelbert Dollfuß (Federal State of Austria), Gyula Gömbös (Kingdom of Hungary) and Benito Mussolini (Kingdom of Italy) signing Protocols №№ 1, 2, & 3 among Austria, Hungary, and Italy.

Quoting Per Tiedtke’s Co‐operation or Rivalries at Times of Crisis? Germany, Italy and the International Economy 1929–1936, pages 223, 230–2:

Even clearer was the turn to bilateralism in the [Fascist] Brocchi contracts. Against the idea of an open and multilateral preferential system as discussed at the League — which would have the potential to be acknowledged by the U.S. — Rome granted a series of hidden preferences to Austria and Hungary only, which were supposed to be the most important allies of fascist Italy in the region.

[…]

While in Germany the Brocchi contracts served as a template for the [Third Reich’s] foreign economic policy devoted to the idea of an economic expansion into Southeastern Europe, in [Fascist] Italy exactly this scenario stimulated an extension of the Brocchi contracts.^1030^ The extension culminated in the Rome Protocols, signed on 17 March 1934 between Italy, Austria and Hungary.^1031^

The multilateral contract broadened and intensified the Brocchi provisions with a series of open and hidden preferences granted to the contractual partners. Applying the Rome Protocols, Fascist Italy reached the closest approximation to [a Fascist] economic Mitteleuropa. Imports from Austria, for instance, started to rise again and grew from L. 175,253,000 in 1933 to L. 371,292,000 in 1936.

The growth rate exceeded that of imports from Germany, France and the Netherlands. At the same time imports from Belgium and Britain decreased. Italian exports to Austria only started to rise again in 1934, from L. 122,400,000 to L. 193,408,000 in 1936. However, at the same time exports to most other countries (except Germany) fell sharply.^1032^

League of Nation statistics for Hungary reveal that [Fascist] Italy’s share in Hungary’s imports rose from an average for the years 1925–30 of 4.8 per cent to 8.5 per cent in the first half of 1935 and the share in Hungary’s exports from 6.2 per cent to 14.4 per cent.^1033^

All in all, it can be concluded that the impact of [Fascist] Italy’s preferential systems was stronger on the import side, that it indeed shifted trade from Western Europe to Austria and Hungary and that it did not work as a countermeasure to balance the strongly increasing importance of [the Reich] as a sales market.

The question of whether the Rome Protocols can be seen as a success or as an expensive and ultimately failed experiment — with [Fascist] Italy’s increasing share in trade with the member countries seen as being due to other causes — already preoccupied contemporary theorists, and is still somewhat open in current historiography.

Whereas most commentators at the time, such as the [Fascist] minister of foreign trade and exchange, Felice Guarneri,^1034^ or the Czechoslovakian professor of economics, Antonin Basch,^1035^ proved to be rather sceptical about the impact, current scholarship, on the contrary, suggests that the Rome Protocols had a direct positive impact on [Fascist] Italy’s foreign commerce.^1036^

For other perspectives than the Italian, an answer to the question of success or failure is more obvious. For instance, in the summer of 1935, Hungarian Minister for Agriculture Kálmán Darányi observed that, “our export of livestock both to Italy as well as Germany has reached the maximum numbers established in the quotas”. Therefore, he rejected the claim that “the tripartite Pact of Rome did not satisfy expectations”.^1037^

The assessment as success or failure for [Fascist] Italy also depends on whether the outcome is compared with economic or more political visions about the expected performance. Of course, the prices [that the Fascists] paid for Austrian and especially Hungarian export goods were well above the current world market prices due to the granted preferences, and therefore degraded [Fascist] Italy’s terms of trade.^1038^

Yet, already before signing the protocols the MAE spoke of “new sacrifices”,^1039^ thereby implying that Rome deliberately chose this development to allow governments with fascist leanings to remain financially independent from other states.^1040^ In this regard, it seems that a negative assessment solely on economic terms falls short of the mark.

Whatever the real impact of the Rome Protocols was, there is no doubt that [Berlin] perceived this development as an Italian success and a potential threat. “We have no friends left” complained a government official at the AA after the news of the Rome Protocols reached Berlin.^1041^

Officially, Berlin protested to Rome against a violation of [the Reich’s] economic interest in the region,^1042^ but there is little doubt that in fact the Rome Protocols were perceived primarily as an instrument to prevent the Anschluss of Austria. The man in the middle, Hungarian Prime Minister Gömbös — although not completely innocent with regard to the German–Italian frictions — argued strongly for a “reparation of the broken Axis Berlin-Rome”.^1043^

Disappointment, of course, prevailed on both sides. After information about the secret proceedings between Berlin and Budapest leaked, Rome approached Budapest to get details on the concessions granted with the envisaged German–Hungarian commercial contract. After the [Reich] authorities in Hungary had halted this attempt, Rome deplored a breach of the common German–Italian practice that each government inform the other about any foreign economic policy initiative in Southeastern Europe.

[Berlin] was well aware of the hostile message it sent out. Nonetheless, it felt entitled to unilateral action because Rome had failed to inform Berlin about manoeuvres intending to make the Adriatic port of Trieste the exclusive hub of Austria.^1044^ In the infrastructural connection of Southeastern Europe with its major markets, fierce rivalries between [the Reich] and Fascist Italy evolved, which were as in the case of preferential treatments stimulated by German–Italian transfers.


This negotiation had the unintentional effect of encouraging the Reich to trade more with the Kingdom of Yugoslavia as a compensation for Fascist Italy’s monopolization. Page 248:

However, it also reduced Rome’s leeway to offer preferential access to the Italian market to other countries. In fact, [Fascist] Italy, which had already imported more from [the Kingdom of] Yugoslavia than any other country in pre‐crisis times, now had to reduce its imports for the sake of the Rome Protocols. All that was left was to witness how the [Reich’s] bid prevailed.^1124^

What was more, the new contract not only stimulated Yugoslavian trade with [the Reich], the requirements of the clearing also made it impossible to pay for Yugoslavian exports if the goods were transported via Trieste, thus rendering the established transit trade of Trieste impossible.^1125^


Yet even though Berlin felt uneasy about the Protocols of Rome, the amusing coincidence underneath all this is that the trading between the Reich and Fascist Italy was probably necessary for sustaining said protocols! Page 257:

The very generous facilitation of Italian goods, which to a large extent fulfilled no essential need in [the Reich], but were rather prioritised to ensnare a potential political ally, provided [Fascist] Italy with the revenues needed to support its preferential bloc with Austria and Hungary. Without the indirect financing of Germany, it would have been very difficult to sustain the preferences of the Rome protocols.

Already in 1936, the German newspaper Rhein NSZ Front pointed out in looking at the Rome protocols that, “if Germany retreats because its rightful place was threatened, it would be the sudden and sweeping bankruptcy of this […] little natural friendship”.^1175^


:::spoiler (Emphasis added in all cases. Click here for notes.)
Pages 265:

Not only were the borders between the two economic areas unclear, but [Fascist] foreign trade experts also developed trade policies that aimed at integrating Southeastern Europe and the Eastern Mediterranean. It has been outlined already that [Fascist] Italy made significant commercial concessions to its partners of the Rome protocols in order to support a pro‐fascist stance.

Yet, in order to actually make use of the large amount of Austrian timber it had committed to purchase in the protocols, an Italian organisation was founded that marketed Austrian wood in Palestine, Persia, Egypt and the Arab peninsula. [This must have been easier than marketing Italian wood, given the Arab world’s displease with the Fascist subjugation of Libya earlier. — Anbol] As a pleasant side effect, this distribution chain brought more demand to the shipping business of Trieste.^1208^

In addition to Austrian timber reaching the Eastern Mediterranean via Italy, [Fascist] trade experts used the mechanism of the Rome protocols to export Italian goods destined for the Turkish market via Austria, thus creating greater export opportunities within the framework of Turkish compensation agreements (further addressed below).^1209^


Pierre L. Siklos’s War Finance, Reconstruction, Hyperinflation and Stabilization in Hungary, 1938–48, page 45, summarises the protocols per se thus:

Thus, while the Rome protocols of March 1934^14^ were primarily designed to increase trade between Austria, Italy, and Hungary, as well as provide a ready market for Hungarian wheat, a key crop still reeling from the deflationary impact of the Great Depression, it was also the first of several attempts to contain [the Third Reich’s] ‘bloodless invasion’.^15^
:::

:::spoiler Click here for other events that happened today (March 17).
1938: Imperial troops began a two‐hour bombardment on Tengxian, Jiangsu Province, China. At 0800 hours, multiple attacks began from all directions of the town. After suffering very high casualties, the Imperialists captured the west and south gates on the city wall by 1700 hours. (On a side note, the Soviet Union requested a meeting with the western powers to limit further Fascist aggression in Europe, but such a meeting would never materialize.)
1939: Madrid and Lisbon signed the Treaty of Friendship and Non‐Aggression between Portugal and Spain.
1940: Berlin made Fritz Todt the Reichminister for Armaments and Munitions even though he had no experience in the military field. Fascist submarine U‐38 torpedoed and sank Danish merchant vessel Argentina east of the Shetland Islands, Scotland late that evening, massacring the entire crew of thirty‐three.
1941: Lieutenant General Erwin Rommel sent a message to the besieged Axis garrison at Giarabub in southeastern Libya, asking the troops to hold on for a few more weeks and promising that his forces would arrive in relief in that time. Aside from that, Frenchman Francois Scornet, 22, became the only civilian to be executed by firing squad in Jersey of the Channel Islands throughout the Wehrmacht occupation. Scornet was one of sixteen young Army Cadets who had fled France in a small boat with the intention of joining the Free French forces in England, United Kingdom. Lost in rough weather, they sailed into Guernsey, Channel Islands believing it to be the Isle of Wight and were captured. As an example to other escapees, Scornet was picked out as the ringleader and shot. On the other hand, the Axis lost Jijiga, Ethiopia to the Allies.
1942: The Sobibór concentration camp in occupied Poland conducted its first experimental gassing, exterminating between thirty to forty Jewish women from the Krychów forced labor camp. In Aktion Reinhard, the Axis sent Jews from Lublin, Poland to the nearby Belzec concentration camp. Axis submarines * U‐404*, U‐373 and U‐71 all sank Allied vessels, too.
1943: The Kingdom of Bulgaria stated its opposition to the deportation of Bulgarian Jews, and somebody found graffiti along the lines of ‘we are obliged to the Führer for this’ among ruins of bombed German cities. Additionally, ninety Luftwaffe bombers attacked Cardiff, Wales, but the Axis lost Gafsa, Tunisia to the Allies.
1944: The Axis lost Dubno (a major transportation hub) to the Soviets, but Helsinki rejected the Soviet peace proposal while Axis and Anglo‐Indian troops clashed at Tonzang and Axis submarine U‐371 sank Netherlandish troop transport Dempo in the Mediterranean Sea just off of the coast of Algeria, slaughtering 498.
1945: Axis collaborator Emperor Bao Dai of Nguyen Dynasty Vietnam assumed direct control of the Vietnamese government, but 1,260 Allied heavy bombers hit two synthetic oil plants in the Greater German Reich while 650 medium bombers assaulted the rail system. Axis troops evacuated Kolberg, Germany (now Kolobrzeg, Poland) by sea, but the Axis lost 8,841 loves and 650,000 became displaced as a result of an Allied aerial assault on Kobe. The attack also heavily damaged submarine I‐15, which was under construction and nearly completed. Apart from that, an Axis V‐2 rocket hit 212 Finchley Road near Borough Central Library in Hampstead, London. Aside from the library, 1,000 homes, the telephone exchange, the lighting station, Council’s Work Depot, Warden’s Post № 16, and Women’s Voluntary Service offices suffered damage. Another rocket hit the Rippleway sidings in Barking, London at 2230 hours.
:::

On this day in 1924, Fascist Italy officially annexed Fiume: an early victory for Fascist imperialism


The media in this post is not displayed to visitors. To view it, please go to the original post.

(This takes 3.75 minutes to read.)

Fiume, for those of us unaware, was a disputed territory from 1918 to 1920, then a microstate under League of Nations and Italian supervision starting in November 1920.

On September 1919, Gabriele D’Annunzio and various other Italian ultranationalists (legionnaires) entered the territory and established a protofascist state, with the ultimate goal of making Fiume a territory of the Kingdom of Italy.

Here are a few glimpses of this rule:

Fiumian workers — both pro and anti‐annexationist — submitted a set of requests to D’Annunzio, which ranged from economic claims to the withdrawal of politically motivated expulsions, the re‐employment of dismissed workers and the right to opt for Fiumian pertinenza for those who were already residents before the war. […]

D’Annunzio was initially open to negotiation, siding with the workers against the National Council and proposing to limit expulsions to individuals regarded as “anti‐Italian,” rather than those promoting “socialist propaganda.”

However, no compromise could be achieved and the workers proclaimed a general strike based on claims regarded as political on April 20. The repression was harsh; hundreds of nonpertinent workers were to be expelled, including the leaders of the Socialist Party.

[…]

On July 11, a list of over one hundred shop owners, who were members of a pro‐Yugoslav League of the Fiumian Industrials, was circulated by D’Annunzio’s command. As had already happened in February, expulsions were preceded by an investigation that aimed to detect their target.

The next day several shops owned by pro-Yugoslav merchants were plundered and the boats anchored in the Dead Channel that flowed between Fiume and Sušak were set on fire. These attacks were followed by expulsion orders against pro‐Yugoslav nonpertinents.

[…]

However, formal expulsion orders were not the only measures that pushed Croats to leave. D’Annunzio’s command reported that legionnaires or civilians disguised as soldiers threatened Croats, telling them to leave if they wanted their life to be spared.

Legionnaires later settled in the houses of evicted families. The image of luxury apartments destroyed by Italian soldiers further fueled frustration and led some expellees to resort to corruption to avoid having their apartment confiscated.


The Regio Esercito evicted D’Annunzio in January 1921, and most of his legionnaires followed. But not to worry, there were others to continue his glorious legacy of freedom:

During a long phase of instability that ran from D’Annunzio’s eviction to the annexation to Italy in 1924, expulsions never ceased to play a rôle in the political struggle.

While the Free State of Fiume was officially established by the Rapallo Treaty in 1920, it was in power only for a couple of months. Before and after this, the city’s reins of power lay in the hands of temporary bodies that increasingly pursued Fiume’s annexation to Italy.

Those bodies continued to use expulsions to get rid of political and social undesirables, as did many of their predecessors. Similarly, implementing the expulsions was more wishful thinking than reality.


(Source.)

And of course (quoting Dominique Kirchner Reill’s The Fiume Crisis, pgs. 226–7):

[The Fascist bourgeoisie’s] official annexation of the city to Italy in 1924 instigated a remaking of Fiume along textbook nationalist, Italian centralist lines. Gone were programs aimed at making Fiume look and feel Italian while keeping it functioning much as it had before the war. The pragmatic exceptionalisms Fiumians had hoped would give them a leg up once they were reabsorbed into a big state never came to pass.

Crown‐lire exchange rates never arrived at the 1 to 1 everyone had hoped for; by 1924 the now meek and exhausted Fiumians gratefully accepted the 2.5‐to‐1 rate Italy offered. Laws were no longer a mash‐up of Hungarian priors, Italian additions, and Fiume‐only innovations: now the laws enforced from Palermo to Venice were instated en masse in Fiume, regardless of community wishes.

Women lost the vote, divorce became illegal, and tax codes benefited Rome, not Fiume’s regional trade. Pertinency disappeared from the citizenship rolls: with the 1924 annexation, Fiume pertinents had to opt for Italian, Serb‐Croat‐Slovene, or some other citizenship, with nothing in between except statelessness. Fiume pertinents who chose not to become Italian lost the right to state employment.

Under these conditions, many Croatian‐ and Slovene‐speaking Fiumians moved across the river to Sušak, where their ethnic identification bolstered their rights instead of impeding them. Name changes were no longer voluntary—there were specific Fascist protocols about how they were enacted. Fiume’s textbooks and geography lessons were replaced by the national curriculum.

Under Mussolini, Habsburg Fiume was decisively annulled in a way it had not been at any of its earlier crisis points—not the dissolution of Austria–Hungary, the arrival of Inter‐Allied troops, Woodrow Wilson’s diplomatic pronouncements, the takeover of the Italian National Council, the arrival of D’Annunzio and his followers, the Christmas of Blood, or the international recognition of the Free State of Fiume.

Though the majority of locals remained, the contours of their world now reflected the desires of their new empire in formation, the Fascist one, and not the old one, the Habsburg one, whose legacy had lived on for so long.


(Emphasis added in all cases.)

Per The Adriatic Sea Encyclopedia, representatives from the Kingdoms of Italy and Yugoslavia convened on January 27, 1924 and agreed to the Treaty of Rome — a.k.a. Italy-Yugoslavia Treaty — which partitioned(!) the microstate, assigning the City of Fiume to the Fascists and the City of Sušak to the Kingdom of Yugoslavia; the border between the countries passed along the river Rječina. The International League of Nations recognized the partition as legal on April 7, 1924.

This entry was edited (2 days ago)

This Axis exterminated 2,000–2,500 Mountain Jews


For those of us unaware, Mountain Jews are Jewish people who have lived in the North Caucasus for several centuries. They are a unique demographic, identifying neither as Ashkenazic nor Sephardic (though some have had Ashkenazic neighbors), and there are undoubtedly aspects of their culture that many of their Jewish siblings elsewhere would find odd.

When the anticommunists reinvaded Soviet Eurasia in 1941 and later made it to the North Caucasus, some of their victims were Mountain Jews:

[T]he [Axis’s] first encounter with Mountain Jews ended with the latter’s murder. This first massacre of Mountain Jews took place outside the borders of the North Caucasus, in the Shaumian Kolkhoz in the Crimea, most of whose members, it would seem, were Mountain Jews.⁴⁶

In March 1942 one of the Gentile neighbors informed the [Axis] authorities about the “Jewish presence” in the area. In response, Einsatzgruppe D—in cooperation with the military gendarmerie (Feldgendarmerie) and local collaborators—rounded up and murdered all 114 Mountain Jews there.⁴⁷ This was carried out in full cognizance of the fact that these were Mountain Jews, i.e., not Ashkenazi.⁴⁸

The Mountain Jews had been settled in the Crimea under the aegis of the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee, whose aid the Soviet government accepted as part of a program to resettle Jews “on the land”; the [Axis powers] were aware of this, and it may have inclined Einsatzgruppe D to view the Mountain Jews there as participants in the same “world Jewish conspiracy” and therefore to kill them along with the Ashkenazi Jews.⁴⁹

It should be noted that the annihilation of Mountain Jews was mentioned only in a local military report,⁵⁰ but not in the more official Ereignismeldung (Situation Report) that Einsatzgruppe D sent to Berlin. Thus it may be that the Einsatzgruppe considered its decision to murder the Mountain Jews in the Crimea a local matter, and that they thought they did not need to obtain authorization from Berlin for such actions—either before or after.

[...]

The first communities of Mountain Jews captured by the [Axis] in the Caucasus, at the end of August 1942, were two kolkhozes in Bogdanovka and Menzhinskoe (Kursk Raion, Stavropol Krai), in which the Mountain Jews constituted a significant portion of the entire Jewish membership.⁵⁷ Meanwhile, spontaneous incidents of looting Jewish property, brutalization of Jews, and murder multiplied rapidly.

There is no evidence that the [Axis] even considered treating the Mountain Jews here differently from their Ashkenazi co-religionists: perhaps the fact that they lived together caused the [Axis] to view them as a single entity. Scores of Mountain Jewish families who remained in Bogdanovka and Menzhinskoe were murdered by machine gun fire on September 20 and August 19, 1942, respectively,⁵⁸ a total of about 850 victims.⁵⁹

We do not know with certainty which [Axis] forces were responsible for exterminating the Jews in these two places. In theory, the kolkhozes were situated in the operative domain of Einsatzkommando (EK) 12. However, Soviet findings claim that a large Wehrmacht unit camped in Bogdanovka⁶⁰ and murdered the Jews there; this points to the possibility of the direct involvement of the [Wehrmacht]. This would increase the likelihood that the [Axis powers] (at least in Bogdanovka) were unaware of the Mountain Jews’ uniqueness.


Hence,

  1. Both Altshuler and Arad estimate that about 1,000 Mountain Jews perished during the Holocaust. Altshuler, Yehudei mizrah Kavkaz, 151; Arad, History of the Holocaust in the Soviet Union, 2004, 535. However, this estimate does not take into account up to 1,400 Mountain Jews murdered in the village of Ganshtakovka (see n. 56). With this the death total reaches between 2,000 and 2,500, some forty to fifty percent of the original number in the region occupied by the [Axis].


(Emphasis added in all cases.)

If 2,500 seems like a ‘low’ number, your suspicion is justified by numerous factors, namely the Axis’s limited reach as well as its relatively brief presence where Mountain Jews lived:

The [Axis] advance had brought under occupation large sections of the North Caucasus, including Orzhonikidze (after liberation changed to Stavropol) and Krasnodar territories (krai, pl. kraia), the Kabardino-Balkar Autonomous Republic, and a large part of the North Ossetian Autonomous Republic, homes to a large portion of the Mountain Jew population. These found themselves under [Axis] occupation for varying periods of up to five months.

However, most of the large groups of Mountain Jews were in fact not overrun. Out of a Mountain Jewish population of 35,000 in the USSR on the eve of the Second World War,⁸ the only major centers that would be occupied were Nal’chik (capital of Kabardino-Balkaria, occupied for only two months) and Mozdok (in Ordzhonikidze Krai, occupied for four and a half months). In addition, Mountain Jews were a significant component of the local population in some small rural settlements.


Fastidious racial theories:

The [Axis] did not conclude decisively whether the groups were of Jewish origin. Two variants contradicted the possibility of common ancestry with European Jews:
(a) the Mountain Jews originated in Persia after mixing with the Persians;³⁸ or (b) they derived from a mixture of several “Eastern races.”³⁹ [...] The [Axis powers] were [...] inclined to the opinion that these were not Jews at all because physically they did not have a Jewish “appearance,” and because they practiced polygamy.⁸⁰


Along with Soviet and partisan recruitment:

A factor reducing the number of Mountain Jews falling under [Axis] occupation was the induction of males between the ages of eighteen and forty (and in many cases older than that) into the Red Army and (to a much lesser extent) the partisan movement. Many testimonies¹⁰ document the enlistment of the men, since at this point—about a year into the war—the Soviet Union was maximizing the exploitation of its human resources to fight the war.¹¹

We can reasonably assume that a large percentage of the men of the community had been drafted before the [Axis] arrived.¹² Regarding participation in the partisan movement, we have only isolated examples and incomplete information allowing no basis for estimating the percentage of Jews who adopted this course.¹³


Taken together, these reasons explain why the Axis’s violence against Mountain Jews was surprisingly less awful than it could have been; the majority of Mountain Jews who had come under occupation survived thanks to the Axis’s uncertainty and hesitation. Even so, for some of us this is going to feel like an inadequate compensation; two thousand deaths is still deeply upsetting.

Further reading: Beyond the Pale: The Holocaust in the North Caucasus. I leave you with a quote from page 196:

Ashurova recalled how the Ifraimov family of Mountain Jews paid with their lives for an unsuccessful attempt to rescue a family of Ashkenazi Jews: “Our Mountain Jews hid two sisters who were physicians… [The Axis] executed both sisters with the Mountain Jews who were hiding them. Twelve souls [were killed] instantly.”⁴²

:::spoiler Click here for events that happened today (October 29).
1879: Franz von Papen, conservative who was instrumental to the Fascists’ ascension to power in Berlin, existed.
1897: Joseph Goebbels, Reich Minister of Propaganda, blighted the world.
1941: In the Kaunas Ghetto, the Axis shot over ten thousand Jews at the Ninth Fort, a massacre known as the ‘Great Action’.
1942: In the United Kingdom, leading clergymen and political figures hold a public meeting to register outrage over the Third Reich’s persecution of Jews.
1944: The Axis lost the Dutch city of Breda to the 1st Polish Armoured Division, and its loss of Hungary was imminent as the Red Army entered it.
1955: Something, most likely an Axis mine, sunk the Soviet battleship Novorossiysk.
:::

This entry was edited (11 months ago)

The Jews who fought for their Fascist oppressors


Being a Gentile I have to say that I feel uncomfortable talking about this very sensitive topic, but perhaps it is comparable with the indigenous Americans who fought for the European colonists, or the various Africans who fought for the Fascist colonists. Collaboration with the enemy has always been a part of imperialism’s history and complexity, and Fascism was no exception, so I feel an obligation to tell you about it.

For some of us this may serve as a reminder that oppressors can and do accept the assistance of their victims (at least until they outlive their utility).

Excerpt:

Many of the men who had served in [the Wehrmacht] were met with fury and ostracism. An officer, hoping to put his past behind him by emigrating to South America, asked a Berlin rabbi for help, but when the rabbi found out about his military service, he turned his back on the “Jew killer.” Another was told by his aunt in Palestine that it would have been better if he’d died in a camp, as millions of their co‐religionists had.


See also: ‘For the Jews who fought for Hitler, discomfort still — despite rejecting Nazi Iron Cross for saving German lives

The Jewish Troops of Adolf Hitler

The Jews in Hitler’s Military

Hitler’s Jewish Soldiers: The Untold Story of Nazi Racial Laws and Men of Jewish Descent in the German Military

Unlikely Warrior: A Jewish Soldier in Hitler’s Army

It may also be worth mentioning that at least a few upper‐class Jews in the Anglosphere willingly endorsed the Third Reich: Benjamin Harrison Freedman and, arguably, the DuPont family of Delaware.

ETA: I never liked how this thread overlooked the Jewish Italian Fascists, which makes the title somewhat misleading. To correct this, here are some quotes from Shira Klein’s Italy’s Jews from Emancipation to Fascism, pages 49–50:

[Fascist] Jewish men, already staunch patriots and royalists, happily glorified military service. Some chose the army as their life‐long occupation. Valfredo Segre from Padua became a military pilot at only twenty years old, in 1931. He was promoted to first lieutenant and won six medals, three of them for flying the war planes [that Fascist] Italy sent to aid Franco in the Spanish Civil War.²⁴⁵

The Gerbi siblings from Livorno also wanted to join [Fascist] Italy’s armed forces; in the 1920s, Antonello Gerbi dreamed of enlisting in the navy, and only a failed medical examination prevented him from doing so. His brother Giuliano chose the prestigious regiment of horse‐drawn artillery, relishing the cape, spurred boots, and saber that came with the position. “At a parade,” recalled the third brother Claudio, “riding his horse in front of his battery, he was magnificent.”²⁴⁶

The number of Jews with military careers grew fivefold from 1901 to 1938. By that year, almost 3 percent of all Italian army officers were Jewish, far more than Jews’ proportion in Italian society.²⁴⁷ […] [Fascist] Jews teemed with excitement at the African conquest of 1935.²⁵⁵ Some volunteered to fight, like young Mario Pavia from Turin, who was ecstatic at the chance to claim “a place in the sun,” as [Fascists] liked to call Africa.²⁵⁶


The Third Reich’s head of state even honored one of these Fascists:

Hitler was evidently unaware that among the martyrs he solemnly saluted at the Sacrario in May 1938 was Gino Bolaffi, Florentine Fascist of Jewish origin.³⁸


Because certain Fascists promoted settling in Ethiopia as an alternative to mainstream Zionism, they privileged the Jews there in order to make it more attractive to potential settlers. Some Ethiopian Jews therefore fought for Fascism so as to defend their privileges. Quoting Daniel Summerfield in The Beta Israel in Ethiopia and Israel: Studies on the Ethiopian Jews, page 56:

Some of the Beta Israel were also given weapons by the [Fascists] in order to help fight the resistance. Many agreed to collaborate with the [Fascist] authorities in this manner as they believed [that] the Italians were beneficial for both Beta Israel and Ethiopia and that their rule was permanent. Some of my informants also told me that they were convinced by the [Fascist] propaganda which claimed that Haile Selassie had not been listening to the people.

They believed that the Italians were going to rectify the situation by 1. listening to the voice of the people 2. easing the life for the population and 3. restructuring the country. Others joined the [Regio Esercito] in order to receive a weapon and to acquire the prestigious status of a soldier with the benefits that accompanied it such as extra food.


Some of the Jews who fought for the Axis were Karaites, a folk of uncertain origin who consider the Talmud noncanon. Although certain Axis officials and collaborators lethally persecuted them, others considered them to be Judaists who had only a little Jewish ancestry, and therefore the Axis intentionally recruited several hundred of them. Quoting Kiril Feferman’s Nazi Germany and the Karaites in 1938–1944: between racial theory and Realpolitik:

The Wehrmacht pulled out of the Crimea in April 1944; hundreds of Karaites, apparently mainly those who served in the local police and their families, left with the [Axis]. In the summer of 1944, some Lithuanian Karaites joined the retreat of [Axis] troops from Lithuania. Because most of the retreating Karaite men had some police training, the [Axis] chose to place them in a military framework.

By mid‐1944, some 500–600 Karaites served in the ranks of the Wehrmacht and the Waffen SS (mainly, in its Tatar Legion).³⁹ After that, they were handled by the Ministry of the Occupied Eastern Territories⁴⁰ which, as we have seen, was rather positively disposed towards them. Yet, in the course of 1943–1944 this Ministry lost its authority to the SS.

Thus the [Axis] treatment of the Karaite question in 1944 was conducted primarily by the SS. It should be remembered that this agency sometimes acted positively on the Karaite question while in other places and at other times, SS people wrote reports which equated Karaites with Jews, and sometimes killed Karaites outright.



Fascist plans for mass Jewish settlement in Ethiopia (1936–1943)


(This takes approximately two minutes to read.)

Daniel Summerfield’s claims about Ethiopian Jews, such as ‘[e]ven in the years following the official implementation of racist policy both in Ethiopia and Italy and despite the fact that ‘Ethiopian Judaism’ was effectively disbanded, […] their legal status under the Fascists was the same if not better than other ethnic groups in Ethiopia and that they were even at times granted extra benefits’, come across as absolutely incredible (regardless of Emanuela Trevisan Semi’s affirmation with them).

However, they are easier to believe when we take into account this unorthodox variant of Herzlianism that some Fascists were seriously proposing:

Sir Noel Charles, the Counsellor of the British embassy in Rome, also expressed the view that the fascist racial laws might serve as a prelude to Jewish settlement in Ethiopia. In a letter of September 10, to the British Foreign Secretary, Lord Halifax, he observed that “various indications” suggested that “it was not by accident” that the Italian decree of September 3, which “banished foreign Jews and Italian Jews nationalised [sic] since the war from Italy and Libya and the Aegean Islands, made no mention of Ethiopia.” Discussing the question of settlement in some detail he continued:
“Since the introduction of this and other decrees regarding Jews I have heard from several sources that the authorities have been suggesting to Jews who have complained that life in Italy is being made impossible for them, that a solution of their difficulties would appear to offer itself in emigration to Ethiopia. The Times correspondent now tells me that a colleague of his recently taxed the Ministry of Italian Africa with the intention of sending Jews to Ethiopia and elicited the admission that, while nothing had been definitely decided, it was in fact proposed that an area should be set aside suitable for both agricultural and industrial development to which both Italian Jews and foreign Jews at present in Italy would be permitted to go.



Thus, while the Fascists still favored segregation, they did not implement brutally anti‐Jewish policies in Ethiopia either, not out of any sincere compassion for Ethiopian Jews but merely to discourage them from emigrating: this was going to be the Jews’ home now — at least five million Jews’ new home, in fact — and scaring them off would have defeated that purpose. Hence, some Polish Jews sought to settle in Ethiopia (and a scammer eagerly exploited them).

Additionally:

One of the chief protagonists of the scheme for settling Jewish refugees in Ethiopia at this time was, interestingly enough, President F. D. Roosevelt of the United States who, desirous of deflecting Jewish immigration away from the States, wished, according to his Jewish aide Bernard Baruch, to establish a “sanctuary in Africa, financed by private funds and open to all refugees,” and on one occasion “sketched a map of Africa on a scratch pad, outlining the temperate, largely unpopulated areas where such a scheme might be put into effect.”


(Emphasis added in all cases.)


This entry was edited (2 months ago)

On this day 82 years ago, the Axis invaded Stalingrad


The media in this post is not displayed to visitors. To view it, please go to the original post.

It is ironic that the antisocialists designated this day ‘European Day of Remembrance for Victims of Stalinism and Nazism’, because August 23rd in the years 1941–1945 demonstrates evidence that does not fit nicely with their repetitive attempts to equate socialism in one country with Fascism. The anticommunist invasion of Stalingrad is another good example that they prefer to ignore (because otherwise they’ll slip into exonerating the Axis):

At noon on the twenty‐third of August, Panzers of the Sixth Army rolled towards Stalingrad. Above them roared the might of Airfleet Four, saluting the soldiers with their sirens. They were on route to Stalingrad to unleash the heaviest bombing campaign yet seen on the Eastern Front. When the air raid sirens sounded, many people assumed [that] it was a test. Only when the sky became dark with planes and antiaircraft batteries open fire did people rush to the shelters.

Bombs rained down on the city. Approximately 80% of buildings were destroyed in the first day of bombing. Most of Stalingrad’s suburbs were built of wood. Inside the city itself, there were oil storage facilities and timberyards. The city was parched by the August sun. [Axis] incendiary bombs caused the whole city to flare up like gunpowder. Rivers of burning oil and petrol flowed towards the Volga. First the surface of the water and then the ships caught fire.

[Luftflotte] 4, commanded by General [Wolfram Freiherr] von Richthofen, flew fifteen hundred missions on the twenty‐third of August. Its aircraft dropped a thousand tonnes of bombs and lost only three [vehicles]. On that single day, an estimated forty thousand people died in Stalingrad. Most of the survivors fled the city, but some chose to stay and share the city’s fate.

At about four P.M., [Colonel General Friedrich Wilhelm Ernst] Paulus’s tanks reached the Volga. Approaching Stalingrad from the north, all [that] the [Axis soldiers] could see through their binoculars was fire and smoke. It seemed [that] nothing could prevent the [Axis] from entering the burning city, and yet [its] attempt to take Stalingrad in one swift assault was bloodily repulsed.


Many historians mark the Battle of Stalingrad as the beginning of the end for the Axis. I respectfully disagree, but I cannot dispute that the Axis only dug its hole deeper throughout its failed attempt to capture the city.

One of the quibbles that I have with this otherwise worthwhile documentary—an issue that I have with commentators on WWII in general, to be fair—is its tendency to refer to the Axis forces mostly as ‘the Germans, the Germans, the Germans’. I never liked this tendency, not only because it implies that Germans who abhor what their countrymen did somehow had something to do with this, but also because it distracts us from the other Axis nationalities (e.g. Austrians) that contributed. A reminder from Dmitry Degtev’s Battle of Stalingrad: The Beginning of the End for Hitler in the East, pg. 53:

On the morning of 24 August, in the battle for the Izbushensky farm (near the village of Ust‐Khoperskaya), the Savoia Cavalry Regiment (3rd Rgt ‘Savoia Cavalleria’) from the 3rd Mobile Division ‘Amadeo Duke D’Acosta’ defeated the 812th Rifle Regiment of the 304th Rifle Division. This battle went down in history as ‘the last horse sabre attack at the gallop’.

The 812th Regiment was defeated, 150 men were killed, and the remaining 900 surrendered. However, due to the disorganisation of the Italian [Fascist]s, 300 men later simply fled, and only 600 were captured as a result. The trophies of the ‘macaronis’ were four regimental guns, 10 mortars and 40 machine guns and light machine guns. They themselves lost 40 killed, 79 wounded and 108 horses.


In fairness, the documentary does mention the other Axis powers several times, but repeatedly emphasizing somebody’s nationality still leaves a foul taste in my mouth. Terms such as ‘Fascists’ (if you want to kick it old school like me), ‘Axis’ (if the context is either September 27, 1940 or later), ‘German(ic) Fascists’ (to avoid any possible confusion), ‘Nazis’ (if you want to sound generic and don’t mind reusing a misnomer), or ‘(German) anticommunists’ (just to annoy contemporary anticommunists) would all work better than the overly broad and misleading ‘Germans’, but now I’m just rambling.

Anyway, the Battle of Stalingrad, aside from showing us more of the Axis’s atrocities, gives us an important lesson that the Zionists have chosen to ignore:

[Vasily] Chuikov’s task was to hold the city and its industrial centres, but the city was consuming his men at a terrifying rate. Those who survived for any length of time learned new tactics for this ruined urban landscape. Ironically, it was the [Axis] by bombing the city to rubble that had done most to undermine [its] own tactics. Tanks, the [Axis’s] shock weapon, quickly got stuck in the mountains of broken bricks, while from around every corner, they were pelted with Molotov cocktails.

[Axis] bomb‐aimers were finding it more and more difficult to spot targets in the city. From the air, it was almost impossible to distinguish between [friend] and [foe], nor were the Heinkels very accurate, scattering their bombs over a path of several hundred metres.

To further negate [Axis] air superiority, Chuikov ordered his [soldiers] to advance as close as possible to the enemy lines. The distance between Red Army and [Axis] positions was reduced to as little as ten metres. This made it impossible for Heinkels to bomb the enemy without also hitting their own troops.


This next lesson is less important, but, well… just read it yourselves:

The […] 48th Panzer Corps tried to launch a counterattack. They met the attacking Soviet forces head‐on near the village of Ust‐Medveditsky. An enormous tank battle raged for more than a day. At its end, the […] Panzer Corps lay crushed. One of its divisions had been hindered by an unlikely foe. While the division had been in reserve with its vehicles standing idle, field mice had got inside the vehicles and gnawed through the electrical wiring. This humble ally of the Red Army had put dozens of tanks out of action.


We all know what that means.

(Forgive me, I couldn’t resist.)


:::spoiler Click here for other events that happened today (August 23).
1923: Two Fascists in Argenta murdered an antifascist priest, Giovanni Minzoni, fracturing his skull and beating him to death with clubs (probably on Italo Balbo’s orders).
1939: Berlin and Moscow agreed to a nonaggression treaty. Apart from that, Rome sent a message to Berlin noting that when the two empires negotiated the Pact of Steel, article 3 obliged one to join any war in which the other was engaged, yet the two had the understanding that Fascist Italy would be unready for war until 1943. As well, Berlin appointed Albert Forster as the State President of the Free City of Danzig, and it also promoted Erwin Rommel to the rank of major general, posting him to the Staff of the Chancellor’s headquarters to be responsible again for the Chancellor’s safety. Lastly, U‐27 departed Wilhelmshaven for her only war patrol.
1940: Rain and clouds prevented the Fascists from mounting large raids against Britain, giving British airmen a chance to rest and crews a chance to repair airfields. Single‐aircraft raids were, however, mounted against southern and central England, as were raids against shipping; two merchant ships sunk and one became damaged by He 115 torpedo bombers. Coincidentally, Fascist propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels launched a new campaign that stressed the British fighting spirit in an attempt to rally Germans behind the war effort. Overnight, Fascist bombers raided British cities. Aside from this, Fascist submarine U‐37 torpedoed Norwegian ship Keret in the Atlantic Ocean west of Ireland at 0222 hours, killing thirteen but leaving seven alive. In the general area, at 1250 hours, U‐37 sank British ship Severn Leigh, slaughtering one gunner and thirty‐two of the rest of the crew, but leaving ten survivors.
1941: The Third Reich’s head of state rejected Heinz Guderian’s advice to attack Moscow. Berlin moved troops to the south instead. At 2347 hours, Axis submarine U‐143 (Oberleutnant zur See Harald Gelhaus) torpedoed the 1,409‐ton Norwegian merchant steamer Inger twice as it was heading towards Loch Ewe, Scotland, and Comandante Cappellini took orders to move to a new patrol area in the Atlantic Ocean at 0000 hours.
1942: In what amounted to little more than a publicity stunt, the 1.Gebirgsjäger Division soldiers hoisted the Reichskriegsfahne flag on Mount Elbrus, which was the highest point in the Caucasus Mountains. As well, Hans‐Joachim Marseille returned to his unit at Sanyet El Qutaifiya, Egypt, and Axis submarine U‐506 sank British ship Hamla southwest of Freetown, West Africa at 2337 hours, slaughtering all forty aboard. Additionally, Axis and Allied aircraft engaged in combat over Darwin, Australia between 1200 and 1245 hours; the Axis lost seven bombers and eight Zero fighters to P‐40 Warhawk fighters of the U.S. 49th Fighter Group, and this became to be the last Axis attempt to raid Darwin.
1943: The Axis lost Kharkiv to the Red Army after the Battle of Kursk.
1944: The Axis lost Marseille to the Allies. Meanwhile, King Michael of Romania dismissed the Axis government of Marshal Antonescu, who was later arrested; Romania switched sides from the Axis to the Allies.
1945: The Axis resistance in the Manchuria region of northeastern China was effectively over, and the Axis garrison at Paramushiro surrendered to the Soviets. On the other hand, He Yingqin ordered Axis generals in northern and eastern China to continue to maintain peace until Nationalist forces would arrive to relieve them. Meanwhile, Douglas MacArthur ordered the release of all Filipinos—most of whom were Axis collaborators—interned by the U.S. Army. He claimed that their fates would be tried by the Filipino government rather than the U.S. military. Lastly, the Axis news agency Do Trzei announced the death of Subhash Chandra Bose.
:::


By December 1941, the Fascist bourgeoisie was already destined to lose World War II


Quoting Jacques R. Pauwels’s The Myth of the Good War, pages 69–71:

The Wehrmacht continued to advance, albeit very slowly, and by mid‐November some units found themselves only thirty kilometres from the capital. But the troops were now totally exhausted and running out of supplies. Their commanders knew that it was simply impossible to take Moscow, tantalizingly close as the city may have been, and that even doing so would not bring them victory. On December 3, a number of units abandoned the offensive on their own initiative.

Within days, however, the entire [Wehrmacht] in front of Moscow was simply forced on the defensive. Indeed, on December 5, at three in the morning, in cold and snowy conditions, the Red Army suddenly launched a major, well‐prepared counterattack. The Wehrmacht’s lines were pierced in many places, and the [Western Axis was] thrown back between 100 and 280 kilometres with heavy losses of men and equipment. It was only with great difficulty that a catastrophic encirclement could be avoided.

On December 8, Hitler ordered his army to abandon the offensive and to move into defensive positions. He blamed this setback on the supposedly unexpected early arrival of winter, refused to pull back further to the rear, as some of his generals suggested, and proposed to attack again in the spring.¹⁹

Thus ended Hitler’s blitzkrieg against the Soviet Union, the war that, had it been victorious, would have realized the great ambition of his life, the destruction of the Soviet Union. More importantly, such a victory would also have provided [the Third Reich] with sufficient oil and other resources to make it a virtually invulnerable world power. As such, [the Axis] would very likely have been capable of finishing off stubborn Great Britain, even if the U.S. would have rushed to help its Anglo‐Saxon cousin, which, in early December of 1941, was not yet in the cards.

A blitzsieg, that is, a rapid victory against the Soviet Union, then, was supposed to have made [an Axis] defeat impossible, and would in all likelihood have done so. (It is probably fair to say that if [the Axis] had defeated the Soviet Union in 1941, Germany would today still be the hegemon of Europe, and possibly of the Middle East and North Africa as well.) However, defeat in the Battle of Moscow in December 1941 meant that [the Axis’s] blitzkrieg did not produce the hoped‐for blitzsieg.

In the new “Battle of the Marne” just to the west of Moscow, [the Axis] suffered the defeat that made victory impossible, not only victory against the Soviet Union itself, but also victory against Great Britain and victory in the war in general. It ought to be noted that the United States was not yet involved in the war against [the Axis].

Bearing in mind the lessons of World War I, Hitler and his generals had known from the start that, in order to win the new Great War they had unleashed, [the Axis] had to win fast, lightning‐fast. But on December 5, 1941, it became evident to everyone present in Hitler’s headquarters that a blitzsieg against the Soviet Union would not be forthcoming, and that [the Axis] was doomed to lose the war, if not sooner, then later. According to General Alfred Jodl, chief of the operations staff of the OKW, Hitler then realized that he could no longer win the war.²⁰

And so it can be argued, as a German historian, an expert on the war against the Soviet Union, has done, that the success of the Red Army in front of Moscow was unquestionably the “major break” (Zäsur) of the entire world war.²¹

In other words, the tide of World War II can be said to have turned on December 5, 1941. However, as real tides turn not suddenly but rather gradually and imperceptibly, the tide of the war turned not on a single day, but over a period of days, weeks, and even months, in the period of approximately three months that elapsed between the (late) summer of 1941 and early December of that same year. The tide of the war in the east turned gradually, but it did not do so imperceptibly.

Already in August 1941, astute observers had started to doubt that [an Axis] victory, not only in the Soviet Union but in the war in general, still belonged to the realm of possibilities. The well‐informed Vatican, for example, initially very enthusiastic about [the Axis’s] “crusade” against the Soviet homeland of “godless” Bolshevism, started to express grave concerns about the situation in the east in late summer 1941; by mid‐October, it came to the conclusion that [the Third Reich] would lose the war.²²

Likewise in mid‐October, the Swiss secret services reported that “the Germans can no longer win the war.”²³ By late November, a defeatism of sorts had started to infect the higher ranks of the Wehrmacht and of the [NSDAP].

Even as they were urging their troops forward toward Moscow, some generals opined that it would be preferable to make peace overtures and wind down the war without achieving the great victory that had seemed so certain at the start of Operation Barbarossa.²⁴

When the Red Army launched its devastating counteroffensive on December 5, Hitler himself realized that he would lose the war. But he was not prepared to let the German public know that.

The nasty tidings from the front near Moscow were presented to the public as a temporary setback, blamed on the supposedly unexpectedly early arrival of winter or on the incompetence or cowardice of certain commanders. (It was only a good year later, after the catastrophic defeat in the Battle of Stalingrad during the winter of 1942–43, that the German public, and the entire world, would realize that [the Axis] was doomed; which is why even today many historians believe that the tide turned in Stalingrad.)


(Emphasis added.)

Thus, I would like to submit that I made a mistake when I said that Stalingrad was the turning point for the Axis. It was not. It was the Battle of Moscow that was, one could say, the Axis’s Waterloo.


:::spoiler Click here for other events that happened today (June 22).
1892: Robert Ritter von Greim, commander‐in‐chief of the Luftwaffe, existed.
1933: Berlin issued orders to dissolve the Social Democratic Party.
1934: Ferdinand Porsche agreed to embark on Fascism’s Volkswagen project.
1938: Berlin passed a labor conscription law that guaranteed employment but also removed job freedom. Coincidentally, one thousand private construction companies employing half a million workers were organized into twenty‐two construction brigades by Fritz Todt for the construction of the Westwall.
1940: Paris signed the Second Compiègne armistice with the Third Reich, in the same railroad car in which the Twoth Reich signed the Armistice in 1918. As well, British Foreign Secretary Halifax had his undersecretary Richard Butler contact Swedish Minister in London, Björn Prytz, for possible Anglo‐German negotiations. The Fascists intercepted Prytz’s report back to Stockholm and concluded that the war with Britain was likely to end by the end of the summer.
1941: At about 0300 hours, Benito Mussolini was awaken by an urgent message from Berlin, informing Rome of the invasion of the Soviet Union; though annoyed by not having been notified earlier, Mussolini dutifully declared war on the Soviet Union. Bucharest would also make a declaration of war on the Soviet Union on this date. Apart from that, the Axis branded Jews from the Dorohoi district of the Kingdom of Romania as communists or spies and transported them by cattle cars to concentration camps in Tirgu and Craiova.
1942: Erwin Rommel became Field Marshal after the Axis capture of Tobruk.
1945: The Axis lost the Battle of Okinawa. Consequently, Isamu Chō, Axis officer, suicided. Mitsuru Ushijima, Axis general, did likewise.
:::


This entry was edited (11 months ago)

Finnish volunteers in SS units took part in Axis atrocities, Finland confirms…in 2019


Unless maybe you are a devout anticommunist, there is nothing surprising about this report. What is significant, though, is the sheer amount of time that it took for an authority to confirm this: even in the late 1980s and the 1990s, when there was an increased interest in the subject of (German) Fascism, nobody stepped forward to confirm that the Finnish Waffen‐SS had participated in atrocities.

This is why Finland’s Holocaust (which is still worth reading), published in 2013, could only say ‘whether the Finnish *Waffen-SS volunteers participated directly in genocidal acts during the war remains unclear and contested*’. This confirmation came out in early 2019, and now the overwhelming probability is no longer deniable.

To sum it up cynically:

The maxim with which the Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany Konrad Adenauer in 1956 returned the honour of the whole Waffen-SS is fitting for the [Finnish] battalion’s soldiers. Those who served were, according to him [Adenauer], “Soldaten wie andere auch”—soldiers like any others.


Soldaten wie andere auch’ indeed.

This entry was edited (2 years ago)

Fascist Italy exiled some gay men to an island


(Mirror.)

Seen as antithetical to traditional masculine ideals, gay men in Fascist Italy were targeted for discrimination and oppression—even though technically there had been no laws outlawing consensual same‐sex relations.

Mussolini believed homosexuality to be an imported vice and didn’t want to officially recognise activity that he considered to be fundamentally incompatible with a strong fascist country.

“Fascism was especially keen on spreading the myth of a stereotypical Italian virility,” explains researcher Tommaso Giartosio, co‐author of the 2006 book The City and the Island which explored the internal exile of gay men to the island of San Domino in Fascist Italy.

“The repression of homosexuality did take place, but it was carried out by the police very discreetly, through a procedure that deliberately avoided trials or any other kind of publicity.”

“When several hundred gay men were arrested in about half of Italy’s provinces, the newspapers didn’t report it at all.”


Related: ‘Fascism and Homophobia: The San Domino Camp for Exiled Homosexuals

This entry was edited (8 months ago)

On this day 97 years ago, Fascist Italy and the Kingdom of Hungary signed an ‘Agreement of Friendship, Peacemaking Procedure and Arbitration’


(Mirror.)

[Rome], by the end of 1926, decided that [the Kingdom of] Italy had to return to [its] anti‐Yugoslav policy and [it] would help the collapse of Yugoslavia at any costs. For this ambition [Rome] had already found the perfect partner in Hungary after the First World War, so our little homeland had been again in the lime‐light of Italy (Italian politics).

The only problem was that in the meantime [the Kingdom of] Hungary […] approached [the Kingdom of] Yugoslavia, against who[m] [it] had to act according to [Fascist] conception. Beyond this [the Kingdom of] Hungary meant an excellent possibility for the [Fascist] economic expansion in the Danubian basin. Weigh[ing] these [together], [Fascist] Italy started to prevaricate.

First, the [Fascist] Secretary of Foreign Affairs Dino Grandi offered the involvement of Italy to make the Hungarian–Yugoslav negotiations successful, [propos]ing the possibility of a trial bloc. The [Fascist] envoy [to] Budapest, Ercole Durini di Monaza, announced this plan to István Bethlen,^12^ who was one of the most significant Prime Ministers of the Horthy‐era (1921–1931). He worked up the political conception of the régime. His foreign policy can be divided into two phases.

Before 1926 it was passive, because the Entente States controlled [the Kingdom of] Hungary both financially and militarily. By 1927 the control ceased and the “active phase” of Bethlen’s foreign policy, w[h]ich advertised revisionism, could […] beg[i]n.^13^ Bethlen thought that [Fascist] Italy was able to help revisionism, because Mussolini also wanted to disrupt the status quo formed in Versaille[s]. Beyond this, neither of the two States was interested in the expansion of the Slavs living in Yugoslavia and in the Soviet Union.^14^

Added to this, in the 1920s for [the Kingdom of] Hungary the policy of Italy and France in Central‐Europe was determin[ative],^15^ and that time there was the possibility [of] associat[ing] with one of them. So Bethlen travelled to Rome and on 5 April 1927 the Agreement of Friendship, Peacemaking Procedure and Arbitration was signed. It strengthened [Fascist] Italy’s Central‐European positions,^16^ which can be considered as the basic condition, or [the] beginning of the economic expansion of [Fascist] Italy.

[…]

In October 1926, when Mussolini laboured for realizing the Italian–Hungarian alliance, he promised to give preferences to [the Kingdom of] Hungary in Fiume.^17^ After [sign]ing the Treaty of Friendship it [quickly came into effect] because [Fascist] Italy was interested in quickening the trade of Fiume’s port in order to enable the town to re‐occupy the position it possessed in Central‐European commerce before the dissolution of the Monarchy.

On 25 July 1927 the “Protocol for Developing the Hungarian Trade passing Fiume’s port” was [sign]ed. The agreement consisted of nine articles announcing that […] the items coming from [the Kingdom of] Hungary would enjoy the same preferences in respect of common charges and sales tax as Italian items. So “there will be no difference between items transported on ships with the Italian flag or Hungarian flag”.^18^

The [Fascist] Government would not only let Hungarian ships into the port, but it would also help Hungarian items […] flow [in]to Fiume. In exchange [the Kingdom of] Hungary would have to set up a shipping company in the town within three months after the convention came into effect.

By that time the signatories of the treaty would set up a joint committee for working out the details of preferences given to [the Kingdom of] Hungary, and for the fixation of the carriages’ tariffs. In addition to these the [Fascists] promised that cereal traditionally arriving on Italian railway[s] would be directed to Fiume, as well.^19^ The protocol — completed with a point which made Hungary to set up a warehouse for Hungarian products, mainly cereal and sugar in Fiume — was put in effect on 18 November 1934.^20^


(Emphasis added.)

As you can see, the author’s English is flawed, but to nail this down and put it into a larger perspective:

  1. The Entente failed to adequately compensate the Kingdom of Italy as a reward for winning WWI
  2. Rome partitioned Fiume in 1924 as compensation
  3. Rome signed a trade agreement with Budapest in 1927 (two years after the so‐called ‘battle of the grain’, curiously) to strengthen Fascist capital at Yugoslavia’s expense
  4. Fiume served as an important port for Hungarian food
  5. Fascist Italy gained more resources for its ‘autarky’, and was on its way to (officially) becoming an empire, on which others would depend

My summary may be overly simplistic, but in any case you can clearly see that these negotiations with the Kingdom of Hungary were part of a chain reaction. Now, this is not to say that if the Entente satisfied Italian imperialism none of this would have happened, but that the capitalists (and specifically the Entente) could not have prevented this from happening. Satisfying the Italian bourgeoisie’s quest for land after WWI might have accelerated its imperialism, but otherwise it’s doubtful that the course of history would have been drastically different.

See also: From Isolation to Active Foreign Policy: The Hungarian–Italian Treaty of Friendship of 1927 (written in broken English, unfortunately).


:::spoiler Click here for other events that happened today (April 5).
1933: A council of German Christians, convened in Berlin, issued a call for a unified Protestant church faithful to the tenets of German Fascism, including the ‘Aryan cleansing’ of the German church.
1941: Axis forces advanced toward Msus and Mechili in Libya. Apart from that, the German embassy in Moscow claimed that Soviet exports to Germany had dramatically increased in the month of March 1941, but the flow of goods from Germany to the Soviet Union had slowed.
1942: The Fascist bourgeoisie ordered a renewed offensive in the Leningrad region in the Soviet Union; Berlin issued Führer Directive № 41, calling for the invasion of the Caucasus region and Stalingrad. As well, Axis troops defeated the Philippine 21st Division at Mount Samat on the Bataan Peninsula, Philippine Islands.
1943: Theo Osterkemp became the commanding officer of Jagdfliegerführer Sizilien and charged with safeguarding Axis flights between Sicily and Tunisia.
1944: The SS Economic and Administrative Office submitted a report to the Supreme Command of the SS organization noting the existence of twenty concentration camps with 165 connected labor camps, and in the Kingdom of Hungary, Jews were required to wear the yellow Star of David. As the Axis lost Dorohoi to the Soviets, Siegfried Lederer escaped from Auschwitz‐Birkenau camp and made it safely to Czechoslovakia; he warned the Elders of the Council at Theresienstadt about the atrocities being committed at Auschwitz. Additionally, Axis authorities in Hong Kong completed the liquidation of Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, better known by their acronym HSBC, and twenty‐six Axis A6M Zero fighters of the Sanya Kokutai and the Kaiko Kokutai based in Hainan, China attacked Nanning, Guangxi, China, destroying two B‐25 bombers and three P‐40 fighters on the ground and shooting down seven P‐40 fighters in the air, although the Axis did lose eight A6M fighters. It was almost or maybe around this time when the Axis launched a frontal assault at Nhpum Ga, Burma before dawn, in multiple waves.
1945: SS‐Obersturmbannführer Karl‐Otto Koch, the notorious, brutal and corrupt former Commandant of Buchenwald Concentration Camp, perished at the hands of a firing squad at Buchenwald after a trial in which he was convicted of bringing himself and the SS into ‘disrepute’.
1948: The trial against Albert Forster began at Gdansk, Poland.
:::

Foreigners who joined the Wehrmacht & Waffen-SS by January 1942


The media in this post is not displayed to visitors. To view it, please go to the original post.

(Source.)

Fascist POWs in Alabama had more food than they could eat, permission to attend uni courses, befriend locals & leave the camp to work


Full transcript here.

We were well trained in the Geneva Convention—
That’s Thomas Sweet again, he was actually one of the guards at Camp Aliceville, and what he said is that, even before the POWs arrived, the Geneva Conventions were drilled into their heads. They had lectures, the rules were posted in the rec hall and in the officers’ club…

We had to, uh, the prisoners had to be treated the same, uh, as you would, uh, your own fellow soldiers.

Which sounds kind of basic, but for somebody like Hans who’s stepping off this train and wondering how he’s going to be treated…

It was… I should say, it was…really…a sort of, uh…heaven.


Although it sounds trivial, it’s rather unsettling when you compare it to how U.S. officials in the same era typically treated (for example) people of color and the homeless.

Finland was the Third Reich’s only ally that was allowed to buy German goods on credit


(This extract takes one to two minutes to read.)

Quoting Henrik Meinander in Finland in World War II: History, Memory, Interpretations, pages 74–6:

[T]he Finnish authorities had severe difficulties in feeding the population properly during the first winter of war and in keeping alive their Soviet prisoners‐of‐war and interned civilians. In this way, Finland had encountered a number of new difficulties in the ongoing war. In early January 1942, [Helsinki] received information via American diplomatic sources of the Soviet peace demands towards Finland, which would essentially have meant a return to the borderline of 1940.

Such a solution in that moment, however, would have been disastrous for Finland. Even if [an Axis] victory seemed less and less probable, Finland could not cut ties to [the Third Reich] without serious consequences for its already constrained defense capacity and food supply situation.³⁵

The [Wehrmacht] still had a strong grip on the Baltic region and Scandinavia. Its troops in Northern Finland and around Leningrad showed no signs of weakness and were well equipped not only to support the Finnish front sector, but also to press [Helsinki] to continue the fight against the Soviet Union. In addition to that, Finland was heavily dependent on import of food supplies, artificial manure and many other necessities from [Axis]‐occupied Europe.

Obvious reasons for this were the permanent lack of labor force, the difficulties of reactivating agriculture in the recaptured Finnish Karelia and the geopolitically isolated location of Finland with all the import routes under [Fascist] control. On top of this came the unfavorable climate in 1941–43, which together with the other shortcomings decreased domestic grain production by over 35 percent from the prewar level.

Without the import of German produced artificial manure the fall would have been twice as great, which taken together meant that two‐thirds of the Finnish grain demand in 1941–44 was secured by [the Third Reich].³⁶

[The Fascist bourgeoisie] naturally utilized this reliance to keep Finland in line. But at the same time they were themselves dependent on Finnish military support, which was essential for their control of the Baltic Sea and its coastal regions. The material support to the Finns was thus prioritized, in fact so highly that Finland was the only German ally that was allowed to buy German goods on credit.

This mutual dependency explains why President Ryti hardly ever found reason to emphasize to his German counterparts that Finland was fighting its separate war. Such a claim was equally problematic for public use in a domestic context, because it could easily have been interpreted by the [Fascists] as a sign of Finnish double‐dealing, and it was therefore used predominantly only in confidential communication with American, British or Swedish politicians, diplomats and journalists.³⁷


(Emphasis added.)


:::spoiler Click here for events that happened today (December 30).
1884: Hideki Tōjō, Axis head of state, existed.
1935: The Regia Aeronautica Italiana bombed a Swedish Red Cross hospital the Fascist invasion of Ethiopia.
:::

This entry was edited (3 weeks ago)

Some Fascists contemplated keeping Earth’s last remaining Jews in a zoo


The media in this post is not displayed to visitors. To view it, please go to the original post.

Nazism was a [phenomenon] that could not function without a constitutive “other.” This was already recognized during the war. Franz Neumann, in his study of the structure and practice of [German Fascism], argued that the domestic political value of antisemitism could never permit the “complete extermination of the Jews.” As he put it, “the foe cannot and must not disappear; he must always be held in readiness as a scapegoat for all the evils originating in the socio‐political system.”¹³

Around the same time, the Polish Jewish historian Emanuel Ringelblum, writing in the straitened circumstances of the Warsaw ghetto, expressed the belief that the Nazis would have to allow at least some Jews to live, for without them they would lose their “Jewish argument.”¹⁴

Even ordinary Germans who supported the [Axis’s] anti‐Jewish policies were aware of this problem. In 1942, a letter sent to the antisemitic journal, Der Stürmer, pointed out that:

the number of people on the street who are wearing the yellow Star of David and the word “Jew” have fortunately been declining in recent days. In the process, however, the younger generation is being denied the repellant visual impression that that Jew makes in daily life.

I therefore suggest that, next to the monkey cages in the zoo, a second roomy cage should be established, one part of which can house a Jewish family with typical Jewish traits: flat feet, hooked noses, black hair, bent posture, throbbing lips, a concealed glance, thick eyelids; the other part of which can house a family that is Jewish but does not look like it. Further strategies of separation according to gender could also be undertaken. A plaque would point out that all types of gradations appear between the two groups.¹⁵

This private suggestion insisted that the only way to compensate for the effects of the [Axis’s] deportation program was to keep a small number of Jews alive as negative examples for ordinary Germans.

In so doing, the suggestion implied that, at least to some degree, [Fascist] antisemitism was ultimately tactical in function. This belief dates back to Hermannn Rauschning’s conversations with Hitler from the 1930s. Responding to Rauschning’s question as to whether the Jews should be destroyed, Hitler allegedly answered in the negative, declaring “then we would have to invent them. One requires a visible enemy, not an invisible one.”¹⁶

Similarly, Jean‐Paul Sartre declared in his famous essay about antisemitism that “if the Jew did not exist, the antisemite would invent him.” “The antisemite,” he insisted, “is in the unhappy position of having a vital need for the very enemy he wishes to destroy.”¹⁷

Such observations help clarify some of the functional aspects of [European Fascism], but they fail to explain the larger question of why, if antisemitism was merely tactical, it ultimately resulted in a systematic program of mass murder.

In answering this question, it is important to recognize that the [Axis] sought, at one and the same time, to preserve the Jews in memory while physically exterminating them. This paradoxical reality was demonstrated by many projects in the Third Reich that were closely linked to the régime’s policies of persecution, theft, expulsion, and extermination.


(Emphasis added.)

Coincidentally, the Fascists made a propaganda poster that read ‘The last non‐coloured Frenchmen are the great attraction of the Parisian Zoo’… the trend of anticommunists unconsciously leaving behind evidence of their own atrocities and thinking, while supplying “evidence” of our atrocities and thinking in the form of cartoons, is something that has never stopped.


:::spoiler Click here for events that happened today (December 5).
1901: Werner Karl Heisenberg, Axis nuclear physicist, came to life.
1903: Johannes Heesters, a cultural icon in the Third Reich and the only non‐German on the Gottbegnadeten‐Liste, existed.
1914: Hans Hellmut Kirst, Fascist author, was born.
1921: Satoru Anabuki, Axis fighter pilot, started his life.
1932: Adolf Schicklgruber and Gregor Strasser argued over whether the NSDAP should work with the new German Chancellor Kurt von Schleicher.
1934: After two weeks of disputes, the Fascists assaulted Wal Wal in Abyssinia, taking four days to capture the city.
1937: Imperial Prince Yasuhiko of Asaka departed Tōkyō for the front lines in China.
1938: Werner Mölders returned to the Reich from Spain.
1941: The Third Reich canceled Operation Typhoon on this date during which the lowest temperature dropped to −36℉ (−38℃). Meanwhile, Axis forces northwest of Moscow faced a Soviet counteroffensive, and Berlin ordered the transfer of the German 2nd Air Corps from Russia to the Mediterranean Sea region. An Imperial invasion fleet boarded a Norwegian freighter and destroyed her radio while Axis submarines surrounded the Hawaiʻi Islands and Tōkyō announced that recent troop movements in Indochina were merely precautionary. Finland and the Kingdoms of Hungary and Romania were now officially at war with the British.
1943: La Rochelle, France suffered an Allied bombing raid, and coincidentally the Japanese 7th Air Brigade, in two waves (the second consisting of Imperial Japanese Navy aircraft), launched a joint attack against an Allied target, successfully bombing installations in heavily defended Calcutta (now Kolkata), India. More sadly, the Axis began a week‐long operation to deport Jews from Bialystok, Poland, and a transport of 948 prisoners from Flossenbürg Concentration Camp (more than 250 of whom were already dead upon arrival) arrived at Auschwitz Concentration Camp.
1969: Claude Dornier, Fascist engineer, expired.
2017: Michael I of Romania, Axis collaborator, finally dropped dead.
:::

This entry was edited (8 months ago)

The Finnish bourgeoisie interned 24,000 ethnic Russians in concentration camps, 4,200 of whom died


Quoting Antero Holmila in Finland in World War II: History, Memory, Interpretations, pages 547–8:

Ahto criticized Seppälä, in some respects for a reason, for deliberately leaving a lot of information untold in order to present a warped view on the Finnish occupation of Eastern Karelia. Yet Ahto could have mentioned that Finnish authorities did call their camps concentration camps—no quotation marks needed as Finnish documents habitually used that term. Also, no doubt these camps reeked of death, as Seppälä pointed out. Over 24,000 people were incarcerated in these camps and over 4,200 died.⁸⁸

In an Eastern Karelian population census from April 1942, the death toll in the concentration camps was 137.5 people per 1,000 inmates. In a camp in Petrozavodsk, over 3,000 inmates died during 1942.⁸⁹ All this was documented in Finnish archives but—by and large—not considered worth examination.

As Antti Kujala recently remarked about examining the killings of the Soviet prisoners‐of‐war during the war: “Before 1991 it would have been virtually impossible to conduct this kind of research.”⁹⁰ In 1987, as mentioned above, Pietola tried, but the reception was cold. Not least because of his indicting conclusion:

When we are looking for the real reasons for the unusually high death toll of ethnic Russian prisoners‐of‐war and civilians in Finnish prisoner‐of‐war camps and concentration camps […] we cannot bypass the premise that Finns were raised in the spirit of nationalism. With the consolidation of those foundations and fascist ideology, an extreme hatred and contempt against Russians was born.⁹¹



(Emphasis added.)

If anybody is wondering why this information was especially obscure during the short twentieth century, the likeliest reason is that the Finnish ruling class was afraid that its publication would not only worsen relations with the Soviet Union, but also prompt the Soviets to seek reparations. The bourgeoisie’s destruction of the Soviet Union severely reduced the chances of either happening; the neoliberal bourgeoisie expected the Russian Federation to ‘make nice’ with its camp now.


:::spoiler Click here for events that happened today (December 27).
1939: Berlin postponed the decision to invade France to a later date.
1940: Axis submarine Tazzoli sank British ship Ardanbhan south of Iceland, killing the entire crew of 37, and the Axis submarine U‐65 assaulted the Norwegian ship Risanger with shells and one torpedo 300 miles off Senegal, French West Africa.
1941: At the battle of El Haseia in Libya, Axis tanks flanked British 22nd Armoured Brigade, destroying many tanks, but failed to break through. Meanwhile, Axis air units bombed Manila, Philippine Islands while six US PBY Catalina aircraft assaulted Axis warships at Jolo (four would be shot down).
:::

This entry was edited (1 year ago)

/r/communism101 demonstrates how not to answer a question


First, here’s the question that the author asked:

I was doing some research on the Spanish Civil War […] and I noticed in the timeline, that there was a nonaggression pact between the Soviet Union and fascist Italy, which it said strengthened economic relations. Can anyone tell me about this? I have severe doubts that the USSR would expand trade with a fascist power.


A pact between the Soviet Union and Fascist Italy. That does sound troubling, and we should very well be concerned learning about that for the first time; it is a serious accusation. Of course, chances are that anticommunists are either distorting the issue or making it up entirely, as usual, but it’s safest to withhold judgement until we have more evidence. Now, how do you think that communism101 responded to this?

The liberal democracies of Europe made similar agreements with Hitler and Mussolini before the USSR did, and shot down Stalin's suggestions of an anti-fascist alliance in the 30s.


That’s… not the issue here. The original poster’s question was asking about the Italo–Soviet Pact and what we could tell them about it.

You trade with fascists every time you go to a store or pay your bills. What's your justification and why doesn't it apply to the Soviet people?


We frequently trade with anticommunists every time we got to a store or pay our bills. That is correct. But this topic is about the Italo–Soviet Pact, and a pact between states is a little bit different and more complicated than mundane transactions between individuals or a bill that we have to pay to businesses.

the USSR rightly determined that it was necessary to have some degree of economic relations with the capitalist world, why is it OK for them to sign peace treaties with Churchill and Roosevelt, both extreme genocidal racists, but unacceptable for them to do the same with Hitler and Mussolini?


Yes, fine, but the question was not asking if it was OK or not for Moscow to sign a pact with a Fascist government. The question was asking if we could tell the original poster anything more about the Italo–Soviet Pact. Here, this is exactly what the poster asked:

So I was doing some research on the Spanish Civil War on Wikipedia (already liberal source, I’m aware), and I noticed in the timeline, that there was a nonaggression pact between the Soviet Union and fascist Italy, which it said strengthened economic relations. Can anyone tell me about this? I have severe doubts that the USSR would expand trade with a fascist power.


there was a nonaggression pact between the Soviet Union and fascist Italy, which it said strengthened economic relations. Can anyone tell me about this?That is the question. Unless maybe the asker is experiencing some sort of moral or existential crisis, telling us that liberals co‐operated with fascists is unlikely to be of much help. If we want to demonstrate that socialism in one country is preferable to a bourgeois régime (be it liberal or fascist), this certainly wouldn’t be of much help.

So, what can we tell the author about this pact? Well, you are in luck, because I have a very credible answer right here. Quoting Andrei Yu. Sidorov in History of International Relations and Russian Foreign Policy in the 20th Century, page 190:

The sanctions were initiated by Britain, though already in the run-up to the conflict, the cabinet of S. Baldwin had firmly decided that it would under no circumstances go to war with Italy over Ethiopia. France, for its part, informed Britain that it was against imposing oil sanctions. The League of Nations never dared ban the sale of oil to Italy, thus missing the chance to stop hostilities. "If the League had extended economic sanctions of oil, I would have had to withdraw from Abyssinia within a week", recognised Benito Mussolini later.

The Soviet Union took rather a cautious stance on the Ethiopian conflict. It did not have diplomatic relations with Ethiopia, while it had been quite closely co-operating with Italy. At the same time, Moscow could not ignore Mussolini's aggression. "However much we wish not to spoil relations with Italy, we cannot but go up against the imperialist war… it masterminds", wrote Maxim Litvinov to Stalin on October 5th, 1935.

The Soviet Union supported the sanctions against Italy but did not go any further, mindful of the position of France, its new ally. The USSR representative in the League of Nations was instructed not to be overzealous in the matter of sanctions and not initiate oil sanctions. In December 1935 the Politburo declined Ethiopia's request for assistance with arms and military specialists. All those moves were aimed at avoiding a serious deterioration in relations with Italy and preventing its rapprochement with Nazi Germany.


(Emphasis added.)

You don’t need to distract from the issue, appeal to liberal memes like ‘HORSESHOE THEORY’ or ‘RED FASCISM’ or even express perfect satisfaction with this turn of events. You exercise scrutiny, you try to get to the bottom of the issue (specifically through Google Books, as the case may be), and you think for yourself by determining which explanation is the most reasonable.

That is how you answer the question.

Finland deported more than 2.8k POWs (incl. many Jews) to the Third Reich


Quoting Jouni Tilli in Finland’s Holocaust: Silences of History, pages 156–7:

Elina Sana’s “documentary book” proposed two different lines of contact between the Finnish and [Third Reich’s] authorities, especially between the secret state police and the military. The secret police [deported] as many as 129 people to the [Third Reich’s] authorities on a total of 13 occasions; the largest group comprised 99 individuals, all citizens of the Soviet Union.

According to Sana, the number [deported] might be between 78 and 129, a range highlighting the impossible task of giving both an exact number of those [deported] and an exact account of the State Police (Valpo) and its collaborative operations, since essential documents from the Valpo archives were deliberately destroyed in the aftermath of the Soviet offensive in the summer of 1944.

After combining and cross-checking preserved documents from different archives, Sana concluded that between 1941 and 1944 the Finnish military [deported] at least 2,829 POWs to [the Third Reich] on 49 occasions; among the military [deportations] were over 500 individuals who were defined as “Jewish” or “political” (Communist), or both.²⁵

Sana’s conclusion that Finland had [expelled] some 3,000 persons to [the Third Reich] during the Continuation War enlarged the earlier known number of eight civilian Jewish refugees deported from Finland (via Tallinn) to [the Third Reich] on the S/S Hohenhörn in 1942, a figure based on her earlier studies.²⁶ Sana’s central claim was that while Finland was waging a war against [the U.S.S.R.] on the same front as the Axis powers, Jewish and Communist prisoners could be used to secure valuable resources from [the Axis], such as grain and oil.

According to Sana, Finnish authorities knew that [the Axis] was particularly interested in Jews and Communists. Given this awareness, the pragmatic reasons for securing resources for the Finns are inseparable from ideological compliance, because racially and ideologically conditioned groups of people were instruments of exchange.


(Emphasis added.)

This entry was edited (8 months ago)

The Axis exterminated thousands of religious Jews who had little to no Jewish heritage


The media in this post is not displayed to visitors. To view it, please go to the original post.

(This takes at least four minutes to read.)

Perhaps your assumption about converts to Judaism with regards to the Shoah was this:

[A]n individual of “pure Aryan” ancestry who had converted to Judaism—and who was accordingly regarded as Jewish by Jews—was not classified as a Jew under the Nuremberg laws.


This unsourced claim is incorrect. While it is often taken as a given that the Germanic Fascists despised Judaism (albeit with a few variants being more sufferable than others), it is surprisingly rare to see anybody explain Fascist anti-Judaism in depth. To add to the confusion, many Fascists insisted that Jews were a ‘race’ and not a religious minority. Hence our quiet assumption that nobody marked ‘pure Aryans’ who adopted Judaism for annihilation. The reality was usually different.

Quoting David Patterson’s Judaism, Antisemitism, and Holocaust: Making the Connections pages 1213:

Even the [Third Reich’s] definition of the Jew did not place the Jew in a strictly racial category. One of the Nuremberg Laws enacted on September 15, 1935 was the Reich Citizenship Law. Article 2, Section 2, of that law stipulated that anyone who had “one or two” Jewish grandparents was a Jew of mixed blood, and that “full-blooded Jewish grandparents [were] those who belonged to the Jewish religious community,” that is, who were followers of Judaism. Article 5, Section 2, states that anyone who converts to Judaism is also to be regarded as a Jew.⁶ One cannot convert to a race or an ethnic group.

The individuals who drafted the laws included Dr. Franz Albrecht Medicus (1890–1967), Dr. Bernhard Lösner (1890–1952), and Dr. Wilhelm Stückart (1902–53),⁷ men who were among the most highly educated in Europe. Including converts to Judaism in the definition of who is a Jew, they knew very well that a Jew is fundamentally defined by Judaism.

As [anticommunist] ideologue Alfred Rosenberg (1893–1946) insisted, all Jews are prone to think talmudically, “whether they are atheistic Bourse-speculators, religious fanatics, or Talmudic Jews of the cloth.”⁸ Why? Because all Jews are carriers of the “contagion” of Judaism, as Rosenberg declared, insisting that humanity is poisoned not by Jewish blood but by Judaism.⁹ If someone converts to Judaism, it is because he or she is a carrier of the contagion. The key to the matter of what makes Jews Jewish, then, is Judaism.


:::spoiler (Click here for more.)
Quoting Karl A. Schleunes’s The Twisted Road to Auschwitz: Nazi Policy Toward German Jews, 1933–1939, pages 128129:

Another six weeks of negotiation followed before a solution was reached. The “First Supplementary Decree to the Reich[’]s Citizenship Law” was published on November 14.⁶⁴ By its terms a full or three-quarter Jew was legally Jewish and therefore subject to the Nuremberg Laws.

On that point Lösener and Stuckhart had lost. The point [that] they had won was reflected in the position of the half-Jew (one with two Aryan and two Jewish grandparents) who was considered Jewish if: he was an adherent of the Jewish faith, he was married to a Jew, he was the child of a marriage with one Jewish partner, or if he was the off-spring of an illegitimate union between a Jew and Aryan. Someone with two Jewish grandparents, if he was not legally Jewish on the basis of these four conditions, was legally a “Jewish Mischling.”⁶⁵

Crucial to this definition was the matter of religion. [Fascist] medical science had made no progress in isolating a specifically Jewish blood type. [Fascist] legislators had to assume, therefore, that religion somehow determined blood or otherwise that an equally mystical process forced someone with Jewish blood to accept Judaism.

The absurdity of these assumptions bothered neither the doctor nor the legislator. An individual with only one Jewish grandparent was still legally Jewish if he was a member of the Jewish religious community. Anyone with less than one-quarter Jewish blood was considered to be of "German or closely related origins."
:::


It may be surprising that the Third Reich would schedule any ‘Aryan’ Judaists for extermination rather than temporarily imprison them, fine them, or tell them off. Well, we do know of at least one example where the Fascists tried to settle things the easy way before trying them the hard way, but his case was apparently exceptional. Quoting Alexander Carlebach’s ‘Baron Ernst von Manstein, a conversion story’:

The local [Fascists] had a problem on their hands: here was a Prussian nobleman, a pure Aryan, who claimed to be a Jew and refused to the last to sever his relations with the Jewish community.

[…]

Würzburg [Fascist] bosses were at a loss what to do with him. The first thing [that] they did was to force him to give up his teaching in non-Jewish schools. When Jewish families had to leave their homes, the large Manstein home served as a refuge for many. The Mansteins wished to emigrate to Palestine but their applications for exit permits were turned down. When permission was finally given (April 1940) it was too late—the war made emigration impossible.

[…]

In 1941, the deportations began. Eventually, 1,500 of Würzburg’s Jews were forced to take the tragic road cast. Some were sent to the “model” concentration camp of Theresienstadt, but Manstein’s application to be allowed to join his brethren in exile was refused.

All remaining Jews (or rather those who were half or quarter Jewish and those who were related to Jews), von Manstein included, were eventually concentrated in one building called Scheidthaus (now the Judenhaus) in the Domerschulstraße, next to the ruins of the hundred-year-old synagogue burnt down on 9 November 1938.

Von Manstein’s health deteriorated and eventually he was taken to the Julius Hospital. There Ernst, or rather Abraham, von Manstein died on 17 January 1944, in his seventy-fifth year.


Ernst von Manstein does not fit the classic image that people have in mind when they think of Shoah victims, but we can tell from this history that Fascist anti-Judaism was at least partly or indirectly responsible for his death. Evidently, his hereditary relations with Axis field marshal Erich von Manstein were the main reason that his oppressors treated him with kid gloves.

By contrast, Élisabeth de Rothschild was a giyoret (and one of the only two Rothschilds to die at Fascist hands) whose demise was more typical: the Axis arrested her for a forged passport before transferring her to Ravensbrück, where she perished in 1945. It is unclear if her oppressors were motivated by anti-Judaism, but a forged passport seems an awfully shallow justification for imprisoning somebody in Ravensbrück.

These anecdotes aside, we know of one community almost entirely descended from converts that the Axis nevertheless devastated during its colonial war on the Soviet Union. Quoting Lawrence J. Epstein’s Converts to Judaism: Stories from Biblical Times to Today, page 103:

The Subbotniks, literally “Sabbatarians,” are one of the most prominent of the Judaizing Christian sects. These groups generally believe [that] it is necessary to follow the commandments [that] Moses promulgated in the Hebrew Bible. Sometimes the word “Judaizers” is used negatively by Christians who believe [that] Christianity completely superseded Judaism, and some Christians who follow some Hebrew customs therefore don’t like the term.

The Subbotniks originated during Catherine II’s reign near the end of the eighteenth century. As they formed, they practiced brit milah, were unitarian rather than trinitarian, accepted the Hebrew Bible exclusively, and observed the Sabbath on Saturday rather than Sunday. There were variations among the Subbotniks in these beliefs. A group of thousands of Subbotniks settled in [Palestine] as part of the First Aliyah. During the era of the Holocaust, there were Subbotniks in areas of the Ukraine that the [Axis] occupied. The Subbotniks were killed with [other] Jews and were treated as Jews.


(Emphasis added in all cases.)

The Axis exterminated ‘thousands’ of these people, but nobody seems to have a more exact calculation on either their death toll or the death toll of ‘purebred Gentiles’ more generally who adopted Judaism.

It may seem nonsensical that the Western Axis would exterminate Judaists who had no recent Jewish heritage. From a certain perspective it is, but it becomes easier to understand when you remember that anybody who adopts Judaism effectively adopts a Jewish culture, and the Western Axis wanted to extinguish Jewish cultures.


The Third Reich’s war on Yiddish


(This takes approximately six minutes to read.)

With all of the numerous literature on the Shoah, it is surprisingly difficult to find (English) works focussing on the Fascist assault on Jewish cultures; most barely touch on the subject. Many sources (such as this one) are content to simply remind us of the Shoah’s death toll as if that automatically does all of the explaining for them, but the Western Axis’s incomplete annihilation of Yiddishists only tells us half of the story.

As I’ll soon show you, the Fascist approach to Jewish cultures was actually less straightforward than you may expect, but there was certainly an element of annihilation involved:

In Poland, in both Bedzin and Poznan, special German “Brenn-Kommandos” (arson squads) were assigned to burn the Jewish synagogues and books.¹¹ The destruction of Torah scrolls and other religious books was especially difficult for the religious Jewish community, since according to orthodox religious law, it is imperative that these materials be treated with the utmost respect and reverence, and those who destroy such sacred documents are considered in violation of a divine command. It is stated: “The sefer torah, or any sacred book or writing, or anything which has served a holy purpose, which has become worn out, must not be burned but secreted.”¹²

Some Jews attempted to save Torah scrolls and other materials from the burning buildings but were either shot or thrown into the flames.¹³ In such a way [most of] the Great Talmudic Library of the Jewish Theological Seminary in Lublin burned while [Fascists] cheered and Jews wept.¹⁴ [Fascist] correspondents stated:

For us it was a matter of special pride to destroy the Talmudic Academy […] which was known as the greatest in Poland […] We threw the huge Talmudic library out of the building and carried the books to the market-place, where we set fire to them. The fire lasted twenty hours. The Lublin Jews assembled around and wept bitterly, almost silencing us with their cries. We summoned the military band, and with joyful shouts the soldiers drowned out the sounds of the Jewish cries.¹⁵

[…]

In the Vilna ghetto […] the books read there were in Polish (70.4 percent) and Yiddish (17.6 percent), with Russian, Hebrew, and other languages making up the rest. Within four months circulation increased to about 140,000 and the library was “full of readers.” However, by September of 1943 the ghetto was liquidated and along with it much of the material from the ghetto library, which was used by the janitor to heat the furnace of the house.⁵⁶


Nonetheless, the incendiary method, as far as I can tell, was exceptional rather than standard. The Axis had more ‘refined’ ways of dealing with Jewish literature:

Dr. Pohl arrived in Vilna in January 1942 together with four assistants (two of whom had academic training), Drs. Miller, Wulf, Sparkett, and Gimpel. He ordered that all the Jewish book collections should be gathered at the Yiddisher Visenshaftlikker Institut (YIVO) building at 18 Wiwulski Street.

Books soon began to arrive and included materials from more than 300 synagogues as well as private collections. In addition to books, Pohl also disposed of the plates of the Romm publishing house, noted for its editions of the Talmud.⁴⁰ The remains of the Kletzkin publishing house were also brought to YIVO but were sent mainly for pulping.⁴¹

The Jewish Council (Judenrat) in Vilna was ordered to provide twenty workers, five of them experts in Judaica, to select, catalog, and ship the books. One hundred thousand volumes were arranged by century of publication; 20,000 of these in seventy-four cases were then shipped to [the Third Reich] with the rest being sold to a paper mill for pulp at nineteen Reichsmark per ton.⁴² Pulping was a widespread practice and initially there were few guidelines to determine what should be saved.


Now this is when things become complicated. Long-term readers are surely familiar with how the Fascists destroyed synagogues (e.g. Rashi Shul), yet you might have never particularly noticed the inconsistency where they occasionally let others (e.g. Altneuschul) simply gather dust. A similar inconsistency towards Jewish literature existed:

However, in February 1943, Dr. Cruse of the ERR issued the following directive: “Books in Hebrew script of recent date (later than 1800, insofar as this can be determined) may be turned over for pulping; this applies to prayerbooks, Memorbuecher and other religious works in the German language. On the other hand, please send here all writings which bear on the history of culture and the nature of Judaism, as well as the works of Jewish authors.”⁴³


From my research, it looks like most Third Reich officials preferred to stop, but not exactly annihilate, Jewish cultures. What I mean by this is that in many cases they were content to merely seize Yiddish and other Jewish works as trophies, not always with an intent to destroy them, but without expecting a future for Yiddish either:

In December 1939 [Berlin] decreed that all book collections in Poland, other than those owned by German natives, were to be confiscated and so ordered them to be surrendered.¹⁷ In Warsaw the great library of the Synagogue and of the Institute of Jewish Studies, with its collections related to the Near East and rare manuscripts from the tenth century, was taken away to Berlin by a special unit led by Professor Paulsen. Other Jewish libraries from Warsaw were sent to Vienna.¹⁸ Jewish libraries from Łódź and other areas were relocated to St. Michael's Church in Poznan, which was unused because of the transfer of the entire Polish population.¹⁹

In 1941 the [Axis] founded a Reichsuniversität in Poznan with a professorship for Jewish history and languages and a library of about 400,000 volumes in Judaica confiscated from Jewish libraries. Jewish books were also transferred to other [Fascist] institutes in Poland, including the Institut für deutsche Ostarbeit in Cracow, founded in 1940 as a research division on East European Jewry and a branch of the Institut zur Erforschung der Judenfrage of Frankfurt in Łódź.²⁰

It is possible that books from Poland and other areas of the East were sent to other large libraries of the Reich but there is no definitive evidence of this. There is, however, a letter from the Prussian State Library in 1943 expressing an interest in approximately 30,000 materials that had been collected in Vilna. Other materials found their way informally to institutions and individuals.²¹


A few Jewish adults noticed the paradox of the Axis preserving certain Jewish works. Quoting Elisabeth Gallas's A Mortuary of Books: The Rescue of Jewish Culture after the Holocaust, page 59:

The survival of a collection was rarely coincidental or arbitrary: The [Fascists] themselves had determined whether it was destroyed or confiscated. Joshua Starr, chief executive of the JCR in New York who worked at the Offenbach Depot from June 1948 to April 1949 on behalf of his organization, described this phenomenon: “Today when one handles a book stamped Sichergestellt durch Einsatzstab RR, he holds a mute witness of the final phase of a program designed to concentrate staggering facilities for the investigation of the Jewish past and present. […] It is, as we shall see, largely to this bizarre program that we owe credit in the grim sense, for the survival of portions of Jewish property in central Europe.”¹³⁴

Hannah Arendt later refers to the same paradox in her famous report Eichmann in Jerusalem, in which she describes the German authorities' painstaking approach to the looting and amassing of Jewish cultural property: “Incidentally, an eagerness to establish museums commemorating their enemies was very characteristic of the Nazis. During the war, several services competed bitterly for the honor of establishing anti-Jewish museums and libraries. We owe to this strange craze the salvage of many great cultural treasures of European Jewry.”¹³⁵


Lastly, there is a certain Herzlian fascist whom I would like to cynically thank for inspiring me to research this subject. Quoting Dan Tamir’s Hebrew Fascism in Palestine, 1922–1942, pages 146–147:

Having read that members of a Yiddish speaking socialist group had sent to their colleagues in Vilnius some of the stones which were thrown on them, together with their blood-stained shirts, Aḥime’ir joyfully promised them that
if they continue to spread here their Ashdodian language, then the empty museum of “Culture for the Wearies” in Vilnius will soon be filled with shirts and stones from our country. And if they continue importing Yiddish to our country, then they will also find themselves exporting more shirts, stones, shards of glass and broken skulls…¹⁷



(Emphasis added in all cases.)

Further reading: Stolen Words: The Nazi Plunder of Jewish Books & Occupied Words: What the Holocaust Did to Yiddish.


This entry was edited (4 weeks ago)

Handbook on Axis imperialism


A crude paper, sadly, but if you can overlook the liberalism it makes for a decent summary and it makes some good points:

Korean [capitalist]s, as well as [Imperial] settlers in Korea, flocked to Manchuria after its annexation to take advantage of business opportunities. Koreans fought for Japan to escape their colonial status and earn imperial citizenship. Although Japan refused to extend the political and constitutional rights of its citizens to colonial subjects, the relationship between the [Imperial] and indigenous peoples lay on broader foundations than repression.

[…]

Because the Paris peace settlement sought to prevent the spread of Bolshevism as well as to contain Germany, the fear of the Soviet Union contributed significantly to the reluctance to stop Italy, Germany, and Japan. It also hastened the conclusion of the […] agreements in August 1939 that kept the Soviet Union neutral while allowing [Fascists] to attack Poland.

[…]

Stunned by the [1939] agreements, which allowed the Soviet Union to inflict a military defeat on the [Imperialists] in Manchuria, Japan later concluded a neutrality agreement with the Soviet Union, which left the [Fascists] to fight the Soviets on their own.


(Emphasis added.)

This entry was edited (3 years ago)

The Fascists exterminated 30,000–35,000 Polish citizens in the Pomeranian province alone from Oct. 1939 to Nov. 1939


The politics, terror, and mass killings of Polish citizens in the Pomeranian province during autumn of 1939 have been discussed by (mostly Polish) historians for decades (e.g. Bojarska 1972; Ceran 2018; Jastrzębski and Sziling 1979; Steyer 1967). One of the ways in which the [Third Reich] took control of local communities was to enact mass killings of selected Poles, especially those who were labelled as intelligentsia (including priests, teachers, politicians, merchants, members of the Polish Western League, policemen, and border guards).

Accordingly, the process was officially labelled Inteligenzaktion (Wardzyńska 2009). Today it is believed that approximately 30,000–35,000 Polish citizens were murdered in the pre‐war Pomeranian province during October and November of 1939 alone (Ceran 2018).

However, the bodies of local intelligentsia were not the only ones who were buried in mass graves in order to cover up the evidence. Very often the very same mass graves were used to hide the remains of disabled people who were also murdered within the so‐called Aktion T4. According to [Fascist] ideology, disabled people embodied worthless life, referred to as Vernichtung von lebensunwertem Leben (e.g., Evans 2004).

Additionally, members of the local Jewish society were murdered during (as it is sometimes called) the Bloody Autumn of 1939 (Bojarska 1972:122–128; Borzyszkowska‐Szewczyk and Pletzing 2010).

Mass killings were frequently well‐planned and coordinated in advance. Special units of security police and Einsatzgruppen, as well as members of the Gestapo, supervised the process of apprehending, imprisoning, and finally executing people at remote settings in order to avoid any witnesses (e.g., Mazanowska 2017).

Local pre‐war German minorities were used to pinpoint which of their neighboring Poles should be eliminated first. These minorities were organized into groups called Selbstschutz Westprussen (Ceran 2014; Jastrzębski 1973, 1974; Lasik 2011; Mazanowska and Ceran 2016). This is why the crimes are sometimes also described in the Polish literature as neighbors’ crimes — local German participants usually knew their Polish victims well.

One of approximately 400 locations of executions committed by [Fascists] during the first few months of the war in the pre‐war Pomeranian province was located on the northern outskirts of Chojnice. It is believed that at least 500 Polish citizens, consisting of local intelligentsia, disabled people from the National Social Welfare Institutions located in Chojnice as well as around 15 members of the local Jewish community, were taken to remote locations and killed in mass executions during October and November 1939.

For this reason agricultural fields, meadows, and forested areas where mass killings were taking place were labeled by citizens of Chojnice and neighboring villages as “Death Valley.” Describing the crimes after the war, Wojciech Buchholc (1947:27; my translation) stated in a deeply phenomenological way that “a certain terror is winded from these sinister fields.”

Although the [Fascists] did their best to avoid anyone witnessing the crimes, some Poles gave eye witness testimonies after the war. One of them, Leon Styp‐Rekowski, survived execution in Death Valley (see more in Buchholc 1947; Grochowski 1947; Lorbiecki 2017) while another witness, Antoni Schüelkie, lived close to one of the spots where the executions took place during autumn of 1939. After the war he recollected (Archive 1 (n.d.); my translation):

approximately 500 people were shot in this site [Death Valley — my note]. A car was stopping at the road. From this spot the prisoners were led to previously constructed trenches. They were set up along the trench. Ten men were brought in, guarded by two to three [Fascists]. The [Fascists] usually wore military uniforms. Pistols were used during executions. Sometimes the Poles had to undress, sometimes they were shot in clothes. Some of them were shot from back, other times Poles saw the faces of the [Fascists].

Other witnesses were present at subsequent killings in Death Valley that occurred at the very end of the war. For example, in the second half of January 1945, a witness named Jan Grunt claimed that a column of approximately 600 Polish prisoners was killed in Death Valley and their bodies burned in order to cover up the evidence (Buchholc 1947:70). The witness testified to “a terrible smell of burning” wafting over the town (Buchholc 1947:70; my translation).

[…]

For those relatives of the victims killed in Death Valley the site is an important aspect of life and memorial practices. On the other hand, there are many citizens of contemporary Chojnice who did not lose their parents, grandparents, or great grandparents during the mass killing on the outskirts of the town. The value they attach to the site and the way the site is used were also the subject of our ethnographic inquiries and our results show that there are many ways in which Death Valley is “alive.”


(Emphasis added.)

See also: An archaeology of the Pomeranian Crime of 1939: collecting the material evidence

Death and life Valley. Environmental memory of the Pomeranian crime of 1939 in Chojnice

“The dead are sleeping here” — the history, archaeology and ethnography of Chojnice’s Death Valley


:::spoiler Click here for events that happened today (May 11).
1930: Berlin promoted Josias to the rank of SS‐Standartenführer.
1931: The Credit‐Anstalt (Austria’s biggest bank; owned by the Rothschild family) went bankrupt, which ultimately would contribute to the rise of the Third Reich.
1938: The Imperialists captured the Hulishan and Baishi forts at Xiamen, China.
1939: As Manchukuo cavalry clashed with Mongolian units near the village of Nomonhan in the border region, the Imperialists dispatched a Special Naval Landing Force detachment near Gulangyu in response to a Chinese man shooting an Imperial citizen on Gulangyu island, an international settlement off Xiamen, China.
1940: The Third Reich occupied Luxembourg. In Belgium, Fascist airborne troops captured the ‘impregnable’ Fort Eben Emael while tanks crossed Albert Canal bridges in an attempt to move behind Belgian defensive lines. Troops of the 9th Panzer Division crossed the Meuse River; at 1200 hours, they found an undefended bridge over the Zuid‐Willemsvaart canal fifty miles from Rotterdam, where airborne troops of the Reich’s 22nd Flieger Division held on to bridges along the Nieuwe Maas River, awaiting the arrival of ground troops. Seven Fascist armored divisions began to spearhead into the Ardennes Forest, brushing aside the few French cavalry units guarding this route into France.
1941: Berlin summoned top NSDAP officials to discuss how to handle Rudolf Heß’s unauthorized flight to the United Kingdom, and the Axis completed the occupation of the Greek islands in the Aegean Sea.
:::

This entry was edited (1 year ago)

Corporal punishment & psychological violence were common in Fascist Italy’s rural schools


The ban on violence in school as a punitive method was reiterated in the regulations R.D. no. 653 of May 4, 1925, and R.D. no. 1297 of April 26, 1928, passed under Fascism.¹² However, in spite of the explicit prohibition on the use of violence, the memoirs of former teachers and pupils reveal that corporal punishment was a common practice.

To explain this discrepancy in the enforcement of scholastic regulation in rural schools, it is necessary to look at the Italian society of the time. Italy during the Fascist period was mainly rural and its working population largely consisted of farmers with little or no education. While attending primary school was mandatory, children often used to play truant from classes — either willingly or due to compulsion by their parents — to help their families on their farms.

[…]

This social approval was in concordance with two legal issues that further undermined the ban on corporal punishment. On the one hand, teachers were rarely penalised for disregarding regulations and using corporal punishment. Evidence suggests that teachers were reprimanded only in certain extreme cases.

On the other hand, penal codes such as the 1930 Rocco Code contradicted existing scholastic regulations on corporal punishment. Articles 571 (e.g. ‘Abuse as a means of correction or discipline’) and 572 (e.g. ‘Familial abuse of children’), in particular, made it lawful for educators to physically punish children. Teachers were penalised only when the punishment caused illness, injury or death.¹⁵

By way of this law, any person or child under the authority of another could duly receive physical punishment for any disorderliness or misconduct. The juridical justification of violence against such subordinates as children and women in the home and in the classroom reflected the Fascist values of hierarchy ingrained within a rigid idea of the family and, more generally, of the society.

[…]

Although expressly prohibited, physical violence was widely used in classrooms during Fascism. Several eyewitness memoirs recall the details of such brutality in classrooms. These memoirs provide examples of punishments used in classrooms and illustrate cases of slapping, beating with a stick, pulling children’s ears, kicking, making children stretch out their arms or stand behind the blackboard for a long time, and making them kneel on dried chickpeas or corn.

It might be expected that teachers’ memoirs would not report the use of physical punishment due to its non‐compliance with the regulations, but this is not the case. The lack of remorse or shame in reporting these violent events in memoirs shows us how these practices were not only commonly accepted at school and at home, but also endured over time. The personal accounts of the past disclose an authoritarian system wherein punishments were considered to be an efficient means of educating pupils and expressing a teacher’s power.


(Emphasis added.)


:::spoiler Click here for events that happened today (February 11).
1929: Rome and the Holy See signed the Lateran Pacts.
1933: The SA, in the Rhineland, were sworn in as police auxiliaries.
1935: Berlin issued the order for the construction of Dithmarschen.
1937:
General Luis Orgaz’s Spanish Nationalist forces drove off General Sebastian Pozas’ forces eastward across the River Jarama near Madrid.
1938: Austrian Chancellor Kurt Schuschnigg secretly went to Salzburg, Austria by car for a meeting with Reich leaders while King Carol II announced the new 1938 Constitution of Romania, which concentrated powers in the throne.
:::


Fascist-era parenting is still harming German youths today, and the Fascists themselves had abusive parents


Renate Flens, a German woman in her 60s who suffers from depression, tells her psychotherapist that she wants to love her children but just can’t. She and the therapist soon realize that both Flens’s problems may be rooted in her frustration at being unable to allow others to get close to her. After lengthy conversations, they realize something else: a contributing factor may well be the child‐rearing teachings of Johanna Haarer, a physician whose books were written during the [Fascist] era and aimed at raising children to serve the Führer.

Flens (a pseudonym) was born after World War II, but Haarer’s books were still popular during her postwar childhood, where many households had a copy of The German Mother and Her First Child—a book that continued to be published for decades (ultimately cleansed of the most objectionable [Fascist] language). When asked, Flens recalled seeing one of Haarer’s books on her parents’ bookshelf.

Flens’s story, told to me by her therapist, illustrates an issue troubling a number of mental health experts in Germany: Haarer’s ideas may still be harming the emotional health of its citizens. One aspect was particularly pernicious: she urged mothers to ignore their babies’ emotional needs. Infants are [normally inclined] to build an attachment with a primary care giver.

The [Fascists] wanted children who were tough, unemotional and unempathetic and who had weak attachments to others, and they understood that withholding affection would support that goal. If an entire generation is brought up to avoid creating bonds with others, the experts ask, how can members of that generation avoid replicating that tendency in their own children and grandchildren?

“This has long been a question among analysts and attachment researchers but ignored by the general public,” says Klaus Grossmann, a leading researcher in mother–child attachment, now retired from the University of Regensburg. The evidence that Haarer’s teachings are still affecting people today is not definitive. Nevertheless, it is supported by studies of mother–child interactions in Germany, by other research into attachment and by therapists’ anecdotal reports.

[…]

In The German Mother and Her First Child, Haarer wrote, “It is best if the child is in his own room, where he can be left alone.” If the child starts to cry, it is best to ignore him: “Whatever you do, do not pick the child up from his bed, carry him around, cradle him, stroke him, hold him on your lap, or even nurse him.”

Otherwise, “the child will quickly understand that all he needs to do is cry in order to attract a sympathetic soul and become the object of caring. Within a short time, he will demand this service as a right, leave you no peace until he is carried again, cradled, or stroked—and with that a tiny but implacable house tyrant is formed!”

[…]

Why did so many mothers follow Haarer’s counterintuitive advice? Radebold, whose research has focused on the generation of children born during the war, notes that Haarer’s views on child‐rearing did not appeal to everyone during the 1930s and 1940s but attracted two groups in particular: parents who identified strongly with the [Third Reich] and young women who had themselves come from emotionally damaged families (largely as a result of World War I), who had no idea what a good relationship feels like.

If, in addition, their husbands were fighting at the front—leaving them to fend for themselves and to feel overburdened and insecure—it may well be imagined that the toughness promoted in Haarer’s books could have been appealing.

Of course, strict child‐rearing practices had been commonplace in Prussia well before the [Fascists] came on the scene. In Grossmann’s opinion, only a culture that already had a tendency for hardness would have been ready to institute such practices on a grand scale. Studies on attachment conducted in the 1970s are consistent with this view.

He notes, for example, that in Bielefeld, which is in northern Germany, half of all children were shown to exhibit an insecure attachment; in Regensburg, which is in southern Germany and never came under Prussian influence, less than a third fit that category.


This dovetails with my statement that the Fascists theirselves were products of abusive parenting. Quoting Alice Miller:

Like every other child, Hitler was born innocent, only to be raised, as were many children at the time, in a destructive fashion by his parents and later to make himself into a [criminal]. He was the survivor of a machinery of annihilation that in turn‐of‐the‐century Germany was called “child‐rearing” and that I call “the concealed concentration camp of childhood,” which is never allowed to be recognized for what it is.

[…]

According to the reports of [Axis] criminals (and also of soldiers who volunteered to fight in Vietnam), their unconscious programming to be violent began in every case with a brutal upbringing that demanded absolute obedience and expressed total contempt for the child. I know of no example of this which is so well‐documented and which demonstrates so clearly the consequences of the psychological murder of children — bringing along with it a form of collective blindness — than the fateful success of Adolf Hitler.

The Führer once told his secretary that during one of the regular beatings given him by his father he was able to stop crying, to feel nothing, and even to count the thirty‐two blows he received.

In this way, by totally denying his pain, his feelings of powerlessness, and his despair — in other words, by denying the truth — Hitler made himself into a master of violence and of contempt for human beings. The result was a very primitive person, incapable of any empathy for other people. He was mercilessly and constantly driven to new destructive acts by his latent feelings of hatred and revenge. After millions had been forced to die for this reason, those feelings still haunted him in his sleep.

Hermann Rauschning reports nocturnal paroxysms of screaming on the Führer’s part, along with “inexplicable counting”, which I trace back to the counting he did during the beatings of his childhood. Hitler did not invent fascism; he found it (like so many of his contemporaries) prefigured in the [Reich] of his family. The [Third Reich’s] version of fascism, however, does bear unmistakable traces of Hitler’s childhood.

But his early experience was by no means an exception. Thus, neither Gerhart Hauptmann nor Martin Heidegger nor many other celebrated intellects of the day were able to see through Hitler's madness. To do so, they would have had to be able to see through the madness of their own upbringing.

Hitler could make Europe and the world into the battlefield of his childhood because in the Germany of that time there were millions of people who had experienced the same kind of upbringing he had.


(Emphasis added in all cases.)

I know that some of you want to roll your eyes at Miller’s psychohistory. To an extent, I agree with you: psychology cannot answer everything.

Nevertheless, I would not be so quick to dismiss her psychohistory as useless. Where I differ from Miller is that I see the unpleasant childhoods, common among Axis officials, as ingredients to Fascism, rather than the root cause of Axis atrocities. Along with a military and petty bourgeois background, a history under abusive parents made a good candidate for a Fascist, as it damaged his empathy and taught him early on that violence is an acceptable solution to difficult problems. This provided the Fascists with valuable training that they needed.

In other words, while abusive parenting might not have made the Fascists oppressive, it certainly prepared them for that rôle. It would be difficult to prove that the Fascists were imitating their parents when they beat prisoners (which happened often), but I have no doubt that the normalisation of violence that they suffered early on made it all the easier.


:::spoiler Click here for events that happened today (January 3).
1873: Ichizō Kobayashi, Axis Minister of Commerce and Industry, came to life.
1903: Alois Hitler, protofascist civil servant, dropped dead.
1920: Siegfried Buback, Fascist soldier (and later W. Germany’s Attorney General), existed.
1924: Otto Beisheim, Waffen‐SS member (and later W. German capitalist), came into existence.
1933: Wilhelm Carl Josef Cuno, who briefly served as an economic advisor to Adolf Schicklgruber, died.
:::


This entry was edited (6 months ago)

r/TheDeprogram Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact


%%last updated to match The Deprogram Wiki on 2024-07-02%%

The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact


Anti-Communists and horseshoe-theorists love to tell anyone who will listen that the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (1939) was a military alliance between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. They frame it as a cynical and opportunistic agreement between two totalitarian powers that paved the way for the outbreak of World War II in order to equate Communism with Fascism. They are, of course, missing key context in their effort to uniquely place blame on the USSR.

German Background


The loss of World War I and the Treaty of Versailles had a profound effect on the German economy. Signed in 1919, the treaty imposed harsh reparations on the newly formed Weimar Republic (1919-1933), forcing the country to pay billions of dollars in damages to the Allied powers. The Treaty of Versailles, which ended the war, required Germany to cede all of its colonial possessions to the Allied powers. This included territories in Africa, Asia, and the Pacific, including German East Africa, German Southwest Africa, Togoland, Cameroon, and German New Guinea.

With an understanding of Historical Materialism and the role that Imperialism plays in maintaining a liberal democracy, it is clear that the National Bourgeoisie would embrace Fascism under these conditions. (Ask: "What is Imperialism?" and "What is Fascism?" for details)

Judeo-Bolshevism (a conspiracy theory which claimed that Jews were responsible for the Russian Revolution of 1917, and that they have used Communism as a cover to further their own interests) gained significant traction in Nazi Germany, where it became a central part of Nazi propaganda and ideology. Adolf Hitler and other leading members of the Nazi Party frequently used the term to vilify Jews and justify their persecution.

The Communist Party of Germany (KPD) was repressed by the Nazi regime soon after they came to power in 1933. In the weeks following the Reichstag Fire, the Nazis arrested and imprisoned thousands of Communists and other political dissidents. This played a significant role in the passage of the Enabling Act of 1933, which granted Hitler and the Nazi Party dictatorial powers and effectively dismantled the Weimar Republic.

Soviet Background


Following the Russian Revolution in 1917, Great Britain and other Western powers placed strict trade restrictions on the Soviet Union. These restrictions were aimed at isolating the Soviet Union and weakening its economy in an attempt to force the new Communist government to collapse.

In the 1920s, the Soviet Union under Lenin's leadership was sympathetic towards Germany because the two countries shared a common enemy in the form of the Western capitalist powers, particularly France and Great Britain. The Soviet Union and Germany established diplomatic relations and engaged in economic cooperation with each other. The Soviet Union provided technical and economic assistance to Germany and in return, it received access to German industrial and technological expertise, as well as trade opportunities.

However, this cooperation was short-lived, and by the late 1920s, relations between the two countries had deteriorated. The Soviet Union's efforts to export its socialist ideology to Germany were met with resistance from the German government and the rising Nazi Party, which viewed Communism as a threat to its own ideology and ambitions.

Collective Security (1933-1939)


The appointment of Hitler as Germany's chancellor general, as well as the rising threat from Japan, led to important changes in Soviet foreign policy. Oriented toward Germany since the treaty of Locarno (1925) and the treaty of Special Relations with Berlin (1926), the Kremlin now moved in the opposite direction by trying to establish closer ties with France and Britain to isolate the growing Nazi threat. This policy became known as "collective security" and was associated with Maxim Litvinov, the Soviet foreign minister at the time. The pursuit of collective security lasted approximately as long as he held that position. Japan's war with China took some pressure off of Russia by allowing it to focus its diplomatic efforts on relations with Europe.

— Andrei P. Tsygankov, (2012). Russia and the West from Alexander to Putin.


However, the memories of the Russian Revolution and the fear of Communism were still fresh in the minds of many Western leaders, and there was a reluctance to enter into an alliance with the Soviet Union. They believed that Hitler was a bulwark against Communism and that a strong Germany could act as a buffer against Soviet expansion.

Instead of joining the USSR in a collective security alliance against Nazi Germany, the Western leaders decided to try appeasing Nazi Germany. As part of the policy of appeasement, several territories were ceded to Nazi Germany in the late 1930s:

  1. Rhineland: In March 1936, Nazi Germany remilitarized the Rhineland, a demilitarized zone along the border between Germany and France. This move violated the Treaty of Versailles and marked the beginning of Nazi Germany's aggressive territorial expansion.
  2. Austria: In March 1938, Nazi Germany annexed Austria in what is known as the Anschluss. This move violated the Treaty of Versailles and the Treaty of Saint-Germain, which had established Austria as a separate state following World War I.
  3. Sudetenland: In September 1938, the leaders of Great Britain, France, and Italy signed the Munich Agreement, which allowed Nazi Germany to annex the Sudetenland, a region in western Czechoslovakia with a large ethnic German population.
  4. Memel: In March 1939, Nazi Germany annexed the Memel region of Lithuania, which had been under French administration since World War I.
  5. Bohemia and Moravia: In March 1939, Nazi Germany annexed Bohemia and Moravia, the remaining parts of Czechoslovakia that had not been annexed following the Munich Agreement.

However, instead of appeasing Nazi Germany by giving in to their territorial demands, these concessions only emboldened them and ultimately led to the outbreak of World War II.

Other Pacts Involving Nazi Germany


  1. The Four-Power Pact (1933): An agreement between Britain, France, Italy, and Germany.
  2. The Pilsudski Pact (1934): The German–Polish declaration of non-aggression normalised relations and the parties agreed to forgo armed conflict for a period of 10 years. Germany invaded Poland in 1939.
  3. Juliabkommen (1936): A gentleman's agreement between Austria and Germany, in which Germany recognized Austria's "full sovereignty". Germany annexed Austria in 1938 in the Anschluss.
  4. Anglo-German Naval Agreement (1935): This agreement with the British allowed Germany the right to build a navy beyond the limits set by the Treaty of Versailles.
  5. Munich Agreement (September 1938): The British, French, and Italy agreed to concede the Sudetenland to Germany in exchange for a pledge of peace. WWII began one year later, when Germany invaded Poland.
  6. German-French Non-Aggression Pact (December 1938): A treaty between Germany and France, ensuring mutual non-aggression and peaceful relations. Germany invaded France in 1940.
  7. German-Romanian Economic Treaty (March 1939): This agreement established German control over most aspects of Romanian economy. Romania became an Axis power in 1943 and was liberated by the Soviets in 1945.
  8. German-Lithuanian Non-Aggression Pact (March 1939): This ultimatum issued by Germany demanded Lithuania return the Klaipėda Region (Memel) which it lost in WWI in exchange for a non-aggression pact. Germany occupied Lithuania in 1941.
  9. Denmark Non-Aggression Pact (May 1939): An agreement between Germany and Denmark, ensuring non-aggression and peaceful coexistence. Germany invaded Denmark in 1940.
  10. German-Estonian Non-Aggression Pact (June 1939): Germany occupied Estonia in 1941.
  11. German-Latvian Non-Aggression Pact (June 1939): Germany occupied Latvia in 1941.
  12. USSR Non-Aggression Pact (August 1939): Known as the infamous Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, this was a non-aggression treaty between Germany and the Soviet Union, also including secret protocols dividing Eastern Europe into spheres of influence. Germany invaded the USSR in 1941.

And this, of course, ignores all the pacts and treaties that Germany made with its Axis allies: Italy, Japan, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Finland, and Thailand.

The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact


Papers which were kept secret for almost 70 years show that the Soviet Union proposed sending a powerful military force in an effort to entice Britain and France into an anti-Nazi alliance.

Such an agreement could have changed the course of 20th century history...

The offer of a military force to help contain Hitler was made by a senior Soviet military delegation at a Kremlin meeting with senior British and French officers, two weeks before war broke out in 1939.

The new documents... show the vast numbers of infantry, artillery and airborne forces which Stalin's generals said could be dispatched, if Polish objections to the Red Army crossing its territory could first be overcome.

But the British and French side - briefed by their governments to talk, but not authorised to commit to binding deals - did not respond to the Soviet offer...

— Nick Holdsworth. (2008). Stalin 'planned to send a million troops to stop Hitler if Britain and France agreed pact'


After trying and failing to get the Western capitalist powers to join the Soviet Union in a collective security alliance against Nazi Germany, and witnessing country after country being ceded, it became clear to Soviet leadership that war was inevitable-- and Poland was next.

Unfortunately, there was a widespread belief in Poland that Jews were overrepresented in the Soviet government and that the Soviet Union was being controlled by Jewish Communists. This conspiracy theory (Judeo-Bolshevism) was fueled by anti-Semitic propaganda that was prevalent in Poland at the time. The Polish government was strongly anti-Communist and had been actively involved in suppressing Communist movements in Poland and other parts of Europe. Furthermore, the Polish government believed that it could rely on the support of Britain and France in the event of a conflict with Nazi Germany. The Polish government had signed a mutual defense pact with Britain in March 1939, and believed that this would deter Germany from attacking Poland.

Seeing the writing on the wall, the Soviet Union made the difficult decision to do what it felt it needed to do to survive the coming conflict. At the time of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact's signing (August 1939), the Soviet Union was facing significant military pressure from the West, particularly from Britain and France, which were seeking to isolate the Soviet Union and undermine its influence in Europe. The Soviet Union saw the Pact as a way to counterbalance this pressure and to gain more time to build up its military strength and prepare for the inevitable conflict with Nazi Germany, which began less than two years later in June 1941 (Operation Barbarossa).

Additional Resources

Video Essays:



Books, Articles, or Essays:



(URL replace addon enabled for X, YouTube, Instagram and some news sites.)

This entry was edited (7 months ago)

A Sephardi husband discussing his intermarriage with his Ashkenazi wife


Interplay between Jewish subcultures has long been of interest to me; contact between related yet separate subcultures can be a source of both joy and frustration. This contact is especially visible in intermarriages, of which Marc D. Angel provides some fascinating examples:

I am Sephardic and my wife is Ashkenazic. […] Gilda told me that she did not realize that I was really Sephardic until I chanted kiddush the first Friday night after our marriage. She was not used to the Sephardic melody. And I wasn’t sure that she was really Ashkenazic until she served gefilte fish, which she enjoys so much— and which was new for me.

All marriages require accommodation, compromise, openness, and a good sense of humor. Having these ingredients, all in a spirit of love, intramarriage turns out to be a wonderful experience. Gilda has become a marvelous Sephardic cook, and I sing Ashkenazic Shabbat zemirot (hymns) with pleasure. In our Passover seder last year, we sang parts in Judeo‐Spanish and some in Yiddish.

[…]

There are, of course, issues which have strong emotional overtones which lead to conflict in a Sephardic–Ashkenazic marriage. For example, many Sephardim have the custom of naming children after living grandparents. Many Ashkenazim are troubled by the idea of naming children after living people, preferring to name them after deceased relatives.

I made a study of American Sephardim of Judeo‐Spanish origin (published in the American Jewish Year Book of 1973) in which I learned that almost 80% of respondents who were married to Ashkenazim succeeded in convincing their Ashkenazic spouses to go along with the Sephardic custom of naming children after the living. This is sometimes accomplished by means of a compromise: the child is given the Hebrew name of the living grandparent, while the English name will differ.

Sephardim and Ashkenazim have differences in customs, foods, holiday observances etc. Yet all of these factors can be handled by incorporating aspects of both the Sephardic and Ashkenazic traditions into married life. Often, the most serious problems in these marriages stem from in‐laws, rather than from the marriage partners themselves.

This entry was edited (2 years ago)

On this day 83 years ago, the Kingdom of Hungary officially joined the Axis


The media in this post is not displayed to visitors. To view it, please go to the original post.

The media in this post is not displayed to visitors. To view it, please go to the original post.

Like the German Reich, the Kingdom of Hungary lost a substantial portion of its land as a consequence of losing World War I, and it also suppressed Bolshevism in the late 1910s, so the soil for fascism was fertile. Fascist Italy officially befriended the Kingdom of Hungary in April 1927, and while Berlin was often cold towards Budapest for most of the 1930s (indeed, privately the Chancellor always considered Hungarians inferior), German neoimperialists always saw a useful trading partner in the Kingdom of Hungary, hence the commercial treaty of early 1934 and the increasing Hungarian exports to the Third Reich.


Pictured: Miklós Horthy’s 1938 trip to Berlin‐Mitte.


Pictured: Horthy with Schicklgruber in 1938.

The late 1930s were the Kingdom of Hungary’s time to shine. Quoting Ignác Romsics in Joining Hitler’s Crusade: European Nations and the Invasion of the Soviet Union, 1941, page 84:

[I]n late 1938 and early 1939 [Budapest], headed at this time by Béla Imrédy, attempted through various moves to demonstrate its pro‐[Reich] sentiments. In late November it authorized the formation of a fascist‐type organization (Volksbund) of the German minority, then it announced the country’s intention to withdraw from the League of Nations and its wish to join the Anti‐Comintern Pact.

It was also thanks to this that when [Berlin] decided on Czechoslovakia’s complete destruction in the spring of 1939, [it] gave Ruthenia not to Slovakia but to Hungary. The Hungarian army took possession of this territory between 15 and 18 March, at the same time that the Wehrmacht occupied the Bohemian‐Moravian counties and the Slovak Republic was formed.

The size of this area was once again 12,000 sq. km, and the number of inhabitants amounted to 550,000. The overwhelming majority of these declared themselves to be of Ruthenian (Ukrainian) nationality. Hungarians came to no more than 10 per cent; indeed, the Czechoslovak figures put them at less than 5 per cent.⁹


Raise your hand if this looks familiar.

But the Kingdom of Hungary’s quest for spazio vitale was just getting started. Pages 84–5:

The opportunity to regain a part of Transylvania was created in the summer of 1940, when the Soviet Union […] presented Romania with an ultimatum demanding the return of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina. Simultaneously it informed the Hungarian government that it considered […] military action against Romania conceivable. In order to preempt this [Berlin] called on the Romanians and Hungarians to commence bilateral negotiations.

The Romanian–Hungarian negotiations began on 16 August 1940 in Turnu Severin. Because an agreement could not be reached this time either, once again a German–Italian arbitration was held. The result was announced on 30 August 1940 in Vienna (the Second Vienna Award). Based on this Hungary recovered 43,000 sq. km of territory with 2.5 million inhabitants.

According to the 1941 Hungarian census the population was 52 per cent Hungarian, while Romanian statistics from 1930 indicated 38 per cent was Hungarian. The remainder was Romanian and German. The number of Romanians who became Hungarian citizens exceeded one million, while the number of Hungarians left in Southern Transylvania was around 400,000.

Romania experienced the Second Vienna Award as a national catastrophe and subsequently did everything to invalidate it. Hungary by contrast rejoiced. […] The [Fascist] Volksbund became the only legal organization of the Germans in Hungary. Exports of foodstuffs and fodder to [the Third Reich] were increased. And finally, on 20 November 1940, Hungary joined the German–Italian–Japanese Tripartite Pact established back in September, a move that signaled the end of the policy of neutrality followed until then by Teleki.¹¹



Pictured: István Csáky and Pál Teleki with Adolf Schicklgruber, Galeazzo Ciano, Joachim von Ribbentrop, and Saburō Kurusu.

The Kingdoms of Hungary and Yugoslavia remained on good terms throughout 1940, but with the anti‐Reich political turnabout in Belgrade in March 1941, Berlin decided that it was time for Yugoslavia to go, and Budapest was going to help. Page 86:

The Hungarian army crossed the border a few days after the [Wehrmacht], on 11 April following the proclamation in Zagreb of independent Croatia the previous day, whereby Yugoslavia ceased to exist.


(Sadly, this would not be the last time that German anticommunists assisted Croatian ultranationalists.)

Because of the rapid dissolution of the multinational Yugoslav army no heavy resistance had to be overcome anywhere. In exchange for her military participation Hungary regained Bácska (Bačka), the Baranya Triangle and the Muraköz (Međimurje). Of the total population of one million in the returned areas, the percentage of Hungarians exceeded one third. In addition to the South Slavs the German population was also significant.¹³

As a result of the revisionist success between 1938 and 1941, Hungary almost doubled in territory, while its population increased to nearly 15 million. About half of the almost 5 million former‐new citizens were Hungarian, the rest Romanian, Ruthenian, South Slav, German and Slovak.

The return to the ‘mother country’ of close to half the territories annexed in 1920, along with a large portion of the Hungarians who had become citizens of foreign countries, filled the Hungarian people of the time with overflowing joy and significantly increased the government’s popularity. It was at this time that Regent Miklós Horthy received, in addition to the hitherto customary epithets ‘savior of the country’ and ‘builder of the country,’ the constant appellation ‘multiplier of the country’ and ‘multiplier of the homeland.’¹⁴



Pictured: A German anticommunist and a Hungarian one at a train station.

As the fourth member of the Axis, the Kingdom of Hungary proved a useful ally, but surprisingly the Chancellor was disinterested in having its direct involvement in the Axis invasion of the Soviet Union. Nevertheless, the all‐encompassing, omnipotent, and inescapable totalitarian dictatorship of Adolf Schicklgruber was unable to prevent Budapest from successfully negotiating entry anyway with the Wehrmacht’s commanders. Page 88:

General of the Infantry Henrik Werth […] composed memoranda for the government to make certain the country joined the campaign even in lieu of an explicit German request. In his memoranda Werth assumed that by staying out of the war they would put their revisionist successes achieved heretofore at risk, but by joining, as well as with a ‘pro‐Axis’ policy, they would ‘certainly recover the entire territory of historical Hungary.’

In addition to achieving revision the general’s arguments also included the régime’s ‘Christian‐national‐based worldview,’ with which they would be at odds if ‘we did not join the fight against Bolshevism.’ Moreover, he judged all this to be completely devoid of risk, believing the superiority of German military strength so overwhelming that he did not devote more than a few weeks for the entire campaign.¹⁹


(Emphasis added in all cases.)

Thus, the Kingdom of Hungary officially joined the Axis invasion of the Soviet Union on June 27, 1941, with 90,000 Hungarians constituting 7% of the non‐German armies in the invasion. There is plenty more to say, of course, but in the interests of brevity I’d like to end this exploration here. Read Hungary in World War II: Caught in the Cauldron for more. One last thing, though: do not let anybody tell you that the Kingdom of Hungary treated Jews benevolently.


:::spoiler Click here for other events that happened today (November 20).
1851: Margherita of Savoy, monarchist and profascist, existed.
1867: Gustav Giemsa, Fascist chemist, started his life.
1875: Friedrich‐Werner Graf von der Schulenburg, Axis diplomat, came along.
1894: Johann Nikuradse, Axis professor, was created.
1902: Philipp Johann Adolf Schmitt, SS officer, disgraced life with his presence.
1914: Emilio Pucci, Fascist aristocrat, made life less pleasant.
1927: Wolfgang Schreyer, (brief) member of the NSDAP, arrived on this dust ball.
1936: José Antonio Primo de Rivera, founder of the Falange, was executed by Republicans.
1940: Arturo Bocchini, head of the Fascist State Police and the OVRA, had the decency to drop dead.
1945: The trials against twenty‐four Axis war criminals started at the Palace of Justice at Nuremberg.
1999: Amintore Fanfani, Fascist intellectual who wrote for La difesa della razza, was finally gone.
2013: Dieter Hildebrandt, Axis pilot, expired.
:::


On this day 83 years ago, the Kingdom of Hungary declared war on the Soviets (and the liberals approved)


Pictured: Foreign Minister Lászlo Bárdossy (first from right) walks in front of a guard of honor. Visible: Hungarian Ambassador to Berlin Döme Sztójay (first from left) and SS Obergruppenführer Baron von Eberstein (second from left). Dated 1941.

Quoting Deborah S. Cornelius’s Hungary in World War II: Caught in the Cauldron, pages 148–152:

Confirming the doubts of Rundstedt, the progress of Army Group South was slower than that of the other two army groups; the Seventeenth Army pushed forward only ten to twelve kilometers on the first day. On June 25, 1941, the chief of staff of Army South repeated his request for the intervention of troops from [the Kingdom of] Hungary. He pointed out that this would be a significant unburdening of the Seventeenth Army’s south wing and help the attack of the Eleventh Army.

The answer came from the Oberkommando des Heeres (OKH), [the Third Reich’s] High Command of the Army—“the question of Hungarian participation is still open.”⁶ Halder noted in his diary of June 25: “Hungary’s collaboration would be desirable. Hungary, however, wants to be asked officially. The Führer will not do that, for political reasons.”⁷

All this changed on June 26 at a few minutes after one o’clock in the afternoon when three unidentified planes dropped bombs on the Hungarian city of Kassa. The bombs struck the post and telegraph office, a settlement and several homes, leaving several dead and a larger number wounded. One bomb failed to explode and was found to be of Russian manufacture. The planes then disappeared toward the southeast, the direction from which they had come.

The local military authorities concluded that Soviet planes were responsible, but to this day the question of responsibility has not been solved. Many Hungarians believed that the [Third Reich] had used the bombing as a trick to bring [the Kingdom of] Hungary into the war, but absolutely no German documents have turned up to support this thesis. The Russians denied responsibility.⁸

When the news reached Budapest, the minister of defense, Károly Bartha, and Chief of the General Staff Henrik Werth rushed to tell the regent what had happened. Horthy’s immediate reaction was indignation—the country had been attacked! His sense of honor required that he act.

On the spot he ordered that appropriate retaliatory measures be initiated, but it is not clear if he was thinking of a declaration of war or only reprisals. Horthy, who was [supposedly] apolitical, was always prone to making quick impulsive decisions, which he could be talked out of later by calmer minds. His respected advisors, Moricz Esterházy or István Bethlen, had been able to talk the regent out of hasty actions in other situations, but both Bartha and Werth were eager for war.⁹

By the time Bárdossy heard of the incident and reached the regent, Horthy had already given the order for retaliatory measures. A career diplomat, Bárdossy had never had close relations with Horthy, and he did not attempt to counter the impulsive decision. He believed that Horthy wanted immediate action—and that this action would be war. He explained that he must first go to the Council of Ministers since only they could make a declaration of a state of war.

Horthy seems to have believed that after council deliberation Bárdossy would return to him with the decision for his approval, but Bárdossy believed he had been ordered to put a decision on war into effect. Therefore there was no need to consult the regent further. Later Horthy charged that Bárdossy had presented him with a fait accompli.¹⁰

One hour and twenty minutes after bombs fell on Kassa, Bárdossy summoned an emergency session of the Council of Ministers, which met so hurriedly that several members were missing. Dezso Laky, minister of public supply, arrived only at the end, and Ferenc Zsindely, secretary of state, was absent, while Antal Ullein‐Reviczky, head of the foreign ministry’s press division, was attending a lunch party and sent a deputy in his stead.

In that short time Bárdossy had made up his mind to a complete reversal of his whole policy. At the council meeting he announced that the Soviets had bombed Kassa, and in his view Hungary should declare that as a consequence she regarded herself as in a state of war.

Opinions were divided. Minister of Defense Bartha condemned the Soviet attack as an uncalled‐for provocation and made vigorous pleas to carry out reprisals. The moderate minister of the interior, Ferenc Keresztes‐Fischer, thought it was too early to declare a state of war, reasoning that the bombing was not that serious an action. He believed the army was not strong enough, and that it was against the country’s interests to start a war against a great power.

Bálint Hóman, the pro‐[Reich] minister of culture, and Reményi‐Schneller, minister of finance, both supported the prime minister, claiming that [the Kingdom of] Hungary should not be the only one left out of the action. [The Kingdoms of] Italy and Romania had joined in the war the day of the [Wehrmacht’s] attack and Slovakia had also joined.¹¹

Bárdossy summed up the opinion of the council, that all were in favor of reprisals, and all, except Keresztes‐Fischer, were in favor of stating that Hungary regarded herself as being in a state of war with Russia, but participation in military action should be as limited as possible. Evidently no vote was taken. The ministers did not seem to have realized that Bárdossy’s summing‐up was equivalent to agreement to a binding resolution.

According to the official record of the meeting signed by Bárdossy, the ministers’ decision to declare the existence of a state of war between [the Kingdom of] Hungary and the USSR was unanimous, although at Bárdossy’s trial in 1945, it was charged that he had falsified the evidence—that four ministers had voted against the decision.¹²

Without consulting the regent, Bárdossy immediately drafted and issued a communiqué describing the attack on Kassa as an act of unprovoked aggression by the USSR and ended by stating that in consequence “Hungary considered herself from this moment on as at war with the U.S.S.R.”

Later, on the advice of Ullein‐Reviczky, he modified the wording to state: “In consequence of the repeated attacks made by Soviet aircraft, contrary to international law, against Hungarian territory, Hungary considers a state of war to have come into being between herself and the USSR.”¹³ That day he did not inform the regent of his communiqué.

The question remains why Bárdossy made the fatal step so precipitously. The Kassa incident was no casus belli; Molotov strongly denied Moscow’s involvement.¹⁴ There was no overt German pressure. Bárdossy said the step was inevitable but in later years historians have blamed him directly for [the Kingdom of] Hungary’s entry into war. Since the fall of State Socialism in 1989, many World War II officers and political figures charged with war crimes have been rehabilitated, but there is still no discussion of clearing Bárdossy’s name.

Bárdossy had been appointed prime minister hastily, immediately following Teleki’s suicide. Although acknowledged to be brilliant, he was often impatient. He could be charming and had been an excellent representative for [the Kingdom of] Hungary in England, and successful in Bucharest in improving Hungarian–Romanian relations, but he was a novice in domestic politics, not familiar with parliamentary rules and conduct.

A proud and sensitive man, he was prone to make quick decisions and to make them on his own. Not patient with those around him who were less bright, he was not good at consulting others nor taking advice. To add to his impatience he had serious stomach problems. It seems that at this point he had come to the decisions on what he believed to be the correct course.¹⁵

The next day, June 27, Bárdossy appeared before Parliament. The standing chairman, Jeno Szinyei Merse, announced with outrage that there had been an air attack by the Soviet Air Force the day before, but there was no mention that the identity of the attackers could be questioned. He then introduced Prime Minister Bárdossy to acclamation by the House (“Hear! Hear!”). Bárdossy repeated the news of the Soviet attack. “Thus the Hungarian Royal Government decided that as a result of the attack a state of war exists between Hungary and the Soviet Union.”¹⁶

The parliamentary record states that his news was greeted by long and lively cheering and clapping from all sides. From the extreme Right came the shouts: “Out with the Social Democrats.” Bárdossy continued, stating that the Hungarian army would take the necessary measures. There was no further parliamentary discussion, the house continued with a long drawn‐out debate on the need to further restrict the activities of the Jews.¹⁷

According to a later report there were at most forty representatives present. The one or two Smallholders and Social Democrat representatives immediately left the chamber and the loud clapping came from the ten to fifteen Arrow Cross representatives. The leader of one opposition party, Rassay, asked as he left the chamber, “Are you happy about this?” The government party representatives were surprised and clapped politely.¹⁸

Bárdossy did not even appear in the upper house which received the same notification read out by the president. His failure to consult the upper house, which was taken as an insult, greatly reduced his esteem in that body.

The declaration of war was not unpopular—none of those in the opposition, neither the liberal parties nor the Social Democrats challenged the declaration. The prominent opposition leader, Bajcsy Zsilinsky, even sent a message to Bárdossy praising him for defending the country’s interests, and the military were especially jubilant.

Hungarians had been permeated with anti‐Bolshevism ever since the catastrophic Soviet Republic of 1919, and the officers, indoctrinated with an anti‐Bolshevik attitude, were infatuated with Germany and its technical advances and rapid victories. A number of the younger officers saw in Hitler’s social reforms a new society. Three military commissions, which had gone to [the Third Reich] in 1940–41, were unanimous in their opinion that no power on the continent could defeat the Wehrmacht.

In light of [Fascism’s] rapid victories everyone thought that it would be a short war. There was no thought that [the Kingdom of] Hungary’s participation might entangle the country in hostilities with the West.

But the simple peasant or worker felt no enthusiasm at the prospect of fighting [Soviets], who meant nothing to him. Closer association with [the Third Reich] was still unpopular among many Hungarians. The regent preserved a curious reticence about the war. It was many days before any Hungarian paper suggested that Horthy had ordered the campaign and he signed no order to the troops. In a speech given on June 29 to unveil a monument to the World War I fallen, he did not include a single reference to the new war.


(Emphasis added.)


:::spoiler Click here for other events that happened today (June 27).
1906: Erich Traub, Axis scientist, was born in Asperglen.
1933: The German National Front (formerly the German National People’s Party, DNVP) voted to dissolve itself before the Chancellery compelled it to do so.
1934: Sepp Dietrich requested the Reichwehr authorities for arms so that the Liebstandarte could carry out what he called ‘a secret and most important mission ordered by the Führer’ (read: the slaughter of dissident elements within the SA).
1939: Aircraft of Imperial Army 2nd Air Brigade attacked the Soviet airfield at Tamsagbulag, Mongolia Area, China. Both sides lost several aircraft.
1940: Fascist submarine U‐47 shelled Norwegian merchant ship Lenda off southwest Ireland at 0400 hours; somebody died but twenty‐seven did not. At 1700 hours, U‐47 shelled Netherlandish tanker Leticia in the same area; twenty‐five of the crew took to lifeboats, while the other three who dove into the water were rescued by U‐47 and brought to the lifeboats; the crew of U‐47 offered the survivors first aid material, sausages, and wine before leaving! Aside from that, the Wehrmacht reached the Franco‐Spanish border, and the Kingdom of Romania unhappily ceded Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina to the Soviet Union.
1941: The Axis captured Bobruisk in Byelorussia and Przemysl in Poland, and in Kaunas, a group of Lithuanian anticommunists gathered more than fifty Jewish men in a horse stable and beat them violently with iron bars in public view. None of the victims survived the Lietukis Garage Massacre.
:::


This entry was edited (1 year ago)

The U.S. held more Fascist prisoners of war than it held Jewish refugees


Quoting David Swanson’s Leaving World War II Behind, chapter 2:

Detractors of Franklin Roosevelt blame him for not doing more, arguing that he could have seen to it that Jews found safe haven in Cuba or the Virgin Islands or Santo Domingo or Alaska, or — if Jews were really unwelcome as free citizens of the United States — then in refugee camps. Of course, the same complaint can be lodged against the U.S. Congress.

There were 425,000 German prisoners of war in the United States during the war, but only one camp for refugees, in Oswego, N.Y., which held about 1,000 Jews.⁶⁵ Were [Axis] soldiers 425 times more welcome than Jewish refugees? Well, perhaps in some sense they were. Prisoners of war are temporary and isolated.


For the record, here is the number of Jews who successfully escaped to Imperial America from the 1930s to the early 1940s:

The U.S. Holocaust Museum’s website informs visitors: “Though at least 110,000 Jewish refugees escaped to the United States from [Fascist]‐occupied territory between 1933 and 1941, hundreds of thousands more applied to immigrate and were unsuccessful.”¹⁹


In the words of Eric Lichtblau:

In the early months, and first few years after the war, beginning in mid‐1945, [there were] only a very limited number of immigration visas to get into the United States.

Of all the [Shoah] survivors in the camps, only a few thousand came in in [the] first year or so. To get a visa was a precious commodity, and there were immigration policy makers in Washington who were on record saying that they didn't think the Jews should be let in because they were “lazy people” or “entitled people” and they didn’t want them in.

But there were many, many thousands of [Axis] collaborators who got visas to the United States while the survivors did not — even though they had been, for instance, the head of [an Axis] concentration camp, the warden at a camp, or the secret police chief in Lithuania who signed the death warrants for people.

The bulk of the people who got into the United States — some were from Germany itself, some in fact were senior officers in the [NSDAP] under Hitler — but more were the [Axis] collaborators.


Now you may be wondering how many Axis personnel actually stayed in Imperial America. Did hundreds of thousands of former Axis personnel and their collaborators remain there? My answer: probably not that many, but the total number must have been disturbing indeed. Quoting Eric Lichtblau’s The Nazis Next Door: How America became a Safe Haven for Hitler’s Men, chapter 1:

With [the Axis’s] defeat, the flight of the [Fascists] to America only accelerated. The true total of fugitives may never be known, but the number of postwar immigrants with clear ties to the [Axis] likely surpassed ten thousand, from concentration camp guards and SS officers to top Third Reich policymakers, leaders of [Axis] puppet states, and other Third Reich collaborators.


(Emphasis added in all cases.)

In fairness, after the Presidency dismissed Assistant Secretary of State Breckinridge Long from office in 1944, it established the War Refugee Board, which was responsible for settling 200,000 Jews in Imperial America.

This number, still lower than the total of Axis POWs, should not distract us from the mistreatment that these refugees received, nor from the thousands of others rejected, nor from the fact that many of them were accepted only after the hostilities in Europe ceased. It is quite plausible that the white establishment only permitted more refugees because it needed replacements for the many workers lost in WWII, and it found European Jews more tolerable than people of color.


:::spoiler Click here for events that happened today (October 21).

1931: A secret society in the Imperial Japanese Army launched an abortive coup d’état attempt.
1935: The Third Reich formally terminated its League of Nations membership while therein. (Berlin had announced its withdrawal from the League of Nations two years earlier, but had to wait until later for all its obligations to expire.)
1937: As the Asturias Offensive and the War in the North ended in a fascist victory with the capture of Gijón, Generalissimo Francisco Franco increased his powers with a decree concentrating all the authority into a new National Council, whose members Franco could appoint and dismiss as he wished. Meanwhile, Berlin ordered the dissolution of the Catholic Centre Party in the Free City of Danzig, leaving the NSDAP as the only legal party therein.
1939: Berlin and Rome made the South Tyrol Option Agreement: ethnic Germans in the region would be allowed to emigrate to the Reich or remain and become Italianized.
1943: The Imperialists formally established the ‘Provisional Government of Free India’ in Axis‐occupied Singapore.
1944: After three weeks of fighting with U.S. forces, the Axis lost its first German city, Aachen, to the Allies. Coincidentally, as the Battle of Leyte Gulf commenced the first kamikaze attack damaged HMAS Australia.
1980: Johann Friedrich Karl Asperger, Axis physician (and the namesake of Asperger’s syndrome), expired.
1992: Ante Ciliga, Croatian fascist, finally died.
:::

This entry was edited (11 months ago)

Jewish emigration from the occupation of Palestine is on the rise!


There has been an increase in the numbers of people who want to leave the country for various reasons, as they face a divided country and fears of civil war. Many Jews are convinced that they have no future in [the neocolony]. Ongoing activities may be the beginning of their farewell as they increasingly talk about packing their luggage and leaving if the situation becomes more dangerous than it is now.

While [the ruling class] is actively trying to bring thousands of Jews from around the world to [the occupation], immigration data from within [the occupation] to the outside show a sharp jump in numbers, in what can be called “reverse migration”, for various reasons. The total number of [people] who immigrated to other countries and currently reside abroad reached 756 thousand at the end of 2020. The [neocolony’s] Central Bureau of Statistics said that between 572–612 thousand [people] live outside the country, and this estimate does not include the number of those born abroad. This has, once again, revived [Zionist] fears of a decrease in their numbers.


(Emphasis added.)

So, it’s come down to this… now nobody can even argue that the ends justify the means, since the Zionists can’t even do the bare minimum of protecting Jews. And I think that I know why: it’s because the truth is that Zionists are failures who fail at everything that they do. They could have gotten at least one thing right and now it’s clear to everybody that they can’t do it. They’ve failed us. They’ve failed us!

Sephardi and Ashkenazi Torahs compared


The media in this post is not displayed to visitors. To view it, please go to the original post.

Somebody holding a Sephardi‐style Torah (left) and somebody holding an Ashkenazi‐style Torah (right).

One of the many fascinating differences between Ashkenazim and Sephardim is that the former fit their Torahs on two rollers, which they usually wrap together in a cloth before putting away, whereas the latter have a more elaborate method: storing the Torah in a case (traditionally made from wood) with built‐in rollers, and reading it therefrom!

The reason for this divergence is actually more complicated than you might have expected. Quoting Rabbi Yehuda Shurpin:

On the surface, one might think that this difference is primarily a cultural one. Just like people in different lands dress differently, they also developed different styles for “dressing” the Torah.

However, there actually is important halachic significance to the fact that the Sephardim keep their Torahs in cylinders that hold them upright, while the Ashkenazi Torah scrolls need to be propped up on a slant.

[…]

The Talmud states that if one positions the mezuzah like a nagar (bolt), it is invalid. Now, what is the position of a bolt?

The great commentator Rashi (Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki) explains that a nagar is a bolt that lies horizontally. Thus, he learns that a mezuzah needs to be attached vertically.¹

Rashi’s grandson, Rabbeinu Tam (Rabbi Yaakov ben Meir), disagrees, saying that the nagar in question is not a horizontal door bolt, but a vertical tent pin, like the pins used to keep the Tabernacle walls in place. Accordingly, he says that a vertical mezuzah is invalid. Interestingly, he finds a parallel for his horizontal requirement in the fact that the dead must be buried lying down, and in the historical precedent that the Tablets were positioned on their sides in the Holy Ark.²

Now, if the Tablets and mezuzahs are not allowed to stand upright, it follows that Rabbeinu Tam would also forbid having a Torah stand vertically.

What This Means to Us

Maimonides³ and the Code of Jewish Law⁴ concur with Rashi’s opinion that the correct position of a mezuzah is in the vertical position, and if it’s in the horizontal position, it is invalid.

Thus, Sephardi[m] generally affix their mezuzot in the vertical position, and extend this to the Torah scrolls, which they store and read while the scrolls are standing in their cases.

Ashkenazic custom, however, generally follows the opinion of the Rema (Rabbi Moses Isserles) in his glosses to the Code of Jewish Law. He writes that although the halachah follows Rashi’s opinion, one should take Rabbeinu Tam’s opinion (that a vertical mezuzah is invalid) into consideration. Therefore, he suggests that the best way to affix the mezuzah is diagonally (with the top facing inward). Since the mezuzah is neither vertical nor horizontal, it is valid according to both opinions.⁵

And now you can also see why Ashkenazim read the Torah on a slanted bimah and are particular to store the scrolls on a (slight) slant as well.⁶


(Source.)

Although it’s somewhat unrelated, I do wish that the Ashkenazic questioner wrote more about experiencing a Sephardic synagogue for the first time. The simultaneous feelings of familiarity and unfamiliarity must have been quite interesting indeed.

This entry was edited (4 months ago)

The Third Reich’s anti-Judaism


The media in this post is not displayed to visitors. To view it, please go to the original post.

The media in this post is not displayed to visitors. To view it, please go to the original post.

(This takes 10–13 minutes to read. Aside from involving racist caricatures, it also discusses instances of animal abuse.)

Because there is a noticeable overlap between anti-Judaism and antisemitism, and there are many contexts wherein it is unclear which is which, some scholars (e.g. Susannah Heschel & Christopher J. Probst) have gone so far as to declare the distinctions between the two phenomena effectively meaningless. Nevertheless, we are perfectly capable of finding instances of Fascist aggression unmistakingly directed at Judaism, even if it was usually coloured or motivated by White supremacy.

Before I continue, I would like to take this moment to disclaim, at the risk of stating the obvious, that merely disapproving of certain Judaic phenomena—such as compulsory circumcision, gender segregation, or the excessive violence in the Tanakh—is not the same thing as opposing Judaism, as many Reform Jews, Reconstructionist Jews, and certain other Judaists can attest. While it is certainly possible for someone to exploitatively reference these practices as a justification for anti-Judaism, one should always exercise caution and examine the greater context before jumping to the conclusion that such judgements come from a place of ill faith.

Now, if you think of Fascist anti-Judaism, most likely you’ll immediately think of the Shoah, the discrimination against converts to Judaism, the destruction of synagogues, the destruction of Jewish scriptures, the destruction of other ritual objects, forcing Judaists to break their own rules, or forcibly removing their hair (because keeping facial hair is a pentateuchal commandment). However, many fascists, such as Gerhard Kittel, also expressed their anti-Judaism verbally. Quoting Alan E. Steinweis’s Studying the Jew: Scholarly Antisemitism in Nazi Germany, pages 68–69:

The religious differences between Judaism and Christianity were not merely theological, they were ethical as well. Whereas Christianity had inherited the ethical core of Old Testament Judaism, rabbinic Judaism operated according to the Talmud, which sanctioned corruption, dishonesty, materialism, and antipathy toward non-Jews.

This last accusation was hardly new in the annals of Christian anti-Judaism, but Kittel was innovative in anchoring theological and religious differences in the divergent racial developments of Jewish and non-Jewish Germans.


Here we have a xenophobe stressing purported differences between Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity. On the contrary, certain scholars were already noting important similarities between Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity (and in some cases outright borrowings) long before the 1930s. The 17th century Anglican John Lightfoot, the 18th century biblical scholar Johann Christian Schöttgen, the 19th century rabbi Elijah Zvi Soloveitchik, the Christian Hebraist Karl August Wünsche, the Ashkenazi lecturer S. Schechter, the Sephardic scholar Claude Montefiore, and the Unitarian Robert Travers Herford have all pointed out numerous parallels between the New Testament and the Talmud, boldly implying that the two works might have had a ‘common ancestor’ (so to speak). Needless to say, mentioning any of this would have undermined the xenophobe’s point.

Continuing on page 73:

As a result of the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70 C.E., the Talmud became the key cohesive force in Judaism. Repeating an old and persistent anti-Jewish stereotype, Kittel characterized the rabbinic Judaism based on the Talmud as excessively legalistic, in contrast to the much more spiritual and ethical religion of Christianity. Kittel reiterated the longstanding accusation that the Talmud sanctioned abusive conduct by Jews toward non-Jews, substantiating his claims with references to the Strack-Billerbeck text.⁴¹

He laid great emphasis on a supposed Jewish “will to power,” which he interpreted as a perversion of the original Jewish idea of selection by G-d. Among the Jews, Kittel explained, loss of homeland, dispersion, and oppression at the hands of others distorted the notion of divine selection into a form of megalomania. The Jews, Kittel concluded, considered themselves chosen by G-d to rule over others as a “People of World Domination” (Volk der Weltherrschaft) and regarded non-Jews as […] to be “exterminated.”⁴²


Pages 75–6:

The year 1943 also saw the publication of Kittel’s most pronouncedly antisemitic article, “The Treatment of Non-Jews According to the Talmud.”⁴⁷ It appeared in the first issue of the Archive for Jewish Questions, the organ of the “Antisemitic Action,” an initiative sponsored by the German Ministry of Propaganda under Joseph Goebbels.

The point of Kittel’s article was hardly novel. Jews, he asserted, harbor a deeply rooted, “fundamental hatred of non-Jews,” a hatred that is sanctioned and encouraged in the Talmud. But while not new, the argument was now pushed to an extreme that was uncharacteristic of Kittel. He declared that the Talmud bestowed upon Jews “full freedom to kill” non-Jews.⁴⁸

Kittel derived this conclusion from a tortured and ahistorical analysis of a passage found in the tractate Sanhedrin, a part of the Talmud that deals with the adjudication and punishment of crimes. Much of Sanhedrin consists of hypothetical discussions about draconian punishments that Jewish communities never actually put into practice.⁴⁹

Chapter 9 of the tractate records rabbinic arguments about the applicability of capital punishment in cases of murder. In his article, Kittel extracted three sentences out of the complex rabbinic discussions, asserting that they equated the killing of a non-Jew to the killing of an animal.⁵⁰

[…]

Kittel thus accused Jews of the murderous dehumanization of others precisely at the moment that this treatment was being applied to them. His willful distortion of Jewish texts provided intellectual cover for genocide.


As Judaism is a closed practice, it is only natural that few gentiles have any familiarity with the Talmud, and fewer still have heard good things about it. It is worth digressing slightly to get a basic understanding of it. Briefly put: for most Jewish communities (barring the Beta Israel and the Karaites), the Talmud is a supplement to the Torah. Page 76:

Gerhard Kittel’s dishonest manipulation of passages from the Talmud represented nothing new in the history of antisemitism. This technique had an old pedigree in Christian Europe, as the Talmud had made a convenient target for anti-Jewish polemics. A vast compendium of Jewish learning, the Talmud—specifically the Babylonian Talmud—contains two and a half million words on almost six thousand folio pages. It consists for the most part of the written record of arguments carried on in the rabbinical academies of Mesopotamia during the third, fourth, and fifth centuries C.E.

The rabbis debated law, beliefs, customs, and history, with the ultimate goal of creating a comprehensive framework for Jewish life outside of Israel. The text constitutes an extraordinarily complex dialectic of arguments and counterarguments, many of which were posed speculatively, hypothetically, and hyperbolically, not to be taken literally. The vastness, depth, and complexity of the text has led many scholars to apply the description “Sea of the Talmud” to the sprawling work.⁵³

Many have regarded this quality of the Talmud in a positive light. Gerhard Kittel, writing in 1926, before his turn to antisemitism, celebrated the Talmud as “a giant sack into which was stuffed everything which Judaism had stored up in terms of memories and traditions, so that its contents are the most colorful and joyful confusion and juxtaposition that one can imagine.”⁵⁴


I am sad to say that this is the first time that I have seen a gentile compliment the Talmud. Christian Zionists often like to put on airs of being ‘Jew-friendly’, but I have never seen them express positive or even mixed feelings about the Talmud, on the sporadic occasions when they discuss the Talmud at all.

Pages 77–8:

The basic method […] was to present passages from the “Sea of the Talmud” out of their original textual or historical contexts. They seized upon utterances of ancient rabbis that originated as tactical debating maneuvers and misrepresented them as statements of Jewish doctrine.

Similarly, they pointed to unflattering Talmudic characterizations of Gentiles as proof of Jewish disdain for non-Jews, ignoring the circumstances of persecution and oppression that gave rise to such rabbinical polemics. They selected only those Talmudic passages that cast Jews in a negative light, and omitted contradictory passages that might have softened the harsh portrait.

This tradition of anti-Talmudic polemic continued in the Third Reich, embodied most conspicuously in propaganda tracts intended for dissemination to a broad readership. Facile attacks on the Talmud saturated [Fascist] newspapers, most notably the obsessively antisemitic Stürmer.⁵⁷

Less dripping in venom, but no less misrepresentative of the spirit of the Talmudic texts, were the articles and brochures of Johannes Pohl, a trained Bible scholar who helped organize the looting of Jewish libraries in [Fascist]-occupied Europe during World War II.⁵⁸

Several book-length compilations of Talmudic passages appeared during the [Fascist] era as well. These included Walter Fasolt’s book The Foundations of the Talmud: A Non-Jewish Perspective, which was published in 1935 and then went through multiple editions; it was a malicious polemic by a propagandist whose other [Fascist]-era publications included Papal Domination, a fierce attack on the Catholic Church.⁵⁹

Both of these books were brought out by the Pötsch publishing house in Breslau, which specialized in sensationalist hate literature aimed at mass audiences. Another product of the same publisher was Gerhard Utikal’s book Jewish Ritual Murder, which purported to demonstrate the veracity of this antisemitic accusation to the nonscholarly reader in a manner that was “simple and clear” and “easy to understand.”⁶⁰


A Fascist cartoon from 1938 portraying a large Masonic Judeo-Bolshevik, known as ‘The Son of Israel’, grinning mischievously as he physically pressures a nervous, ostensibly non-Jewish man to fire a handgun. The Masonic Judeo-Bolshevik says (in Italian), ‘Kill, boy; the Talmud wills it!’ (On the contrary, it would be difficult to find any Talmudic demands that apply to goyim, let alone ones telling us to kill.)

Axis propaganda depicting an unhappy Jewish caricature (presumably, yet anachronistically, Prophet Moses) holding the Talmud.

Studying the Jew says plenty more about the Fascists’ bashing of the Talmud, but I am omitting it for the sake of brevity. One other work that I want to examine, though, is the pseudodocumentary Der Ewige Jude from 1940. Of note is that the film explicitly denies that Judaism is a religion, possibly to explain why the ideal of religious tolerance should not apply to it. Late(!) in the film, the narrator comments on Judaism thus:

The following scene is taken from a […] Purim Festival, filmed by Warsaw Jews, for their own use as a cultural film:
‘Ignorant people say Purim is not a holiday … and poverty is not a disease. But Purim is a holiday.’

‘Well said, Reb Mechl. Purim is Purim and poverty makes you worry…’

This seemingly harmless family celebration commemorates the slaughter of 75,000 antisemitic Persians by the Biblical ancestors of today’s Jews. The Bible (Esther 9:16–28) reports: ‘The next day the Jews rested, and made the day one of feasting, joy, and gift-giving. They decided that these two days, ‘Purim’, should thereafter be remembered by their children’s children, forever.’

Educated, objective and tolerant Germans regard such tales as folklore and strange customs, but the race of Israel are still rubbing their hands in this feast of revenge even when dressed in Western European clothes, in which today’s Israelites hide their true murderous nature.

To truly understand the serious danger behind all this, it is necessary to look at the moral teachings of the Jewish race. From boyhood, the Jew learns his ancient laws in the Talmudic schools. As the Jew grows older, he learns more from the books of Jewish law.

But these are not religious instructions. The rabbis are not peaceful theologians, but political educators. The politics of this parasitic race must be carried on in secret. The individual ghetto Jew does not necessarily have to know all their plans, it is enough that he is filled with the spirit from youth.

What does the ancient law of the Talmud teach? ‘Always be cunning when afraid. Answer softly to calm the anger of the stranger so that you’ll be loved. Ally yourself with him on whom fate smiles at the moment.’

Five things that Canaan taught his sons: ‘Love one another, love pillage, love excess, hate your masters, and never tell the truth.’


(The easily falsifiable implication here is that Judaists are constantly engaged in a word game where they never say what they mean, even if you ask them a question as simple and mundane as ‘What time is it?’)

Further development of Jewish inner life is carried on in the synagogue. The Jews count on people not to understand their language, nor its ambiguous symbols. Here is some imagery, let them speak for themselves:


The film then shows Judaists in a synagogue speaking Biblical Hebrew.

The black boxes on their heads contain law passages.


We then see and hear a cantor’s operatic chanting.

Conducting business during the service is not considered an act of disrespect by Israelites. The law teaches that ‘Whosoever honours the Torah shall succeed in business.’ The Torah scroll, containing the five books of Moses and the Law is taken out from the so-called Holy Ark. As it is carried to the pulpit, Jews kiss the Torah scroll, thus asking forgiveness for their sins. The Torah scroll is rolled to the place to be read.


It is presumably here that one of the clergy, before reading the Torah, cleverly implied that their presence there was forced by stating in Hebrew ‘Today is Tuesday’: an unusual day for Torah reading. (Judging by the audio, however, it seems that this line is absent from the final cut.)

What sort of ‘truths’ does it teach? Listen to this example, Hora Hajum, verse 290: ‘Praise to the L-rd, who has set apart the holy, and the common nations — Israel, and the other races. The heathens who do not keep your commandments you have made enemies to be wiped out. G-d’s anger is on them. And he says, “even the best among the heathens shall I slay. There are none good among the people of the world, for they are blasphemers, but the sons of Israel are all righteous.”’

Or another example, Haghida 3, verse 1: ‘And the L-rd told the Israelites, “You have made me the one god of the world, and I shall make your people the only rulers of the world.”’

Hora Hajim 126, verse 1: ‘Glory to the Eternal One, who reduces the enemies of your people, humbles them, and wipes them out that the earth may belong to you alone, and your people.’

This is not a religion! And G-d is there no more. This is a conspiracy against all gentiles: a conspiracy by a sick, deceitful and poisonous race against the healthy Aryan folk and their moral laws.

One of the most illuminating customs of the Jews’ so-called religion is the slaughter of animals. The following actual scenes are among the most horrifying ever captured. We show them despite objections about poor taste. It’s more important that our folk know the truth about Jewry. Sensitive citizens are advised not to watch.

Their religion allegedly forbids Jews from eating ordinarily butchered meat, so they let the animals bleed to death while conscious. This cruel method of Jewish slaughter is deceptively described as the most humane. […] Jewish law has no love and respect for animals in the Germanic sense. It is even forbidden that the suffering animal be put out of its misery.


Many kosher slaughterhouses are unexceptional when it comes to the indisputable animal abuse in the meat industry. That is just a fact; many Judaists would sadly be inclined to concede that, but I think that they’ll be happy to agree that Jewish law, indeed, has no love and respect for animals in the ‘Germanic’ sense:

In Crimea on May 4, 1944, the retreating [Fascists] slaughtered about 30,000 horses to keep them from falling into enemy hands (Meyer p. 90). The poor animals were led in rows to a precipice, then shot and hurled off the cliff (Piekalkiewicz, p. i). […] Despite widespread hunger these horses were not butchered and eaten. The routine resembled the mass executions of Jews or partisans, who would also be shot in such a way as to make them fall into mass graves. The slaughter, in addition to violating the animal-protection laws, was unnecessary from the point of view of rational self-interest.


:::spoiler (Emphasis added in all cases. Click here if you have time to read more.)
Given that he insisted that Jews were a nation and not a religious community, you may be surprised at how rarely Adolf Schicklgruber hisself talked about Judaism. Nevertheless, he did disparage it on occasion. Here are some quotes thereanent from Mein Kampf, ch. IV:

It is one of the most brilliant tricks ever invented to have this State sail under the colors of a “religion,” and thus to assure it of the toleration which the Aryan is always ready to allow to a religious persuasion. For the Mosaic religion is in fact nothing but a doctrine for the preservation of the Jewish race. This is why it includes almost every field of sociological, political and economic knowledge which could possibly serve that purpose.


Ch. XI:

Jewry has always been a people with definite racial characteristics, and never a religion; only the matter of its advancement caused it early to seek a means to distract inconvenient attention from its members.

And what indeed could have been more fitting and at the same time more innocent than the insinuation of the borrowed idea of a religious community? For even here everything is borrowed, or rather stolen, the Jew can derive no religious institution from his own original nature because he lacks idealism in any form, and the belief in a Hereafter is therefore absolutely foreign to him.

But according to the Aryan concept no religion is imaginable which lacks a belief in some form of survival after death. And in fact the Talmud is a book to prepare not for the Hereafter but for a practical and prosperous life in this world.

The Jewish religious teaching is primarily a rule to keep the blood of Jewry pure and to regulate the intercourse of Jews among themselves, and still more with the rest of the world—with the non-Jews. But even here it is a matter not of ethical problems but of extremely elementary economic ones. Of the moral value of Jewish religious instruction there are and have long been quite detailed studies (not of Jewish authorship; the creeds of the Jews themselves, of course, are made to suit the purpose) which to Aryan eyes make this sort of religion seem absolutely monstrous.

But the best indication is the product of this religious education, the Jew himself. His life is of this world alone, and his spirit is inwardly as foreign to true Christianity as his nature was two thousand years ago to the great Founder of the new teaching Himself.

He, it is true, made no secret of His disposition toward the Jewish people, and even resorted to the whip if necessary to drive out from the L-rd’s temple this adversary of any real humanity, who then as always saw in religion only a means for a business livelihood. But of course Christ was nailed to the cross for this, while our present party Christianity lowers itself in elections to beg for Jewish votes, and afterward tries to hatch political skulduggery with atheistical Jewish parties—and against its own nationality, at that.
:::


In conclusion, all of this propaganda is necessary to justify the oppression of harmless civilians. That is why these allegations against Judaism are very similar to common ones against Islam.

See also: ‘Why Did the Nazis Burn the Hebrew Bible? Nazi Germany, Representations of the Past, and the Holocaust


The Fascists tastelessly abused countless ritual objects pertaining to Judaism


(This takes approx. ten minutes to read.)

Judaism is home to a great deal of ceremonial and ritual objects that have all sorts of rules for usage. I already bespoke one of them; no ritual object is more upsetting to witness others abuse than a Sefer Torah, which is why I have neglected to discuss these others until now. Nonetheless, even though I am not an Abrahamist, the ways wherein the Fascists abused these is almost as awe-inducing. We can get an approximation of how Jewish witnesses must have felt by imagining somebody intentionally abusing our own prized possessions.

Before I continue, I want to share a quote from Gilmer W. Blackburn’s Education in the Third Reich, pages 51–2:

[The German Fascists] subdivided the human races into three categories: culture-creators, culture-bearers, and culture-destroyers. Germanic culture-creators combined “Greek spirit plus Germanic technology,” according to Hitler. The […] Jews were culture-destroyers.⁶⁰


I want you to keep this in mind as you read about the following incidents.

Quoting Edith Raim’s Nazi Crimes against Jews and German Post-War Justice, pages 200–6:

In Vallendar, Jewish men were attending a prayer service when members of the Nazi Party Koblenz (NSDAP-Gauleitung Koblenz) appeared and forced them to stand at the wall of the synagogue with their prayer shawls and ridicule the Jewish prayer rites. A civil servant (Regierungs­­oberinspektor) and Nazi Party functionary (NSDAP-Organisationsleiter) took photographs of the event, though the photographs were considered botched.²³⁹

Pews, chairs and carpets were destroyed, chandeliers, altar and Mikvah (ritual bath) demolished in the presence of the assembled Jewish population. The Jews were then taken by cattle car to Koblenz; in their absence the synagogue was burned down on the night of November 12–13, 1938.²⁴⁰

[…]

In Wilhelmshaven, objects allegedly taken from the synagogue were exhibited in the street for further scrutiny[.] One picture particularly struck a newspaper journalist as he reported on the occasion: the biblical David’s “cowardly” “Jewish slaying” of the giant Goliath.²⁴⁶ Breaking from Christian tradition, the [Third Reich] portrayed David as a cowardly killer.

[…]

Five days before the pogrom, after a drinking binge, the drunken offenders broke into the local synagogue through a window in search of a statue of Moses which was allegedly located there. Unsurprisingly, due to the ban in the Hebrew Bible on depictions of humans no such sculpture was found. The intruders thus stole a pillow with honorary decorations and ridiculed it until the police confiscated it.

Ritual objects from the synagogue, which was first damaged and later burned down, were used in a mocking parade. When in summer 1939 the local Nazi Party leader took the metal items from the synagogue to Andernach to be sold as scrap, he mockingly affixed the Star of David from the synagogue to his truck.²⁵¹

Stars of David on synagogues always attracted particular attention because of their symbolic character. At the instigation of the mayor of Königstein, a member of the fire brigade who had a reputation as a daredevil picked the Star of David off the roof of the synagogue.²⁵²

At the risk of his life, a teenager climbed the dome of the synagogue in Mainz and removed the Star of David with a metal saw. He tore away the star to the applause of a jeering crowd. The star was later taken by the SS to the rooms of the SS-Standarte.²⁵³

During the arson of the morgue at the Jewish cemetery in Osternburg,²⁵⁴ as well as during the devastation of the mortuary in Niederbieber,²⁵⁵ the Star of David was removed from the roof.

In Wallau, ritual objects were loaded onto the hearse belonging to the Jewish community and carted through the town before being burned on the sports field.²⁵⁶ In Dromersheim, the furniture from the synagogue was heaped on a hand truck and burned in a field.²⁵⁷

In Hof a municipal car and two company cars were decorated with ritual objects from the synagogue and driven through town as a parade — accompanied by music and some 70 to 90 SS-men. The objects were burned near the river Saale while the SS held hands and sang an SS chant (“SS-Treuelied”).²⁵⁸ In Haren, storm troopers from the Emsland camps paraded through town with a Star of David and sang anti-Semitic songs.²⁵⁹

A certain perverse curiosity drove a Nazi Party functionary (NSDAP-Blockleiter) to return at night to the still smouldering synagogue in Solingen, where he and a storm trooper (SA-Mann) rummaged through the ashes and rubble in search of a “Talmud,” as both of them had heard a lot about the book.²⁶⁰ The NSDAP propaganda functionary of Bentheim took a “Talmud” in German as he intended to
read it, but instead delivered it promptly to the Grenzpolizeikommissariat (border police) Bentheim.²⁶¹

In Kastellaun, workers from a nearby emergency camp Roth took garments and prayer books from the synagogue and brought them to the pub.²⁶² A storm trooper in Gruiten took prayer books and said disparagingly: “This trashy literature we want to take with us.”²⁶³

After the demolition of the synagogue of Rülzheim by perpetrators from Landau, local townspeople stood several hours in front of the synagogue to satisfy their curiosity as they had never observed the interior of a synagogue.²⁶⁴

An SA sergeant major took bread for the Sabbath celebration from the kitchen of rabbi Martin of Hassloch.²⁶⁵ Another man was said to have taken an altar cloth from the synagogue of Windecken as well as a book in Hebrew type. The man admitted to having visited the synagogue out of curiosity but denied the theft as the items had held no value for him.²⁶⁶

A storm trooper in Konz cited his quenchless curiosity when entering the Jewish house of prayer during the pogrom.²⁶⁷ In Krumbach, the perpetrators stole tefilin, parchment scrolls, and a mezuza.²⁶⁸ During the pogrom in Andernach, a storm trooper retrieved the wooden tablets with the Ten Commandments from the ruins of the burned-down synagogue. A couple of weeks later, he invited an SA Troop Administrator to inspect the boards with the Decalogue. Later he kept the boards behind his bathtub, from whence they eventually got “lost.”²⁶⁹

The local Nazi Party leader of Osnabrück kept a menorah hidden in a cupboard in the air raidshelter.²⁷⁰ In Mühringen the whole air raid shelter was outfitted with pews from the synagogue.²⁷¹ Others took interest in the material value of the objects: After the war, four Torah Scrolls were discovered in a dairy in Vettweiss — the silver shields, however, had been removed.²⁷²

Part of the public degradation was the mocking of Jewish rites in synagogues and in the streets. In Germany, this was and remains an offense known as religionsbeschimpfender Unfug (disrespect for religious tradition).

In St. Goar, teenagers vested themselves with prayer shawls from the house of God and roamed the streets.²⁷³ During the excesses in Euskirchen, an offender fitted himself out with a prayer robe and jumped around the synagogue in an attempt to imitate a “temple dance.”²⁷⁴ (The wording — taken from the post-war sentencing — shows how preciously little German courts knew of genuine Jewish rituals.)

A storm trooper in Quakenbrück ridiculed the Jewish religion by adorning himself with a rabbi’s gown and hat, taking a Torah Scroll into his hand and attempting to imitate Jewish worship rituals in front of the open window for the amusement of the crowd outdoors.²⁷⁵

In Hamburg-Harburg, indicted storm trooper Willy S. took a black gown and a “hymn-book” in order to imitate a rabbi, later describing it as a sort of carnival joke.²⁷⁶

Luise D., who lived opposite the synagogue in Oberlustadt, helped the perpetrators by handing them an axe with which they could break down the synagogue door. She was given several Torah Scrolls to carry outside, where she chucked them into the fire. She then adorned herself with a rabbi’s prayer scarf, performed mocking gestures, and burned it, too, along with the Ark (ritual cabinet) of the Torah shrine.²⁷⁷

A civil servant from the rural district office Saarburg, who in keeping with his official duties had received the key to the local synagogue, opened it for the Gestapo from Saarburg, which initiated the destruction. He himself entered the building and blew the ritual shofar (ram’s horn).²⁷⁸


Some context: shofarot may look and sound like simple musical instruments, but Judaism has very specific rules on how one should handle them. Most notable among them is that one needs to blow the shofar on only a few days of the year — those days being Rosh Hashanah as well as Yom Kippur — and this infrequency is ideal because it sounds more special when one finally hears it. Historically also, Jews got into serious trouble blowing shofarot at the wrong time because Gentiles mistook them as calls to arms.

Because of all this, it is a special privilege when Jews let us try their shofarot, and that is what makes this Fascist’s misappropriation so obnoxious.

In Hemmerden the yad (ritual pointer used for the reading of the Torah) was thrown on the floor.²⁷⁹ In Kempen a storm trooper, who in civil life was a member of the local employment office, stole a silver-pointed yad from the synagogue and roamed the streets, while children romped around him, boasting of his participation in the demolition and arson of the synagogue. He then proceeded to smash the shop window of the Jewish butcher Winter and a lamp in the lodgings of Sally Rath.

He went to two other Jewish flats, stealing an offertory box decorated with a Star of David from one of them. He would show the box around afterwards, claiming that because it bore the “Soviet star,” it had served to collect monies for the Soviets. The yad he kept for a few more days on his desk at the employment center.²⁸⁰

The perpetrators placed their deeds in a plethora of references and contexts. A participant in the pogrom in Oestrich who — with others — had pilfered the house of the wine trader Rosenthal, became completely drunk and threw flour and eggs out of the window shouting “Attention! Here comes German flour!” and “Look out for the German eggs!” He toasted himself by shouting “Drink German wine.”²⁸¹

An SA squad leader cut the duvets of the Hirschberger family in Rüdesheim and threw the feathers out the window, referring to the Grimm’s fairy-tale as he screamed “Mother Holle is shaking her feathers out!”²⁸² Religiously motivated anti-Judaism is evident in the words of a man who told a Jewish woman in Rüdesheim, “You nailed our savior to the cross, this is our revenge.”²⁸³ An SS man took a Hebrew Bible in his hand and uttered mockingly “The Lord saw the deeds of his son and said that it is well done.”²⁸⁴

In Ulm, the local Jews were — in a sort of perverted baptism — forced to get into an empty fountain trough.²⁸⁵ The deeds of the Nazi Party functionary from Weisweiler were clearly those of one well-acquainted with Christian rites and liturgy (he had been sexton in the church of St. Anna in Düren until 1937). He forced a 70-year-old Jew named Leyens to carry a short piece of wood (from the ruins of the prayer room) on his shoulders.

He also spit into Leyens’s face. Leyens had to carry the beam on his shoulders and walk to the market place where other objects from the prayer room such as pews, chairs, and prayer books were already being burned. From the spitting to the carrying of the beam, the march through town and the following auto-da-fe, the episode reads like a mix between Christ’s Passion and a foray through medieval Christian persecutions of heretics and Jews.²⁸⁶

Others were content with symbolic liquidations. As objects from the synagogue of Hagenbach were being burned, a man stood on the steps of the synagogue and announced: “Now we are burning the Jew.” Then he kicked a rabbi’s head covering into the fire and chucked a prayer book into the flames as in the—probably Hebrew—book “everything was written backwards.”²⁸⁷

In Nuremberg, storm troopers beheaded display dummies in several Jewish textile stores.²⁸⁸


In many cases, the Germanic Fascists also pawned off or melted Judaic candelabra, those being menorot and hanukkiot. Quoting Jacques Schuhmacher’s Nazi-Era Provenance of Museum Collections: A research guide, page 32:

As Jews were barred from virtually all professions, the machinery of dispossession was ratcheted up still further. They were ordered to surrender all precious metals in their possession, which meant taking not only bags of cutlery, but also ritual objects important to their religious practice, to [Fascist] pawn shops — which paid them a pittance in return. Once again, this haul was inspected by museum directors and curators, who were given first refusal before the rest was melted down and used to finance German rearmament.¹²⁰


(Emphasis added in all cases.)

How many ritual objects the Fascists destroyed is unknown—and shall most likely stay unknown. Some experts managed to recover damaged objects and repair them, but in many cases the damage was so extreme that there was nothing that anybody could do other than recycle the material. Quoting Elisabeth Gallas’s A Mortuary of Books: The Rescue of Jewish Culture after the Holocaust, page 122:

Several thousand objects and scrolls […] were in very poor condition, and here Hannah Arendt recognized a specific hallmark of the [German Fascists’] approach to ritual objects: “Unlike the books which had been pretty well preserved by the Nazis, the Torah Scrolls and ritual objects bear the all too visible marks of willful destruction. More than 3,000 of the 10,000 objects can no longer be regarded as objects at all; they are merely fragments, not only beyond repair, but sometimes even beyond recognition.”³¹


:::spoiler Finally, it is worth adding that while the Fascists destroyed countless ritual objects, in many other cases they were content to seize them as trophies and lock them up in musea or warehouses. This is a reminder that Fascism manifested in complex ways.
Joshua Starr’s ‘Jewish Cultural Property under Nazi Control’, pg. 28:

Following the suppression of the synagogues and the displacement of the Jewish population of the Protectorate, the Prague institution, whose holdings had risen to about a thousand items since 1909, became the collecting point for 200,000 ceremonial objects seized in Bohemia and Moravia. ² In Berlin as well it was only the official policy of Sicherstellung that saved a vast hoard of books and a major art collection from the catastrophe.


Nina Fischer’s Memory Work: The Second Generation, pg. 41:

Epstein makes a wider case highlighting how migration in general, and forced migration in particular, limits or prevents the generational transmission of family possessions. But involuntary displacement has its own particular traits, for example, the ‘annihilation of the past’ (17), which is symbolized by the lack of remnants:
A person whose family has remained in place inherits possessions — a hat, a cupboard, old diaries, a prayer or recipe book — that transmits personal history from one generation to the next. The objects that would normally have been passed down to me — my grandmother’s tea set, my mother’s piano — had been confiscated and crammed into warehouses by the [Axis] along with hundreds of thousands of pieces of property belonging to Czech Jews. (17)



Further reading: ‘The Restitution of Jewish Cultural Objects and the Activities of Jewish Cultural Reconstruction Inc.
:::

It is all too tempting to explain these incidents as nothing more than simple sadism, but that would be an oversimplification. While sadistic amusement, in addition to displays of power, were two elements, the Fascists’ main goal in desecrating these objects was to send an unambiguous message to Jews: ‘You are no longer welcome here.’ If Jews would not leave, the petty bourgeois goyim would terrorise them into leaving, thereby removing potential as well as actual competitors from the economy, and freeing up resources for goyim to monopolise.


This entry was edited (1 week ago)

How Racist Policies in Fascist Italy Inspired & Informed the Third Reich


Racism, especially anti-Semitism, is typically seen as a crucial point of distinction between [the Third Reich] and Fascist Italy. Based on a range of new materials, this article shows that [the Reich’s] policies of social exclusion were inspired by Mussolini’s regime. The main thesis is that racist thought and action were intrinsic elements of both regimes and constituted a unifying element between them. The paper looks at the way the [German Fascists] used Fascist Italy as a foil for their own dreams of racial regeneration before Hitler’s rise to power. It also examines the cooperation between the two regimes following the 1936 Axis alliance, especially in terms of policing and the exchange of information about ‘Aryanisation’. Conceptually speaking, the article argues that the methods of cultural history are highly useful for shedding new light on Axis relations.

[…]

Those in power were not unaided in their efforts to discipline society. They also received energetic backing from ordinary Germans and Italians. The practice of denunciation was widespread in both countries, something historians have known for some time. Self‐policing of this kind was targeted not only at fellow citizens of one’s own country, but also at foreigners. In Germany, denunciations often involved the ‘foreign workers’ sent to its Axis partner beginning in 1937 by the Fascist regime to help cope with the labour shortage in the Reich. One such Italian worker was a man called Luigi D. who had the temerity to call out ‘Long live Stalin’ in a pub, clearly under the false assumption that nothing would happen to him for saying such a thing while he was abroad. However, a pub patron promptly denounced Luigi D. to the Gestapo, which issued a warrant for his arrest after consulting with the Italian polizia politica.

IKEA founder Ingvar Kamprad’s ties to fascism


:::spoiler
[Details]Although this paper is titled Ikea Fascism: Metapedia and the Internationalization of Swedish Generic Fascism, it’s clear just by reading this that the relation between Ikea and Metapedia is at best tangential. Nevertheless, what it does share about Swedish neofascism is worth quoting:

One of the Swedish teenage ultra‐nationalists during the war was Ikea founder and later legendary Swedish businessman Ingvar Kamprad. In 1942 he came in touch with the most well‐known Swedish fascist leader, Per Engdahl (1909–1994). The intellectual Engdahl became organized as early as 1928 in Sveriges Fascistiska Kamporganization [Sweden’s Fascist Combat Organization].

During the war, he founded an intellectual fascist organization which in the post‐war era lived on by the name of Nysvenska Rörelsen [NSR; The New‐Swedish Movement]. Engdahl after the war tried to distance himself from [the Third Reich], claiming in 1945 that his fascism during the war really was ‘a defence for all of Europe’ but ‘this created violent opposition in the dominant Swedish press, and our movement was therefore labelled as Nazism.’

The internationalization of NSR had already begun in 1945, when Engdahl started an unemployment agency in the city of Malmö for Danish and Norwegian fascists and Nazis fleeing their countries. In 1947 NSR took an additional step, initiating a conference for Nordic fascists, while European fascist leaders were starting to take notice of this new movement, and invitations regarding co‐operation began pouring in.

At a NSR‐conference in May 1950 there were delegates from France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark and Norway. That same year in Italy, the Movimento Sociale Italiano [MSI; Italian Social Movement] organized a pan‐European conference in Rome, connecting Engdahl’s efforts to even more nationalist parties.

In 1951 Engdahl founded the Europäische Soziale Bewegung (ESB) commonly known as Malmörörelsen [The Malmö Movement], by hosting a conference with the title ‘For Europe – against Communism.’ Notable participants were the British fascist Oswald Mosley, the French intellectual Maurice Bardèche, MSI‐leader Arturo Michelini and the ex‐leader of Hitler‐Jugend’s propaganda department, Karl‐Heinz Priester.

The movement focused on abandoning racist ideology and instead concentrated on anti‐communism. This decision proved controversial. The French and Swiss delegates insisted upon an ‘active politics of race’ and anti‐Semitism, which Engdahl opposed.

In 1953 the ESB‐program was approved, stating that every member organization (representing Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland, West Germany, Italy, France, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Austria, Hungary and Spain) should institute a national and social revolution, since democracy had failed to make Europe a third factor in world politics. In the 1950s Engdahl was relatively successful, both on the European level and on the national Swedish level.

During this time, the relationship between Engdahl and Ikea’s Ingvar Kamprad deepened. Kamprad founded his company in 1943. Though the beginnings were humble, Ikea soon grew and in 1947 Kamprad started selling furniture, opening his first department store in 1958.

When he married in the 1950s, Per Engdahl was invited as the guest of honour – the fascist leader also gave a speech at the wedding dinner, before which Kamprad stated that he was proud to be a member of Engdahl’s political movement. When journalists put the spotlight on Kamprad’s fascist past in the 1990s, he made a public apology.

But interestingly enough, Kamprad at the same time tries to defend Engdahl’s [neo]fascist movement, with the argument that it was not Hitler’s [Fascism]: ‘The truth is that one should call me a fascist. […] There were many views in that movement. There were people who were as much anti‐Nazis as you and me.’ He also maintains that Engdahl was ‘a great man.’


(Emphasis added.)

Related:

Ikea founder Ingvar Kamprad involved in new Nazi claims

Ikea founder Ingvar Kamprad's Nazi ties 'went deeper'
:::

This entry was edited (2 years ago)
in reply to Bl00dyH3ll

The media in this post is not displayed to visitors. To view it, please go to the original post.

Good grief… if the U.S.S.R. was the Reich’s ‘ally’ then so was Poland, France, the United Kingdom, and every other piss bucket in Europe.

To quote my thesis:

It was no doubt disgraceful that Soviet Russia should make any agreement with the leading Fascist state; but this reproach came ill from the statesmen who went to Munich. […] [The German–Soviet] pact contained none of the fulsome expressions of friendship which Chamberlain had put into the Anglo–German declaration on the day after the Munich conference.

Indeed Stalin rejected any such expressions: “the Soviet Government could not suddenly present to the public German–Soviet assurances of friendship after they had been covered with buckets of filth by the [Fascist] Government for six years.” The pact was neither an alliance nor an agreement for the partition of Poland. Munich had been a true alliance for partition: the British and French dictated partition to the Czechs. The Soviet government undertook no such action against the Poles.

They merely promised to remain neutral, which is what the Poles had always asked them to do and which Western policy implied also. More than this, the agreement was in the last resort anti‐German: it limited the German advance eastwards in case of war, as Winston Churchill emphasized. […] [With the pact, the Soviets hoped to ward] off what they had most dreaded—a united capitalist attack on Soviet Russia. […] It is difficult to see what other course Soviet Russia could have followed.


— A.J.P. Taylor, The Origins of the Second World War

The Kremlin wasn’t staffed with amnesiacs; they had the common sense to know that the capitalists were going to reinvade Soviet Eurasia. The question was when; intelligence reports were often contradictory, which was why Moscow hesitated before fighting back.

:::spoiler See Molotov’s explanation.

[I]t was impossible not to miscalculate. How could you know when the enemy would attack? We knew we would have to deal with him, but on what day or even what month. […] We are blamed because we ignored our intelligence. Yes, they warned us. But if we had heeded them, had given Hitler the slightest excuse, he would have attacked us earlier.

We knew the war was coming soon, that we were weaker than Germany, that we would have to retreat. The question was, retreat to where—to Smolensk or to Moscow, that’s what we discussed before the war.

We knew we would have to retreat, and we needed as much territory as possible. We did everything to postpone the war. And we succeeded—for a year and ten months. We wished it could have been longer, of course. Stalin reckoned before the war that only in 1943 would we be able to meet the Germans as equals.

[…]

On the whole, everyone expected the war would come and it would be difficult, impossible for us to avoid it. We delayed it for a year, for a year and a half. If Hitler had attacked us half a year earlier, you know, bearing in mind our situation then, it would have been very dangerous.

So it was impossible to begin obvious preparations without revealing to German intelligence that we were planning serious measures. We took many serious steps, but still not enough. We didn’t have time to finish very much. Some think Stalin should have to answer for all this. But there was the people’s commissar for defense, the chief of the general staff…


(Source.)
:::

Also, that Wikipedia link does not support the Redditor’s claim.

This entry was edited (3 months ago)

In 1926, the British government supported Fascism’s intrusion into Albania’s economy


The media in this post is not displayed to visitors. To view it, please go to the original post.

Put another way, the British ruling class was figuratively moving out of Albania and was (eventually) content to hand the keys to the Fascists. Quoting pages 42–3 of Alessandro Roselli’s Italy and Albania: Financial Relations in the Fascist Period:

Shortly after Contarini’s resignation as Secretary‐General to the Foreign Ministry, Mussolini intensified relations with Zogu. The negotiations for a new treaty benefited from the favourable stance adopted by the British government. Whilst Austen Chamberlain, the Foreign Secretary, refused to acknowledge that Italy should have any exclusive rights and privileges, and gave the [Fascist] government endless formal reminders to respect Albania’s independence, he nonetheless wished to be the faithful executor of the decision made in 1921 by the Ambassadors’ Conference, which had recognized that Italy had vital security interests to defend at the entrance to the Adriatic.

Chamberlain finally came round to considering Albania as an ‘Italian Belgium’,³⁴ in other words a small country to be protected against aggressive neighbours. Wrongly interpreted as connivance, this appeared to give Italy the green light in Albania. On 27 November 1926, a ‘friendship and security pact’ was signed by Aloisi, the [Fascist] Minister in Tiranë, and the Albanian Foreign Minister, Vrioni. […] Britain maintained a position of benign neglect towards the whole question and accepted the explanations furnished by Italy, which aimed to pass the pact off officially as nothing more than a confirmation of Italy’s special position, as recognized by the Ambassadors’ Conference of 1921.


(Emphasis added. Background to this agreement can be read in chapter 3. The author noted that while initially the two empires did compete for economic dominance, ‘Britain eventually acquiesced, and [Fascist] Italy’s predominance in Albania was finally confirmed.’)

This entry was edited (4 months ago)

Reminder that this is how the Axis & its collaborators treated Soviet civilians


The media in this post is not displayed to visitors. To view it, please go to the original post.

A few of many ways, to be precise. Quoting Christopher Simpson’s Blowback, page 15:

But inside the Nazi-occupied USSR there were not just one or two Lidices. There were hundreds. Mass killings of the Lidice type took place at Rasseta (372 dead), Vesniny (about 200 dead, mainly women and children), and Dolina (469 dead, again mainly women and children), to name only three. In the Osveya district in northern Belorussia alone, in the single month of March 1943, the Nazis and collaborationist troops devastated some 158 villages, according to Times of London correspondent Alexander Werth. “All able bodied men [were] deported as slaves and all the women, children and old people murdered,” Werth reports. This pattern of massacre and scorched earth warfare was repeated again and again throughout the war on the eastern front.

Nazi warfare against partisans was consistently brutal throughout Europe, and the Germans and their collaborators committed numerous violations of the "laws and customs of war," such as torture, mass killings of innocent persons in retaliation for guerrilla attacks, and murder of hostages across the Continent. It was in the East, however, that such killings reached a truly frenzied level. At Odessa, for example, the Nazis and their Romanian collaborators destroyed 19,000 Jews and other so-called subversive elements in a single night in retaliation for a partisan bombing that had killed about a dozen Romanian soldiers. Axis troops rounded up another 40,000 Jews and executed them during the following week. The SS used gas wagons disguised as Red Cross vans to kill about 7,000 women and children in the south, near Krasnodar. At least 100,000 Jews and Slavs were slain at Babi Yar, near Kiev, and so on, and on, and on.²


(Most emphasis added.)

I realize that this history is elementary, so what I am sharing here is likely no news to you.

Nevertheless, between those who feel the need to repetitively equate Fascism with socialism in one country every chance that they get (which, taken to its logical conclusion, would imply that Operation Barbarossa was redundant), and those who have to blame Moscow or ‘the left’ as much as possible for antisocialist atrocities like these (quietly exonerating the actual perpetrators), I think that it is all too easy for people to forget about this important history.

Throughout all of the time that I’ve been online and offline, I have seen far more Hitler/Stalin comparisons and equivalences than I have seen actual, direct references to these events from the Eastern Front…ponder that for a moment.


Percentage of ‘non-Germanic’ troops who helped start Operation Barbarossa


Finland mobilized a greater proportion of its small population than any of the other combatants, including Germany (476,000 men from 3.7 million inhabitants). […] Relative to the Finnish population (3.7 million), this was a greater mobilization than in any other country involved in the Second World War. […] Together [Berlin’s] allies in 1941 mobilized well over 700,000 troops for the war against the Soviet Union[.]


— David Stahel


This entry was edited (10 months ago)

On this day 85 years ago, the Third Reich annexed the City of Danzig


Danzig (or Gdańsk) was the last microstate that the Fascists absorbed, after Fiume and the Saar Basin. Many of Danzig’s gentile gadje welcomed the annexation of 1939, and it was soon in close neighbourhood with a concentration camp. Quoting Ruth Schwertfeger’s A Nazi Camp near Danzig: Perspectives on Shame and on the Holocaust from Stutthof, pages 47–48:

After September 1, 1939, Stutthof/Sztutowo lost forever its former identity as a pleasant village near Danzig and the Baltic beaches, and its namesake camp began to receive first hundreds, then thousands of prisoners.

These “civilian prisoners,” as they were called, were local people from Danzig and Pomerania who were either representatives of the Polish intelligentsia—clerics, teachers, lawyers, doctors, and other professionals, or Jews from the Danzig community. All of them were arrested because they were seen through the one lens of “Germandom”—any deviation from the ideal meant treatment as an opponent and an enemy of the Third Reich.

Not every prisoner who was arrested in these early September days was sent right away to Stutthof, but it was soon to become central in the camp system of Danzig–West Prussia. For many reasons, but especially its proximity to Danzig, it was ideal. Every publication and pamphlet on Stutthof points out that it had water on all sides—the Baltic to the north, a lagoon (das Frische Haff) to the south and east, as well as canals and marshes, and to the west, the Vistula River.¹

Stutthof was clearly an ideal spot for the purposes of internment. No one could easily escape from Stutthof, surrounded as it was by such forbidding terrain; few attempted in the course of the next five plus years.

Besides, it was extensive enough in acreage to accommodate opponents of the regime beyond Danzig in Pomerania that was soon to be officially annexed to the [Third] Reich as Danzig–West Prussia. From approximately eleven acres, it grew to over 300 acres in size, accommodating initially around 250 prisoners. This is how Waclaw Lewandowski, one of the first to arrive on September 2, 1939, describes his reception:

After getting us off the closed trucks and buses that brought us there, we were again brutally searched, with frequently raining fists and whips […] We were immediately put to digging foundations for huts under construction, felling trees and clearing stumps. The tempo was murderous […] Late in the evening we were issued some 500 grams of very watery, lukewarm turnip soup and about 100 grams of dark bread. Dead tired, we fell to our pallets in the tents without undressing or washing. Even the physically strongest broke down, weeping with pain, exhaustion and humiliation.²

Grabowska‐Chałka describes Stutthof as striking “fear in the hearts of Polish inhabitants of Pomerania and synonymous with bestial cruelty, terror, murder and finally mass extermination.”³ It is a fair summary of what will follow.⁴


In 1979, scientists found and examined dozens of skeleta from a mass grave near the camp. Decades later, other scientists used modern utilities to reexamine them. Quoting Skeletal evidence of the ethnic cleansing actions in the Free City of Danzig (1939-1942) based on the KL Stutthof victims analysis:

The first arrests and deportations to the nearby concentration camp KL Stutthof began as soon as September 2nd 1939, even though Polish defenders fighting in the Westerplatte peninsula were yet to surrender [10]. The first transportation of 150 people to KL Stutthof included, among others, members of the clergy, teachers, political leaders and clerks. Most of them were killed within months of their arrival [5 11].

[…]

Our trauma analysis shows that the prevalent killing method in the KL Stutthof sample was blunt force trauma to the head, as the rib cage trauma had to be excluded from the analysis (it was impossible to associated singular rib with particular skeleton, nor was it possible to determine time of the trauma occurrence on majority of the fractured ribs). The majority of the perimortem lesions were found above the hat brim line (HBL), which is a common indicator of a violent attack in medico‐legal studies [48,49].


Even before 1939, Fascism had substantial support in Danzig, and it was normal for anticommunist gentiles to harass Jews. Quoting one example from Krzysztof Ulanowski’s ‘Record of Violence. The Socio‐Political German–Jewish Relations in Free City of Danzig in the Years 1933–1939’:

1938 was an extremely difficult for the Jewish Community on all possible levels; the political, religious and social. The degradation of the Jews eventually affected the religious sphere as well. This tragic event was reported on August 1938 by both Nowy Dziennik (published in Warsaw) and The New York Times in the article: “Nazis Plunder Synagogue in Danzig.” The report states that on 29 August 1938, about 40 […] SA militants broke into the synagogue, demolished its interior, desecrated and tore the Torah scrolls. The police, summoned by the Jewish community for help, refused to provide assistance.


For a few years, Danzig was of great concern to the international community. Quoting Anita J. Prazmowska’s ‘Poland, the ‘Danzig Question' and the Outbreak of the Second World War’:

At the beginning of August, the Polish government and the Senate were once more in conflict. Since May, Polish customs inspectors had been under constant attack, which made their job impossible. This allowed the [Fascists] to militarize Danzig to the point that it became a fortress.

In August, the Senate informed the Poles that it would no longer recognize Polish customs guards.⁴⁸ This led the Poles to warn the Senate that it was acting outside its jurisdiction. Beck also took an opportunity to attack Burckhardt for supposedly disseminating false information about the city.⁴⁹

[Berlin] intervened only to be informed by [Warsaw] that it had no right to make representations on behalf of the Danzig Senate. When the Poles had decided to confront the Danzig authorities they did not seek British advice, but merely informed the Foreign Office of the crisis after the fact. The Poles threatened to bomb Danzig from the sea and the Senate backed down. The Foreign Office was appalled to hear how close the two had come to a military conflict.

The Danzig issue continued to be a bone of contention between [Warsaw] and [Berlin] with Britain desperately trying to wrestle from the Poles an agreement not to proceed without British approval. While Beck belligerently refused to do so, [London] sought means of ascertaining whether indeed Danzig was merely a pretext for a conflict with Poland or a difficulty that could be resolved with a modicum of good will.

The British Cabinet chose to believe that the latter was the case, whereas the Poles increasingly acted on the assumption that war with [the Third Reich] was likely to break out in the near future. To the Poles the Danzig crisis, like reports of tension on the Polish–German border in Silesia and [Fascist] claims that Poland was mistreating the German minority were seen as signs of a German propaganda campaign, which inevitably preceded an outright attack.

In the end, it was the Poles who were correct. On 23 August the Danzig Senate voted for the city to return to the Reich. The Danzig Gauleiter Albert Forster was appointed Head of the Danzig state. These actions contravened the League charter and in principle should have been a matter for the League. Instead the British and French government spoke of negotiations and used their diplomatic offices to try and persuade Beck to appoint a negotiator or at least to accept the appointment of a suitable person to negotiate between [Warsaw] and [Berlin].

Events nevertheless fast overtook these efforts for on 1 September the [Fascist] battleship Schleswig‐Holstein attacked the Polish fort and ammunition dump of Westerplatte on the tip of the Hel peninsula. Danzig was officially incorporated into Germany on that day. Burckhardt, who was in the city, was instructed to leave immediately. Wholesale attacks on Polish property and citizens completed the picture.

On 1 September 1939 developments taking place in Danzig were of little consequence as on the same day, in the early hours of the morning, [the Fascists] initiated a military attack on Poland. In the end the war did not start because of Danzig, though the city had always been a reliable barometer of relations between the two states.


Further reading:

Comparison of the situation of Freistaat Danzig and Saarland under the auspices of the League of Nations


:::spoiler Click here for other events that happened today (September 2).
1878: Werner von Blomberg, Reich field marshal, was born. So were the Balkan fascist Milan Nedić and the Axis legislator Nobutaka Shioden.
1919: Adolf Schicklgruber joined the so‐called ‘German Workers’ Party’.
1923: Amid rumors that Koreans had been conducting acts of sabotage in the aftermath of the 1923 Great Kantō earthquake, lynch mobs of Japanese began massacring thousands of civilians over the course of several weeks, mainly ethnic minorities such as Koreans and Chinese.
1933: Rome and Moscow signed a Pact of ‘Friendship, Non‐Aggression, and Neutrality’, regrettably. (For a commentary on that, see here.)
1939: The Fascists ordered the construction of a concentration camp in Sztutowo (German: Stutthof) with the labor of 65,000 Poles. As well, it appears that Rome continued unsuccessfully to urge peace between the German Reich, United Kingdom, and France.
1940: In the morning, Fascist bombers attacked RAF Eastchurch (destroyed buildings and down to only one runway), RAF Rochford (bombs fell on Gravesend instead of the airfield), RAF North Weald (most bombers forced back), and RAF Biggin Hill (suffered heavy damage) in England. In the afternoon, RAF Hornchurch (most bombs missed), RAF Eastchurch (bomb dump detonated), and the Vickers bomber factory at Brooklands, Weybridge, Surrey, England was attacked. On the other hand, the Fascists lost twenty‐seven fighters and ten bombers, while British antiaircraft fire shot down another fighter and three bombers. Overnight, Fascist bombers assaulted Liverpool, Manchester, and Sheffield.
1941: Maggiore Baracca departed La Pallice, La Rochelle, France for her sixth war patrol, and the Empire of Japan commissioned Kasuga Maru into service.
1942: Axis training submarine U‐222 sank in the Danzig Bay after colliding with training submarine U‐626, causing forty‐two deaths! Aside from that, the Wehrmacht’s 46th Infantry Division crossed Strait of Kerch and landed on the Taman Peninsula in southern Russia via two dozen landing barges and other small boats. Meanwhile, the Wehrmacht’s 17th Army moved toward Novorossiysk. Axis surface vessels intercepted some of the convoys, sinking Soviet gunboats Oktybar and Rostov‐Don. Axis bombers also assaulted Teignmouth, England. The British War Cabinet received the Home Security Situation Report which noted that in the week ending at 0600 hours, Axis bombing massacred ninety‐two British civilians and seriously injured ninety‐one.
1943: After the Gestapo tortured Josef Mahler (an emigré and Jewish communist expelled from the Netherlands) for months, it finally executed him in a Düsseldorf prison. The Gestapo had failed to obtain from him any confession of a conspiratorial nature.
1944: Axis officials declared the V‐2 operational. In Britain, a V‐1 flying bomb landed on RAF Hawkinge destroying a Spitfire fighter of 350 squadron and wounded some airmen. Another fell on the perimeter of RAF Nacton in Ipswich, killing a RAF noncommissioned officer and destroying a house. Records later showed that by this date, the effective end of the V‐1 assault from France, 8,617 bombs had been ground launched against the United Kingdom. Axis Air Force unit III K/G3 had launched about 410, mostly against London, however the Axis still had more to send. On the other hand, Vojtech Tuka resigned as the Prime Minister of the Slovak Republic, citing poor health, and Axis troops began evacuating the Aegean Islands.
1945: Tōkyō and the major warring powers aboard the battleship USS Missouri in Tōkyō Bay signed the Japanese Instrument of Surrender, officially ending World War II.
:::

This entry was edited (1 year ago)

On this day 81 years ago, the Ukrainian fascists massacred thousands of Poles in Volhynia


Quoting Grzegorz Motyka’s From the Volhynian Massacre to Operation Vistula: The Polish–Ukrainian Conflict 1943–1947, pages 89–92:

The OUN‐B and UPA’s operation in the western districts of Volhynia was to cover — to surprise Poles and thwart any possible attempts at defence — many more localities than in the eastern part of the region as was previously the case.

Over the last months, UPA units in this area became stronger and attained greater fighting capabilities than those Dubovyi’s units had possessed in March–May. The UPA was also able to take advantage of the experience gained through police deserters. The date of the onslaught was set for Sunday, July 11 to attack Poles gathering in large numbers for mass.

According to the plan, after killing the population of a given village, UPA sotnias were to move quickly to the next village to carry out the next massacre. The intention was to achieve the greatest possible surprise and minimize chances of escape. Only Ukrainian self‐defence groups were to stay on spot and “clean” the area. Poles escaping the conflagration were not favoured by the time of year. Summer temperatures made spending nighttime outside feasible, but the short July night did not give the Poles, who literally became game, much time to escape and hide under the cover of darkness.

UPA units struck, as planned, on July 11, 1943. According to Władysław and Ewa Siemaszek’s findings, they simultaneously attacked ninety‐six villages in Horokhiv and Volodymyr counties and three in Kovel county. The next day, July 12, the same fate befell another fifty villages in Horokhiv and Volodymyr counties².

One of the first villages attacked was Dominopol, where the aforementioned Polish unit maintaining contacts with the UPA was stationed. It was probably liquidated on the night of July 11 by partisans from Porfyryi “Sich” Antoniuk’s zahon (regiment) supported by the OUN Security Service militia.

This is how one member of the OUN Security Service (SB) purportedly described the action to Danyl Shumuk: “We knocked on the door. The lieutenant […] opened it for us. We shot him on the doorstep. We shot the captain in bed as the typist jumped out the window and our boys shot her there. Then […] the SB boys went roaming around the village. Not a single Lakh remained alive by morning”³. About two hundred and twenty Poles were killed. The village was not burned down as the Polish farmsteads were taken over by Ukrainian [anticommunist]s.

The Gurów colony was attacked on the night of July 10–11 at about 2.30 AM. The inhabitants were dispatched inside individual houses with slashing weapons and firearms. About two hundred Poles were murdered there. At 3 AM, UPA men attacked the Wygranka colony. Inhabitants were awakened by the sounds coming from Gurów, with some seeking out hiding places or fleeing, some trying to defend themselves.

Nonetheless, about one hundred and fifty Poles fell victim to the UPA. At around 5 AM tragedy struck the Zamlicze folwark — one hundred and eighteen people were murdered. Approximately another eighty Poles were killed in the Nowiny colony at 8 AM.

In Poryck, UPA units struck when the Poles had gathered in the local church for mass, which started at 11 AM. They shot and threw grenades through the church doors and windows. This is how Jadwiga Krajewska recalled the attack:

The first shots were fired at Father Bolesław Szawłowski and the faithful during the Gloria […]. I was at church with my sister […]. When I heard the murderers walking around the church and saying “oh, this one’s still alive” I quickly grabbed some hat soaked in warm, sticky blood and used it to rub my and my sister’s faces. We pretended to be dead. The smoke was very suffocating, so people tried to flee the church, but machine gun fire ended their suffering at the church entrance. […] The Ukrainians shouted, “come out, whoever’s alive” and killed those exiting at the door […] attempts were made to blow the church up, but we only felt a terrible shock and then everything fell silent⁴.

While the slaughter in the church was taking place, other groups of partisans killed Poles remaining inside their homes. Attack participant Ivan Hrin later testified that the bodies of “up to 200” dead “were buried next to the Polish church. Residents were assembled to do this, [who — G.M.] dug a large hole at the west side of the building and carried the corpses from inside there. The corpses were buried just 25–30 meters from the church”⁵.

Poles gathered at church were also attacked by UPA men in Chrynów. The church was cordoned off and those leaving the 9 o’clock mass were stopped, while those entering for the 11 o’clock mass were let through. Around this time, machine gun fire opened up on the crowd. Once all those who were shot lay on the ground, the UPA men retreated without killing the wounded, thanks to which some of the fallen survived.

Meanwhile, UPA patrols killed Poles inside their homes. About one hundred and fifty people died. Poles were attacked at church in Zabłoćce as well. Seventy‐six people were murdered there.

Adela Preis (née Ziółkowska) recalls the events that took place in Kisielin:

After Mass, around 1 PM, bandits burst into the church […] murdering those inside. They smashed small children against the walls. Some of the congregation hid in the presbytery, including myself, my father, and my brother Stanisław. We went up to the second floor. The first floor was set on fire. The attackers used ladders to get to us. We struck them with bricks we’d attained from dismantling stoves and the walls. My brother […] was killed by a bullet that hit him directly in the heart. It was fired by a UPA man sitting on the roof of a nearby barn⁶.

Around 10 PM the UPA men left Kisielin — the effect of their operation was the murder of about ninety Poles. Most of those holed up in the presbytery survived.

Tragedy also befell Huta Majdańska in Zdolbuniv county. In the spring of 1943, the inhabitants of this village declared their loyalty to the Ukrainian underground and in exchange for a guarantee of safety provided the UPA with food (eggs, milk, grain, meat).

Despite this, on July 12 Ukrainian [anticommunists] murdered most of the inhabitants. 184 people died (including one Ukrainian woman). Eleven Poles survived. In the village of Zagaje, UPA men murdered about 260 Poles, in the village of Linów about 70, at Pustomyty about 90. Over those days Poles were also killed in the colonies of Stasin, Milatyń, Michałówka, Pelagin, Romanówka, Samowola, Smołowa, Rykowicze, Szczeniutyn Mały, Szczeniutyn Duży, Wolica, Topieliszcze, Zaszkiewicze Stare, and Zaszkiewicze Nowe, as well as in many other localities.

The night of July 15 and the day of July 16 saw the second wave of attacks. One hundred and one Poles were killed in the village of Pułhany and about fifty in the Szeroka colony (most of them went voluntarily to a clearing by the forest to hide from an alleged [Axis] pacification of which the Ukrainians had warned them and were shot there).

At noon the UPA attacked the village of Kupowalce, which had good relations with local Ukrainians and even supplied the UPA with food. The UPA men entered the village on carts from several directions at once. Poles were killed in their houses and gardens; the cornfields were also “combed” for escapees. A total of about one hundred and fifty people were murdered at that time. That same day at least 87 Poles were killed in the Lulówka Węgierszczyzna colony.

At the turn of July and August, UPA units in this area only rarely attacked Polish villages. One can suspect the intention was to lull the Poles into a false sense of security, which would allow them to launch another concentrated attack. This was also the purpose of a proclamation made by the staff of Sich‐Antoniuk’s zahon, which declared that the massacres that had just taken place were justified by the need to punish the Poles “with all the severity of wartime‐revolutionary demands” for collaboration with the Germans.

At the same time, “full security” was guaranteed to that part of the Polish population that did not collaborate with the Germans. Poles were urged “not to succumb to hostile agitation and not to leave their settlements”⁷.


Jared McBride sums it up thus in Peasants into Perpetrators: The OUN–UPA and the Ethnic Cleansing of Volhynia, 1943–1944:

The OUN–UPA‐planned ethnic cleansing continued unabated throughout summer 1943. The crescendo came on the night of July 11–12, 1943 when the UPA planned a highly coordinated attack (known among Poles as the “Peter and Paul action” for the holiday on which it occurred) against Polish villages in three raions: Kovel΄, Khorokhiv, and Volodymyr‐Volyns΄kyi.⁴⁶ Over one hundred localities were targeted in this action, and some 4,000 Poles were murdered.

Finally, the last wave of attacks came in December 1943 before Shukhevych decided to move the cleansing operations to Galicia where tens of thousands more Galician Poles were murdered. Following the killings in Volhynia, the UPA‐North group gave the order to “destroy all traces of the Poles” by “destroying all Polish churches and all other Polish places of worship. Destroy all farm homes, so there is no evidence that anyone ever lived there.”⁴⁷

These killings were no secret in Volhynia in 1943. Many historical sources on the occupation, from diaries to official Soviet and German reports, provide details about the cleansing. Likewise, contemporaneous Soviet partisan reports from the area are littered with references to the violence.

One late May report noted, “throughout villages in Stepan’, Derazhanaia, Rafalovka, Sarny, Vysotsk, Vladimirets, Klevan’, and other raions, the nationalists are carrying out mass terror against the Polish population […] the nationalists are not shooting the Poles but are using knives and axes to murder Poles irrespective of age and gender.”⁴⁸

Another report from April 1943 remarked, “The Ukrainian nationalists are carrying out bestial reprisals against the Polish population with the goal of completely destroying the Polish population of Ukraine. In Tsuman’ raion, a sotnia (company) of nationalists was given the order on April 15, 1943 to destroy all of the Poles and burn down their villages.”⁴⁹

Similarly, German reports from this time also noted the killings, as did reports from Polish military units.⁵⁰ Eyewitness testimonies from post‐Soviet investigations and Holocaust survivor collections in the west routinely reference these cleansing actions as well.⁵¹

Not all Volhynian Ukrainians supported the murder of their Polish neighbors. Some Ukrainians warned their Polish peers of impending OUN–UPA attacks, hid Poles, and helped them escape from Volhynia.⁵² Even in the Liuboml’ area (the focus of the next section), Poles acknowledged how Ukrainian neighbors helped them survive.

In Ostrivky, Czesław Kuwałek explained, “There were also incidents in which the Ukrainians behaved decently toward the Poles […] two Ukrainian families […] sheltered my uncle’s family for about three days after the attack and then took them to Wilczy Przewόz, where they could cross the Bug river.”⁵³

Moreover, a few Ukrainian leaders, including religious authorities and organizations, protested against the killings, though their declarations accomplished little.⁵⁴ Calls for restraint did not stem the tide of violence.


(Emphasis added in all cases.)


:::spoiler Click here for other events that happened today (July 11).
1892: Gustav‐Adolf von Zangen, Axis colonel and aristocrat, came to be.
1921: Adolf Schicklgruber temporarily resigned from the NSDAP due to disagreements with the party executive committee.
1936: Berlin and Vienna signed the Austro‐German Agreement or Juliabkommen.
1937: Tōkyō recalled units of the Imperial Chosen Army and Kwantung Army, previously ordered to march into China on the first day of the Second Sino‐Japanese War, due to political reasons. The Imperial Japanese Army and IJN agreed on a boundary in China. The Army was placed in charge of conducting the war in northern China, while the Navy would take on central and southern China. The IJN’s air power in China at this time consisted of eighty aircraft aboard carriers Kaga, Ryujo, and Hosho. Lastly, Tōkyō assigned Masafumi Arima to Cruiser Division 10.
1938: The IJN issued Order № 261 to raise sunken Chinese light cruisers Ninghai and Pinghai at Jiangyin, Jiangsu Province, China.
1939: Twenty‐seven Imperial bombers attacked Chongqing, China.
1940: After Fascist submarine U‐34 sank Norwegian ship Janna southwest of Ireland at 0700 hours, Pierre Laval became the 120th Prime Minister of France with the title of the Vice President of the Council, and Marshal Philippe Pétain declared hisself head of state of the French Republic. On radio later on the same day, he spoke of the expected rôles of the young people, the parents, and the government. ‘Let us give ourselves to France. She has always led her people to greatness.’ (Privately, the younger generation responded poorly to Pétain's new vision, criticising it as discriminatory toward young women, enslaving them as homemakers.) As well, one meeting between Admiral Erich Raeder and his Chancellor took place at the Obersalzberg, Berchtesgaden, where matters of how things were in Norway and Berlin’s plans for that area were made clear. They talked about how to continue the war against Britain and again the Chancellor made it clear of his aims and that no invasion was to take place until all efforts had been made to bring London to sue for peace. (Nevertheless, within the next few days the Chancellor would change his mind.) Joachim von Ribbentrop also requested Spain to assist in the detaining of the Duke of Windsor, the former King Edward VIII of the United Kingdom. The Luftwaffe attacked the British Royal Navy Base at Portland in southern England, then Capitano Tarantini attacked Panamanian tanker Beme in the Mediterranean Sea south of Cyprus at 2300 hours as the tanker was in ballast on a voyage from Haifa, Palestine to Istanbul. The first torpedo fired missed, but gunfire disabled the tanker. After removing the tanker’s crew, the next torpedo sunk the ship.
1941: The 1.Panzergruppe marched near Kiev as Maggiore Baracca searched for a reported Allied convoy in the Atlantic Ocean. Alessandro Malaspina took orders to move to a new patrol area in the Atlantic Ocean. At 1130 hours, she sighted Portuguese freighter Quanza and submerged to approach; after positive identification, she abandoned the pursuit. Leonardo da Vinci sighted a freighter in the Atlantic Ocean at 1100 hours. At 1218 hours, they identified the target as the Spanish Navy tanker Pluton.
1942: As the Eastern Axis leadership abandoned the plans to capture New Caledonia, Fiji, and Samoa, the Western Axis captured Soviet 2nd Shock Army commanding office Andrei Vlasov. Axis submarine U‐203 sank Panamanian tanker Stanvac Palembang northeast of Trinidad at 0352 hours; five died but foty‐five lived. Axis U‐166 also sank Dominican sailing vessel Carmen with the deck gun eight miles off the northern coast of the Dominican Republic at 1900 hours; somebody died but seven did not.
1943: Axis forces in Operation Citadel ran out of momentum, even though there had been some objectives reached. Berlin refused to call off the operation, which could have saved many of the units. In Sicily, General Paul Conrath’s Hermann Göring Panzer Division overran the Yankee outposts at Ponte Dirillo and were only prevented from breaking through the Allied lines by an attack by James Gavin’s paratroopers from the rear. Elsewhere, Conrath personally led a column which assaulted the weakly held Piano Lupo, to get within two thousand yards of the beach before being stopped by the defenders. In Greece, a partisan threw a grenade into an Axis officer’s vehicle, killing the officer.
1944: Berlin summoned Claus von Stauffenberg to see his Chancellor in Berchtesgaden regarding the situation of the Home Army, and coincidentally the last 35,000 men of 4.Armee surrendered to the Soviets at Minsk, Byelorussia. London, England received many V‐1 bombs and somebody reported over thirty‐eight fatalities. The worst incident, slaughtering fourteen, was at Annerley Road in Crystal Palace, southeast London. At Public House, the Axis hit The Paxon’s Arms close by in Clapham, slaughtering eleven in the pub. At Deptford, southeast London, Axis firepower massacred eleven dock workers and destroyed some cranes and workshops. Lastly, the Eastern Axis’s 18th Army under Lieutenant General Hatazo Adachi launched a counterattack in the Aitape area in New Guinea, placing pressure on Yankee troops yet sustaining heavy casualties.
1945: The last remaining Axis ambassador to the Soviet Union, Naotake Sato, failed to convince Vyacheslav Molotov to engage their two nations in a formal peace treaty.

Muslim collaboration with Jews against Fascism


The media in this post is not displayed to visitors. To view it, please go to the original post.

Similarly to how there were both good Christians and extremely sinful Christians in relation to the Shoah, there were both good Muslims and deeply sinful Muslims with regard to it as well. It was common (maybe less so now) for Islamophobes to emphasize the anti‐Jewish Muslims, for example the 13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar (which actually had very little to do with the Shoah), but given the rise of the alt‐right it would be unsurprising if some Islamophobes would now prefer to emphasize the Jew‐friendly Muslims such as the Albanians.

In any case, while some ultranationalist Muslims did mistake the European Fascists for allies against colonialism, most Muslims did not want the snake oil that the Axis was offering. Many of them had the circumspection to tell that the Fascist colonialists were no better than their liberal counterparts, and Libya was a case in point.

What too many of us overlook is that the Western Allies weren’t the only ones holding colonies in North Africa. So was the Axis, giving many Muslims and Jews alike a common enemy:

A history of co‐tolerance of Jews and Muslims was suppressed by the language of the politicians who used the religious and geopolitical techniques of pitting them against one another. Jews and Muslims who had lived together for centuries were now under the threat of colonialism and extinction.

The narrative of history undermines the positions of these groups where books like Jerey Herf’s Nazi Propaganda for the Arab World (2009) and Robert Satlo’s Among the Righteous (2006) particularize the discussion of Arabs/Muslims in terms of the Holocaust and the pressures of colonialism and threat from the forces at hand.

However, the story of colonization reemerges when the discussion of Arab camps surface in Muslim and Jewish narratives, and the two minor narratives emerge within their own minority status in witnessing both the colonial forces and the [Fascist] campaign. In other words, Jewish and Muslim identity struggled immensely through the time of the Holocaust from the fall of the Ottomans 1922, colonialism, and the oppression and Holocaust of native Arab/Muslim/Jewish narratives.

The historical accounts of Jews from Europe or Arab lands who tried to escape ended up in many death camps, and the Arabs who fought against the colonists and attempted to overthrow the colonial forces landed in camps in the Sahara and in some cases with Jews. For example, many Jews who had fled Germany in 1938–1939 were later captured in France and interned in Arab camps.

The camp at Hadjerat‐M’Guil was opened on November 1, 1941, as a punishment and isolation camp. It contained 170 prisoners, nine of whom were tortured and murdered in conditions of the worst brutality. Two of those murdered were Jews, one of whom had earlier been in a concentration camp in Germany but had been released in 1939 and had fled to France. This young man’s parents had become refugees in London. On learning of their son’s murder in the Sahara, they committed suicide (Glibert, 1988: 56).

[…]

Berkani’s testimony says that he and the Jews in the camp understood that Deriko was trying to get the Arabs to fight with Jews:

He gathered the Jews of the camp, who were previously mixed with the Europeans, and separated them from the French, or rather from the Europeans. This cursed Dériko prepared further provocations once again. Europeans were separate, the Arabs were separate, and the Jews too were separate. Now the Jews were also gathered in the first section. (Berkani, 1965: 44)

Berkani, a Muslim, sees Deriko’s tactic and writes the following; he observes astutely that the [Fascists] (Vichy) were attempting to create tension but that the Jews and Muslims (he changes from Arabs) had caught onto his divisive tactic.

There is no doubt that Dériko did this with the intention of seeing the Jews cut down and killed by the Muslims, since the Jews were not numerous. But the Jews realized his goal; the Arabs too realized the same thing. Commander Dériko expected that there would be fights between Arabs and Jews, but the opposite occurred: a friendly understanding spread between the two communities. Never could one have believed that the Arabs and the Jews in the first section of the camp would become real friends, even brothers. Whether you wish to believe it or not, they were moreover brothers in hunger, in suffering, in misery, in punishment/pain etc. […] in Dériko’s camp. (Berkani, 1965: 45)



(Emphasis added.)

Related: Among the Righteous, chapter 5: “The Arabs Watched over the Jews”

Besa: Muslims who saved Jews in World War II


:::spoiler Click here for events that happened today (October 8).
1884: Walter Karl Ernst August von Reichenau, Axis Field Marshal who was partly responsible for the Babi Yar massacre, polluted the earth.
1888: Ernst Kretschmer, Axis psychiatrist, was born.
1910: Helmut Kallmeyer, Axis chemist who was involved in Action T4, forced his existence on us.
1939: The Third Reich annexed western Poland.
1941: During the preliminaries of the Battle of Rostov, Axis forces reached the Sea of Azov with the capture of Mariupol.
1943: Friedrich Schubert's paramilitary group executed approximately thirty civilians in Kallikratis, Crete.
:::


The Palestinian opposition to Fascism


We’ve all seen that photograph of Mufti Haj Amin al‐Husseini, the Muslim Pope, sitting down with Adolf Schicklgruber. Herzlian mythology states that the Germans never seriously considered exterminating Jews until the Mufti came along and planted the idea in their heads, eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and letting the Shoah into the world. The Palestinians might have even shouted ‘Their blood be upon us, and on our children!’ when that happened, but I haven’t seen a Herzlian claim that (yet).

Those who have been consistently reading my posts on the Shoah would have correctly guessed that I have a bone to pick with mainstream Holocaust education, but the implication that the Palestinians were at least partly responsible for the Shoah is simply the most egregious abuse of history. In reality, the Shoah had a multitude of causes (ironically, we have more evidence that Herzlianism was one of them rather than the Palestinians), ~~a topic which I plan to discuss in depth in January,~~ but for now I want to share with you some examples of Palestinians who didn’t want whatever snake oil the Fascists were selling.

Quoting René Wildangel in Arab Responses to Fascism and Nazism: Attraction and Repulsion, pages 107–9:

The growing, more unified opposition posed a threat to the mandate authorities, which introduced stricter censorship and media control. During the violent period of 1936–1939, several Palestinian newspapers were closed or temporarily suspended, provoking protest by their readers.

During the outbreak of violence between April and October 1936, Arab newspapers were suspended on thirty‐four occasions. However, even the most nationalistic papers with the most radical rhetoric against the British mandate power did not automatically lean toward Fascism or Nazism, although many sympathetic articles appeared in the 1930s.²⁶

However, since the dawning of Hitler’s Machtergreifung, parts of the Arab press had underlined the incompatibility of Arab and German interests, pointing out that Hitler’s anti‐Jewish policies in the 1930s were directed toward Jewish emigration and the expulsion of Jewish citizens from the territories under [the Third Reich’s] control.

To this end, the Haavara Agreement, which facilitated transfer of Jewish capital from Europe to Palestine, was signed in 1933. The Arab newspapers discussed the agreement²⁷ and were well aware of the negative impact that the German expulsion policy would have on the Arab community. This was highlighted by al‐Jami‘a al‐Islamiyya:

Hitler’s victory is a dangerous development for the Arabs in Palestine; his plans regarding the Jews are well known. He will not hesitate to realize these plans and we will witness waves of refuges to [Palestine]. The German Jews are rich industrials and they will be the first, who will take the land from our hands.²⁸

Arab newspapers in Palestine covered all aspects of [Fascism] in Germany. Articles on Hitler were driven by curiosity about his character and often exhibited a blatant sympathy during the 1930s. Often, parallels were drawn between Germany after the Treaty of Versailles and the Arab Palestinians under the mandate.²⁹

However, from its early stages, Hitler’s ascent was linked to a rising fear of a new war. The Arab newspaper al‐Difaʻ published an article in 1936 that stated: “There will be no peace in Europe until the spirit of the Swastika, ruling Germany today, will be overcome.”³⁰ Newspapers like Filastin extensively covered Germany’s new armament policy. As early as 1934, the newspaper warned, “Europe will see no peace if it will not keep distance from the spirit of the swastika [ruh al‐swastika] that dominates Germany today. […] [Hitlerism] is an ideology full of disrespect of all peoples; it glorifies the German, and therein lies a danger.”³¹

Between February and April 1935, the newspaper al‐Jami‘a al‐Islamiyya printed a forty‐five‐part series with the title “Hitler and the Jews.” The author was identified as a lecturer at London’s King’s College, and the newspaper provided a translation from two unidentified Arab professors. The article covers every aspect of the anti‐Jewish policy in Germany and its theoretic foundations on the works of writers such as Gobineau and Chamberlain.

The study condemns the anti‐Jewish policies in Germany and their haphazard ideology. The introduction highlights the author’s reliability, citing several years spent in Germany as a correspondent for the London Times. Therefore, the introduction explained, the paper had chosen the material to provide “detailed information” about this “subject of utmost importance for the further developments in Europe.”³²

Newspapers like Filastin sometimes openly dismissed German anti‐Semitism: “The Jews are oppressed only because they are Jews, no more, and there is no justification for that.”³³ The same newspaper explained the term Aryan in 1933 as the “Indo‐European race,” making clear that it comprised “Indians, Persians, Armenians, and a group of Europeans,” but not Arabs and Jews, who belong to the Semites.³⁴

The paper dismissed this ideological construct in another article titled “The Truth about the Hitler Movement: Reasons for the Persecution of the Jews”: “Hitler followers want to make their race the ruler of all races in the world. One would think, the Nazis are Christians, and is not Christianity a fruit of the Semites and not of the Aryan people? Therefore, the view of Hitler’s supporters is very strange.”³⁵

Palestinian papers repeatedly condemned Italian and German claims to supremacy over other nations as a new type of colonialism. In this context, Filastin published excerpts from Mein Kampf in order to illustrate Hitler’s derogatory opinion of peoples under colonial rule.

Hitler had justified British colonial rule by citing their cultural and racial “superiority,” and he had ridiculed the “so‐called oppressed in India and Egypt” as “chatty snobs” (schwatzhafte Wichtigtuer) or “bloated Orientals” (aufgeblasene Orientalen). In Egypt, the anger about the publication of these same quotes was so great that the German Embassy in Cairo denied the statements.³⁶

On the whole, the Arab press in Palestine provided detailed information on […] Fascism. Although some affirmative voices were heard, many articles rejected the [Third Reich’s] path. The fierce nationalist stance, which included sharp and violent opposition to the mandate and the Yishuv, was not dependent on those external forces. As Filastin pointed out in 1934:

The Arab Palestinians don’t need Fascists […] to be motivated against the Zionists. The hatred against the Zionist plan in Palestine grew long before […] Fascism. […] But always, when Arabs protest the pro‐Zionist policies of England, we heard: Arab Palestinians learned it from the Nazis. And the English believe this? Reality is different. The Arabs don’t expel the Jews from the home, but those foreigners want to push the Arabs out of the country.³⁷



(Emphasis added.)


:::spoiler Click here for events that happened today (December 2).
1943: A Luftwaffe bombing raid on the harbour of Bari, Italy, sunk numerous cargo and transport ships, including the American SS John Harvey, which was carrying a mustard gas stockpile.
:::


This entry was edited (3 months ago)

By December 1941, the Fascist bourgeoisie was already destined to lose World War II


Quoting Jacques R. Pauwels’s The Myth of the Good War, pages 69–71:

The Wehrmacht continued to advance, albeit very slowly, and by mid‐November some units found themselves only thirty kilometres from the capital. But the troops were now totally exhausted and running out of supplies. Their commanders knew that it was simply impossible to take Moscow, tantalizingly close as the city may have been, and that even doing so would not bring them victory. On December 3, a number of units abandoned the offensive on their own initiative.

Within days, however, the entire [Wehrmacht] in front of Moscow was simply forced on the defensive. Indeed, on December 5, at three in the morning, in cold and snowy conditions, the Red Army suddenly launched a major, well‐prepared counterattack. The Wehrmacht’s lines were pierced in many places, and the [Western Axis was] thrown back between 100 and 280 kilometres with heavy losses of men and equipment. It was only with great difficulty that a catastrophic encirclement could be avoided.

On December 8, Hitler ordered his army to abandon the offensive and to move into defensive positions. He blamed this setback on the supposedly unexpected early arrival of winter, refused to pull back further to the rear, as some of his generals suggested, and proposed to attack again in the spring.¹⁹

Thus ended Hitler’s blitzkrieg against the Soviet Union, the war that, had it been victorious, would have realized the great ambition of his life, the destruction of the Soviet Union. More importantly, such a victory would also have provided [the Third Reich] with sufficient oil and other resources to make it a virtually invulnerable world power. As such, [the Axis] would very likely have been capable of finishing off stubborn Great Britain, even if the U.S. would have rushed to help its Anglo‐Saxon cousin, which, in early December of 1941, was not yet in the cards.

A blitzsieg, that is, a rapid victory against the Soviet Union, then, was supposed to have made [an Axis] defeat impossible, and would in all likelihood have done so. (It is probably fair to say that if [the Axis] had defeated the Soviet Union in 1941, Germany would today still be the hegemon of Europe, and possibly of the Middle East and North Africa as well.) However, defeat in the Battle of Moscow in December 1941 meant that [the Axis’s] blitzkrieg did not produce the hoped‐for blitzsieg.

In the new “Battle of the Marne” just to the west of Moscow, [the Axis] suffered the defeat that made victory impossible, not only victory against the Soviet Union itself, but also victory against Great Britain and victory in the war in general. It ought to be noted that the United States was not yet involved in the war against [the Axis].

Bearing in mind the lessons of World War I, Hitler and his generals had known from the start that, in order to win the new Great War they had unleashed, [the Axis] had to win fast, lightning‐fast. But on December 5, 1941, it became evident to everyone present in Hitler’s headquarters that a blitzsieg against the Soviet Union would not be forthcoming, and that [the Axis] was doomed to lose the war, if not sooner, then later. According to General Alfred Jodl, chief of the operations staff of the OKW, Hitler then realized that he could no longer win the war.²⁰

And so it can be argued, as a German historian, an expert on the war against the Soviet Union, has done, that the success of the Red Army in front of Moscow was unquestionably the “major break” (Zäsur) of the entire world war.²¹

In other words, the tide of World War II can be said to have turned on December 5, 1941. However, as real tides turn not suddenly but rather gradually and imperceptibly, the tide of the war turned not on a single day, but over a period of days, weeks, and even months, in the period of approximately three months that elapsed between the (late) summer of 1941 and early December of that same year. The tide of the war in the east turned gradually, but it did not do so imperceptibly.

Already in August 1941, astute observers had started to doubt that [an Axis] victory, not only in the Soviet Union but in the war in general, still belonged to the realm of possibilities. The well‐informed Vatican, for example, initially very enthusiastic about [the Axis’s] “crusade” against the Soviet homeland of “godless” Bolshevism, started to express grave concerns about the situation in the east in late summer 1941; by mid‐October, it came to the conclusion that [the Third Reich] would lose the war.²²

Likewise in mid‐October, the Swiss secret services reported that “the Germans can no longer win the war.”²³ By late November, a defeatism of sorts had started to infect the higher ranks of the Wehrmacht and of the [NSDAP].

Even as they were urging their troops forward toward Moscow, some generals opined that it would be preferable to make peace overtures and wind down the war without achieving the great victory that had seemed so certain at the start of Operation Barbarossa.²⁴

When the Red Army launched its devastating counteroffensive on December 5, Hitler himself realized that he would lose the war. But he was not prepared to let the German public know that.

The nasty tidings from the front near Moscow were presented to the public as a temporary setback, blamed on the supposedly unexpectedly early arrival of winter or on the incompetence or cowardice of certain commanders. (It was only a good year later, after the catastrophic defeat in the Battle of Stalingrad during the winter of 1942–43, that the German public, and the entire world, would realize that [the Axis] was doomed; which is why even today many historians believe that the tide turned in Stalingrad.)


(Emphasis added.)

Thus, I would like to submit that I made a mistake when I said that Stalingrad was the turning point for the Axis. It was not. It was the Battle of Moscow that was, one could say, the Axis’s Waterloo.


:::spoiler Click here for other events that happened today (June 22).
1892: Robert Ritter von Greim, commander‐in‐chief of the Luftwaffe, existed.
1933: Berlin issued orders to dissolve the Social Democratic Party.
1934: Ferdinand Porsche agreed to embark on Fascism’s Volkswagen project.
1938: Berlin passed a labor conscription law that guaranteed employment but also removed job freedom. Coincidentally, one thousand private construction companies employing half a million workers were organized into twenty‐two construction brigades by Fritz Todt for the construction of the Westwall.
1940: Paris signed the Second Compiègne armistice with the Third Reich, in the same railroad car in which the Twoth Reich signed the Armistice in 1918. As well, British Foreign Secretary Halifax had his undersecretary Richard Butler contact Swedish Minister in London, Björn Prytz, for possible Anglo‐German negotiations. The Fascists intercepted Prytz’s report back to Stockholm and concluded that the war with Britain was likely to end by the end of the summer.
1941: At about 0300 hours, Benito Mussolini was awaken by an urgent message from Berlin, informing Rome of the invasion of the Soviet Union; though annoyed by not having been notified earlier, Mussolini dutifully declared war on the Soviet Union. Bucharest would also make a declaration of war on the Soviet Union on this date. Apart from that, the Axis branded Jews from the Dorohoi district of the Kingdom of Romania as communists or spies and transported them by cattle cars to concentration camps in Tirgu and Craiova.
1942: Erwin Rommel became Field Marshal after the Axis capture of Tobruk.
1945: The Axis lost the Battle of Okinawa. Consequently, Isamu Chō, Axis officer, suicided. Mitsuru Ushijima, Axis general, did likewise.
:::

This entry was edited (1 year ago)

The Third Reich and its sympathizers destroyed over a dozen thousand synagogues


(This takes around three minutes to read.)

Consult any search engine, look up ‘how many synagogues did the Nazis destroy’, then tell me how many results you saw that satisfactorily answered that question. You’ll get plenty of references to Kristallnacht, and a few similar incidents elsewhere in Europe, but that is it. Consulting Google Scholar is, likewise, going to fail to provide you with a definitive answer. It may be hard to believe, but nobody has published a study in English going over the fascist destruction of synagogues.

Why, then, do I suspect that the fascists destroyed more than one dozen thousand synagogues? Looking up the mundane-sounding ‘number of synagogues in Europe’ reveals results such as this one:

Out of 17,000 synagogues that existed before the Holocaust, only 3,318 are known to have survived, with only a quarter of that number still functioning.


In other words, the fascists apparently destroyed approximately eighty percent of Europe’s synagogues.

Now, if you have only a limited familiarity with Judaism, you may picture synagogues as simple buildings for a preacher’s congregants and the occasional wedding. However, few modern synagogues are as bare-bones as that. Synagogues tend to function not only as spots of worship but also as community centres: many of them have daycares, kitchens, offices, libraries, and classrooms. (In fact, the word ‘shul’ is cognate with and literally means ‘school’.) While losing a synagogue may not be quite as traumatic as losing your own house, it is not exactly a ‘clubhouse’ either.

With the number of Shoah education resources available, it is surprising what little they have to say regarding the Third Reich’s devastation of Jewish cultures, and specifically the synagogues. It is true that a building has nowhere near the same value as an innocent life, but demolition is often a means of terrorizing others: suspiciously after the Charleston massacre, unknown perpetrators destroyed several Black churches in a wave of arson. In these cases, the link between White supremacist intimidation and the devastation of a community’s property is clear. Why, then, should the Axis’s destruction of synagogues be limited to a few mentions?

There is certainly room for an analysis of the fascists’ systemic destruction of synagogues, and we can alliteratively classify their abuses in the following ways:

Demolished — the perpetrators reduced these synagogues to an irreparable state. In the most horrifying cases, they trapped victims in these buildings before destroying them. Examples include the Riga synagogues in July 1941.
Damaged — the perpetrators only partially destroyed these buildings. A good example is the Dohány Street Synagogue, which the Arrow Cross Party bombed on February 3, 1939, but it underwent repairs in the 1990s and is in good shape now.
Desecrated — the perpetrators did not damage these buildings in any major way but did disrespect them by ending synagogue services, despoiling the interiors, and reusing them for selfish purposes, most frequently as warehouses. Example: the Tempel Synagogue in Kraków.

The rarest synagogues were the ones left alone entirely, apart from reducing their congregants. The Altneuschul, Europe’s oldest active synagogue, is a good byspel. Other rare curiosities are the few synagogues whose damages were probably unmotivated by anti-Judaism. The Luftwaffe’s bombing of British synagogues, for instance, was likely motivated more by the desire to terrorise the general public rather than the Jewish community specifically (although there is a chance that I am wrong about that).

As the title suggests, the Third Reich was by no means the only Axis power to harm synagogues. Other Axis powers did as well:

In 1942 Italian fascists ravaged the tiny sanctuary, throwing most of the ritual objects, archives, Torah scrolls, and books onto a bonfire in the main town square.


This was a purportedly unauthorized and isolated attack by the Regio Esercito, but it should be unsurprising that it happened at all.

Other synagogue wreckers included the Ustaše:

At the height of the Holocaust, during the Independent State of Croatia and the Ustasha terror, the Synagogue was torn down by the decision of the mayor of Zagreb, ostensibly because it did not fit into the city’s master plan. The demolition took place from the autumn of 1941 to the spring of 1942.

Only a few fragments of the building have been preserved: the was[h] basin and two memorial tablets from the forecourt, today in the City of Zagreb Museum, and part of a column, also from the forecourt, today in the historic seat of the Zagreb Jewish Community at 16 Palmoticeva Street.


The Iron Guard:

Iron Guardists […] ransacked 25 synagogues, 616 shops, and 547 homes.¹⁵⁰


The Banderites:

In Iavoriv (Jaworów), a small town about fifty kilometers west of Lviv, for example, [Wehrmacht] troops, together with Ukrainian militiamen who were wearing yellow-and-blue armlets, destroyed the local synagogue and humiliated, tortured, beat, murdered, and otherwise mistreated the Jews.⁷


The Vichyites:

On October 3, 1941 the French right-wing Mouvement Social Révolutionnaire (MSR) bombed six synagogues and one Jewish prayer house in Paris.


And others. Direct orders from Berlin were entirely unnecessary for these bigots to commit their acts, because the benefits of promoting homogenisation, robbing valuables, clearing land, and terrorising (potential) economic competitors were already obvious to the perpetrators. It also helped that premodern xenophobes had set precedents centuries earlier, normalizing the destruction of Jewish temples, and to this day, we can occasionally rediscover their remains.


Italian Fascists on the Eastern Front regularly handed Jews over to the Third Reich


Today’s excerpt is a bit lengthy and takes approximately ten minutes to read. Simply put: while there appears to be no evidence of the Regio Esercito directly killing anybody on the Eastern Front for being Jewish, it was nevertheless committed to handing Jews over to the Wehrmacht so that it could do the dirty work of annihilating them.

The Regio Esercito also benefitted from antisemitism as many of its troops extorted Jews for goods, or purchased Jewish goods that ‘somehow’ ended up on the market. Many Fascist Italians were also aware that their allies were massacring Jews, but precious few of these Italians felt enough pity to help Jews avoid violence.

Now, here is where I learned all of this. Quoting Raffaello Pannacci in Operation Barbarossa and its Aftermath: New Approaches to a Complex Campaign, pages 3641:

Italian soldiers who went to the Eastern Front in 1941 and, most of all, who joined their comrades in 1942 were aware of fascist policies toward the Jews back home and were not new to persecutions, though they had not yet witnessed [the Third Reich’s] methods in Eastern Europe.⁸⁰

Politico-military propaganda repeatedly told them that the Soviet Union was a Jewish creation, that Jews were in control in that country, starved people, had better houses, and formed part of the notorious communist police. Soldiers had to distrust Jews, all of whom were communists and many of whom were possible spies and saboteurs.⁸¹

[Fascist Italy’s] commands managed to instill fear and hate into the soldiers’ minds before operations on Soviet soil started. Troops were forbidden “any purchase in Jewish shops”⁸² in Romania, and the Csir’s commander ordered that all soldiers be aware of the danger Jews represented as possible saboteurs: “No one must frequent Jews.”⁸³

In a carbon copy of a German order issued on 6 July, he affirmed that all acts of sabotage the Csir suffered in the first weeks of war were due to “individual communist elements, above all Jews.”⁸⁴ The commander of the Italian logistics corps defined Bolsheviks as “people dominated by Jews who would love to drown Christian civilization in blood and gold and crucify Jesus once again.”⁸⁵

The Carabinieri under the Csir, too, ascribed hostile actions to Jews, also due to the fact that they paid attention to widespread popular antisemitic sentiments.⁸⁶ Furthermore [these Axis] troops were joined by many army chaplains, namely relentless anticommunist Catholic priests who mixed religion and politics in their sermons and often had an antisemitic background.

Some of them, even in postwar memoirs, affirmed that the Holocaust was a punishment for denying Jesus and defined Ukrainian communists a “small rabble generally made of degenerate bastards of Jewish extraction.”⁸⁷ Such messages achieved their goal, at least with some of the troops.

In July 1941 a report on the soldiers’ morale made known that they looked “fairly suspiciously” on the Jewish population living in eastern Romania.⁸⁸ A sergeant of the Pasubio Division wrote: “The town was run by a Jew, as well as Jews were all the leaders and dealers. […] They were Jews and, as such, capitalists and loan sharks.”⁸⁹

A Blackshirt referred to Beltsy stating “This town housed Jews, horror and deceitfulness.”⁹⁰ Another soldier affirmed: “There’s so much misery. Bolshevism is a régime that’s only good for Jews, who had any kind of privilege; everyone else was treated as a slave and was ordered around at gunpoint.”⁹¹ Letters and diaries show contrasting sentiments. Aged people, women, and children being “shot[,] most of whom for the sole crime of being Jews,” arose a soldier’s pity, but this did not alter his belief: “The current war aims to beat down Jewry.”⁹²

An officer saw Jews being used as mine removers and thought that was too harsh, though “the Jewish race he said has its own sins to pay for.”⁹³ A soldier noted that some officers faced with the “Jewish tragedy” went so far as to show “despicable pietism toward a loathsome race who gave rise to the war.”⁹⁴

[The Regio Esercito] soon witnessed mass murders and noticed that the massacre of “Russian Jews” included people who probably could not harm the occupying powers, such as “women and children […] killed in the most horrifying manner.”⁹⁵ A fascist reporter heard a soldier saying “They made us sign a statement binding us not to tell a thing about German atrocities on the Russian front.”⁹⁶

Troops’ and commands’ reactions, however, ranged from open disapproval to indifference and also included “approval for the [German] ally’s measures, especially when it came to the troops’ safety or the preservation of public order behind the front.”⁹⁷

Many Italians saw “mass shootings of Jews” and felt that they were witnessing a prearranged massacre.⁹⁸ Faced with such a sight—the Sim noted—soldiers only had “some pitiful sentiments toward the Jews being killed in hundreds by the Germans.”⁹⁹ On the contrary, according to their letters, they had a “severe reaction” when they saw that “Jews would have a franc-tireurs assignment.”¹⁰⁰

In sum, they seemed to passively accept the nature of the conflict on the Eastern Front, which immediately appeared as a war of extermination comparable to nothing [these Axis] troops had experienced so far.¹⁰¹

The soldiers’ sentiments are not surprising if we consider that [the Kingdom of] Italy housed few Jews and that they generally were neighborly with Italians. Antisemitism, at least among common people, often dealt with competition in business, especially after the war worsened everyone’s daily life.

On the contrary, Ukraine housed large Jewish communities often living beside the locals, which had kept some traditions and Semitic traits that [Axis] anti-Jewish propaganda referred to. Italians perceived Soviet Jews in a different manner, not to mention the fact that they were seen as spies and saboteurs.

Nonetheless the Regio Esercito had a partly independent policy toward “harmless” Jews. Italian commands were ordered to take a periodical census of the population and to report alleged partisans and Jews inhabiting their territories so that [the Wehrmacht] could have hostages to kill in case of a reprisal. [The Regio Esercito], also thanks to local collaborationists, made lists of Jews and communists and also guarded and jailed them, if necessary. Units normally assigned to list, guard and jail suspects, communists, and Jews were the Carabinieri, as we saw above.¹⁰²

Similarly, political commissars of the Red Army and partisans captured alive by [the Regio Esercito] had to be handed over to the [Wehrmacht, which] shot or hanged most of them. Inevitably, [the Regio Esercito] handed over to [Wehrmacht] units a certain number of Soviet Jews especially in 1941, but it is difficult to ascertain if/when they handed them over as such.

Still, in a clearly antisemitic atmosphere, [Fascist] Italians found it more important to assess if suspects were dangerous or belonged to partisan “bands,” after which they shot them or handed them over to the [Wehrmacht]. A Jew was found near an Italian communication cable, and locals advised to arrest him as a spy; Italians found more conclusive that he was a Polish refugee and did not look like he was causing damage, so they sent him to upper commands for further investigation.¹⁰³

Italians used to hire civilian workers and paid them in currency according to age, skill, and working hours. Soviet Jews could be hired, too, but they had no right to be paid and received “only board.” Such orders were issued at the beginning of the war and were confirmed later, when Italian commands ran their own territories.¹⁰⁴

There is almost no evidence on how these orders took shape, but testimonies of civilians inhabiting Italian-run territories attest that Italians paid Jewish workers neither in currency nor in kind.¹⁰⁵ An Italian captain in Balta hired two Jewish carpenters and daily remunerated them with four loaves, but his superior harshly reproved him for such a waste of bread.¹⁰⁶

A medical officer wrote in his diary that Field Hospital 235 had two Jewish workers. They were “assigned the most menial and exhausting tasks” such as cleaning latrines, and one of them fed “on waste, cigar ends and contumelies”: “Malicious and shameless soldiers taught them to present themselves saying ‘Good morning, I’m a …’ and then a latrine-tasty word.”¹⁰⁷

Furthermore it was not rare that Jews in the Regio Esercito’s territories were handed over to the [Wehrmacht], especially when the latter started sensing danger. In Horlivka, during April 1942, [Fascist] units handed over a group of sixty to one hundred Jews to the local branch of Sonderkommando 4b.¹⁰⁸ The aforementioned Lieutenant Villata, whose personal files are empty or tell nothing about his activity in the Soviet Union,¹⁰⁹ had a rôle in the anti-Jewish persecution, too.

On 5 May 1942, in Novoorlivka or maybe Shevchenko, Villata asked the Torino Division’s command to send a company “in the local ghetto with public order assignments due to the necessity to evacuate Jews”; “the company—it was said—will probably stay out all night.” Two days later, in Novoorlivka, soldiers of the same division arrested “three Jews trying to reach the enemy territory,”¹¹⁰ and during the next few days at least another five “suspects” were arrested in the same area by subunits.¹¹¹ Not by chance, on 5–6 May a Lancia 3/Ro truck under the Torino Division made a “transport [of] Jews.”¹¹²

In spring-summer 1942 the zone around Rykovo and Stalino, where Italians proved themselves “lenient,” became a “quiet oasis for all the Jews and communists who also poured in from all around.” The [Third Reich was] forced to ask [Fascist] Italian authorities to hand over hundreds of alleged partisans and Jews (including women and children), who were shot right after [the Regio Esercito] followed the [Third Reich’s] request.¹¹³ In such cases Italians took no action against Jews/communists because they were almost sure that [another Axis power] would, so they preferred to let their allies use violence, probably also in order to prevent partisan retaliation, as an Italian officer admitted.¹¹⁴

Furthermore, between May and June, [Fascist Italy’s] local units were involved in the deportation of the Jewish families of Krasny Gorodok (outskirts of Rykovo). According to locals’ testimonies, [the Regio Esercito] first isolated the Jewish families in expressly prepared barracks, then put them on trucks and transferred them to Horlivka, where the Jews finally vanished. Documents talk about five hundred persons deported and clearly refer to Villata and the Italian “gendarmerie.”¹¹⁵

Besides official operations, [these Axis] soldiers were aware that Jews in the occupied Soviet Union had no rights, could appeal no law, and could die sooner or later, so they tried to get money and goods from people belonging to the “Jewish race” either through theft or the promise of help. Such an instrumental use of the anti-Jewish persecution was not infrequent at the time.

Both in Stalino and Sinelnikove some [Fascist] Italians made abusive searches in Jewish houses in order to take away food and goods, also cooperating with [Axis] comrades and [collaborative] policemen.¹¹⁶ Collaborationist police in Rykovo, under Lieutenant Villata’s orders, sequestered 5,000 rubles belonging to a Jew, with Villata seizing half the money for alleged undercover operations.¹¹⁷

In Lviv, in September 1942, a group [from the Regio Esercito] made a Jewish family believe [that] they would help them escape to Hungary in order to avoid German persecutions. The Jews gave them jewels, raw gold, and a sum equivalent to more than €50,000. After being paid, the soldiers handed over the Jews to a […] Sonderkommando that immediately shot them.¹¹⁸

A reporter of the Fascist Political Police made known the case of an Italian lieutenant working in a liaison office in Lviv who was said to be selling secondhand radiotransmitters, clothes, and other goods coming from “shot Jews.”¹¹⁹

Italians were often aware of the origin of some goods circulating in the rear. An airman “who had a passion for music” was presented a piano by [Axis] comrades: “He asked where they found it, and they replied it was Jewish stuff coming from expropriations.”¹²⁰

In conclusion, in France or in the Balkans, for instance, Italy treated Jews better than Germany, and sometimes protected them, also refusing to hand them over to the [Wehrmacht]. This was often overstressed by the Italian military after the war in order to keep its distance from the [Axis]. Moral grounds must not be overlooked, but such policy was also due to [Fascist] Italy’s will to limit [foreign] interference in [its] territories forming part of mixed occupation areas.¹²¹

On the contrary, there could be no doubt about “who was effectively in control” on the Eastern Front, so Italians did not offer as much resistance as elsewhere, as they had no means to contradict Nazi policies in a [Reich]-led conflict.¹²²

Ascertained cases of Italians saving Jews on the Eastern Front are absolutely negligible,¹²³ whereas some Jewish women were taken aboard [Fascist] trains going to the front and sexually exploited in exchange for food and safety.¹²⁴ Postwar memoirs affirm that Jewish forced laborers in Polish and Ukrainian stations were offered food, as they aroused [the Regio Esercito’s] pity due to their living conditions.¹²⁵

Soldiers, however, also exchanged food for gold, jewels, and other goods the Jews had to give away in order to survive. An Alpino recalled how he and his comrades arrived at Piniug’s prison camp in possession of hidden “gold, rings, necklaces, watches” that they had previously gotten from Jews in exchange for bread.¹²⁶

In sum, for most of the soldiers, a yellow badge “was nothing but an oddity at the time and was worth at best a picture or a few words in a diary,” while after 1945 it became “the symbol of one of the worst crimes against humanity.”¹²⁷

[…]

There is no evidence [to our knowledge] that Italians personally killed Soviet Jews as such, but they persecuted them as suspects, undesirable elements, spies, and saboteurs and handed hundreds of them over to the [Wehrmacht]. In this case, too, Italian institutions and people preferred to forget actual (though limited) indications of Italian participation in the Holocaust.


(Emphasis added.)


This entry was edited (1 month ago)

Why Berlin signed a nonaggression treaty with Moscow


(This takes at least four minutes to read.)

You likely already know why, given the circumstances, Moscow’s signature on the nonaggression treaty was inevitable, but it is rare for anybody to make a serious attempt to understand the treaty from the Fascist bourgeoisie’s point of view.

Quoting William Young’s German Diplomatic Relations 1871–1945: The Wilhelmstrasse and the Formulation of Foreign Policy, pages 2645:

Having secured an alliance with [Fascist] Italy, [Berlin] became interested in obtaining an agreement with the Soviet Union concerning the status of East Europe. Despite his anti‐Soviet sentiments, the Führer understood that such an understanding would totally isolate Poland from the West, making it unlikely that Britain and France would militarily support the Poles during a German–Polish conflict.²⁴³

Hitler saw the British guarantee to Poland as a bluff, but the added benefit of a German–Soviet pact would guarantee a localized conflict instead of a European war.²⁴⁴ The idea of a German–Soviet agreement came from Ribbentrop, who was still in Hitler’s disfavor over the British reaction to Prague and seeking a way to endear himself to the Führer, in April.²⁴⁵ The Foreign Minister viewed a German–Soviet understanding as a guaranteed way to diplomatically force the Poles into agreeing to Hitler’s demands.²⁴⁶

He jumped at the opportunity as a way to retain his position as the Führer’s top diplomat.²⁴⁷ Those diplomats in the Foreign Office, such as Weizsäcker and Dirksen, who traditionally had argued for closer German–Soviet relations, supported such an initiative.²⁴⁸ The [Fascist] leadership [mis]perceived Stalin’s dismissal of Maxim Litvinov and appointment of Vyacheslav Molotov as Foreign Commissar as a sign of Soviet interest in a German–Soviet rapprochement.²⁴⁹

Thus, on 4 May 1939, the Wilhelmstrasse, under Hitler’s direction, investigated the possibility of closer relations by recalling Gustav Hilger, the Chief of Economic Affairs at the German Embassy in Moscow, to Berlin for consultation with Hitler and Ribbentrop.²⁵⁰ On 10 May, Hilger answered the Führer’s questions concerning the likelihood of a German–Soviet rapprochement at Berchtesgaden. Hilger gave the [Fascist] leader the impression that Stalin was willing to come to terms.²⁵¹

Hitler, however, hesitated in making a diplomatic move towards the Soviet Union. He waited to find out the results of British and French diplomatic efforts to negotiate a triple alliance with the Soviet Union.²⁵² Weizsäcker, impatient over the wait, suggested to Ribbentrop that Hilger approach the Soviet Foreign Commissariat to hint at Hitler’s desire for closer German–Soviet relations.²⁵³

In the meantime, the Wilhelmstrasse received signals that the Soviet Union was interested in a rapprochement.²⁵⁴ Therefore, on 29 May 1939, Hitler made the decision to employ the foreign service to pursue closer ties with the Soviet Union.²⁵⁵ Moscow, nonetheless, showed no immediate interest to begin negotiations.²⁵⁶ Thus, on 29 July, Ribbentrop directed Count Friedrich Werner von der Schulenburg, the German Ambassador to Moscow (1934–41), to inform Molotov that Germany was ready to take account of “all Soviet interests” in Poland and the Baltic states.²⁵⁷

While little diplomatic activity took place between Germany and the Soviet Union, the relations between Germany and Poland were quickly reaching the crisis point.


(It may be worth noting that Molotov said that the nonaggression treaty should be modeled on one signed with ‘Poland, Latvia, Estonia, etc.’)

Simply put, suspending Moscow in a state of neutrality allowed the Fascist bourgeoisie to prepare for its long‐term goals—most notably its invasion of the Soviet Union. The Fascist bourgeoisie could concentrate on annexing and occupying other countries, thereby building up its economies. Quoting from Martijn Lak in Industrial Collaboration in Nazi‐Occupied Europe, page 124:

When Hitler informed his subordinates in July 1940 of his intention to attack the Soviet Union the next year, it would have been even more [irrational] to undermine the occupied Western economies. Göring “now decided to milk the cow, not butcher her”.⁴⁶ By means of the Auftragsverlagerung, military production could be increased considerably.⁴⁷


But that is not all. Quoting V. Issraeljan’s and L. Kutakov’s Diplomacy of Aggression: Berlin–Rome–Tokyo Axis, Its Rise and Fall, pages 29 & 31–2:

In a long‐winded letter […] Hitler dwelt on German–Soviet relations as well, showing why it had been necessary to sign the Soviet–German treaty and touching upon other aspects of the relations between Germany and the USSR.

Speaking of the prospects of the war, he informed Mussolini that a decisive offensive would soon be launched against the Western powers. In conclusion, he re‐emphasised that sooner or later fate would compel [the Third Reich] and [F]ascist Italy to fight shoulder to shoulder.

This message made it clear that under no circumstances would [the Third Reich] agree to conciliation with the Western powers and that [it] was preparing for large‐scale military operations. However, Hitler said nothing about the time or nature of these operations. The letter showed that the [German Fascists] were unquestionably out to induce Italy to take an active part in their plans.

[…]

His utterances on Soviet–German relations are interesting. In the same breath that he justified the signing of a treaty with the USSR he emphatically underlined that he was “absolutely alien” to Bolshevism. “Germany and Russia,” he said, “were two different worlds, especially in their social structure.”** [The Third Reich] had only one ally and partner, and that ally and partner was Italy, he declared. This two‐hour tirade impressed Mussolini.

He reaffirmed that [Fascist] Italy and [the Third Reich] had common interests, stating that he “hated” Britain and France, and informed Hitler of [Fascist] Italy’s preparations for possible entry into the war. These preparations, he said, would be completed in three or four months at the latest, and after that he would “not be in the embarrassing position of seeing his comrade fighting and himself being limited to making demonstrations” although he, Mussolini, “was conscious of being of use to Germany in his rôle on the ‘left wing’ [read: by its side]”.

He added that he would have liked to do more than he was doing at the moment.* If the [Third Reich’s] offensive in the West was successful, Italy, Mussolini promised, would forthwith enter the conflict in order to hasten the outcome. If matters developed otherwise he would prefer to wait until Italy was fully prepared for war.


:::spoiler (Emphasis added in all cases. Click here for more.)
Quoting Domenico Losurdo’s Stalin: History and Critique of a Black Legend, page 184:

The mutual diffidence between the Soviet Union and the Third Reich and the preparation of both for frontal confrontation never dissipated even during the months of the non-aggression pact. Even before signing, speaking to the High Commissioner of the League of Nations in Danzig, Hitler made it clear:
Everything I undertake is directed against Russia. If the West is too stupid and too blind to comprehend this, I will be forced to reach an understanding with the Russians, turn and strike the West, and then after their defeat turn back against the Soviet Union with all the forces united through me.³⁵

Judging from this excerpt, the Führer’s constant goal was the construction of a German-led Western alliance for the destruction of the Soviet Union. If this alliance could not be stipulated by means of a prior agreement, then all that remained was to impose it on the recalcitrant partners after defeating them. The transitional agreement with Moscow was merely a ploy to achieve victory and thus bring about the Western alliance necessary for the final showdown with Bolshevism.

The non-aggression pact was instrumental to the achievement of the main and permanent objective of the Third Reich, who unleashed Operation Barbarossa presenting it as a crusade for Europe to which European countries and peoples were called upon to contribute and in fact did contribute, to varying degrees and with human or material resources.
:::


:::spoiler Click here for other events that happened today (August 23).
1923: Two Fascists in Argenta murdered an antifascist priest, Giovanni Minzoni, fracturing his skull and beating him to death with clubs (probably on Italo Balbo’s orders).
1939: Rome sent a message to Berlin noting that when the two empires negotiated the Pact of Steel, article 3 obliged one to join any war in which the other was engaged, yet the two had the understanding that Fascist Italy would be unready for war until 1943. As well, Berlin appointed Albert Forster as the State President of the Free City of Danzig, and it also promoted Erwin Rommel to the rank of major general, posting him to the Staff of the Chancellor’s headquarters to be responsible again for the Chancellor’s safety. Lastly, U‐27 departed Wilhelmshaven for her only war patrol.
1940: Rain and clouds prevented the Fascists from mounting large raids against Britain, giving British airmen a chance to rest and crews a chance to repair airfields. Single‐aircraft raids were, however, mounted against southern and central England, as were raids against shipping; two merchant ships sunk and one became damaged by He 115 torpedo bombers. Coincidentally, Fascist propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels launched a new campaign that stressed the British fighting spirit in an attempt to rally Germans behind the war effort. Overnight, Fascist bombers raided British cities. Aside from this, Fascist submarine U‐37 torpedoed Norwegian ship Keret in the Atlantic Ocean west of Ireland at 0222 hours, killing thirteen but leaving seven alive. In the general area, at 1250 hours, U‐37 sank British ship Severn Leigh, slaughtering one gunner and thirty‐two of the rest of the crew, but leaving ten survivors.
1941: The Third Reich’s head of state rejected Heinz Guderian’s advice to attack Moscow. Berlin moved troops to the south instead. At 2347 hours, Axis submarine U‐143 (Oberleutnant zur See Harald Gelhaus) torpedoed the 1,409‐ton Norwegian merchant steamer Inger twice as it was heading towards Loch Ewe, Scotland, and Comandante Cappellini took orders to move to a new patrol area in the Atlantic Ocean at 0000 hours.
1942: The Axis began the Battle of Stalingrad, and in what amounted to little more than a publicity stunt, the 1.Gebirgsjäger Division soldiers hoisted the Reichskriegsfahne flag on Mount Elbrus, which was the highest point in the Caucasus Mountains. As well, Hans‐Joachim Marseille returned to his unit at Sanyet El Qutaifiya, Egypt, and Axis submarine U‐506 sank British ship Hamla southwest of Freetown, West Africa at 2337 hours, slaughtering all forty aboard. Additionally, Axis and Allied aircraft engaged in combat over Darwin, Australia between 1200 and 1245 hours; the Axis lost seven bombers and eight Zero fighters to P‐40 Warhawk fighters of the U.S. 49th Fighter Group, and this became to be the last Axis attempt to raid Darwin.
1943: The Axis lost Kharkiv to the Red Army after the Battle of Kursk.
1944: The Axis lost Marseille to the Allies. Meanwhile, King Michael of Romania dismissed the Axis government of Marshal Antonescu, who was later arrested; Romania switched sides from the Axis to the Allies.
1945: The Axis resistance in the Manchuria region of northeastern China was effectively over, and the Axis garrison at Paramushiro surrendered to the Soviets. On the other hand, He Yingqin ordered Axis generals in northern and eastern China to continue to maintain peace until Nationalist forces would arrive to relieve them. Meanwhile, Douglas MacArthur ordered the release of all Filipinos—most of whom were Axis collaborators—interned by the U.S. Army. He claimed that their fates would be tried by the Filipino government rather than the U.S. military. Lastly, the Axis news agency Do Trzei announced the death of Subhash Chandra Bose.
:::

This entry was edited (1 month ago)

The Third Reich’s war on Yiddish


(This takes approximately six minutes to read.)

With all of the numerous literature on the Shoah, it is surprisingly difficult to find (English) works focussing on the Fascist assault on Jewish cultures; most barely touch on the subject. Many sources (such as this one) are content to simply remind us of the Shoah’s death toll as if that automatically does all of the explaining for them, but the Western Axis’s incomplete annihilation of Yiddishists only tells us half of the story.

As I’ll soon show you, the Fascist approach to Jewish cultures was actually less straightforward than you may expect, but there was certainly an element of annihilation involved:

In Poland, in both Bedzin and Poznan, special German “Brenn-Kommandos” (arson squads) were assigned to burn the Jewish synagogues and books.¹¹ The destruction of Torah scrolls and other religious books was especially difficult for the religious Jewish community, since according to orthodox religious law, it is imperative that these materials be treated with the utmost respect and reverence, and those who destroy such sacred documents are considered in violation of a divine command. It is stated: “The sefer torah, or any sacred book or writing, or anything which has served a holy purpose, which has become worn out, must not be burned but secreted.”¹²

Some Jews attempted to save Torah scrolls and other materials from the burning buildings but were either shot or thrown into the flames.¹³ In such a way [most of] the Great Talmudic Library of the Jewish Theological Seminary in Lublin burned while [Fascists] cheered and Jews wept.¹⁴ [Fascist] correspondents stated:

For us it was a matter of special pride to destroy the Talmudic Academy […] which was known as the greatest in Poland […] We threw the huge Talmudic library out of the building and carried the books to the market-place, where we set fire to them. The fire lasted twenty hours. The Lublin Jews assembled around and wept bitterly, almost silencing us with their cries. We summoned the military band, and with joyful shouts the soldiers drowned out the sounds of the Jewish cries.¹⁵

[…]

In the Vilna ghetto […] the books read there were in Polish (70.4 percent) and Yiddish (17.6 percent), with Russian, Hebrew, and other languages making up the rest. Within four months circulation increased to about 140,000 and the library was “full of readers.” However, by September of 1943 the ghetto was liquidated and along with it much of the material from the ghetto library, which was used by the janitor to heat the furnace of the house.⁵⁶


Nonetheless, the incendiary method, as far as I can tell, was exceptional rather than standard. The Axis had more ‘refined’ ways of dealing with Jewish literature:

Dr. Pohl arrived in Vilna in January 1942 together with four assistants (two of whom had academic training), Drs. Miller, Wulf, Sparkett, and Gimpel. He ordered that all the Jewish book collections should be gathered at the Yiddisher Visenshaftlikker Institut (YIVO) building at 18 Wiwulski Street.

Books soon began to arrive and included materials from more than 300 synagogues as well as private collections. In addition to books, Pohl also disposed of the plates of the Romm publishing house, noted for its editions of the Talmud.⁴⁰ The remains of the Kletzkin publishing house were also brought to YIVO but were sent mainly for pulping.⁴¹

The Jewish Council (Judenrat) in Vilna was ordered to provide twenty workers, five of them experts in Judaica, to select, catalog, and ship the books. One hundred thousand volumes were arranged by century of publication; 20,000 of these in seventy-four cases were then shipped to [the Third Reich] with the rest being sold to a paper mill for pulp at nineteen Reichsmark per ton.⁴² Pulping was a widespread practice and initially there were few guidelines to determine what should be saved.


Now this is when things become complicated. Long-term readers are surely familiar with how the Fascists destroyed synagogues (e.g. Rashi Shul), yet you might have never particularly noticed the inconsistency where they occasionally let others (e.g. Altneuschul) simply gather dust. A similar inconsistency towards Jewish literature existed:

However, in February 1943, Dr. Cruse of the ERR issued the following directive: “Books in Hebrew script of recent date (later than 1800, insofar as this can be determined) may be turned over for pulping; this applies to prayerbooks, Memorbuecher and other religious works in the German language. On the other hand, please send here all writings which bear on the history of culture and the nature of Judaism, as well as the works of Jewish authors.”⁴³


From my research, it looks like most Third Reich officials preferred to stop, but not exactly annihilate, Jewish cultures. What I mean by this is that in many cases they were content to merely seize Yiddish and other Jewish works as trophies, not always with an intent to destroy them, but without expecting a future for Yiddish either:

In December 1939 [Berlin] decreed that all book collections in Poland, other than those owned by German natives, were to be confiscated and so ordered them to be surrendered.¹⁷ In Warsaw the great library of the Synagogue and of the Institute of Jewish Studies, with its collections related to the Near East and rare manuscripts from the tenth century, was taken away to Berlin by a special unit led by Professor Paulsen. Other Jewish libraries from Warsaw were sent to Vienna.¹⁸ Jewish libraries from Łódź and other areas were relocated to St. Michael's Church in Poznan, which was unused because of the transfer of the entire Polish population.¹⁹

In 1941 the [Axis] founded a Reichsuniversität in Poznan with a professorship for Jewish history and languages and a library of about 400,000 volumes in Judaica confiscated from Jewish libraries. Jewish books were also transferred to other [Fascist] institutes in Poland, including the Institut für deutsche Ostarbeit in Cracow, founded in 1940 as a research division on East European Jewry and a branch of the Institut zur Erforschung der Judenfrage of Frankfurt in Łódź.²⁰

It is possible that books from Poland and other areas of the East were sent to other large libraries of the Reich but there is no definitive evidence of this. There is, however, a letter from the Prussian State Library in 1943 expressing an interest in approximately 30,000 materials that had been collected in Vilna. Other materials found their way informally to institutions and individuals.²¹


A few Jewish adults noticed the paradox of the Axis preserving certain Jewish works. Quoting Elisabeth Gallas's A Mortuary of Books: The Rescue of Jewish Culture after the Holocaust, page 59:

The survival of a collection was rarely coincidental or arbitrary: The [Fascists] themselves had determined whether it was destroyed or confiscated. Joshua Starr, chief executive of the JCR in New York who worked at the Offenbach Depot from June 1948 to April 1949 on behalf of his organization, described this phenomenon: “Today when one handles a book stamped Sichergestellt durch Einsatzstab RR, he holds a mute witness of the final phase of a program designed to concentrate staggering facilities for the investigation of the Jewish past and present. […] It is, as we shall see, largely to this bizarre program that we owe credit in the grim sense, for the survival of portions of Jewish property in central Europe.”¹³⁴

Hannah Arendt later refers to the same paradox in her famous report Eichmann in Jerusalem, in which she describes the German authorities' painstaking approach to the looting and amassing of Jewish cultural property: “Incidentally, an eagerness to establish museums commemorating their enemies was very characteristic of the Nazis. During the war, several services competed bitterly for the honor of establishing anti-Jewish museums and libraries. We owe to this strange craze the salvage of many great cultural treasures of European Jewry.”¹³⁵


Lastly, there is a certain Herzlian fascist whom I would like to cynically thank for inspiring me to research this subject. Quoting Dan Tamir’s Hebrew Fascism in Palestine, 1922–1942, pages 146–147:

Having read that members of a Yiddish speaking socialist group had sent to their colleagues in Vilnius some of the stones which were thrown on them, together with their blood-stained shirts, Aḥime’ir joyfully promised them that
if they continue to spread here their Ashdodian language, then the empty museum of “Culture for the Wearies” in Vilnius will soon be filled with shirts and stones from our country. And if they continue importing Yiddish to our country, then they will also find themselves exporting more shirts, stones, shards of glass and broken skulls…¹⁷



(Emphasis added in all cases.)

Further reading: Stolen Words: The Nazi Plunder of Jewish Books & Occupied Words: What the Holocaust Did to Yiddish.

This entry was edited (4 weeks ago)

Fascist-era parenting is still harming German youths today, and the Fascists themselves had abusive parents


Renate Flens, a German woman in her 60s who suffers from depression, tells her psychotherapist that she wants to love her children but just can’t. She and the therapist soon realize that both Flens’s problems may be rooted in her frustration at being unable to allow others to get close to her. After lengthy conversations, they realize something else: a contributing factor may well be the child‐rearing teachings of Johanna Haarer, a physician whose books were written during the [Fascist] era and aimed at raising children to serve the Führer.

Flens (a pseudonym) was born after World War II, but Haarer’s books were still popular during her postwar childhood, where many households had a copy of The German Mother and Her First Child—a book that continued to be published for decades (ultimately cleansed of the most objectionable [Fascist] language). When asked, Flens recalled seeing one of Haarer’s books on her parents’ bookshelf.

Flens’s story, told to me by her therapist, illustrates an issue troubling a number of mental health experts in Germany: Haarer’s ideas may still be harming the emotional health of its citizens. One aspect was particularly pernicious: she urged mothers to ignore their babies’ emotional needs. Infants are [normally inclined] to build an attachment with a primary care giver.

The [Fascists] wanted children who were tough, unemotional and unempathetic and who had weak attachments to others, and they understood that withholding affection would support that goal. If an entire generation is brought up to avoid creating bonds with others, the experts ask, how can members of that generation avoid replicating that tendency in their own children and grandchildren?

“This has long been a question among analysts and attachment researchers but ignored by the general public,” says Klaus Grossmann, a leading researcher in mother–child attachment, now retired from the University of Regensburg. The evidence that Haarer’s teachings are still affecting people today is not definitive. Nevertheless, it is supported by studies of mother–child interactions in Germany, by other research into attachment and by therapists’ anecdotal reports.

[…]

In The German Mother and Her First Child, Haarer wrote, “It is best if the child is in his own room, where he can be left alone.” If the child starts to cry, it is best to ignore him: “Whatever you do, do not pick the child up from his bed, carry him around, cradle him, stroke him, hold him on your lap, or even nurse him.”

Otherwise, “the child will quickly understand that all he needs to do is cry in order to attract a sympathetic soul and become the object of caring. Within a short time, he will demand this service as a right, leave you no peace until he is carried again, cradled, or stroked—and with that a tiny but implacable house tyrant is formed!”

[…]

Why did so many mothers follow Haarer’s counterintuitive advice? Radebold, whose research has focused on the generation of children born during the war, notes that Haarer’s views on child‐rearing did not appeal to everyone during the 1930s and 1940s but attracted two groups in particular: parents who identified strongly with the [Third Reich] and young women who had themselves come from emotionally damaged families (largely as a result of World War I), who had no idea what a good relationship feels like.

If, in addition, their husbands were fighting at the front—leaving them to fend for themselves and to feel overburdened and insecure—it may well be imagined that the toughness promoted in Haarer’s books could have been appealing.

Of course, strict child‐rearing practices had been commonplace in Prussia well before the [Fascists] came on the scene. In Grossmann’s opinion, only a culture that already had a tendency for hardness would have been ready to institute such practices on a grand scale. Studies on attachment conducted in the 1970s are consistent with this view.

He notes, for example, that in Bielefeld, which is in northern Germany, half of all children were shown to exhibit an insecure attachment; in Regensburg, which is in southern Germany and never came under Prussian influence, less than a third fit that category.


This dovetails with my statement that the Fascists theirselves were products of abusive parenting. Quoting Alice Miller:

Like every other child, Hitler was born innocent, only to be raised, as were many children at the time, in a destructive fashion by his parents and later to make himself into a [criminal]. He was the survivor of a machinery of annihilation that in turn‐of‐the‐century Germany was called “child‐rearing” and that I call “the concealed concentration camp of childhood,” which is never allowed to be recognized for what it is.

[…]

According to the reports of [Axis] criminals (and also of soldiers who volunteered to fight in Vietnam), their unconscious programming to be violent began in every case with a brutal upbringing that demanded absolute obedience and expressed total contempt for the child. I know of no example of this which is so well‐documented and which demonstrates so clearly the consequences of the psychological murder of children — bringing along with it a form of collective blindness — than the fateful success of Adolf Hitler.

The Führer once told his secretary that during one of the regular beatings given him by his father he was able to stop crying, to feel nothing, and even to count the thirty‐two blows he received.

In this way, by totally denying his pain, his feelings of powerlessness, and his despair — in other words, by denying the truth — Hitler made himself into a master of violence and of contempt for human beings. The result was a very primitive person, incapable of any empathy for other people. He was mercilessly and constantly driven to new destructive acts by his latent feelings of hatred and revenge. After millions had been forced to die for this reason, those feelings still haunted him in his sleep.

Hermann Rauschning reports nocturnal paroxysms of screaming on the Führer’s part, along with “inexplicable counting”, which I trace back to the counting he did during the beatings of his childhood. Hitler did not invent fascism; he found it (like so many of his contemporaries) prefigured in the [Reich] of his family. The [Third Reich’s] version of fascism, however, does bear unmistakable traces of Hitler’s childhood.

But his early experience was by no means an exception. Thus, neither Gerhart Hauptmann nor Martin Heidegger nor many other celebrated intellects of the day were able to see through Hitler's madness. To do so, they would have had to be able to see through the madness of their own upbringing.

Hitler could make Europe and the world into the battlefield of his childhood because in the Germany of that time there were millions of people who had experienced the same kind of upbringing he had.


(Emphasis added in all cases.)

I know that some of you want to roll your eyes at Miller’s psychohistory. To an extent, I agree with you: psychology cannot answer everything.

Nevertheless, I would not be so quick to dismiss her psychohistory as useless. Where I differ from Miller is that I see the unpleasant childhoods, common among Axis officials, as ingredients to Fascism, rather than the root cause of Axis atrocities. Along with a military and petty bourgeois background, a history under abusive parents made a good candidate for a Fascist, as it damaged his empathy and taught him early on that violence is an acceptable solution to difficult problems. This provided the Fascists with valuable training that they needed.

In other words, while abusive parenting might not have made the Fascists oppressive, it certainly prepared them for that rôle. It would be difficult to prove that the Fascists were imitating their parents when they beat prisoners (which happened often), but I have no doubt that the normalisation of violence that they suffered early on made it all the easier.


:::spoiler Click here for events that happened today (January 3).
1873: Ichizō Kobayashi, Axis Minister of Commerce and Industry, came to life.
1903: Alois Hitler, protofascist civil servant, dropped dead.
1920: Siegfried Buback, Fascist soldier (and later W. Germany’s Attorney General), existed.
1924: Otto Beisheim, Waffen‐SS member (and later W. German capitalist), came into existence.
1933: Wilhelm Carl Josef Cuno, who briefly served as an economic advisor to Adolf Schicklgruber, died.
:::

This entry was edited (11 months ago)

The Fascists first tested Zyklon-B on Soviet prisoners of war


Sensitive content

This entry was edited (1 year ago)

Reenactment of Fascist Italy’s oppression of Libyans


If you aren’t faint of heart or afflicted with battle fatigue, see this film as soon as possible, if you have not done so already. Not only is this an invaluable resource for getting a good idea of how the Fascists suppressed Libyans, but (with the arguable exception of the length) this is also a rare example of a film that does everything right: the story, dialogue, acting, music, pacing, cinematography, and other technical aspects are all more than satisfactory. There is not one aspect of this film that feels inadequate, unless you count the viewership.


:::spoiler Click here for events that happened today (August 20).
1940: Hermann Göring sent peace proposals to Britain via Netherlandish and Turkish foreign ministries! Nevertheless, the British ignored them. Aside from that, the Eighth Route Army launched the Hundred Regiments Offensive, a successful campaign to disrupt Axis war infrastructure and logistics in occupied northern China. (Coincidentally, Prime Minister Winston Churchill made the fourth of his famous wartime speeches, containing the line ‘Never was so much owed by so many to so few’.)
1942: István Horthy de Nagybánya, Axis Deputy Regent, died in a flight accident.
1943: The Axis submarine U‐197 was sunk in the Indian Ocean by a PBY Catalina of № 265 Squadron RAF; on the same day, the Axis submarine U‐670 sank in the Bay of Danzig after a collision with the target ship Bulkoburg. Meanwhile, the Empire of Japan and the Kingdom of Thailand signed a peace treaty, in which four provinces of Axis‐occupied British Malaya (Kedah, Perlis, Kelantan and Trengganu) were to be made part of Thailand. Thai administration would begin on October 18. Finally, Soviet Major General P. V. Bogdanov, who had collaborated with the enemy after being captured by the Wehrmacht, was recaptured and turned over to the Soviet counterintelligence service, SMERSH. Moscow would execute Bogdanov, along with five other former Red Army generals, on April 19, 1950.
1944: One hundred sixty‐eight captured Allied airmen, including Phil Lamason, accused by the Gestapo of being ‘terror fliers’, arrived at Buchenwald concentration camp. Meanwhile, the Battle of Romania began with a major Soviet Union offensive.
1985: Wilhelm Meendsen‐Bohlken, Axis fleet commander, expired.
:::

This entry was edited (1 year ago)

The Spanish government was the only ‘neutral’ state that organized its own military force for the Third Reich


Quoting Stanley G. Payne’s Franco and Hitler: Spain, Germany, and World War II, pages 147–8:

There is no question that [Operation Barbarossa] provided the [Third Reich] with an international propaganda windfall, at least in its early months, and even roused considerable enthusiasm in neutral and largely pro‐British Portugal. Of all the independent nonbelligerent states, however, only the Spanish government organized its own military force to fight beside the [Wehrmacht].

[…]

On the first day of recruiting, quite a few workers were noticed among the volunteers, yet the bulk of them came from the middle classes and especially from the universities. As in Italy, Germany, and Romania, the fascist movement in Spain had been especially strong among students, so easily drawn to any new radicalism. Indeed, without them it might not have survived its first years, and the Blue Division, particularly in its initial period, probably had the largest quotient of students, intellectuals, and writers of any military unit in Spanish history.

An examination of the social origins of 4,500 volunteers from Madrid and Barcelona revealed that no less than 17 percent were students, followed by white‐collar employees (empleados), with 14 percent.^3^ Many Falangist leaders volunteered, so that among the initial recruits were five members of its National Council, the head of its student syndicate, and eight provincial chiefs, as well as a considerable number of lesser luminaries.

One of Franco’s youngest cabinet ministers, the decorated Civil War veteran José Antonio Girón, the régime’s first minister of labor, also volunteered but was not permitted to leave his ministry. Twenty‐nine members of Soviet nationalities who volunteered were accepted, as well as one German Jewish officer, Erich Rose, who had lengthy experience in the Civil War after earlier being expelled from the [Wehrmacht] by [Berlin].^4^ There were also a number [159] of Portuguese as well as a few Moroccans, the latter among the noncommissioned officers.


From David Brydan’s Transnational Exchange in the Nazi New Order: The Spanish Blue Division and its Medical Services (mirror):

The Blue Division and its medical services shed new light on the phenomenon of cooperation and exchange in the New Order in a number of different ways. Firstly, they show how it was experienced by those from outside the core Axis states of Germany and Italy, and beyond the minority of ideologically committed fascist fellow travellers.

Although there were many enthusiastic fascists and philo‐Nazis within the Blue Division, volunteers came from across the Francoist political spectrum and were often hostile to the Spanish fascism of the Falange and distrustful of elements of [the NSDAP’s] ideology.


The implication here is that some of these volunteers were generic anticommunists.

[M]any people across Europe engaged with the New Order as a genuine forum for transnational exchange and cooperation. In part, this cooperation built on the networks of transnational fascism which had been emerging from the 1920s, attracting those fascists and philo‐Nazis driven by a sense of ideological and political affinity with the Axis cause.^7^ But it also attracted a much wider range of Europeans, drawn to the myriad events and organisations established under the auspices of the New Order which brought together young people, women, students, artists, sportsmen, scientists and other groups.^8^

[…]

Although only a small fraction of the Axis forces fighting on the Eastern Front, the 47,000 Blue Division volunteers represented the largest cohort of Spaniards to come into direct contact with [the Third Reich] and [Axis]‐occupied Europe.^12^ Many of the volunteers believed that they were fighting for a common European cause, defending the continent and its civilization against the threat of Asiatic bolshevism, as both Spanish and [Axis] propaganda constantly reminded them.

But they also gained direct experience of life within the European New Order they were supposedly fighting for. The journey to the frontline took them through France, Germany, Poland and the Baltic states. For most, it was the first time in their lives they had left Spain. Often travelling on foot, it brought them into contact with [Wehrmacht] and civilian authorities, local populations displaying varying degrees of enthusiasm or hostility, and camps and columns of Soviet prisoners.

At the front itself they fought alongside their German comrades and lived among Russian civilians. In the rear areas they experienced the multinational environment of towns such as Riga, Vilnius and Königsberg, where displaced civilians from across the region and mobilised soldiers from the four corners of Europe rubbed shoulders with cosmopolitan pre‐war populations disrupted by the effects of war, occupation and extermination.


From Xosé M. Núñez Seixas’s Russia and the Russians in the Eyes of the Spanish Blue Division soldiers, 1941–4 (mirror):

[T]he experience of Spanish soldiers on the Eastern Front, the occupation policy of the Blue Division and its rôle in the [Axis’s] war of extermination remain largely unexplored. It is commonly held that the Spanish volunteers, much like the [Regio Esercito], displayed more benign behaviour towards the civilian population than did the [Wehrmacht]. Although this tendency can generally be confirmed, both Italians and Spaniards were indeed undesired occupying forces within the context of a brutal war.^2^

Spanish soldiers were known for stealing, requisitioning, rape and occasional acts of isolated violence; but also for the almost complete absence of collective, organized retaliation, for good treatment of Soviet prisoners, a low profile in the anti‐partisan struggle, and their non‐involvement in any direct or indirect participation in the Holocaust, albeit in an area where virtually no Jews remained after September 1941.^3^


(Emphasis added in all cases.)

See also: Axis Internationalism: Spanish Health Experts and the Nazi ‘New Europe’, 1939–1945 (mirror).


:::spoiler Click here for events that happened today (April 4).
1884: Isoroku Yamamoto, Axis admiral, came to be.
1889: Angelo Iachino, Axis vice admiral, existed.
1932: Adolf Schicklgruber spoke at the Berliner Schloss at Lustgarten during the German Presidential Election of 1932.
1933: The Third Reich began to exclude Jewish lawyers, and Berlin replaced the Works’ Councils (Betriebsträte) with ‘Trust Councils’ (Vertrauensträte) elected by anticommunist candidates drawn up by works managers.
1938: The Imperialists and the Chinese continued dueling each other in Tai'erzhuang.
1939: As Bratislava and Budapest ended the Slovak–Hungarian War (Little War) by signing a peace treaty, Imperial troops occupied the Paracel Islands in the South China Sea, but the fascists lost their Spanish Nationalist air ace Garcia Morato (with forty kills during the Civil War) when his Fiat CR32 Chirri aircraft crashed, due to engine failure, whilst performing for a newsreel take.
1940: Aktion 14 F 13 began; this was the first documented proof that the Third Reich conducted mass extermination of disabled humans in concentration camps.
1941: Berlin promised ambassador Matsuoka that in case of war between U.S. and the Empire of Japan, the Third Reich would lend assistance. Likewise, Axis troops captured Benghazi, Libya, which was evacuated by British forces on the previous day, and they pushed further east to the Green Mountain. Axis raider Thor and British armed merchant cruiser Voltaire engaged in a 55‐minute gun duel west of the Cape Verde Islands at the distance of nine kilometers. The Axis sunk Voltaire, slaughtering seventy‐four, but Thor picked up 195 survivors.
1942: Sixty‐two Luftwaffe Stuka dive bombers and seventy other bombers escorted by fifty‐nine Bf 109 fighters assaulted the Soviet fleet at Kronstadt near Leningrad in the afternoon, damaging various Soviet vessels. After dark, He 111 bombers, some of which had participated in the Kronstadt attack in the afternoon, bombed Leningrad. Similarly, Axis aircraft bombed areas of Mandalay, Burma, killing more than two thousand folk, most of whom were civilians.
1943: The SS Central Construction Office reported to Auschwitz that Crematorium V had been completed in Auschwitz II‐Birkenau, and its administration now turned over to the camp administration. According to the firm that built the crematorium, J. A. Topf und Söhne, it had the capacity to cremate 768 bodies each day.
1944: A transport from two hospitals and one psychiatric institution in Trieste, Italy arrived at Auschwitz; sixty‐two of the nearly three hundred patients died en route, while the Axis exterminated another 103 upon arrival.
1945: Axis troops counterattacked Soviet forces near Moravska‐Ostrava and Nitra in Czechoslovakia, and Axis pilot Unteroffzier Eduard Schallmoser destroyed a P‐38 fighter by ramming its tail. He was only able to fly his damaged fighter partly home before he had to bail out.
1949: The anticommunists formed the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
:::

On this day 83 years ago, the Kingdom of Hungary declared war on the Soviets (and the liberals approved)


The media in this post is not displayed to visitors. To view it, please go to the original post.

Pictured: Foreign Minister Lászlo Bárdossy (first from right) walks in front of a guard of honor. Visible: Hungarian Ambassador to Berlin Döme Sztójay (first from left) and SS Obergruppenführer Baron von Eberstein (second from left). Dated 1941.

Quoting Deborah S. Cornelius’s Hungary in World War II: Caught in the Cauldron, pages 148–152:

Confirming the doubts of Rundstedt, the progress of Army Group South was slower than that of the other two army groups; the Seventeenth Army pushed forward only ten to twelve kilometers on the first day. On June 25, 1941, the chief of staff of Army South repeated his request for the intervention of troops from [the Kingdom of] Hungary. He pointed out that this would be a significant unburdening of the Seventeenth Army’s south wing and help the attack of the Eleventh Army.

The answer came from the Oberkommando des Heeres (OKH), [the Third Reich’s] High Command of the Army—“the question of Hungarian participation is still open.”⁶ Halder noted in his diary of June 25: “Hungary’s collaboration would be desirable. Hungary, however, wants to be asked officially. The Führer will not do that, for political reasons.”⁷

All this changed on June 26 at a few minutes after one o’clock in the afternoon when three unidentified planes dropped bombs on the Hungarian city of Kassa. The bombs struck the post and telegraph office, a settlement and several homes, leaving several dead and a larger number wounded. One bomb failed to explode and was found to be of Russian manufacture. The planes then disappeared toward the southeast, the direction from which they had come.

The local military authorities concluded that Soviet planes were responsible, but to this day the question of responsibility has not been solved. Many Hungarians believed that the [Third Reich] had used the bombing as a trick to bring [the Kingdom of] Hungary into the war, but absolutely no German documents have turned up to support this thesis. The Russians denied responsibility.⁸

When the news reached Budapest, the minister of defense, Károly Bartha, and Chief of the General Staff Henrik Werth rushed to tell the regent what had happened. Horthy’s immediate reaction was indignation—the country had been attacked! His sense of honor required that he act.

On the spot he ordered that appropriate retaliatory measures be initiated, but it is not clear if he was thinking of a declaration of war or only reprisals. Horthy, who was [supposedly] apolitical, was always prone to making quick impulsive decisions, which he could be talked out of later by calmer minds. His respected advisors, Moricz Esterházy or István Bethlen, had been able to talk the regent out of hasty actions in other situations, but both Bartha and Werth were eager for war.⁹

By the time Bárdossy heard of the incident and reached the regent, Horthy had already given the order for retaliatory measures. A career diplomat, Bárdossy had never had close relations with Horthy, and he did not attempt to counter the impulsive decision. He believed that Horthy wanted immediate action—and that this action would be war. He explained that he must first go to the Council of Ministers since only they could make a declaration of a state of war.

Horthy seems to have believed that after council deliberation Bárdossy would return to him with the decision for his approval, but Bárdossy believed he had been ordered to put a decision on war into effect. Therefore there was no need to consult the regent further. Later Horthy charged that Bárdossy had presented him with a fait accompli.¹⁰

One hour and twenty minutes after bombs fell on Kassa, Bárdossy summoned an emergency session of the Council of Ministers, which met so hurriedly that several members were missing. Dezso Laky, minister of public supply, arrived only at the end, and Ferenc Zsindely, secretary of state, was absent, while Antal Ullein‐Reviczky, head of the foreign ministry’s press division, was attending a lunch party and sent a deputy in his stead.

In that short time Bárdossy had made up his mind to a complete reversal of his whole policy. At the council meeting he announced that the Soviets had bombed Kassa, and in his view Hungary should declare that as a consequence she regarded herself as in a state of war.

Opinions were divided. Minister of Defense Bartha condemned the Soviet attack as an uncalled‐for provocation and made vigorous pleas to carry out reprisals. The moderate minister of the interior, Ferenc Keresztes‐Fischer, thought it was too early to declare a state of war, reasoning that the bombing was not that serious an action. He believed the army was not strong enough, and that it was against the country’s interests to start a war against a great power.

Bálint Hóman, the pro‐[Reich] minister of culture, and Reményi‐Schneller, minister of finance, both supported the prime minister, claiming that [the Kingdom of] Hungary should not be the only one left out of the action. [The Kingdoms of] Italy and Romania had joined in the war the day of the [Wehrmacht’s] attack and Slovakia had also joined.¹¹

Bárdossy summed up the opinion of the council, that all were in favor of reprisals, and all, except Keresztes‐Fischer, were in favor of stating that Hungary regarded herself as being in a state of war with Russia, but participation in military action should be as limited as possible. Evidently no vote was taken. The ministers did not seem to have realized that Bárdossy’s summing‐up was equivalent to agreement to a binding resolution.

According to the official record of the meeting signed by Bárdossy, the ministers’ decision to declare the existence of a state of war between [the Kingdom of] Hungary and the USSR was unanimous, although at Bárdossy’s trial in 1945, it was charged that he had falsified the evidence—that four ministers had voted against the decision.¹²

Without consulting the regent, Bárdossy immediately drafted and issued a communiqué describing the attack on Kassa as an act of unprovoked aggression by the USSR and ended by stating that in consequence “Hungary considered herself from this moment on as at war with the U.S.S.R.”

Later, on the advice of Ullein‐Reviczky, he modified the wording to state: “In consequence of the repeated attacks made by Soviet aircraft, contrary to international law, against Hungarian territory, Hungary considers a state of war to have come into being between herself and the USSR.”¹³ That day he did not inform the regent of his communiqué.

The question remains why Bárdossy made the fatal step so precipitously. The Kassa incident was no casus belli; Molotov strongly denied Moscow’s involvement.¹⁴ There was no overt German pressure. Bárdossy said the step was inevitable but in later years historians have blamed him directly for [the Kingdom of] Hungary’s entry into war. Since the fall of State Socialism in 1989, many World War II officers and political figures charged with war crimes have been rehabilitated, but there is still no discussion of clearing Bárdossy’s name.

Bárdossy had been appointed prime minister hastily, immediately following Teleki’s suicide. Although acknowledged to be brilliant, he was often impatient. He could be charming and had been an excellent representative for [the Kingdom of] Hungary in England, and successful in Bucharest in improving Hungarian–Romanian relations, but he was a novice in domestic politics, not familiar with parliamentary rules and conduct.

A proud and sensitive man, he was prone to make quick decisions and to make them on his own. Not patient with those around him who were less bright, he was not good at consulting others nor taking advice. To add to his impatience he had serious stomach problems. It seems that at this point he had come to the decisions on what he believed to be the correct course.¹⁵

The next day, June 27, Bárdossy appeared before Parliament. The standing chairman, Jeno Szinyei Merse, announced with outrage that there had been an air attack by the Soviet Air Force the day before, but there was no mention that the identity of the attackers could be questioned. He then introduced Prime Minister Bárdossy to acclamation by the House (“Hear! Hear!”). Bárdossy repeated the news of the Soviet attack. “Thus the Hungarian Royal Government decided that as a result of the attack a state of war exists between Hungary and the Soviet Union.”¹⁶

The parliamentary record states that his news was greeted by long and lively cheering and clapping from all sides. From the extreme Right came the shouts: “Out with the Social Democrats.” Bárdossy continued, stating that the Hungarian army would take the necessary measures. There was no further parliamentary discussion, the house continued with a long drawn‐out debate on the need to further restrict the activities of the Jews.¹⁷

According to a later report there were at most forty representatives present. The one or two Smallholders and Social Democrat representatives immediately left the chamber and the loud clapping came from the ten to fifteen Arrow Cross representatives. The leader of one opposition party, Rassay, asked as he left the chamber, “Are you happy about this?” The government party representatives were surprised and clapped politely.¹⁸

Bárdossy did not even appear in the upper house which received the same notification read out by the president. His failure to consult the upper house, which was taken as an insult, greatly reduced his esteem in that body.

The declaration of war was not unpopular—none of those in the opposition, neither the liberal parties nor the Social Democrats challenged the declaration. The prominent opposition leader, Bajcsy Zsilinsky, even sent a message to Bárdossy praising him for defending the country’s interests, and the military were especially jubilant.

Hungarians had been permeated with anti‐Bolshevism ever since the catastrophic Soviet Republic of 1919, and the officers, indoctrinated with an anti‐Bolshevik attitude, were infatuated with Germany and its technical advances and rapid victories. A number of the younger officers saw in Hitler’s social reforms a new society. Three military commissions, which had gone to [the Third Reich] in 1940–41, were unanimous in their opinion that no power on the continent could defeat the Wehrmacht.

In light of [Fascism’s] rapid victories everyone thought that it would be a short war. There was no thought that [the Kingdom of] Hungary’s participation might entangle the country in hostilities with the West.

But the simple peasant or worker felt no enthusiasm at the prospect of fighting [Soviets], who meant nothing to him. Closer association with [the Third Reich] was still unpopular among many Hungarians. The regent preserved a curious reticence about the war. It was many days before any Hungarian paper suggested that Horthy had ordered the campaign and he signed no order to the troops. In a speech given on June 29 to unveil a monument to the World War I fallen, he did not include a single reference to the new war.


(Emphasis added.)


:::spoiler Click here for other events that happened today (June 27).
1906: Erich Traub, Axis scientist, was born in Asperglen.
1933: The German National Front (formerly the German National People’s Party, DNVP) voted to dissolve itself before the Chancellery compelled it to do so.
1934: Sepp Dietrich requested the Reichwehr authorities for arms so that the Liebstandarte could carry out what he called ‘a secret and most important mission ordered by the Führer’ (read: the slaughter of dissident elements within the SA).
1939: Aircraft of Imperial Army 2nd Air Brigade attacked the Soviet airfield at Tamsagbulag, Mongolia Area, China. Both sides lost several aircraft.
1940: Fascist submarine U‐47 shelled Norwegian merchant ship Lenda off southwest Ireland at 0400 hours; somebody died but twenty‐seven did not. At 1700 hours, U‐47 shelled Netherlandish tanker Leticia in the same area; twenty‐five of the crew took to lifeboats, while the other three who dove into the water were rescued by U‐47 and brought to the lifeboats; the crew of U‐47 offered the survivors first aid material, sausages, and wine before leaving! Aside from that, the Wehrmacht reached the Franco‐Spanish border, and the Kingdom of Romania unhappily ceded Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina to the Soviet Union.
1941: The Axis captured Bobruisk in Byelorussia and Przemysl in Poland, and in Kaunas, a group of Lithuanian anticommunists gathered more than fifty Jewish men in a horse stable and beat them violently with iron bars in public view. None of the victims survived the Lietukis Garage Massacre.
:::

On this day 83 years ago, Finland redeclared war on the Soviets & it joined Operation Barbarossa


The media in this post is not displayed to visitors. To view it, please go to the original post.

The media in this post is not displayed to visitors. To view it, please go to the original post.

Pictured: Axis General von Falkenhorst meeting Finnish General Hjalmar Siilasvuo on June 24, 1941.

Few anticommunists have the audacity to explicitly and unambiguously defend Operation Barbarossa, but Finland’s participation is an important exception. This is when generic anticommunists take a break from repetitively equating us with the Fascists and instead portray them as ‘lesser evils’ whom we forced Finland to choose, otherwise we would have either enslaved or exterminated the entire Finnish population (just because). Whereas presenting facts explaining the German–Soviet Pact of 1939 as anything other than sheer sadism is an offence worse than Shoah denial, justifying Finland’s alliance with the Third Reich is more than welcome.

Quoting Henrik Meinander in Finland in World War II: History, Memory, Interpretations, pages 71–4:

The Finnish government and population were […] strategically and mentally prepared for the new war. In fact, the Finnish Army and its related services would from the start mobilize a larger proportion (16 percent) of the country’s population than any other European nation at the time. In the morning of 22 June 1941, Hitler made his famous radio speech, in which he declared war on the Soviet Union and mentioned that “the brave Finnish comrades‐in‐arms” would take part in this huge offensive.

The latter information did not correspond with the Finnish strategy of disguising their participation in the war as a defensive reaction to Soviet attacks. [Berlin’s] authorities thus softened their formulation the same day by describing Finnish involvement as “shouldering a European anti‐communist frontier” together with [the Third Reich] and [the Kingdom of] Romania.³¹

The dilemma was soon solved. The Soviet Air Forces directed strikes against Finnish airports and other military sites used by [Axis] armed forces. Civilian targets were also attacked. This gave the Finnish parliament reason to announce on 25 June 1941 that Finland was again at war with the Soviet Union.

Next day President Ryti gave a radio speech in which he accused the Soviet Union of beginning the war and described the new conflict as Finland’s second defense war. He carefully avoided mentioning the military preparations together with [the Third Reich], but emphasized that the war was now fought together with the “successful German armed forces,” which would guarantee a lucky outcome of the defense war and put a definite end to the eastern threat to Finland.³²

During the first month of war, the [Fascist]–Finnish master strategy worked out according to the original plans, as the [Wehrmacht] had reached the outskirts of Leningrad at rapid speed and the Finnish Army began its own offensive north of Lake Ladoga with success.

Mannerheim was also eager to give bold statements. He had already given the new war a Finnish expression, the Continuation War. On 10 July 1941, he revealed in a famous order of the day—the so‐called “Scabbard Order”—that the aim of the offensive was not only to reconquer the territories lost in the Winter War: “The freedom of Karelia and a great Finland are glimmering in front of us in the enormous avalanche of world historic events.”

The Western Powers required an immediate explanation for Mannerheim’s order from the Finnish government, which answered that his vision did not reflect an official line. This was not a fully honest explanation. Even if [Helsinki] and [Berlin] had not agreed upon any specific future borderlines, they had certainly agreed on a plan, in which the Finnish Army should advance far into Soviet Eastern Karelia and keep its positions there until the war was over.

This was indeed what the Finnish Army did. The Finnish offensive was decisively facilitated by the simultaneous [Wehrmacht] operations, which forced the Red Army to split its forces along its whole western border. In early December 1941, the Finnish Army reached its intended positions in Eastern Karelia and was called to a halt by Mannerheim. The Finnish leadership was not prepared to deliver more than originally promised to its [Fascist] brother‐in‐arms, and this was due to two things.

First, the [Wehrmacht’s] eastward offensive had been a swift Blitzkrieg only during the first two months. In the autumn of 1941, it was increasingly obstructed by both the Russian winter, which arrived early and was even harsher than usual, and the [determined] resistance of the Red Army.

In such a situation the Finnish leadership was cautious not to let the Army bleed more than necessary and rejected repeatedly [Berlin’s] requests for a stronger support for their attacks on Leningrad and the Murmansk Railway. Plus the longer the war continued, the more [that] the Finns had to consider the possibility that the Soviet Union could survive and even beat its enemies. This prospect was also partially behind the second reason for the Finnish resistance to mount further offensive operations.

Despite the outbreak of the war, the Finnish government had maintained diplomatic ties to Great Britain and the United States, which generally speaking stood ideologically much closer to Finland than the [Third Reich]. Regardless of how the war would end, the Finnish leadership was thus strongly motivated to preserve good relations with the West as much as possible.

Throughout the war, Finland rejected an official political alliance with [the Third Reich] and claimed consistently in its westward communication that Finland fought its own defensive war against the Soviet Union. On 11 November 1941, the Finnish government sent a lengthy explanation to Washington DC, in which it was emphasized that Finland fought its own war free of any political bonds to [the Third Reich].³³

The timing for this statement was not a coincidence. The Western Powers had repeatedly demanded a Finnish withdrawal from the war and sharpened their voice in the autumn of 1941, when the Finnish Army began to threaten the railway connection between Murmansk and Central Russia, via which a large proportion of the Western material support to the Soviet Union was delivered. Great Britain had promised its Soviet ally to declare war on Finland if the Finns did not halt their offensive.

In November 1941, it sent this ultimatum to the Finnish government, which however neither for military nor diplomatic reasons could reveal that the request would very shortly be fulfilled. On 7 December, the Finnish Army had reached its most eastern destination and halted its offensive for good.

But this was too late. The day before, on the Finnish Independence Day, the British government declared war on Finland, and from that moment the 3.7 million Finns were officially fighting against not only the mighty Soviet Union but also the whole British Commonwealth. Even if their armed forces never met on the battlefield, the British war declaration undoubtedly complicated the Finnish diplomacy and resulted in Finland having to also sign a peace treaty with Great Britain in Paris in 1947.

As is known, early December 1941 was also a turning point in the war from a global perspective. The same day as the Finnish Army halted its offensive in Soviet Eastern Karelia, [Axis] Air Forces conducted a devastating strike on Pearl Harbor. Within a few days of the outbreak of the Pacific War, [Berlin] had also declared war on the United States, which meant that the conflict had truly escalated into world war.

The Axis Powers still had the initiative, but self‐evidently the American entry into the war had a decisive impact on developments in the longer run. Within a month, the consequences of the Pacific War were also felt at the Finnish–Soviet front.

Stalin had received advance information of the [Axis] attack south‐ and eastward in the Pacific, and in November 1941 he had already ordered the transfer of 20 Soviet divisions from the Far East to the European war scene. This gave the Red Army a momentous boost in the defense of Moscow, and in January 1942, the Red Army also increased its pressure on the Finnish–[Fascist] front sector to secure the threatened Murmansk Railway connection.³⁴

The Finnish High Command naturally followed the development on this larger war scene and had by then become increasingly pessimistic about the possibilities of [an Axis] victory on the Eastern Front. During the winter of 1941–42, Marshal Mannerheim also received alarming reports about how the [Fascists] had gravely missed their chance to win over the population of the conquered areas in the Soviet Union by treating them with horrific brutality.

This not only destroyed the credibility of the anti‐communist arguments in [Axis] propaganda, but also cast a shadow on their Finnish brother‐in‐arms, who had emphasized that they, too, fought a war against communism and for the freedom of the Karelian people.


(Emphasis added. See here for more.)


:::spoiler Click here for events that happened today (June 26).
1933: SS‐Gruppenführer Theodor Eicke became the commandant of Dachau concentration camp in southern Germany, replacing Hilmar Wäckerle, and the Fascists commissioned Gorch Fock into service. Similarly, I‐68 launched at the Kure Naval Arsenal.
1936: The Wehrmacht began to exclude Jews from service (though it would never complete this task). Meanwhile, the Focke‐Wulf Fw 61 V1 twin‐rotor helicopter, piloted by Ewald Rohlfs, made its first flight of about half a minute duration. The Fw 61 was the world’s first completely successful helicopter design.
1938: Imperial Special Naval Landing Force troops landed behind Chinese lines at Madang, Jiangxi Province and captured the town.
1939: The Gestapo ordered all Czechs deemed unwilling to work, politically active, or having anti‐German beliefs to be placed in concentration camps.
1940: Berlin suggested that Bucharest give in and satisfy the Soviet demands to territory in Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina; the Fascist bourgeoisie was fearful that Romanian resistance might lead to a Soviet occupation of the entire Kingdom of Romania, which would threaten the oil and fodder upon which the Wehrmacht depended. Wolfgang Falck officially became the commanding officer of the Luftwaffe’s nightfighters, Nachtjagdfliegerdienst; after sundown the Luftwaffe bombed the steelworks at Scunthorpe, Lincolnshire, England. Fascist submarine U‐29 stopped Greek ship Dimitris with a shot across her bow off Cape Finisterre, Spain at 1530 hours. After the crew abandoned ship, the Greek ship sunk from gunfire.
:::


Percentage of ‘non-Germanic’ troops who helped start Operation Barbarossa


Finland mobilized a greater proportion of its small population than any of the other combatants, including Germany (476,000 men from 3.7 million inhabitants). […] Relative to the Finnish population (3.7 million), this was a greater mobilization than in any other country involved in the Second World War. […] Together [Berlin’s] allies in 1941 mobilized well over 700,000 troops for the war against the Soviet Union[.]


— David Stahel


This entry was edited (1 year ago)

Denmark’s volunteers in the Waffen SS


(Mirror.)

On April 23, 1940 no more than two weeks after the [Fascist] invasion of Denmark and Norway, Himmler ordered the establishment of a Waffen SS unit which was to include volunteers from these two countries: The SS Standarte Nordland. The recruitment of Scandinavians to Nordland was designed to overcome the strict limits imposed on the growth of the Waffen SS by the Wehrmacht. The Wehrmacht had established a near‐monopoly on recruiting in Germany, forcing the Waffen SS to look outside Germany in its search for manpower.

In the end around 13,000 Danish citizens volunteered for [Fascist] armed service during the Second World War, some 7,000 of whom enlisted. The vast majority — around 12,000 — volunteered for the Waffen SS and the organization admitted around 6,000. The greater part of these Danes served in three different formations: Frikorps Danmark (The Danish Legion), SS Division Wiking and, after the disbandment of the so‐called legions in 1943, in SS Division Nordland. Approximately 1,500 Danish volunteers hailed from the German minority in southern Jutland and served mainly in the Division Totenkopf and to some extent in the 1st SS Brigade.


(Emphasis added, because nobody can excuse these anticommunists by saying that somebody ‘forced’ them to serve.)

Up until June 1941 recruitment did not make serious progress, but the [Axis] assault on the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941 made hitherto politically sceptical groups potential volunteers. The anticommunist theme now became dominant in recruitment propaganda designed to appeal to right‐wing nationalist groups who were not necessarily [Fascists].

Furthermore, physical requirements for volunteers diminished in subsequent years, as the engagement at the eastern front took a heavy toll in human lives. Right‐wing nationalist, but non‐Nazi groups were encouraged to enlist on the grounds that the war against the Soviet Union was a crusade to “protect Europe against Bolshevism”.

[…]

With 1,200 men Frikorps Danmark was sent to Demyansk south of Novgorod in May 1942. In less than three months the corps experienced the loss of close to 350 men who were either killed or wounded.¹⁰ After a one‐month refreshment and propaganda leave in Denmark the corps returned to the front in November 1941. Originally, Frikorps Danmark was supposed to join 1st SS Brigade in Byelorussia in its indiscriminate killing of civilians in areas associated with Soviet partisans.¹¹

However, due to the deteriorating situation at the front both the 1st SS Brigade and the Frikorps were instead sent to frontline duty at the Russian town of Nevel, some 400 kilometers west of Moscow. In the spring of 1943 — as a consequence of further losses and inadequate reinforcements — the corps was down to 633 men and was withdrawn from the frontline.¹²

[…]

Naturally education of the rank and file was on a different level but incorporated nonetheless an endless number of ideological elements, from ordinary lectures in Weltanschauung to bayonet practice on Jewish‐looking cardboard figures.²⁶ Correspondence also illustrates how several Danish volunteers identified with [Fascist] values.

But whereas it is easily shown how many Danish volunteers became radical anti‐Semites and otherwise ideologically inflamed, it is less easy to document the extent to which the Danish Waffen SS soldiers were involved in criminal actions against civilians and enemy POWs. Unfortunately, only a limited number of official documents related to the Waffen SS field units in question (such as war diaries and orders‐of‐the‐day) are available today. […] Nevertheless we can document a number of incidents.

During Frikorps Danmark’s first frontline engagement in the so‐called Demyansk pocket near Lake Illmen in northwest Russia, a trooper tells his diary that a [Soviet] POW was shot by a Danish Waffen SS volunteer, apparently because he stole cigarettes from the troops.²⁸ The diary also mentions that a [Soviet] boy soldier around 12 was sentenced to death because he attempted to escape a prison camp.

Furthermore, evidence from different sources suggests that in a specific attack that included most of Frikorps Danmark a number of Russian POWs were shot in retaliation for the death of Frikorps commander von Schalburg. Von Schalburg was killed during the early phase of the assault and this apparently enraged the Danes. A Danish officer wrote home, “no prisoners were taken that day”.²⁹

One especially brutal description, concerning the killing of a civilian Jew, also dates from the Demyansk period. It is one of the very few clear‐cut illustrations of how ideology and war crimes could be directly related. Thus another diary‐writing soldier notes the following:

A Jew in a greasy Kafkan walks up to beg some bread, a couple of comrades get a hold of him and drag him behind a building and a moment later he comes to an end. There isn’t any room for Jews in the new Europe, they’ve brought too much misery to the European people.³⁰

After the disbandment of the Frikorps Danmark the men were transferred to the newly established Division Nordland and sent to Yugoslavia during the fall of 1943. Here they became involved in a very brutal fight with local partisans. On at least one occasion Danes from “Regiment Danmark” burned down an entire village from which shots had been fired, and despite finding no adult men there they apparently killed the inhabitants.³¹

The Danish officer Per Sørensen relates a story that might be addressing the same situation or perhaps one like it. In a letter that escaped censorship by travelling with a colleague to his parents, he brags about having killed 200 “reds” without suffering a single casualty.³²

[…]

Another Dane, the doctor Carl Værnet, was among the doctors in [Axis] service who conducted medical experiments on inmates in the camps. During autumn 1944 in the Buchenwald concentration camp Værnet implanted an artificial “sexual gland” in 15 homosexual or effeminate male inmates in order “to cure them” from their “wrong” sexuality. The experiments were authorized by Himmler personally.

Though some of the prisoners submitted to Værnets “treatment” died, Værnet managed to avoid a post‐war trial, despite undergoing short internment and investigation by the Danish authorities.³⁹


(Emphasis added in all cases. As always, the examples included in this excerpt were by no means the only ones from which to choose.)


:::spoiler Click here for events that happened today (October 2).

1847: Paul von Hindenburg, conservative who helped promote the NSDAP to institutional power, was born.
1935: Benito Mussolini announced amid a large gathering of ministers, state secretaries and specially selected foreign dignitaries that war with Ethiopia was imminent.
1938: Alexandru Averescu, profascist Romanian, dropped dead.
1944: The Wehrmacht terminated the Warsaw Uprising.
:::

This entry was edited (6 months ago)

Italian Fascists on the Eastern Front regularly handed Jews over to the Third Reich


Today’s excerpt is a bit lengthy and takes approximately ten minutes to read. Simply put: while there appears to be no evidence of the Regio Esercito directly killing anybody on the Eastern Front for being Jewish, it was nevertheless committed to handing Jews over to the Wehrmacht so that it could do the dirty work of annihilating them.

The Regio Esercito also benefitted from antisemitism as many of its troops extorted Jews for goods, or purchased Jewish goods that ‘somehow’ ended up on the market. Many Fascist Italians were also aware that their allies were massacring Jews, but precious few of these Italians felt enough pity to help Jews avoid violence.

Now, here is where I learned all of this. Quoting Raffaello Pannacci in Operation Barbarossa and its Aftermath: New Approaches to a Complex Campaign, pages 3641:

Italian soldiers who went to the Eastern Front in 1941 and, most of all, who joined their comrades in 1942 were aware of fascist policies toward the Jews back home and were not new to persecutions, though they had not yet witnessed [the Third Reich’s] methods in Eastern Europe.⁸⁰

Politico-military propaganda repeatedly told them that the Soviet Union was a Jewish creation, that Jews were in control in that country, starved people, had better houses, and formed part of the notorious communist police. Soldiers had to distrust Jews, all of whom were communists and many of whom were possible spies and saboteurs.⁸¹

[Fascist Italy’s] commands managed to instill fear and hate into the soldiers’ minds before operations on Soviet soil started. Troops were forbidden “any purchase in Jewish shops”⁸² in Romania, and the Csir’s commander ordered that all soldiers be aware of the danger Jews represented as possible saboteurs: “No one must frequent Jews.”⁸³

In a carbon copy of a German order issued on 6 July, he affirmed that all acts of sabotage the Csir suffered in the first weeks of war were due to “individual communist elements, above all Jews.”⁸⁴ The commander of the Italian logistics corps defined Bolsheviks as “people dominated by Jews who would love to drown Christian civilization in blood and gold and crucify Jesus once again.”⁸⁵

The Carabinieri under the Csir, too, ascribed hostile actions to Jews, also due to the fact that they paid attention to widespread popular antisemitic sentiments.⁸⁶ Furthermore [these Axis] troops were joined by many army chaplains, namely relentless anticommunist Catholic priests who mixed religion and politics in their sermons and often had an antisemitic background.

Some of them, even in postwar memoirs, affirmed that the Holocaust was a punishment for denying Jesus and defined Ukrainian communists a “small rabble generally made of degenerate bastards of Jewish extraction.”⁸⁷ Such messages achieved their goal, at least with some of the troops.

In July 1941 a report on the soldiers’ morale made known that they looked “fairly suspiciously” on the Jewish population living in eastern Romania.⁸⁸ A sergeant of the Pasubio Division wrote: “The town was run by a Jew, as well as Jews were all the leaders and dealers. […] They were Jews and, as such, capitalists and loan sharks.”⁸⁹

A Blackshirt referred to Beltsy stating “This town housed Jews, horror and deceitfulness.”⁹⁰ Another soldier affirmed: “There’s so much misery. Bolshevism is a régime that’s only good for Jews, who had any kind of privilege; everyone else was treated as a slave and was ordered around at gunpoint.”⁹¹ Letters and diaries show contrasting sentiments. Aged people, women, and children being “shot[,] most of whom for the sole crime of being Jews,” arose a soldier’s pity, but this did not alter his belief: “The current war aims to beat down Jewry.”⁹²

An officer saw Jews being used as mine removers and thought that was too harsh, though “the Jewish race he said has its own sins to pay for.”⁹³ A soldier noted that some officers faced with the “Jewish tragedy” went so far as to show “despicable pietism toward a loathsome race who gave rise to the war.”⁹⁴

[The Regio Esercito] soon witnessed mass murders and noticed that the massacre of “Russian Jews” included people who probably could not harm the occupying powers, such as “women and children […] killed in the most horrifying manner.”⁹⁵ A fascist reporter heard a soldier saying “They made us sign a statement binding us not to tell a thing about German atrocities on the Russian front.”⁹⁶

Troops’ and commands’ reactions, however, ranged from open disapproval to indifference and also included “approval for the [German] ally’s measures, especially when it came to the troops’ safety or the preservation of public order behind the front.”⁹⁷

Many Italians saw “mass shootings of Jews” and felt that they were witnessing a prearranged massacre.⁹⁸ Faced with such a sight—the Sim noted—soldiers only had “some pitiful sentiments toward the Jews being killed in hundreds by the Germans.”⁹⁹ On the contrary, according to their letters, they had a “severe reaction” when they saw that “Jews would have a franc-tireurs assignment.”¹⁰⁰

In sum, they seemed to passively accept the nature of the conflict on the Eastern Front, which immediately appeared as a war of extermination comparable to nothing [these Axis] troops had experienced so far.¹⁰¹

The soldiers’ sentiments are not surprising if we consider that [the Kingdom of] Italy housed few Jews and that they generally were neighborly with Italians. Antisemitism, at least among common people, often dealt with competition in business, especially after the war worsened everyone’s daily life.

On the contrary, Ukraine housed large Jewish communities often living beside the locals, which had kept some traditions and Semitic traits that [Axis] anti-Jewish propaganda referred to. Italians perceived Soviet Jews in a different manner, not to mention the fact that they were seen as spies and saboteurs.

Nonetheless the Regio Esercito had a partly independent policy toward “harmless” Jews. Italian commands were ordered to take a periodical census of the population and to report alleged partisans and Jews inhabiting their territories so that [the Wehrmacht] could have hostages to kill in case of a reprisal. [The Regio Esercito], also thanks to local collaborationists, made lists of Jews and communists and also guarded and jailed them, if necessary. Units normally assigned to list, guard and jail suspects, communists, and Jews were the Carabinieri, as we saw above.¹⁰²

Similarly, political commissars of the Red Army and partisans captured alive by [the Regio Esercito] had to be handed over to the [Wehrmacht, which] shot or hanged most of them. Inevitably, [the Regio Esercito] handed over to [Wehrmacht] units a certain number of Soviet Jews especially in 1941, but it is difficult to ascertain if/when they handed them over as such.

Still, in a clearly antisemitic atmosphere, [Fascist] Italians found it more important to assess if suspects were dangerous or belonged to partisan “bands,” after which they shot them or handed them over to the [Wehrmacht]. A Jew was found near an Italian communication cable, and locals advised to arrest him as a spy; Italians found more conclusive that he was a Polish refugee and did not look like he was causing damage, so they sent him to upper commands for further investigation.¹⁰³

Italians used to hire civilian workers and paid them in currency according to age, skill, and working hours. Soviet Jews could be hired, too, but they had no right to be paid and received “only board.” Such orders were issued at the beginning of the war and were confirmed later, when Italian commands ran their own territories.¹⁰⁴

There is almost no evidence on how these orders took shape, but testimonies of civilians inhabiting Italian-run territories attest that Italians paid Jewish workers neither in currency nor in kind.¹⁰⁵ An Italian captain in Balta hired two Jewish carpenters and daily remunerated them with four loaves, but his superior harshly reproved him for such a waste of bread.¹⁰⁶

A medical officer wrote in his diary that Field Hospital 235 had two Jewish workers. They were “assigned the most menial and exhausting tasks” such as cleaning latrines, and one of them fed “on waste, cigar ends and contumelies”: “Malicious and shameless soldiers taught them to present themselves saying ‘Good morning, I’m a …’ and then a latrine-tasty word.”¹⁰⁷

Furthermore it was not rare that Jews in the Regio Esercito’s territories were handed over to the [Wehrmacht], especially when the latter started sensing danger. In Horlivka, during April 1942, [Fascist] units handed over a group of sixty to one hundred Jews to the local branch of Sonderkommando 4b.¹⁰⁸ The aforementioned Lieutenant Villata, whose personal files are empty or tell nothing about his activity in the Soviet Union,¹⁰⁹ had a rôle in the anti-Jewish persecution, too.

On 5 May 1942, in Novoorlivka or maybe Shevchenko, Villata asked the Torino Division’s command to send a company “in the local ghetto with public order assignments due to the necessity to evacuate Jews”; “the company—it was said—will probably stay out all night.” Two days later, in Novoorlivka, soldiers of the same division arrested “three Jews trying to reach the enemy territory,”¹¹⁰ and during the next few days at least another five “suspects” were arrested in the same area by subunits.¹¹¹ Not by chance, on 5–6 May a Lancia 3/Ro truck under the Torino Division made a “transport [of] Jews.”¹¹²

In spring-summer 1942 the zone around Rykovo and Stalino, where Italians proved themselves “lenient,” became a “quiet oasis for all the Jews and communists who also poured in from all around.” The [Third Reich was] forced to ask [Fascist] Italian authorities to hand over hundreds of alleged partisans and Jews (including women and children), who were shot right after [the Regio Esercito] followed the [Third Reich’s] request.¹¹³ In such cases Italians took no action against Jews/communists because they were almost sure that [another Axis power] would, so they preferred to let their allies use violence, probably also in order to prevent partisan retaliation, as an Italian officer admitted.¹¹⁴

Furthermore, between May and June, [Fascist Italy’s] local units were involved in the deportation of the Jewish families of Krasny Gorodok (outskirts of Rykovo). According to locals’ testimonies, [the Regio Esercito] first isolated the Jewish families in expressly prepared barracks, then put them on trucks and transferred them to Horlivka, where the Jews finally vanished. Documents talk about five hundred persons deported and clearly refer to Villata and the Italian “gendarmerie.”¹¹⁵

Besides official operations, [these Axis] soldiers were aware that Jews in the occupied Soviet Union had no rights, could appeal no law, and could die sooner or later, so they tried to get money and goods from people belonging to the “Jewish race” either through theft or the promise of help. Such an instrumental use of the anti-Jewish persecution was not infrequent at the time.

Both in Stalino and Sinelnikove some [Fascist] Italians made abusive searches in Jewish houses in order to take away food and goods, also cooperating with [Axis] comrades and [collaborative] policemen.¹¹⁶ Collaborationist police in Rykovo, under Lieutenant Villata’s orders, sequestered 5,000 rubles belonging to a Jew, with Villata seizing half the money for alleged undercover operations.¹¹⁷

In Lviv, in September 1942, a group [from the Regio Esercito] made a Jewish family believe [that] they would help them escape to Hungary in order to avoid German persecutions. The Jews gave them jewels, raw gold, and a sum equivalent to more than €50,000. After being paid, the soldiers handed over the Jews to a […] Sonderkommando that immediately shot them.¹¹⁸

A reporter of the Fascist Political Police made known the case of an Italian lieutenant working in a liaison office in Lviv who was said to be selling secondhand radiotransmitters, clothes, and other goods coming from “shot Jews.”¹¹⁹

Italians were often aware of the origin of some goods circulating in the rear. An airman “who had a passion for music” was presented a piano by [Axis] comrades: “He asked where they found it, and they replied it was Jewish stuff coming from expropriations.”¹²⁰

In conclusion, in France or in the Balkans, for instance, Italy treated Jews better than Germany, and sometimes protected them, also refusing to hand them over to the [Wehrmacht]. This was often overstressed by the Italian military after the war in order to keep its distance from the [Axis]. Moral grounds must not be overlooked, but such policy was also due to [Fascist] Italy’s will to limit [foreign] interference in [its] territories forming part of mixed occupation areas.¹²¹

On the contrary, there could be no doubt about “who was effectively in control” on the Eastern Front, so Italians did not offer as much resistance as elsewhere, as they had no means to contradict Nazi policies in a [Reich]-led conflict.¹²²

Ascertained cases of Italians saving Jews on the Eastern Front are absolutely negligible,¹²³ whereas some Jewish women were taken aboard [Fascist] trains going to the front and sexually exploited in exchange for food and safety.¹²⁴ Postwar memoirs affirm that Jewish forced laborers in Polish and Ukrainian stations were offered food, as they aroused [the Regio Esercito’s] pity due to their living conditions.¹²⁵

Soldiers, however, also exchanged food for gold, jewels, and other goods the Jews had to give away in order to survive. An Alpino recalled how he and his comrades arrived at Piniug’s prison camp in possession of hidden “gold, rings, necklaces, watches” that they had previously gotten from Jews in exchange for bread.¹²⁶

In sum, for most of the soldiers, a yellow badge “was nothing but an oddity at the time and was worth at best a picture or a few words in a diary,” while after 1945 it became “the symbol of one of the worst crimes against humanity.”¹²⁷

[…]

There is no evidence [to our knowledge] that Italians personally killed Soviet Jews as such, but they persecuted them as suspects, undesirable elements, spies, and saboteurs and handed hundreds of them over to the [Wehrmacht]. In this case, too, Italian institutions and people preferred to forget actual (though limited) indications of Italian participation in the Holocaust.


(Emphasis added.)

This entry was edited (11 months ago)

Gender & Sexual Abuses during the Fascist Colonization of Ethiopia & Eritrea


Sensitive content

This entry was edited (1 year ago)

Eritrea under Fascism: an overview


The media in this post is not displayed to visitors. To view it, please go to the original post.

(This takes approximately ten minutes to read.)

How many of us can summarize Eritrea under Fascism? No more than a few, I suspect. In fact, I am sure that at least one person who reads this post will be unaware that Eritrea was under Fascism at all.

This unknowingness is easy to understand: the Fascists in Eritrea simply were not in the habit of committing obvious atrocities (with one important outlier) like massacres or imprisonments in concentration camps, as in Ethiopia, Libya, or Yugoslavia. Instead, the ways in which the Fascists oppressed Eritreans were often far subtler.

Since I am guessing that most of us know very little about this subject, this thread aims to fill in that gap. I’ll mostly be quoting from Tekeste Negash’s Italian Colonialism in Eritrea, 1882–1941, one of the few books on this subject, for this purpose, and I’ll try to keep this post at a manageable length.

Trade


Imports from Italy (most of which were probably for the colonists’ benefit) intensified under Fascism. Eritrea’s Italian imports numbered at 35,764 in 1920, before exploding into a massive 133,083 imports in 1925. It did decline to 89,731 in 1930, but what’s interesting is that that number is still greater than the imports of 1900, 1905, 1910, 1915, and 1920 combined.

Similarly, Eritrea’s exports to the fatherland proper numbered at 26,777 in 1920 before skyrocketing to 81,061 in 1925. The number declined to 42,687 in 1930 before ascending to 53,190 in 1934, almost more than half of the 1920 number. (Remember that the Great Depression started in 1929.) Page 40:

From the modest scale of the colony’s exports inherited by the Italians, the growth of the import/export trade as expressed in annual statistical reports appears rather striking. In 1900, Eritrea exported 2.8 million lire worth of products, while by 1933 exports had climbed to 62 million lire. From a little over nine million lire in 1900, imports jumped to the level of 177 million lire.

[…]

The sharp increase in exports from 1924 onwards, when compared with the 1915–24 period, was largely based on coffee imports from Arabia, which were immediately exported to Italy. The increase was also due to Eritrea’s position as an outlet for the Ethiopian import/export trade. Coffee exports, which never exceeded one million lire per annum until 1922, jumped to 26 million in 1924 and reached a peak of 33 million in 1928.⁴⁵

In most years between 1924 and 1933 the import/export figure contained an average of 50 million lire which had virtually nothing to do with the Eritrean economy. Moreover, the aggregate import/export figure does not in any way take into consideration the inflation of the lire.⁴⁶


Eritrea was Fascism’s most profitable colony in 1930, but even so the colonial economists considered this an underperformance. No matter: it sufficed as a dépôt of transit trade.

Coral salesmen at an Eritrean port.

Employment


While there was a capitalist sector, its spread was both slow and uneven. Pages 47–48:

In order to increase primitive accumulation Eritrean workers were offered precarious jobs and invariably low wages, thus compelling them to rely for survival on the pre‐capitalist economic system. […] The economic rôle of Eritreans was to perpetually supply labor for [Fascist] capital.⁸²

As far as the Eritreans were concerned, the colonial economy was a closed circuit where they could never aspire beyond the stage of selling their labour for wages, which were in turn so low that full proletarianization was virtually impossible.⁸³

[…]

As the colonial state kept labour costs to a level that would not discourage the inflow of capital, most of the Eritreans employed in the modern sector considered wages as supplementary to their main source of income. […] By providing salaried employment to between 10 and 15 per cent of the population, colonialism increased considerably the autonomy and independence of the colony against natural catastrophes, such as drought and famine.


Although it’s uneasy to say for sure, the number of Eritrean wage laborers in the economy’s productive sector during the 1930s probably ranged between 4,000 and 5,000, and they worked part‐time. This excludes Eritreans laboring outside of the colony, of which there were more than a few:

By 1939, more than 2,000 factories, chiefly operating with Eritrean laborers newly arrived from the surrounding countryside, produced everything from food and drug products (e.g., pasta, cooking oil, dried meat, and tobacco), to clothing (buttons and hides), to construction materials.


The Fascist war machine (or the economy’s destructive sector) was another story. Service might not have guaranteed citizenship, but it certainly guaranteed other privileges:

In so far as Eritreans were concerned, the colonial army had its own hierarchy, with promotion rewarded by higher salaries, privileges and a possible future post in the local colonial bureaucracy. Differences in salaries were based on rank and years of service.

Recruitment into the colonial army remained voluntary until the beginning of the 1930s, but once recruited the Eritrean soldier was obliged, if required, to go overseas. Soldiers sent to Libya were paid at double the rate of their normal pay in Eritrea.


The number of enlisted Eritreans, already in numbers as high as 10,000 in the prefascist period, only intensified under Fascism. Pg. 49:

Between May and the end of October of 1934, recruitment increased by 11,800, thus bringing the Eritrean colonial army to a total of 60,200 men.¹⁰⁵


General Visconti Prasca estimated that only 22,400 of these blokes received adequate training; 12,000 were poorly trained and another dozen thousand had no training at all. The issue for the Fascists, of course, was not the possible loss of many Black lives, but winning the war.

Eritrea’s economy was closely tied to military recruitment. Pg. 51:

That the recruitment of Eritreans to the colonial army ran counter to the economic interests of the colony can be illustrated by pointing out the British attitude to the problem during the Second World War.

In Ghana during the colonial period, the British worked under the assumption that they could not, without damaging the economy of the colony, recruit more than 2% of the total population or equivalent to about 9% of the active male labour force. In the Eritrean case, the [Fascists] had during the 1935–41 period a colonial army made up of about 40% of the active labour force.¹²¹


Two uniformed blokes in front of a building, presumably a recruitment center.

Settlers


Pages 51–53:

In 1931, there were 4,188 Italians.¹²² […] This ratio was complete changed from the early months of 1935 onwards. In a matter of a few months, Eritrea was transformed into a staging post and supply dépôt for the invading [Regio Esercito]. Between April 1935 and May 1936 more than 300,000 soldiers landed in Eritrea on their way to Ethiopia.

50,000 labourers arrived from [Fascist] Italy to tackle the enormous problems of transportation and accommodation. Eritrea became the nerve centre of the new empire [that] the [Fascists] were about to construct, and during the 1935–37 period the colonial economy gave way to a war economy.

[…]

In the ‘historic’ Eritrea (in contrast to the ‘New’ Eritrea created in 1936 with the incorporation of Tigrai) the Italian population increased from 4,600 in 1934 to nearly 75,000 in 1939.¹²³ Eritrea had accommodated Italians, approximately 15% of the entire Eritrean population, which according to the unpublished census of 1939 was said to be 614,353.¹²⁴

[…]

Thus the [Fascist] colonization of Ethiopia turned Eritrea into a colony of settl[ers], composed of colonists whose income was derived from industrial and commercial capital rather than from small‐scale agriculture. Accounting for nearly 15% of the entire population, the Italians in Eritrea were in a far stronger position than settlers in other colonies such as Kenya, and Southern Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe).


The Fascists did not forcibly confiscate Eritreans’ lands, for a few reasons: it made colonial rule more tolerable, thereby preserving stability, and perhaps more importantly, the colony simply did not mature to the point where it needed to expand at others’ expense. Had Fascist colonialism survived a few decades longer, a classic policy of aggressive expansion would have been inevitable.

Some of you may be stunned to see a case of colonialism without aggressive expansion. Well, in 1889 and most of the 1890s there was a policy of confiscation and violent suppression of resistance, but conflict with Eritrea’s protectorate, Ethiopia, suspended this policy. This was another reason why the Fascist oppression of Eritrea was relatively subtle: the prefascist colonialists already took care of the dirty work.

:::spoiler The one inarguable atrocity that the Fascists did regularly commit in Eritrea was misogynist violence. Click here if you are willing to read about that.
Giulia Barrera’s Dangerous Liaisons: Colonial Concubinage in Eritrea, 1890–1941:

Presumably, some of the Eritrean women who were compelled to seek alternative means of self‐support suddenly found themselves in a position to meet the [Kingdom of Italy’s] demand for prostitutes, domestic servants, and madame.

[…]

Before becoming madame, some women were little more than children. Many Italian males had sailed to Eritrea dreaming of Africa as a “virgin land of virgins,” and at least some of them seemed determined to take full advantage of that. It appeared that for many men, possessing a young virgin was more gratifying than procuring a prostitute, as the quotation at the beginning of the first section implies. Furthermore, the customary marriage age in Eritrea rendered young girls accessible, whereas in Italy the marriage age was considerably higher.⁸⁵

[…]

Eritrean customary law, Pollera explained, authorized mothers to attribute paternity while Italian law did not. As a consequence, “many [colonists], taking advantage of Eritrean women’s ignorance in this regard, easily convinc[ed] them to become their concubines, and abandon[ed] them when they [had] a baby.”¹⁰⁵ Abandoned by their fathers, these children, Pollera continued, were likely to be shunned by their mothers’ families, who felt no responsibility to provide for them. Hence mother and child quickly sank into the deepest poverty.

[…]

Predictably, the defendants—all of whom were male, as already indicated—typically pleaded not guilty, often claiming that the African woman involved was either a prostitute or a servant who was occasionally required to perform sexual services. If judges found their claims credible, these men were free to go.

Such was the fate of a certain Mr. Russo in 1939. The Appeals Court of Addis Ababa made it clear that Russo considered the African woman who lived with him to be just “a humble servant.” It simply happened that being her boss, he sometimes “released his lustfulness on her.”¹⁵⁹ Circumstances like these were by no means unique. An Eritrean woman, Hiwet Ogba Georgis, recently recalled:

All domestic workers were afraid of being sexually attacked—that is why we always preferred houses with old people or with a lot of children. Italian men would rape domestic workers and if they got pregnant they would kick them out and deny any connection with them.¹⁶⁰
:::



Fascist commercial buildings on an Eritrean street.

Education


The Fascists have frequently been stereotyped as anti‐intellectual. This is an exaggeration, as the privileged status of both Giovanni Gentile and self‐identified superfascist Julius Evola would suggest. However, as far as colonial subjects were concerned this was no exaggeration. To quote Fascist Professor Mininni Caracciolo:

We have to recognize from the outset that the teaching of natives along the same lines as in Europe has produced most sad and dangerous results for the natives as well as for the colonizers. It is therefore necessary that native education be adapted as much as possible to the conditions and needs of the native and to the character and specific exigencies of colonialism.


Consequently, Eritreans were given, at best, a third grade education (similarly to Poles during Axis occupation), and only a tiny percentage attended. As Giuseppe Bottai and others suggested, education’s purpose was to create obedient manual laborers, which was why it was simple and extremely Italocentric. Any increase in literacy was likely only marginal. Pg. 91:

According to the census of 1939 the population of Great Eritrea amounted to 1,537,213. Thus of a school age population of over 300,000, the total enrolment of c. 5,000 amounted to c. 1.7 per cent of the school age children and much less than 1 per cent of the total population.


This minimal enrolment was intentional. Pg. 100:

The need for introducing western education was recognized, but at the same time it was argued that western education ought to be tailored and rationed on the grounds that the mind of the Eritrean, being infantile[,] indiscriminate extension of western education could cause mental imbalance.⁵⁴


Hence, no Eritrean intelligentsia developed under Fascism: all according to plan, as such an absence only made colonial rule even securer. There was no Eritrean press and no newspapers for them to read.

For more information, see ‘Educational policies and colonization: schooling in Eritrea under Italian rule (1890–1941)’.

Eritrean children vowing allegiance to the PNF.

Law


While the colonial court could have the final say on any matter (if necessary), customary laws and courts were tolerated as alternatives and many Eritrean chiefs remained, only acting as spokesmen and informants for the Fascist state. Such concessions made colonialism easier to tolerate, and they were cheaper and easier for the Fascists to maintain, but this system had its own difficulties. Pg. 107:

The colonial judicial system, although it was meant to be a reflection or a continuation of the precolonial system, was considerably different. The most important point of difference lay in the fact that Eritrean chiefs had more power than earlier.

Backed by the colonial state, chiefs both at a village and sub‐district level distorted the balance of power that existed between the chiefs, the elders and the members of the clergy.⁸⁷ Recruited and kept in office as long as they functioned as mouthpieces of the central administration at Asmara, the loyalty of the chiefs lay primarily with the colonial system.

The arbitrariness of the colonial system can best be seen in the manner in which administration of justice was carried out. Based on the stereotype conception of the Eritrean as someone with a fine sense of speedy justice, no distinction was made between the executive and the judicial functions of the colonial government. The same district governor acted simultaneously as a judge, albeit assisted by notables paid by the colonial state, and as an administrator.


As you can see, law in Eritrea was in many ways conservative (barring obvious obligations like ‘don’t fuck with the state’). So conservative, in fact, that the Fascists tolerated serfdom. Pgs. 134 and 146:

The serfs, who repeatedly asked the colonial state to free them from their onerous obligations to their masters would certainly have rebelled against these ruling élites had the latter chosen to resist Italian rule. The demands and aspirations of the serfs were, however, not fulfilled by the Italians. […] [Fascist] colonialism did not hasten the disintegration of feudal structures, which in fact continued to prevail up to the mid 1970s[.]


That said, in a few other ways the law differed: as the 1930s progressed a policy of apartheid evolved, limiting autonomy for Italians and Eritreans alike.

Colonello Giuseppe Guzzo standing next to his police car.

Conclusion


Eritrea can be seen as the exception to the rule; given how merciless the Fascists were elsewhere, Fascist rule in Eritrea likely comes across as incredibly moderate. Nevertheless, this is not due to Fascism’s merit but rather to the political needs of the day. Pg. 151:

The failure of the policy of Italian settlement led to the new role of the colony firstly as a centre of trade and secondly as a reservoir of soldiers for the colonial army. These subsequent rôles called for a policy of political stability, which was effected without great difficulty and expense.


Nor was there anything unique about this policy:

Trading colonies generally did not require a radical restructuring of their ‘traditional’ or precolonial economic system. […] As in other African colonies the first four decades of this century were characterized by political stability which in effect meant that there was minimal resistance to colonial rule.


Nonetheless, Eritrea under Fascism differed in some notable respects:

In the case of Eritrea, the desire for radical restructuring was hampered by the scarcity of Italian capital. During the 1900–40 period the main objective of the colonial government was to run the colony as inexpensively as possible, or in other words, to maintain political stability. Issues which were likely to cause political instability were anticipated and measures were taken to pre‐empt them.

In the process of stabilization, the colonial government utilized the ethnic diversity of the colony and the various Eritrean attitudes towards the colonial system. The Tigrinyans were the only group who, on the basis of a diffuse but nevertheless real notion of Ethiopian nationalism, could really challenge Italian colonialism. The threat of Tigrinyan resistance […] was reduced by a policy of meticulous preservation of the precolonial socio‐political structures.


As for why there was a scarcity of Fascist capital (pg. 175):

The functions of Eritrea, firstly as a focus of transit trade and secondly as a reservoir of men for the colonial army, explain both the scarcity of readily exploitable raw material resources and the reluctance of Italian capitalists to invest in the production sector.


In short (pg. 152):

As Italy developed a stronger awareness of the strategic rôle of Eritrea as a staging post for colonial expansion into Ethiopia, it found it to be in its interest to maintain political stability.


And as long as they were holding a staging post, they may as well have fed their war machine and their pockets while doing it!

(Emphasis added in all cases.)


Reenactment of Fascist Italy’s oppression of Libyans


If you aren’t faint of heart or afflicted with battle fatigue, see this film as soon as possible, if you have not done so already. Not only is this an invaluable resource for getting a good idea of how the Fascists suppressed Libyans, but (with the arguable exception of the length) this is also a rare example of a film that does everything right: the story, dialogue, acting, music, pacing, cinematography, and other technical aspects are all more than satisfactory. There is not one aspect of this film that feels inadequate, unless you count the viewership.


:::spoiler Click here for events that happened today (August 20).
1940: Hermann Göring sent peace proposals to Britain via Netherlandish and Turkish foreign ministries! Nevertheless, the British ignored them. Aside from that, the Eighth Route Army launched the Hundred Regiments Offensive, a successful campaign to disrupt Axis war infrastructure and logistics in occupied northern China. (Coincidentally, Prime Minister Winston Churchill made the fourth of his famous wartime speeches, containing the line ‘Never was so much owed by so many to so few’.)
1942: István Horthy de Nagybánya, Axis Deputy Regent, died in a flight accident.
1943: The Axis submarine U‐197 was sunk in the Indian Ocean by a PBY Catalina of № 265 Squadron RAF; on the same day, the Axis submarine U‐670 sank in the Bay of Danzig after a collision with the target ship Bulkoburg. Meanwhile, the Empire of Japan and the Kingdom of Thailand signed a peace treaty, in which four provinces of Axis‐occupied British Malaya (Kedah, Perlis, Kelantan and Trengganu) were to be made part of Thailand. Thai administration would begin on October 18. Finally, Soviet Major General P. V. Bogdanov, who had collaborated with the enemy after being captured by the Wehrmacht, was recaptured and turned over to the Soviet counterintelligence service, SMERSH. Moscow would execute Bogdanov, along with five other former Red Army generals, on April 19, 1950.
1944: One hundred sixty‐eight captured Allied airmen, including Phil Lamason, accused by the Gestapo of being ‘terror fliers’, arrived at Buchenwald concentration camp. Meanwhile, the Battle of Romania began with a major Soviet Union offensive.
1985: Wilhelm Meendsen‐Bohlken, Axis fleet commander, expired.
:::


This entry was edited (3 weeks ago)

The Legion of French Volunteers against Bolshevism: France’s truly pathetic Wehrmacht formation


The media in this post is not displayed to visitors. To view it, please go to the original post.

The Legion of French Volunteers against Bolshevism (Légion des Volontaires Français contre le Bolchevisme, or LVF) was one of the Wehrmacht’s many foreign supplements recruited to fight on the Eastern Front. They were French (kind of like me) but were supposed to swear an oath to Adolf Schicklgruber, pledging to serve the Third Reich until the Axis won the war. (They purportedly even had their own theme song, though I’ve found awfully little evidence to substantiate that.) They are most notable for being the only Wehrmacht foreign formation that took part in the Axis’s advance on Moscow.

What was the basis for this legion?

In July 1941 four ultraright parties took part in the founding of the future legion: Parti Populaire Français (PPF) of Jacques Doriot, Mouvement Social Révolutionnaire (MSR) of Eugène Deloncle, Rassemblement National Populaire (RNP) of Marcel Déat, and Marcel Bucard’s Mouvement Franciste. On 27 August already the first volunteers arrived in Versailles, at the Borgnis-Desbordes barracks.

[…]

Very often, legionnaires who were not qualified to do so took on command duties in the subunits. This even reached the point where officers were forced to pay great attention to tasks that the junior commanders in the platoons should have been dealing with.²⁸

There were not enough experienced commanders; the attempts to recruit in the Army of the Armistice had failed, and in addition, the military cadres were unwilling to serve under the command of such people as Doriot — political leaders, but not military ones. Most of the officer corps had no other motivation apart from money.


(It is a bit unusual to compensate ‘volunteers’ with money, but whatever.)

Naturally, their superiors gave them a good dose of standard antisocialist tosh:

At 10:30 a.m. on 5 October the first two battalions took their oath to Adolf Hitler. The ceremony began with speeches that flowed smoothly into a dual Protestant and Catholic service. Conducting the latter was the chaplain of the LVF, Monsignor Jean de Mayol de Lupé, who stated: ‘God will preserve the defenders of Christian civilization’.

After the church service regimental commander Labonne spoke, stressing that Germany was fighting for civilization and a ‘new Europe’ against the ‘eastern threat’. He concluded his address with the words, ‘Legionnaires, long live Germany and long live France!’¹⁰

[…]

Labonne spoke of the legionnaires in passionate terms, describing them as heirs of Godefroi de Bouillon. He stressed in particular the ‘Asiatic’ and ‘bestial’ nature of the Red Army and described Stalin as ‘Attila, the scourge of God’.


(The comparison to Attila the Hun is worth noting. Likening Joseph Stalin to Adolf Schicklgruber wouldn’t have worked—for obvious reasons—so instead, what the Fascists did was liken Stalin to Attila the Hun and Genghis Khan: Asian commanders infamous for their brutality and widely perceived as serious threats to the very concept of Western civilization.)

Most of the time, these antisocialists were poorly trained for warfare:

The inadequately trained legionnaires retraced the same road toward Moscow that the Grande Armée had followed almost 130 years earlier.

Sacrificing the training of the soldiers, the French politicians rushed the legion into battle; it seemed to them that the final thrust against Moscow was not far off and that if the legion spent more time under instruction it might arrive too late, causing the whole project of collaboration to fail. Paris parties were anxious to see results as quickly as possible; come what may, the legion was to fight the Red Army.

[…]

Due to the shortage of young cadres, the LVF was staffed with older officers who had served out their terms. When the officers were recruited to the legion there was no commission to check their capabilities, and they had received confirmation of their rank almost immediately.³⁰

The officers were incapable of providing effective leadership and were inadequately trained; such education as they had received dated from the period around 1914 and was outmoded. Command of the regiment was in the hands of officers who regarded battle as a sort of military parade.



Pictured: a fifteen‐year‐old boy in the LVF. Although youths were no doubt the minority of members, it is still quite disturbing that they were permitted at all.

Aside from the want for training, this legion had other problems. For example, larceny:

Theft flourished in the legion, with the officers frequently taking part. In Deba they ‘behaved like common criminals’, running an officers’ casino that clearly brought in shady income. They secretly sold wine to the soldiers that had been provided by the Germans, something that was known to all but about which everyone kept silent.³⁴ […] Thievery continued to flourish in the legion, and soldiers and officers lost their belongings.


Infighting:

Doriot and the members of the PPF wove constant intrigues, with the result that the most burdensome tasks fell on the members of the competing party, the MSR. A considerable number of MSR members served in the I Battalion, while the II Battalion consisted mainly of members of the PPF, and the 13th and 14th companies were almost entirely under Doriot’s control. Worse still, Doriot gained ascendancy over Labonne and saw to it the decisions that were put into effect were those that suited his, Doriot’s, ends.


Underequipment:

The […] weapons they were given were of low quality. […] The Germans did not provide trucks, and the troops proceeded on foot. The heavy weapons, equipment, and ammunition were transported using horse‐drawn carts, and the remaining equipment had to be carried by the soldiers themselves.

[…]

In one of the houses a fire broke out, and a whole platoon lost all its arms and equipment in the blaze. […] Heading the column, Hugla took a wrong turn and together with his soldiers wandered throughout the night, losing a number of his horses during the march. […] Some soldiers did not even have overcoats, some did not have soles on their boots and fewer than half had gloves.¹⁰⁹


Insufficient nourishment:

Food supplies were inadequate and of unsatisfactory quality. […] Another five legionnaires vanished without trace and died of exhaustion and hunger. […] They had no provisions and were eating their horses; First Lieutenant Laurin of the 13th Company told Fontenoy that of 130 horses, no more than 30 remained.


Unhealthiness:

Because of an almost complete lack of facilities, hygiene was poor, and lice began to appear while the troops were still in the camp. […] Individual legionnaires could not endure the situation, and a number of men committed suicide.³⁹ […] Almost immediately, dysentery broke out in the columns of Frenchmen, and the disease affected as many as a third of the personnel. The legionnaires were also suffering from lice.


Temperature:

During the nights, the thermometer dropped as low as minus 40°. The number of soldiers suffering from severe frostbite mounted.⁷⁸ Often, the frost made weapons unserviceable; machine guns and rifles jammed constantly, and as one of the soldiers wrote, ‘men felt betrayed by their own weapons’.⁷⁹ […] ‘The dressing stations were full of wounded, and especially, of severely frostbitten men who displayed hands as white as wax, and rigid legs with feet blackened by irreversible putrefaction that ate through the flesh to the bones’.⁹⁷


Well, it’s called ‘the Cold War’ for a reason.

The conditions that these miserable fucks had to endure were so severe that it’s almost easy to feel sorry for them. With all that being said, it would be an exaggeration to summarise these ~1,200 antisocialists as harmless:

[W]hatever the case, the LVF had reached the front and now had to prove itself in battle. […] Lieutenant‐General von Gablenz tried immediately to help the Frenchmen. The division gave them horses and carts to replace those that had been lost or that had lagged behind, and additional training exercises, conducted by German officers fluent in French, were organized for the artillerymen and antitank crews.

[…]

On 25 November three Soviet soldiers surrendered to the Frenchmen; the prisoners stated that in the next few days the units in which they had served were to go on the attack.⁷⁴

On 27 November the first battle took place. The Russians carried out a reconnaissance in force in the sector defended by the 1st Company of the legionnaires. The attack was beaten off without losses to the French side, while two Russians were killed.⁷⁵

However, the encounter did not pass off without incident; the 1st Company expended 12,000 cartridges, and its commander, Captain Leclerq, who had recently been promoted to Major, urged that the positions be abandoned, as a result of which he was removed from his post.⁷⁶ Major Planard de Villeneuve was appointed to head the I Battalion.

[…]

Moving across a field, the 1st Company headed toward a forest that was not far off. Suddenly, the enemy opened a withering fire on the French ranks, and the Frenchmen fell on the snow, several of them mortally wounded.⁸³

The legionnaires opened a return fire, and the machine gun and mortar subunits that were supporting the attack managed to suppress a number of weapons emplacements. A German artillery observer who witnessed the battle wrote of ‘a courageous, but absolutely idiotic attack by the French volunteers, as in the times of Frederick the Great!’⁸⁴

[…]

According to the count made by the 7th Division, the 1st and 2nd Companies had lost 12 men killed and 55 wounded. A small number of Red Army soldiers had been captured, and 12 dugouts had been seized along with three machine guns. It was noted that the Russians had lost numerous men and that the French officers and soldiers had ‘fought well’.⁹²


In addition to this, the Third Reich reformed this legion in 1942 (principally through Fascist eugenics):

The [Third Reich] sought to reduce the number of political activists from French parties and also remove German nationals who had earlier served in the French Foreign Legion.¹¹⁴

To avoid offending and alienating their allies of the day before, everything was carried out as far as possible beneath the guise of rejecting men on the basis of medical evidence. A very significant date in the history of the LVF was 3 March 1942, when most of the dismissals took place. By mid‐March the regimental commander Labonne had also lost his post.

[…]

The [Third Reich] forced everyone, including participants in the battles near Diutkovo, to undergo the course of military training a second time. In April 1942 the Recruitment and Training Detachment of the 638th French Infantry Regiment was formed.¹¹⁷

In the spring and summer of 1942 the French battalions were divided up and sent to fight against partisans in Belarus, where they were placed under the command of the 221st and 286th Security Divisions.¹¹⁸


So, to keep it simple:

Militarily, the legion can be numbered among the Wehrmacht’s least successful foreign formations.


In 1941, more legionnaires were lost to frostbite alone than to enemy fire, in fact. I am sure that they all must have been overjoyed by the fact that they did not have to live under communism, as they froze to death and the life went out in their eyes.

For a more comprehensive analysis, see Joining Hitler’s Crusade, chapter 11.

This entry was edited (10 months ago)

Fascist Italy’s forces made oppressing Balkan Jews a low priority…most of the time


As we’ve seen before, the Italian Fascists certainly weren’t afraid of oppressing civilians, and (as you can see in this paper) they usually had no respect for Jews either, so why the listlessness? Several reasons:

In occupied Yugoslavia and Greece, the Italian authorities had priorities other than the deportation or extermination of the Jews. They faced a very chaotic situation essentially because the Germans left them the burden of pacification. They were struggling against partisans in Yugoslavia and Andartes in Greece and their first priority was to restore order and annihilate the Resistance. Jewish refugees or communities, by contrast, did not represent a threat to the [Regio Esercito] on the spot.

Furthermore, to hand over the Jews to the Germans or Croatians would have harmed Italian prestige and alarmed the Četniks, who might have imagined that the same thing would happen to them.²⁷ [Italian Fascism] desperately needed military collaboration with the Četniks.

Italian prestige, authority and reputation were frequently invoked by the junior partner of the Axis as the reasons why the Italian authorities wanted to pursue an autonomous policy with regard to the Jews, the refugees or any other issue concerning the occupied territories.²⁸

[…]

Along with these preliminary considerations, it is also important to emphasize at the outset that sources in Italian archives show no evidence at all of either a coordinated plan to protect the Jews or a conspiracy by the Italian Foreign Office and military leadership to disobey Mussolini’s orders.

On the contrary, both traditional élites and fascist establishment worked ‘toward the Duce’ until the beginning of 1943.³³ Mussolini was always kept informed of policies and decisions relating to the Jews and very often intervened in decision‐making.

[…]

Finally, it is important to define the rather misleading term of ‘protection’. If one refers to the diplomatic protection that a sovereign state offers its citizens, the Italian government only provided such protection for Italian Jews in the territories annexed or occupied by the Third Reich; Italy provided no diplomatic protection for foreign Jews.


:::spoiler (Emphasis added. Other scholars agree. Click here for more.)

In 2007 Massimo Pera, writing the review of a book edited in collaboration with the Italian Embassy in Athens, said that when the [Regio Esercito] saved 350 Italians Jews from the deportation in 1943, it was done for several reasons, but not due to “humanism”.

The first reason was an economic one. The Italian Jews of Salonica were very rich and saving them meant the protection of the [Fascist] economic interests in that town. The second reason involved political and diplomatic arguments: the [Fascists] began the war against Greece, but the [Third Reich] controlled the most important economic and strategic zones of the country. Resisting the requests concerning the Jews, [the Regio Esercito] tried to show independence and autonomy to Berlin.²⁸

Indeed, the Galeazzo Ciano’s orders in this sense were very clear and speaking to the officers in charge in Greece he said that “Italian citizen of Jewish race […] should be defended not because they are Jews, but because they are Italian citizensˮ. M. Pera doesn’t see “anything human” in those instructions, but orders given to emphasize [Fascist] power and autonomy.


In Kosovo, on the other hand…

We find an exception to this dualism only in Kosovo, part of the Albania at that time; here in March 1942 the Italian authority gave up to the Germans a group of Serbian Jews fleeing from Belgrade.


(Source.)
:::

ETA: Click here for how the Regio Esercito handled Soviet Jews.

This entry was edited (7 months ago)

The Kingdom of Sweden welcomed Baltic war criminals who served the Axis


During the last months of World War 2 Baltic [Fascists] also fled to Sweden, where they discovered that they would live happily ever after. The following texts are from Sweden’s Refusal to Prosecute Nazi War Criminals: 1986–2002, by Efraim Zuroff, published in Jewish Political Studies Review 14:3–4 (Fall 2002) (Emphasis has been added):
Toward the end of World War II, an unspecified number of Latvian and Estonian Nazi war criminals escaped to Sweden among a wave of Baltic refugees fleeing the advancing Soviet Army. Although the Swedish government established a special commission to investigate their wartime activities, no legal action was ever taken against any of these escaped Holocaust perpetrators…

Swedish authorities had refused to extradite Nazi collaborators to their countries of origin (because they feared that they might be subjected to summary trials and face a death sentence)…

Swedish governments obviously shared the view of the British and the Americans, who refused on the same grounds to extradite [Fascists] to Poland and the Soviet Union. Future historians will undoubtedly be impressed by the humanitarian compassion that was shown for the [Fascist] butchers. Zuroff also writes (emphasis added)

…although the Swedish authorities investigated all the arriving refugees, they adopted a lenient attitude toward escaped Baltic Nazi war criminals, who were regarded as having cooperated with the Nazis out of patriotism, and whose heinous participation in the murder of Jews was generally overlooked or ignored.

In such cases, the Swedish authorities tended to regard evidence concerning war crimes in the Baltics from Communist — and even to some extent from Jewish sources — as questionable or motivated by “personal enmity.” Under such circumstances, it is hardly surprising that not a single Baltic war criminal was ever prosecuted in Sweden and that at least several others whose wartime activities were revealed during the investigations were allowed to freely emigrate elsewhere.


This entry was edited (1 year ago)

Zionists became distribution agents for Fascist products all over the Middle East and North Africa


The media in this post is not displayed to visitors. To view it, please go to the original post.

The media in this post is not displayed to visitors. To view it, please go to the original post.

Pictured: The Anglo‐Palestine Bank in Tel Aviv.

Quoting Edwin Black’s The Transfer Agreement: The Dramatic Story of the Secret Pact Between the Third Reich and Jewish Palestine, pages 121–2:

[Occupied] Palestine was vital to [Fascist] economic strategy. […] In the decade since the Jewish Agency had been established, [occupied] Palestine had flourished, even amid a worldwide Depression. While this tiny corner of the Mideast by 1933 accounted for only 0.1 percent of Germany’s overall exports, it was a disproportionally important customer for certain vital Reich industries such as fertilizer, farm equipment, and irrigation pipes.^5^

Far beyond its own consumption, however, Palestine was now the crucial gateway to expanding German exports throughout the emerging Mideast market: Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, North Africa. This market was deemed essential by the Reich if certain strategic raw materials [that the Fascist bourgeoisie] craved for war were to be acquired via bilateral trade agreements.


Pages 373–4:

As Jewish existence was dismantling in Germany, however, it was reconstructing in [occupied] Palestine. The Haavara brought in many of the fundamentals: coal, iron, cement, fertilizer, seed, hammers, saws, and cultivators. Haavara also brought in the capital: cash, loans, mortgages, deposits, and credits. All this produced an economic explosion in [occupied] Palestine, requiring companies to be formed, investments to be made, and most of all, jobs to be filled.

Palestine’s economic absorptiveness tripled, perhaps quadrupled, within a year or so of the Transfer Agreement. Economic opportunity translated into a dramatic increase in immigration certificates under the twice‐yearly “worker quota.” Most of these certificates were awarded to Mapai’s halutzim, the young pioneers eager to plant the seed, dig the ditches, and trowel the cement.

As more buildings were erected, more kibbutzim established, and more small factories founded, ever more job openings were created for halutzim. The spiral of economic expansion increased the flow of worker immigrants from just a few thousand yearly before the Transfer Agreement to more than 50,000 during the two years following. Most were Mapai halutzim, and only about 20 percent of them were from [the Third Reich].

[Occupied] Palestine’s rapidly expanding economy brought more than worker and commercial opportunities. There also developed a need for more doctors, lawyers, engineers, teachers, hoteliers, restaurateurs, and entrepreneurs. Many of these niches were filled by the several thousand German Jews who came over on unlimited capitalist certificates by virtue of Haavara.

By 1935, Palestine’s need to sell German merchandise to offset Jewish deposits in transfer accounts became greater than anyone expected. The Palestinian market was becoming saturated. So the Zionist Organization established another transfer corporation, this one called the Near and Middle East Commercial Corporation, assigned the acronym NEMICO.


(Coincidentally, nemico is Italian for ‘enemy’.)

NEMICO operated a regional sales network in Iraq, Egypt, Syria, Cyprus, and elsewhere in the region, coordinating mainly through Bank Zilkha of Beirut. Mideast markets were opened for a vast array of key German exports, from Volkswagens to municipal bridgeworks. This worked in tandem with Hjalmar Schacht’s New Plan of exchanging German goods for the raw materials of underdeveloped nations.

As NEMICO was opening new markets to German commerce, so too was the Palestinian citrus industry. Year after year, growers were increasingly compelled to become purveyors of German goods to guarantee vital Reich purchases of orange and grapefruit crops. Most of [occupied] Palestine’s commercial relationships with [the Third Reich] remained a secret from the Jewish world, but several deals came to light. Trade statistics published by the British could not hide the unparalleled increase in German exports to [occupied] Palestine.

The Third World Jewish Conference held in Geneva in 1934 finally passed a resolution condemning Palestinian–German trade and demanding [that] the Zionist Organization terminate all such contacts. Pressure within the Zionist world to disavow the Transfer Agreement and its complex of collateral undertakings became so intense by mid‐1935 that the Anglo‐Palestine Bank announced it was no longer willing to front for the Zionist Organization.


(Emphasis added in all cases. I replaced the author’s instances of “Jewish Palestine” with “occupied Palestine” because the settlers’ heritage is irrelevant and, furthermore, it incorrectly implies that the precolonial Jewish population willingly formed a part of this occupation.)

Cheers to PalestineRemembered.com for leading me to this.


:::spoiler Click here for events that happened today (January 9).
1881: Giovanni Papini, Fascist intellectual, came into existence.
1894: Ryusaku Yanagimoto, Axis commander, was born.
1939: Berlin made Karl Burk the commanding officer of the 8th SS‐Standarte (Niederschlesien) regiment, and Rome issued Italian Royal Decree № 70 to put Libya within Fascist Italy’s metropolitan territory, thus lifting the region’s status from a mere colony to a part of the Italian Empire.
1940: Fascist bombers sank three Allied merchantmen in the North Sea.
1941: Adolf Schicklgruber and his top military leaders completed the two‐day conference at Schicklgruber’s residence of Berghof in München‐Oberbayern. Meanwhile, Axis destroyers Ascari, Carabiniere, Folgore, and Fulmine shelled Greek positions on the Albanian coast at Porto Palmermo while Axis submarine U‐105 sank British ship Bassano south of Iceland at 1814 hours, killing one but leaving fifty‐six alive.
1942: The Axis transferred thirty‐one French officers from the Oflag IV‐C prisoners of war camp at Colditz Castle to Oflag IV‐D at Elsterhorst, and Axis troops began to fall back from Changsha, Hunan Province. Meanwhile, a transport of 1,005 Jews departed from Theresienstadt Concentration Camp in occupied Czechoslovakia for locations in Eastern Europe.
1943: SS Reichsführer Heinrich Himmler visited Warsaw and ordered that 8,000 Jewish inhabitants be deported from the ghetto. By midnight, the Axis caught an escaped Auschwitz prisoner near watchtower 26.
1944: Prime Minister Hideki Tojo authorized the plans for Operation U‐Go against northeastern India, and the Axis halted an assault on Donbaik.
1945: Heinz Guderian visited Adolf Schicklgruber to personally request reinforcements for the Eastern Front. Coincidentally, Shigekazu Shimazaki, Axis career officer, died.
1979: Pier Luigi Nervi, Axis engineer, expired.
:::


The Third Reich was the source of 60% of all investment in Zionist-occupied Palestine from 1933–1939


Quoting Lenni Brenner’s Zionism in the Age of the Dictators, chapter 6:

The debate over the Zionist–Nazi pact continued angrily until 1935. The Haʻavara rapidly grew to become a substantial banking and trading house with 137 specialists in its Jerusalem office at the height of its activities. The regulations were always changing in response to [Berlin’s] pressure, but in essence the agreement was always the same: German Jews could put money into a bank inside Germany, which was then used to buy exports which were sold outside Germany, usually but not exclusively in Palestine.

When the émigrés finally arrived in Palestine, they would receive payment for the goods that they had previously purchased after they had finally been sold. Fiscal ingenuity extended Haʻavara’s operations in many directions, but throughout its operation its attraction to German Jews remained the same: it was the least painful way of shipping Jewish wealth out of [the Third Reich].

However, the [Third Reich] determined the rules, and they naturally got worse with time; by 1938 the average user was losing at least 30 per cent and even 50 per cent of his money. Nevertheless, this was still three times, and eventually five times, better than the losses endured by Jews whose money went to any other destination.¹³²

The top limit through the Haʻavara scheme was 50,000 marks ($20,000 or £4,000) per emigrant, which made the Haʻavara unattractive to the richest Jews. Therefore only $40,419,000 went to Palestine via Haʻavara, whereas $650 million went to the United States, $60 million to the United Kingdom and other substantial sums elsewhere. Yet if, in terms of German Jewry’s wealth, Haʻavara was by no means decisive, it was crucial to Zionism.

Some 60 per cent of all capital invested in Palestine between August 1933 and September 1939 was channelled through the agreement with the [Third Reich].¹³³ In addition, the British set the annual Jewish immigrant quota, using the weak economic absorptive capacity of the country to limit their number; however, ‘capitalists’ — those bringing in over £1,000 ($5,000) — were allowed in over quota.

The 16,529 capitalists were thus an additional source of immigrants as well as an economic harvest for Zionism. Their capital generated a boom, giving Palestine a wholly artificial prosperity in the midst of the world‐wide Depression.

At first the WZO tried to defend itself against the charges of boycott‐scabbing and outright collaboration by insisting that the Haʻavara transfers did not really break the boycott, since [the Third Reich] did not receive foreign currency for its goods as they were all purchased inside the country for marks.

However, Berlin soon demanded part payment for some of the commodities in foreign currency and soon, too, the WZO started soliciting new customers for [the Third Reich] in Egypt, Lebanon, Syria and Iraq. Eventually the Zionists began exporting oranges to Belgium and Holland using [Fascist] ships.¹³⁴ By 1936 the WZO began to sell Hitler’s goods in Britain.¹³⁵


(Emphasis added. Note that ‘Haʻavara’ refers to a trading company that the World Zionist Organisation established to trade with the Third Reich.)

An example of this investment was the ‘Agreement for Transferring Property from Germany to Palestine: Details of the Three Million Mark Agreement’, which is available in the Zionist Record. Excerpt:

The Ministry of Economic Affairs has today published the full text of the decree providing for the transfer of Jewish property from Germany to Palestine.

The decree, which is numbered 54, and is dared August 28th, states that an agreement was concluded “with the Jewish bodies concerned,” for “promoting Jewish emigration to Palestine by releasing the necessary sums without putting excessive strain upon the foreign currency funds of the Reichsbank, and at the same time for increasing German exports to Palestine.”

The Reichsbank is for this purpose opening two special accounts for the Bank of Temple Society, it states, in favor of the Anglo‐Palestine Bank.


See Lenni Brenner’s 51 Documents: Zionist Collaboration With the Nazis for the full text.

Lastly, while I hate to state the obvious, I am afraid that it is now justified since there are more neoliberals than usual on this website, so I’ll go ahead and say it: no, demonstrating Zionism’s links with Fascism does not mean that I have anything against Jews. Zionism has nothing to do with protecting Jewish people, unless it intends to protect them by ensuring that thousands of Palestinian civilians won’t be able to breathe anymore, let alone meet Jews. So don’t pretend that a pseudodemocracy that lets dozens of thousands of its own citizens waste away in poverty can possibly hope to represent millions of people from around the world. If Zionism were about caring for Jewish people, its earliest head of state would never have said that he would rather have half a million Jews gone and half a million serving Zionism than both halves living safely in another part of the world:

A month after the [Fascist] pogrom against Germany’s Jews, famously known as Kristallnacht, [David Ben Gurion] stated on December 7, 1938: “If I knew it was possible to save all [Jewish] children of Germany by their transfer to England and only half of them by transferring them to Eretz‐Yisrael, I would choose the latter—because we are faced not only with the accounting of these [Jewish] children but also with the historical accounting of the Jewish People.”


(Source.)


:::spoiler Click here for events that happened today (September 17).
1939: The Reich submarine U-29 sunk the British aircraft carrier HMS Courageous.
1940: Due to setbacks in the Battle of Britain and approaching autumn weather, Berlin postponed Operation Sea Lion.
1944: Axis forces occupied San Marino but quickly suffered an Allied assault. (Coincidentally, Allied airborne troops parachuted into the Netherlands as the ‘Market’ half of Operation Market Garden, and Soviet troops launched the Tallinn Offensive against the Third Reich and anticommunist Estonian units. Lastly, an Axis war criminal, General Friedrich Zickwolff, died of a disease whilst in France.)
1953: Hans Feige, Axis general, mustered up the decency to drop dead.
2013: Eiji Toyoda, Axis industrialist, expired.
:::


Percentage of ‘non-Germanic’ troops who helped start Operation Barbarossa


The media in this post is not displayed to visitors. To view it, please go to the original post.

Finland mobilized a greater proportion of its small population than any of the other combatants, including Germany (476,000 men from 3.7 million inhabitants). […] Relative to the Finnish population (3.7 million), this was a greater mobilization than in any other country involved in the Second World War. […] Together [Berlin’s] allies in 1941 mobilized well over 700,000 troops for the war against the Soviet Union[.]


— David Stahel

This entry was edited (4 years ago)

The Fascists abused Somalis through forced labor, forced marriages, and violent punishments


The media in this post is not displayed to visitors. To view it, please go to the original post.

Plans for the fascistizzazione of colonial agriculture resulted in the introduction of systematic practices of forced labor and recruitment. Throughout the 1920s, labor recruitment was organized by the concessionaires who generally offered temporary seasonal occupations, from one to six months, mainly to male laborers.

Initially, labor recruitment drew upon the communities living in nearby Janaale.⁸⁵ As laborers frequently abandoned colonial plantations to return to their villages, concessionaires extended their search for labor to northern areas, especially in the regions of Buur Hakaba and Baydhabo.⁸⁶

There is little archival evidence on how labor recruitment was carried out by private concessionaires in the 1920s. Surely, successive colonial governors admitted that this “chaotic and disorganised recruitment” generated degrees of “resentment” and “disruption” into the lives of sedentary riverine communities.⁸⁷

It also seems likely that the search for new recruits coupled with labor mutinies in the concessions generated a considerable movement of laborers in the area. In this way, the colonial government estimated that overall, between 1924 and 1929, about 100,000 laborers had been employed for some time in colonial estates in Janaale.⁸⁸

In 1929, the colonial government drafted a new labor contract with the aim of regulating labor mobility, which by then was seen as the major obstacle to the development of the colonial economy.⁸⁹

Modeled on the resettlement scheme implemented at SAIS [Società Agricola Italo‐Somala], the new contract introduced a quota system. This required each community living in the proximity of cultivations to provide concessions with a certain amount of laborers for a fixed and renewable term.

Moreover, the new contract called for the recruitment of entire farming families, rather than single laborers, in the hope that this would hinder labor mutinies.⁹⁰ To facilitate this process, the fascist régime began arranging forced marriages.⁹¹

[…]

The resettlement of entire farming families in private concessions would create, Barile claimed, a new ethnic group whose offspring will constitute the future generation of laborers of the fascist “Greater Somalia.” It was further argued that the resettlement scheme provided many impoverished families with an opportunity to improve their standard of living.⁹⁴

But, as at SAIS, employment in private concessions became questionable: laborers were required to work six days per week, harvesting commercial crops while devoting the remaining time to their own crops; laborers’ retribution was allocated by piecework; a laborer’s piecework was not transferable to another; and the completion of piecework did not necessarily provide laborers with salaries.⁹⁵

In the 1970s, social historian of Somalia, Cassanelli, collected vivid memories of abuses and coercion in the colonial plantations, bitterly remembered by Somalis as the tragic “years of colonya.”⁹⁶

Although the [Fascists] have later denied these charges before an international commission of the United Nations, reports about the abuses in colonial plantations were well known among colonial circles and brought the colonial government under closer scrutiny in the 1920s.⁹⁷

Critiques came from within the Fascist Party. The federal secretary in Mogadishu, Marcello Serrazanetti, for instance, published a review of slavery‐like conditions in colonial plantations in 1933, where he accused the colonial government of offering little assistance to laborers; of promoting forced marriages that were often arranged before the resettlement scheme; and, more generally, of covering up the abuses laborers endured in the concessions.⁹⁸

It seems likely that the assistance the colonial government provided to concessionaires went beyond the regulation of labor recruitment. Colonial police was also used to hinder laborers’ mutinies, to chase laborers who had abandoned the fields, and to bring them back to the concessions.⁹⁹ Sometimes, colonial assistance was also sought for punishing laborers.



Pictured: Four colonial military police (zaptié) who worked on behalf of Fascist Italy in Somalia. Dated 1939.

Although the colonial government assisted and facilitated labor recruitment and surveillance in the plantations, its relations with Italian concessionaires did not come without problems.

Officials in the field often complained that the brutality and violence concessionaires inflicted upon laborers compromised the results and credibility of the entire project of valorizzazione in Somalia. Reporting on labor relations in the plantations, one political officer asked for the colonial government’s intervention in favor of Somali laborers.

In this way, the officer explained, “the population would believe that the government endeavours to promote their wealth and not their destruction”; “it [was] only through these [development plans] that we can justify our presence in the colony in political and economic terms.”¹⁰⁰

Yet, these critiques remained isolated voices. In fact, the officers that tried to oppose the concessionaires, like Federal Secretary Serrazanetti, were later removed from their posts.¹⁰¹


(Emphasis added. See here for more on Somalia under Fascism.)


:::spoiler Click here for events that happened today (August 7).
1926: Spain and Fascist Italy signed a Treaty of Friendship, Conciliation and Judicial Settlement.
1937: Emil Nolde, Fascist artist, was born.
1942: The Battle of Guadalcanal began as the United States Marines initiated the first American offensive of the war with landings on Guadalcanal and Tulagi in the Solomon Islands.
:::

This entry was edited (5 months ago)

Fascist atrocities in Somalia


As an example one could mention the De Vecchi’s governorship (1923–1928), when thousands of indigenous people were subjected to forced labor. In the same period, the [Fascist] governor undertook a campaign of aggressive military expansion marked by a violent repression against the civilian population.

Moreover, and notwithstanding the attempt to ignore or try to explain away evidence of the atrocities occurred, it is a fact that at the end of 1935 Italy extensively used poison gas in Africa. Thirty‐six tons of mustard gas were apparently sent in Somalia in September 1935⁸. In addition, in the very same year, a concentration camp was built at Danane, not far [south] from Mogadishu.

Indeed, the acts of violence against civilians date back to before the advent of Fascism. In the early twentieth century, the [Regio Esercito] wiped out entire populations stationed on Somali territory, for instance the Bimàls and Majerteens. In 1905, slavery was formally outlawed, but in practice widely tolerated for many years⁹.

In fact, the Benadir officials’ practice to purchase female slaves or coerce local women to be their mistresses has not been particularly obstructed when the Italian government asserted its direct administration of Somalia¹⁰.

[…]

Although not much material is available, it seems beyond doubt that forced labour was a widespread practice both in liberal and fascist Italian colonialism²⁹. Mostly, this labour, based on the exploitation of indigenous people, was not needed for the military occupation, but was destined for the development of the agricultural sector and aimed at favouring the installation of Italian agrarian companies³⁰.


As discussed in Abdisalam M. Issa‐Salwe’s The Collapse of the Somali State, Cesare Maria De Vecchi and his crew commenced a reconquest of Somalia which lasted from 1925 to 1928. To give just one example of his exploits:

While in Africa, De Vecchi ordered the extremely bloody action by Fascist squads against Somali dissidents on 28 October 1926 that caused about one hundred deaths.


Concerning the Danane concentration camp:

of the 6,500 Ethiopians and Somalis who passed through the camp between 1936 and 1941, 3,175 died either through poor or insufficient food, malaria, enterocolitis, lack of hygiene, the unhealthy climate and salinated wells. The Nora concentration camp on one of the Dahlak Islands off Massawa was even worse. The temperature reached 50 °C, there was little water and there was malaria and dysentery. The internees were forced to do hard labour in quarries where they died of fatigue and sunstroke.¹¹


(Details here, including on how some survived.)

Ian Campbell’s The Addis Ababa Massacre: Italy’s National Shame has a great deal of information on this camp, but for brevity’s sake I shall quote only one paragraph:

For most of the prisoners at Danane there was never any imputation that they had done anything wrong. They were not convicts, for they had never been convicted of any offence. Thus Danane was not officially a death camp, but, since the captives there were sentenced to life imprisonment, it was clearly intended that they would all die at Danane, sooner or later.

Several officials of the Italian administration, which was well known to have been riddled with corruption, had lucrative banana concessions and sugar‐cane plantations at a project known as Genale, and ran them using forced labour from Danane.⁹⁰


(Emphasis added in all cases.)

Further reading: ‘The "Historic Sins" of Colonialism in Somalia’ (a perspective from a Somali).

This entry was edited (5 months ago)

The Third Reich produced Zionist films


[A] central [point] for Zionist film activity was Berlin. Even while German Jews were forcibly removed from the nazified film industry, the German Propaganda Ministry allowed the Zionist Union of Germany to organise segregated production and distribution outlets in the Reich: Zionist film propaganda in Germany was to encourage the Jewish community to emigrate to Palestine. Meanwhile, German‐speaking immigrants in Palestine were often responsible for Zionist film production.

[…]

After 1933 the Zionist Union of Germany played a central rôle in the life of the isolated German Jewish community. Prior to [1933], the Union had represented only a small portion of German Jewry at least in contrast to the Central Association of German Citizens of the Jewish Faith (Central Verein deutscher Staatsbürger juedischen Glaubens), which represented the overwhelming majority of assimilated, liberal German Jewry [25]. The preference of the Nazis was clearly formulated:

The Government frankly supports the Zionist movement and gives it all possible privileges, because the Zionist policy of a planned Jewish emigration from Germany into Palestine coincides with the policy of the [Fascist] government … in the liquidation of the Jewish problem … [26].

The Zionists for their part, interpreted Hitler’s [antisemitism] as a blow against assimilation:

Hence, the Zionists could, for a time, at least, engage in a certain amount of non‐criminal cooperation with the [Fascist] authorities; the Zionists too believed that “dissimilation,” combined with the emigration to Palestine of Jewish youngsters and, they hoped, Jewish capitalists, could be “a mutually fair solution” [27].

The changed political constellations consequently effected attitudes in the Jewish community: In 1935–36 Zionist organisations collected three times as many contributions as in 1931–32. Gone were the times when a Jewish lawyer could uncritically remark that he would rather be hanged by Herr Hitler, than give one penny for Palestine [28].

Yet even after the Nurnberg [sic] laws made emigration the only feasible alternative, Zionist organisations still needed to convince a large portion of the Jewish community. Newcomers to Palestine were usually asked: “Have you come out of conviction or are you German?”

In this context it is not surprising that Zionists expanded their film propaganda activities in the Third Reich through the Palestine Film Office of the Zionist Union (Palestina Filmstelle der Zionistischen Vereinigung für Deutschland). The Film Office’s chief, Manfred Epstein, was apparently involved in Palestine Foundation Fund policy under Leo Herrmann as early as 1934.

After organising the world premiere of Land of Promise, and distributing a number of short films, Epstein began negotiating for setting up film production facilities in Berlin. Working together with the former Ufa newsreel chief, George Engel, Epstein argued that German technical capabilities were superior to those available in Palestine. Between 1936–38 the Palestine Film Office in Berlin produced two feature films and five shorts [29].

All Zionist film productions were of course censored by the [Fascist] Propaganda Ministry, which permitted their screening “for members of the Jewish race only” [30]. The first films distributed by Palestine Film Office were 16ram silent documentaries, often produced by German–Jewish émigrés for Zionist contractors.

The Tekufa Film Co. produced From Vadi Charith to Emek Hefer (1936, dir. Erich Brock, Walter Kristeller) for the Jewish National Fund; Timm Gidal shot Erez Israel in Construction (1936), and Ernst Meyer filmed The Way to Reality (1937) and Brit Hanoar (1937) for the Keren Tora vaʻAvodah [31].

These films dealt with Zionist colonisation and agriculture in the Kibbutzim, especially those settlements, which had been set up for German middle‐class Jews. Furthermore, they were meant to counteract waning Zionist enthusiasm in the diaspora following the Arab revolts of 1936 [32]. The films were usually shown with live musical accompaniment, and preceded by a lecture. […] The […] image of Palestine as a desert waiting to be colonised was reinforced.


(Emphasis added.)


:::spoiler Click here for events that happened today (October 30).
1882: Günther Adolf Ferdinand von Kluge, Axis field marshal, existed.
1893: Roland Freisler, State Secretary of the Reich Ministry of Justice, was unfortunately born.
1906: Hans Otto Georg Hermann Fegelein, Waffen‐SS commander, made life less tolerable with his presence.
1933: Dozens of SA men marched to the Turkish embassy to hold a guard of honor for the Turkish Republic and stood there the whole day. Later that day, Ernst Röhm, head of the SA, and the rest of the core SA leadership came to congratulate the ambassador and to walk past the honor guard with him—many of this honor guard had served in the Ottoman Empire.
1941: The Axis sent fifteen hundred Jews from Pidhaytsi to Bełżec extermination camp.
1942: Lt. Tony Fasson and Able Seaman Colin Grazier drowned while taking code books from the sinking Axis submarine U‐559.
1944: Axis personnel deported Anne and Margot Frank from Auschwitz to the Bergen‐Belsen concentration camp, where they died from disease the following year, shortly before WWII’s end.
:::

This entry was edited (10 months ago)

The Mussolini–Jabotinsky Connection: The Hidden Roots of Israel’s Fascist Past


Additionally:

The preferred [Fascist] method to breach the [British] mandate was to build up direct relationships with those political groups who opposed foreign rule. Fascist Italy supported at the same time the Arabic nationalist movement in Palestine as well as the Zionists, for instance, with a Jewish naval school in Civitavecchia. Moreover, a scholarship programme provided graduates of the Istituto Superiore di Scienze Economiche e Commerciali in Bari with the opportunity to get hands-on experience on the Levant. The [Fascist] consulate in Jerusalem supported the programme because Palestine, “given its geographical proximity and its optimal maritime connection […] should be almost exclusively tied to the commerce of our country”. Such domination was still wishful thinking, and therefore the scholarship holders were placed in two sectors where [Fascist] businesses had already gained a foothold: banking and shipping. The Banco di Roma operated branch offices in Palestine, but was limited in scope due to the prevalent influence of British banks. In the sector of shipping, however, the [Fascist] mercantile marine ruled the market. It was exactly in this sector that Fascist Italy was able to economically benefit from the migratory flows towards Palestine.


(Emphasis added.)

The Third Reich trained (Zionist) Jews in agriculture to help settle them in Palestine


The media in this post is not displayed to visitors. To view it, please go to the original post.

The media in this post is not displayed to visitors. To view it, please go to the original post.

Ernst Marcus, a prominent German Zionist from Berlin, was able to observe after the war that: “It was a fact of political significance that the supreme German authorities not only tolerated the emigration of German Jews to Palestine, but also advanced it by the great transfer possibilities [Ha'avara] and other measures.”^10^

The “other measures” to which Marcus referred included the Zionist occupational retraining centers throughout the Reich, for both the Haavara transfer system and the Zionist occupational retraining programs in Germany specifically assisted German Jews in meeting immigration requirements set by British Mandate authorities in Palestine.

Jewish Occupational Retraining Programs and Camps

A brief description of the retraining programs themselves will provide a backdrop to the discussion of Jewish occupational retraining in [Berlin’s] Jewish policy. The German Zionist movement had established several occupational retraining camps in Germany before 1933.

A systematic network of these centers, operated by the Zionist youth movement Hehaluts and other Zionist‐oriented organizations and sponsored by various Zionist groups and relief agencies, was operating within a year of Hitler’s appointment as chancellor. According to the Zentralausschuss der deutschen Juden für Hilfe und Aufbau (Central Committee of German Jews for Relief and Reconstruction), there were already 6,069 Jews in Zionist occupational retraining programs in [the Third Reich] in March 1934, almost 2,400 of whom were in agricultural retraining camps.

It expected the total number in all camps to increase dramatically in the near future.^11^ Even non‐Zionist Jewish organizations such as the Centralverein and the Reichsbund jüdischer Frontsoldaten (Reich League of Jewish Frontline Soldiers) reluctantly joined forces to establish an occupational retraining center at Gross‐Breesen in Silesia in 1936 to prepare young Jews for destinations other than Palestine.

Another non‐Zionist camp, established by the Gesellschaft für handwerkliche Arbeit (Society for Manual Labor), the German branch of the ORT (Obshchestvo Rasprostraneniia Truda, Organization for the Distribution of Artisanal and Agricultural Skills among the Jews of Russia), was opened in Berlin in 1937.^12^ Small retraining facilities established by individual Jews on their own property, as well as small retraining operations in Jewish homes in Berlin, Leipzig, and elsewhere, taught young Jews home economics, metallurgy, and other skills.^13^

Some Zionist retraining centers such as Schniebinchen bei Sommerfeld, along with several Jewish youth organizations, initiated four‐week “preparation camps” (Vorbereitungslager) for fourteen‐ to sixteen‐year‐olds (who were still too young to enroll in the established retraining programs). These brief courses included five hours per day of instruction in Hebrew, Jewish history and literature, natural sciences, general literature, and sports, as well as three hours of agricultural training.^14^

[Pictured:] German Jewish youth are instructed in the use of agricultural machinery at a Zionist occupational retraining center (Hachschara camp, or Umschulungslager) in Germany, 1935. Reproduced with permission from Central Zionist Archives, Jerusalem, via the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Washington, D.C.


:::spoiler (Emphasis added in most cases. Click here for a footnote.)
In addition to supplying more evidence that the Third Reich was mostly Zionist, this paper inadvertently complicates totalitarian theory by demonstrating the disunity between government organizations:

[B]y 1934 a debate had emerged between those authorities opposed to the concept of occupational retraining for German Jews—notably the Ministry of Agriculture—and those in favor—mainly the Gestapo and the Reich Interior Ministry.


This complements Stephen G. Gross’s Export Empire, which explores some of the competing schools of thought in the Third Reich: hard power and soft power, formal empire and informal empire, all within the confines of a fascist vision. While this range of thought may seem narrow, it is a narrowness hardly unusual in other contexts, such as the U.S. Congress.
:::
\
While normally I don’t share my own thoughts on these revelations—they tend to speak for theirselves already—having seen prominent Zionists publicly comparing their enemies to the German Fascists I find it entirely appropriate to say that the more that I read about Zionist collaboration with the Third Reich, the less inclined that I am to believe that the Fascists would have sided with Hamas against the Zionists.

On the contrary, it is quite reasonable to speculate that the Fascists would have sided with the neocolonists over the natives, not only for racialist reasons but also because Palestinian militancy scares away settlers, often towards Europe, which was the last thing that the Fascists would have wanted. Figuratively and literally bulldozing the native land would have also made the neocolony more attractive to settlers, thereby encouraging Jewish emigration out of Europe. (The Fascists made similar efforts in Ethiopia to make it more appealing for Jewish settlers.)

Some of us have informally concluded that the Third Reich would have sided with the Zionist régime due to the very similar goals of spazio vitale and due to the régime’s violence against Arabs (whom the European Fascists saw as potentially useful in the short‐term but expendable in the long‐term). That may be true, but my hope is that now you’ll also be able to explain formally why the Third Reich almost certainly would have sided with the Zionist régime.

Of course, this is all just speculation; I normally see it as unworthwhile to predict what actors who have long since deceased would have done in a present situation, since we can no longer test our hypotheses. Nevertheless, if prominent Herzlians are going to do it, it is only fair that we redargue them.


:::spoiler Click here for events that happened today (November 2).
1893: Battista Farina, Axis businessman, existed.
1933: Home rule in Malta (at the time a British colony) was suspended after the Nationalist Party continued to advocate Italian as an official language to be used in schools and court proceedings, in order to strengthen ties to Fascist Italy.
1935: Czechoslovakian police arrested twenty‐eight people accused of spying for the Third Reich. Coincidentally, the Fascist cruiser Nürnberg was commissioned in Kiel in Julius Streicher’s presence.
1936: The Spanish Nationalists captured Brunete.
1938: Per the Vienna Award, an Italo‐German arbitration commission gave the Kingdom of Hungary a large piece of Czechoslovakian territory consisting of 5,000 square miles of land and one million people. Coincidentally, a Spanish Nationalist cruiser sunk the cargo ship SS Cantabria.
1940: First day of Battle of Elaia–Kalamas between the Greeks and the Fascists, which notably involved Greek Air Force pilot Marinos Mitralexis, after running out of ammunition, ramming a Fascist bomber. Meanwhile, the Axis commissioned submarine U‐69, the first Type VIIC U‐boat of the Third Reich’s Kriegsmarine which became its most numerous class.
1941: The Finnish conquest of East Karelia completed when the Soviets withdrew from Kondopoga, and the Luftwaffe bombed the Soviet cruiser Voroshilov in harbour at Novorossiysk, putting it out of action until February next year. On the other hand, Allied cruisers captured a Vichy convoy of freighters and passenger ships north of Madagascar.
1942: The Axis commissioned submarine U‐306, but lost the village of Kokoda and the accompanying airfield to the Allies.
1943: The Battle of Empress Augusta Bay commenced as the Imperial Japanese Navy responded to the surprise invasion of Bougainville Island. Meanwhile, the Allies commenced their bombing of Axis‐occupied Rabaul, and Allied warships along with flightcraft damaged Axis submarine U‐340 off Punta Almina, Morocco.
1944: The Axis lost Nompatelize to the U.S. Seventh Army without a fight, and Moscow requested permission for Soviet troops to enter Bulgarian territory, but the Axis sent fifty thousand of Budapest’s Jews on a forced march to Austria, with ten thousand dying over the course of six days on the way there. Meanwhile, the Axis submarine U‐181 torpedoed and sunk the Allied tanker Fort Lee in the Indian Ocean.
1945: The Allies indicted forty‐two staff members of the Dachau concentration camp at Nuremberg.
2012: Giuseppe Umberto ‘Pino’ Rauti, Fascist politician, dropped dead.
:::


The Third Reich was the source of 60% of all investment in Zionist-occupied Palestine from 1933–1939


Quoting Lenni Brenner’s Zionism in the Age of the Dictators, chapter 6:

The debate over the Zionist–Nazi pact continued angrily until 1935. The Haʻavara rapidly grew to become a substantial banking and trading house with 137 specialists in its Jerusalem office at the height of its activities. The regulations were always changing in response to [Berlin’s] pressure, but in essence the agreement was always the same: German Jews could put money into a bank inside Germany, which was then used to buy exports which were sold outside Germany, usually but not exclusively in Palestine.

When the émigrés finally arrived in Palestine, they would receive payment for the goods that they had previously purchased after they had finally been sold. Fiscal ingenuity extended Haʻavara’s operations in many directions, but throughout its operation its attraction to German Jews remained the same: it was the least painful way of shipping Jewish wealth out of [the Third Reich].

However, the [Third Reich] determined the rules, and they naturally got worse with time; by 1938 the average user was losing at least 30 per cent and even 50 per cent of his money. Nevertheless, this was still three times, and eventually five times, better than the losses endured by Jews whose money went to any other destination.¹³²

The top limit through the Haʻavara scheme was 50,000 marks ($20,000 or £4,000) per emigrant, which made the Haʻavara unattractive to the richest Jews. Therefore only $40,419,000 went to Palestine via Haʻavara, whereas $650 million went to the United States, $60 million to the United Kingdom and other substantial sums elsewhere. Yet if, in terms of German Jewry’s wealth, Haʻavara was by no means decisive, it was crucial to Zionism.

Some 60 per cent of all capital invested in Palestine between August 1933 and September 1939 was channelled through the agreement with the [Third Reich].¹³³ In addition, the British set the annual Jewish immigrant quota, using the weak economic absorptive capacity of the country to limit their number; however, ‘capitalists’ — those bringing in over £1,000 ($5,000) — were allowed in over quota.

The 16,529 capitalists were thus an additional source of immigrants as well as an economic harvest for Zionism. Their capital generated a boom, giving Palestine a wholly artificial prosperity in the midst of the world‐wide Depression.

At first the WZO tried to defend itself against the charges of boycott‐scabbing and outright collaboration by insisting that the Haʻavara transfers did not really break the boycott, since [the Third Reich] did not receive foreign currency for its goods as they were all purchased inside the country for marks.

However, Berlin soon demanded part payment for some of the commodities in foreign currency and soon, too, the WZO started soliciting new customers for [the Third Reich] in Egypt, Lebanon, Syria and Iraq. Eventually the Zionists began exporting oranges to Belgium and Holland using [Fascist] ships.¹³⁴ By 1936 the WZO began to sell Hitler’s goods in Britain.¹³⁵


(Emphasis added. Note that ‘Haʻavara’ refers to a trading company that the World Zionist Organisation established to trade with the Third Reich.)

An example of this investment was the ‘Agreement for Transferring Property from Germany to Palestine: Details of the Three Million Mark Agreement’, which is available in the Zionist Record. Excerpt:

The Ministry of Economic Affairs has today published the full text of the decree providing for the transfer of Jewish property from Germany to Palestine.

The decree, which is numbered 54, and is dared August 28th, states that an agreement was concluded “with the Jewish bodies concerned,” for “promoting Jewish emigration to Palestine by releasing the necessary sums without putting excessive strain upon the foreign currency funds of the Reichsbank, and at the same time for increasing German exports to Palestine.”

The Reichsbank is for this purpose opening two special accounts for the Bank of Temple Society, it states, in favor of the Anglo‐Palestine Bank.


See Lenni Brenner’s 51 Documents: Zionist Collaboration With the Nazis for the full text.

Lastly, while I hate to state the obvious, I am afraid that it is now justified since there are more neoliberals than usual on this website, so I’ll go ahead and say it: no, demonstrating Zionism’s links with Fascism does not mean that I have anything against Jews. Zionism has nothing to do with protecting Jewish people, unless it intends to protect them by ensuring that thousands of Palestinian civilians won’t be able to breathe anymore, let alone meet Jews. So don’t pretend that a pseudodemocracy that lets dozens of thousands of its own citizens waste away in poverty can possibly hope to represent millions of people from around the world. If Zionism were about caring for Jewish people, its earliest head of state would never have said that he would rather have half a million Jews gone and half a million serving Zionism than both halves living safely in another part of the world:

A month after the [Fascist] pogrom against Germany’s Jews, famously known as Kristallnacht, [David Ben Gurion] stated on December 7, 1938: “If I knew it was possible to save all [Jewish] children of Germany by their transfer to England and only half of them by transferring them to Eretz‐Yisrael, I would choose the latter—because we are faced not only with the accounting of these [Jewish] children but also with the historical accounting of the Jewish People.”


(Source.)


:::spoiler Click here for events that happened today (September 17).
1939: The Reich submarine U-29 sunk the British aircraft carrier HMS Courageous.
1940: Due to setbacks in the Battle of Britain and approaching autumn weather, Berlin postponed Operation Sea Lion.
1944: Axis forces occupied San Marino but quickly suffered an Allied assault. (Coincidentally, Allied airborne troops parachuted into the Netherlands as the ‘Market’ half of Operation Market Garden, and Soviet troops launched the Tallinn Offensive against the Third Reich and anticommunist Estonian units. Lastly, an Axis war criminal, General Friedrich Zickwolff, died of a disease whilst in France.)
1953: Hans Feige, Axis general, mustered up the decency to drop dead.
2013: Eiji Toyoda, Axis industrialist, expired.
:::


This entry was edited (1 year ago)

The Functions of Fascism, a monologue by Michael Parenti


Click here if you want the original, unmodified audio.

:::spoiler Quotes.

This is Michael Parenti and welcome to Real History, a series of talks by me on different historical subjects that are relevant for understanding today’s realities. Most people are never exposed to real history. In school we usually don’t read history; [the] history [that] we read [is] history textbooks, and mainstream ones at that which avoid underlying realities and ones that propagate myths, myths that serve the powers that be, myths that some of us find harmful to the truth and to democracy, so this is Real History.

This particular segment is entitled ‘The Functions of Fascism’.

Fascism was a name that was given to the political movement that arose in Italy under the leadership of Benito Mussolini, who ruled that country from 1922 to 1943. Nazism, a similar movement lead by Adolf Hitler, [who] was Germany’s dictator from 1933 to ’45. It’s considered by most observers to be a variant of fascism, as to a lesser degree is the militaristic government that controlled Japan from 1940 to ’45, and the Falangist movement lead by Francisco Franco in Spain, when the fascists there—with the military aid, by the way, of the Italian and Nazi fascists—took over after a protracted civil war.

There are similar fascists or self‐avowed fascist movements but less successful ones arose in Eastern Europe, and in Great Britain, the United States, France, and other West industrial nations—movements. Some of them also came to power. We might recall today when the press is full of news about how Bulgaria, or Romania, or Hungary, or Lithuania, are returning—or Poland—are returning to their—to their democratic roots by overthrowing communism. We might recall that they weren’t democratic before communism came in, they were fascist. In fact, several of those countries, with the exception of Poland, were open allies of the Nazis. They were Nazi, fascist allies.

Now like with a lot of terms, like liberalism, democracy, socialism, communism, no single definition of fascism maybe will satisfy everybody. And with fascism there’s a really special problem, because it’s a beguiling mix of revolutionary‐sounding mass appeals, and reactionary class politics, and the reactionary class politics are the part of fascism that our established historians, our establishment historians, almost never talk about. Hitler’s party, for instance, was called the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, the NSDAP or ‘Nazis’. It’s a very left‐sounding name, National Socialist German Workers, and it was designed to win broad support among working people, even while the Nazis were destroying working‐class organizations.

In other words, fascism—the original Italian and German variations of fascism—was a political phenomenon that made a revolutionary appeal without making a revolution. It promised to solve the ills of the many while in fact protecting the special interests of the few with violence and terror. And it propagated a new political consciousness, a new order, a new nation, to serve the same old capitalist system.

Let me run down a couple of the major characteristics of the fascist ideology. First, there is a glorification of the leadership cult. The commitment to an absolutist and supreme leader, all‐knowing, all‐guiding, the Führerprinzip, as it’s called, the Führer principle—the leader principle, I should say.

Second, there is a glorification of the nation‐state as an end in itself, as an entity unto itself, an absolute component, to which the individual is subsumed. Everything in the state, everything for the state, nothing outside of the state, that was Mussolini’s dictum, and it was Hitler’s also. In fact, with Hitler, Rudolf Hess once said ‘Adolf Hitler is Germany, German is Adolf Hitler’, therefore combining both the leadership cult and the state cult in one.

Third, there was a glorification of military conquest and jingoism, the glory of—that the state is vitalized by subduing, countering, taking other people, enslaving them, you increase your own power, your own glory. Fourth, there was a the propagation of a folk mysticism; xenophobia and racism. The Nazi slogan was ‘Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer’: one people, one state, one leader.

Also, as a—other—other side of the folk mysticism and this blood cult of this special blood, this special legacy, the atavistic wonders of our particular people, was a—a—as I say, a xenophobia, a hatred, and racism, a hatred of other peoples of other nationalities. With the Nazis and most other Eastern European fascists, it was antsemitism. The Jew was seen as the perpetrator of all that was ill in society. The trade unionists? They were Jews. The communists? And so forth and so on. And behind them stood this wicked, alien‐blooded creature who would undermine our state.

Fifth, there was an opposition, both in Italian Fascism and in German Nazism, an opposition to socialism, to communism, to anarchism, and to all left, egalitarian class movements and doctrines, along with opposition to trade unions, opposition to labor parties, opposition to other working‐class political organizations.

Of these various characteristics of Nazism, one, two, three, four are often talked about by established historians and mainstream historians. That last one, though, opposition to labor unions, opposition to working‐class parties, opposition to socialism and such, that one is never talked about by Western writers, especially American writers.

The historians and the political scientists and the journalists who treat the subject of Fascism usually write from a centrist ideological perspective; from the political center of the spectrum. Which means [that] they usually ignore the link between Fascism and capitalism, just as they tend to ignore the entire subject of capitalism itself when there’s something unfavorable to say about it.

Instead, they dwell on the more phantasmic components of Fascist ideology: the nihilistic revolt against Western rationalism and individuality, the irrational appeals to mass submission to a leader and all that, and Fascism was those things but along with its irrational appeals… it had rational functions: it was a rational instrument for class domination and for the preservation of the existing capitalist system.

After World War I, Italy had a parliamentary government that seemed really incapable of solving the country’s economic crises. Profits were declining, banks were failing, unemployment was rising, so to ensure profits the big industrial giants and the big landowners would have to slash wages and raise prices.

The state, in turn, would have to provide the big owners with tariff protections, along with massive subsidies and tax exemptions. To finance this, the population would have to be taxed more heavily, their wages rolled back, and social welfare expenditures drastically cut. It sounds like Reaganism? Well, it is. Even more extremely so.

But the government wasn’t totally free to apply these harsh measures. First of all, Italian workers and peasants had their own unions, they had political organizations, they had cooperatives, they had their own publications, and through the use of demonstrations and strikes, boycotts, factory takeovers, occupying farmlands, the forcible occupation of farmlands, they often won some very real concessions in wages and work conditions, unemployment benefits, and they won the right to organize… and even in the face of this worsening economic crisis they were able to mount a troublesome defense of their standard of living. (I mean troublesome for those who own the land, the labor, and the capital, and the money and the banks and the farms and the factories.)

So the only solution, really, was to smash the worker and peasant organizations, in effect destroying all political and civil liberties, including the right to organize, agitate, and propagandize. The state would have to be more authoritarian and more firmly subservient to the interests of capital.

Mussolini and his Blackshirts were around right after World War I, and through—for about three or four years, the big landowners and industrialists used their Fascist goon squads, gave them money and gave them arms, and used them as kind of strikebreakers: antilabor militias. They styled themselves the United Front against Bolshevism.

In 1922, the big capital interests in Italy decided to go for the whole thing. Representatives of the Federation of Industry and the Federation of Agriculture, which was a[n] agribusiness firm, and representatives of the national banking association, they all met together, and they met with Mussolini, and they planned the Fascist March on Rome. Mussolini sat there and planned that with the leading capitalists of Italy. (By the way, this is almost never mentioned in the accounts about the March on Rome.)

These big capitalists contributed 20 million lire toward that undertaking. In the words of Senator Ettore Conti, himself a very loyal representative of the moneyed interests, quote, “Mussolini was the candidate of the plutocracy [that is, of the wealthy], and the business associations.”

A very similar pattern, by the way, of coordination and compliance existed between—in Germany also, less than a decade later. German workers and farm laborers and the period following World War I under the Weimar Republic won some important economic concessions: they won an eight‐hour day, they won unemployment insurance, and they were able to elect shop committees, and they won the right to unionize. And again, during the 1920s, these paramilitary, right‐wing gangs, most notably Hitler’s Brownshirts, stormtroopers, was subsidized by business in a limited way and kept as a kind of reserve army, with Göring called the ‘bodyguard of capitalism’.

And their job, again, was to strike, break, and to harass organized workers and to beat up socialists and communists and such. The nearly total collapse of the German economy, in 1929–30, presented the owning class with a momentous crisis.

They had very big capital investments, and these left them with very high fixed costs that had to be met even as their plans lay idle. Only massive state aid could revive their profits. Wages and social welfare, human service expenditures had to be cut. Union contracts had to be abrogated…in fact, human contracts had to be abrogated too.

Business would need new subsidies and tax exemptions. The crisis in agriculture was—was equally severe and the large landed proprietors, the junker class demanded even higher subsidies, heavier duties in foreign agricultural imports and an end to farm unions. These unions were holding wages up, and when wages were being sustained, you cut into profits.

So by 1930 most of the influential landowners and big industrialists and bankers, especially the industrialists in steel, coal, and mining, had concluded that the Weimar Republic no longer served the interests—served their interests, and no longer could protect their class, and that it was too accommodating to the working class, and to certain sectors of light industry. So they greatly increased their subsidies to Hitler, and they propelled the Nazi Party onto the national stage.

By 1930, most of the great industrialists and bankers were underwriting the Nazi Party. And what happened in 1930 with this injection of hundreds of millions of marks, is that Hitler was able to catapult his party onto the national scene. It went from a cult of Brownshirt thugs to a national party mobilized in the election of 1930, [where] the Nazi Party gained a hundred and seven seats in the Reichstag, and Hitler, later on, evoking the memory of what he called the ‘astonishing campaign’, told his listeners to think of, quote, “What it means when a thousand speakers each has a car at his disposal, and can hold in a year a hundred thousand meetings.”

And in 1931 and ’32 the subsidies from the big industrialists continued to grain in ever more abundantly. So the Nazis were projected onto the national stage and they gained an ever larger presence in the Reichstag.

Neither in Italy nor in Germany was revolution really something that was […] in the offing. I mean, it wasn’t a real threat. The left was never strong enough to take state power in either of those countries. So the threat wasn’t really from the left. The bourgeoisie resorted to Fascism less in response to the disturbances in the street, and more in response to the disturbances in their own economic system. The threat wasn’t from the left; the threat was from their own economic system and its contradictions, and the fact that democratic forces had developed enough democratic strength to resist the austerity and the rollback that the capitalists tried to impose to maintain their levels of profit. The sickness that these capitalists tried to vanish was from within, not from without.

[…]

Two, they wanted to embark on an aggressive foreign policy to open new markets for export and investment, thereby gaining a more equal footing with French and English competitors. So the Fascists really became a very valuable ally against the capitalists’ two worst enemies. The capitalists’ two worst enemies are first the workers in their own country, and the capitalists of foreign countries, and the genuineness, by the way, of fascism’s hatred of workers and foreigners was never open to doubt, so they fit in quite snuggly.

Now, I don’t mean to say that all the big industrialists and financiers supported Fascism with equal fervor. Some, like Tyson, were early and enthusiastic backers of Hitler, the aged Emil Kurdoff thanked God that he lived long enough to see the Führer emerge as the savior of Germany. Others contributed money to the Nazis but also to other antisocialist parties on the right.

They backed Hitler only when he promised to be the best hope for their interests. By the way, many of them still remained privately critical of the more extreme expressions of Nazi propaganda, and they were a little uneasy about the antibourgeois rhetoric as sometimes used by some of the fascist plebeian elements.

Some elements in business were not that hot for Fascism. Light industry, which had lower fixed costs, and more stable profits than heavy industry, that was dependent on consumer buying power and such, the light industrialists were not that keen about a more aggressive foreign policy, about heavy subsidies to heavy industry and the like.

But when push came to shove, they may not have been close to the Fascists, but they weren’t about to ally themselves with the proletariat against the business class of which they were a part, and they pretty much sided with the dominant elements, or kept their mouths shut.

There was another element in these two societies that not only tolerated the rise of Fascism, but supported it, and I’m talking about the parliamentary capitalist state itself, not the government or the parliament as such, but the instruments of the state, the instruments that have the legal monopoly on force and violence: the police, the army, the courts, and the like, the secret intelligence agencies and such.

In both Italy and Germany, years before Mussolini and Hitler emerged victorious, these elements—courts, police, the army—showed a real leniency and open collaboration with Fascism, while harshly repressing the left. Mussolini and Hitler could not have come to power without the help of the state machinery, and that state machinery was never really against them.

In Italy, the police collaborated with the Fascists in attacking labor and peasant organizations, they had recruited criminals for the Fascists—action squads, the squad[r]isti as they call[ed them], the squadristi, they promised them immunity from prosecution for past crimes. When applications for gun permits were regularly denied to workers and peasants… police guns and police cars were made available to Mussolini’s goons. Germany, the same kind of thing went on.

Immediately after the war, the military police and the judiciary sided with the rightists to suppress the left: a pattern of collaboration that continued to the day that Hitler took power. In other words, these supposed ‘democracies’, which were equally opposed to totalitarianism of the left and the right, were not equally opposed.

They were opposed to the left, and they were very close and comfy with the right, because the right, while it was out to destroy that ‘democracy’, the right was protecting the interests of property and the existing class structure, and that’s the difference between the left and the right, and that’s why a capitalist state tends to treat the right so much more leniently, and the left so much more harshly.

Let’s look at what the Weimar—what happened by the police and the courts under the Weimar Republic. These are the figures: left‐wing groups were charged with twenty‐two murders. Thirty‐eight people on the left were found guilty for those twenty‐[two] murders, they averaged fifteen years in prison, ten of those thirty‐eight were executed.

Among right‐wing groups: three hundred and fifty four murders. What is that? That’s about fifty times—sixty times more the number of murders. Of these three hundred and fifty four murders… three hundred and twenty‐six were not even prosecuted!

Twenty‐three were discharged—twenty‐three people of the right‐wing groups were discharged despite entering guilty pleas! They pleaded guilty to the murders and they were discharged! Twenty‐four were found guilty in part. Their average term in prison: four months. The number of them executed for the murders: none! So that’s the way the state operated.

Almost all the literature on Fascism and Nazism concentrates on who supported Hitler, who supported Mussolini, who’s behind him, was it this group or that group, and such. ‘Oh, there was a couple millionaires who didn’t like them. Oh, there was some workers who did vote for them. So you can’t really say it’s one class or another.’ Well, I think you could pretty well say which class gave them the money, that gave them the visibility, the organization, and the numbers to some degree.

But there’s something else. Besides talking about who supported Fascism, one thing [that] these historians and political scientists never talk about, is who did Fascism support, when Fascism came into power? Who did the Fascists support? Well, in Italy and Germany, when they came into power, they began implementing the sternest measures to rescue the capitalist economy.

Labor unions were dissolved. Strikes were outlawed. Union contracts were nullified. Prominent union leaders and other labor activists were imprisoned or murdered. Union property was confiscated. Worker publications were banned. Opposition political parties were outlawed, their leaders jailed. Civil liberties were suspended. Fascist‐sponsored “unions” were set up and their function was to speed up production, prevent wildcat strikes, and apply punitive regulations, including fines, dismissals, and imprisonments against workers who agitated or complained of shop conditions.

I mean, even a Nazi labor front newspaper had to admit, quote, “Some shop regulations are reminiscent of penal codes.” Workers no longer had the right to change jobs, they could be shifted from one employment to another regardless of their wishes, they could be conscripted for any work assumed useful to the nation’s economy without guarantee of wages equal to previous earnings.

In both Italy and Germany, the government exercised arbitrary…I mean, compulsory arbitration and regulation of working wages. By the way, any worker contested that would be contesting the laws of the state, and therefore would be declared an enemy of the state, not just in conflict with management, but an enemy of the state.
:::

This entry was edited (1 year ago)

On this day 86 yrs. ago, the Fascists besieged hundreds of Ethiopians who were hiding in a cave, then poisoned them a week later


On April 3, the siege of the cave began. The Arbegnoch put up stiff resistance, which was initially successful. The [Fascist] troops were in a difficult position, as the steep rock walls on either side of the cave left them exposed to enemy fire.

The Ascari used machine guns, artillery, grenades and tear gas bullets, but failed to flush out the partisans. The situation had reached a stalemate, even though they even tried to use flamethrowers.

After seven days of siege, the [Fascist] command decided to call up the chemical warfare platoon from the port of Massawa in Eritrea, which arrived with hundreds of artillery shells loaded with arsine and an airplane bomb containing about 212 kg of mustard gas.

On April 9, the chemical platoon, after funneling the mustard gas into 12 containers connected to electric detonators, dropped them in front of the cave entrance and blew them up. Thus began the inferno of Amazegna Washa.

The initial contact with mustard gas is painless, but it penetrates the skin deeply, passing through waterproof clothing, and it causes the progressive inflammation of skin tissues. After a few hours, the skin swells in huge blisters, which later turn into sores that expose the raw flesh to the air. The gas causes severe internal bleeding, attacks the respiratory system and causes blindness.

Many Arbegnoch that found themselves near the entrance of the cave quickly succumbed to the gas, and those hiding inside would suffer the effects of exposure. The refugees and partisans hiding in the cave were at the end of their strength. The gas polluted the internal lake. Thus, on April 11, the procession of partisans, women and children began to leave the cave.

The men, about 800, were immediately shot in groups of 50 on the edge of the ravine, according to Mussolini’s supreme decree, while the women and children were held for a short time near the [Regio Esercito] encampment and then released, dying of gas poisoning.

This is the most plausible reconstruction of the massacre carried out by the Fascist units, which violated the Geneva Convention in every way. Almost 80 years later, the size of this massacre is still shrouded in a cloud of mystery.

Unlike the high-ranking Fascist officers, it is difficult to say whether the [Regio Esercito] knew that inside the cave there were also women, children and the elderly. However, it is plausible to estimate that the dead, inside and outside the cave, numbered between 800 and 1,500.

This entry was edited (10 months ago)

Why fellow capitalists bailed out Axis businessman Alfried Krupp


Transcript:

Winston Churchill: ‘From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an iron curtain has descended across the Continent. Behind that line lie all the capitals of the ancient states of Central and Eastern Europe: Warsaw, Berlin, Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Belgrade, Bucharest and Sofia; all these famous cities and the populations around them lie in what I must call the Soviet sphere, and all are subject, in one form or another, not only to Soviet influence but to a very high and in some cases increasing measure of control from Moscow. […]

‘There never was a war in history easier to prevent by timely action than the one which has just desolated such great areas of the globe. It could have been prevented, in my belief, without the firing a single shot, and Germany might be powerful, prosperous, and honoured today… but no one would listen, and one by one we were all sucked into the awful whirlpool. We surely—ladies and gentlemen, I put it to you—surely we must not let that happen again!’

Audience: [Applause.]

Walter Rockler: ‘[It was a] total split between the Western Allies and the Soviet Union; uh, Churchill’s speech crystallized into talk of the Iron Curtain.’

Narrator: ‘Germany was the front‐line in the Cold War. America’s Marshall Plan of 1947 gave economic aid to rebuild Europe in exchange for assistance in helping to fight communism there. The Soviets viewed the Marshall Plan as an act of extreme aggression.

‘German postwar recovery was slow, partly because its leading industrialists were on trial for war crimes. Among the German manufacturers accused of using slave labour for arms production was industrial giant Krupp. Gustav Krupp had been a loyal Nazi. He helped fund Hitler’s rise to power, he gave signed copies of Hitler’s book, Mein Kampf, to his German workers, and Hitler reserved a special place for Krupp and his employees at the Nuremberg rallies.

‘The German lawyer, Otto Kranzbühler, who represented Dönitz at the first trial, defended Krupp against the slave labour charges at Nuremberg.’

Otto Kranzbühler: ‘The general line of the defense was, all these so‐called programmes were state programmes, and the industrialists participated in carrying out the orders, the laws and decrees of their government.’

Narrator: ‘Alfried Krupp and ten of his fellow directors were convicted at Nuremberg; the company’s assets were seized.

‘After the war, Berlin had been divided into separate Soviet and Western‐controlled sectors. In June 1948, the American‐backed Deutsche Mark was introduced as the new currency in West Berlin. The Soviets responded by blockading the western sector. The crisis changed German–American relations dramatically. A major relief operation, the Berlin Airlift, was mounted to beat the blockade. It was a Cold War battle in which the West Germans and Americans could cooperate against the Soviets.’

Arno Hamburger: ‘The former enemy, Germany, became—I don’t want to say a friend, but a necessary… helper—I don’t want to say ‘allied’—at that time, and the former friends, the Soviet Union, became more or less an enemy.’

Narrator: ‘When Walter Rockler was assigned to prosecute German bankers, the Nuremberg trials had been underway for three years.’

Walter Rockler: ‘Early in ’48, three of us lawyers were working on bank cases, which—the impetus from which originally came from treasury officials in Washington, they had gathered some data on ’em. We’re called into Telford Taylor’s office, and told that the trials were going to be curtailed, and we couldn’t prosecute representatives of two of the principal German banks: the Deutsche and Dresdner Banks, but we probably would be limited to a single defendant from one of the banks. Because the Dresdner Bank had… superior S.S. connexions, and some of the members of its Vorstand or governing board were themselves S.S. officers, we finally decided we would go with the Dresdner Bank—although the activities of the Dresdner and the Deutsche Bank were not, by any means, dissimilar.’

Narrator: ‘West Germany was becoming America’s partner in the Cold War against the Soviets. A strong German economy was viewed as essential to counter the influence of communism in Western Europe.

‘After serving only two years of a twelve‐year prison sentence, Alfried Krupp was released along with fellow directors. The Krupp fortune was restored. Today, Otto Kranzbühler lives in the luxurious surroundings of Lake Tegernsee, near Munich. After defending the directors of Krupp, Kranzbühler was employed for the next forty years as an adviser to the company.

‘In 1949, after four years of work, the last American prosecutors had left Nuremberg. While the first trial had been successful, Cold War politics has overtaken the American commitment to justice at Nuremberg. Of the ninety‐nine Germans sentenced to prison at the subsequent trials, the majority were released within two years.’

Walter Rockler: ‘We thought it tended to make a mockery of the trials. We pursued legitimate prosecution goals and legitimate legal principles, but to some degree, the times had passed us by; it was a different world by ’48 and ’49. The prosecution activities were, to a certain extent, counter the stream.’

This entry was edited (8 months ago)

The Workers’ Opposition in the Third Reich


(Mirror. Addendum.)

They were nearly all small. In only 6 cases did more than 80 people take part; the average was probably around 30. In every case the strike was confined to a single workplace, in larger firms to a single department. This brings out clearly one particularly important point: police terrorism had robbed the working class of its ability to achieve spontaneous active solidarity on all but the smallest scale.

Without their own organisations, groups of workers in such conflicts were heavily isolated from each other. The strikes were also all short-lived — the Gestapo, state and party officials were always on the spot the same day, often within hours.

The strikes all seem to have been about questions of wages and working conditions; sometimes specific acts of chicanery by employers or by the labour exchanges furnished the occasion. Some strikes were defensive, others, it seems, offensive efforts to gain improvements; and there are trustworthy references to offensive strikes in other sources from these years.

The tabulation is too sketchy to permit a more substantial analysis, but one thing does clearly stand out: in the light of the prohibition on strikes, of the permanent repression and surveillance, of the fact that there was no doubt that the Gestapo would arrest strikers, it called for a very high degree of determination and solidarity to down tools.

This entry was edited (2 years ago)

The Fascists ruined thousands of Torah scrolls


The media in this post is not displayed to visitors. To view it, please go to the original post.

(This takes approximately ten minutes to read. Aside from anti-Jewish violence, it also discusses one instance of animal abuse.)

For anyone still unaware, (the) Tōrāh is Judaism’s and Samaritanism’s foundational text and their most sacred object. Abrahamic tradition attributes its authorship to Prophet Moses, who in turn was inspired by the Almighty. This attribution is probably legendary, but whatever the case may be the Torah remains a work of great cultural importance.

I have mentioned before how the Fascists destroyed Toroth, but after I found one particularly baffling example of Torah desecration, I decided that the phenomenon deserved its own thread to supplement my discussion of Fascist anti-Judaism. Before we delve into how the Fascists intentionally desecrated these works, it is important to grasp the Torah’s value even if you are completely irreligious. For starters, Sifrei Torah are not exactly the sorts of objects that you can find on an assembly line. To quote Karen Kaplan:

Creating a Torah scroll requires experience, patience, and dedication to detail. The words are written, letter by letter, with the greatest care, by a highly trained scribe. There can be no mistakes. It must all hold together perfectly. And then it’s rolled into a scroll.


Judaists have numerous rules for treating Sifrei Torah, including how they should face the readers, and if something or someone severely damages a Sefer Torah, it has to be buried or ‘secreted’ as Rabbi Solomon Ganzfried put it. Here is a brief look at how Jews respect the Torah from Katherine Aron-Beller’s Christian Images and Their Jewish Desecrators: The History of an Allegation, 400–1700, ch. 4:

The idea that the Torah, as a divine object, had a preexistence in heaven had been developed in early rabbinic literature. Jews are not allowed to touch it with their hands, when it is carried before them in a procession in their synagogues. It is the only Jewish object [that] Jews are expected to bow down before.⁹⁴


When the Crusaders (from whom the Third Reich took inspiration) intentionally desecrated Toroth, it traumatised Jewish onlookers:

The Hebrew chroniclers first emphasized the holiness and beauty of the Torah, how it was honored by a particular Jewish community, and how terrible it was that the uncircumcised contaminated it.

[…]

The Mainz Anonymous depicts the grief of the Jewish women who saw the Torah as it was torn in the Mainz synagogue in 1098: “There was also a Torah scroll in the room; the errant ones came into the room, found it, and tore it to shreds. When the holy and pure women, daughters of kings, saw that the Torah had been torn, they called in a loud voice to their husbands: ‘Look, see, the Holy Torah—it is being torn by the enemy!’ And they all said, men and women together: ‘Alas, the Holy Torah, the perfection of beauty, the delight of our eyes, to which we used to bow in the synagogue, kissing and honoring it. How has it now fallen into the hands of the impure uncircumcised ones?’”⁹⁸


It may still be uneasy to understand why someone would attach so much importance to a scroll, especially if you hold some of its contents in low regard, but imagine how you would feel if somebody destroyed one of your most cherished or valuable possessions. Alternatively, imagine how you would feel if somebody destroyed an irreplaceable work of history.

While none of those is quite the same thing as a Sefer Torah (with several exceptions), the point is to give you an approximation of how you would feel. Sifrei Torah are not only sacred ritual objects: they take great skill to make, they have distinguishing features that make them unique to their synagogues, and they are effectively family heirlooms, often being sources of fond memories.

It is because Jewish communities instilled so much value in these scrolls that Fascist Gentiles found it fulfilling to deliberately damage them. This was not only a source of amusement for the Fascists, it was also a useful demonstration of power and an intimidating rejection of Jewish cultures that made Jews feel even more tempted to either leave or avoid the Fascist bourgeoisie’s increasingly homogeneous empires, thereby freeing up room and other resources for the White, gentile colonisers. Quoting Alon Confino’s A World Without Jews: The Nazi Imagination from Persecution to Genocide, page 3:

[A]s dawn broke over the town’s elegant houses, something else had happened in Schlageter Square. By now, all Jews had been assembled. Some, like Oskar and his family, had been standing there for some four hours. A good-­sized crowd of citizens had also gathered. At the center of the square the [Fascists] had piled Jewish ritual objects from the synagogues along with items from the Jewish community house, which had been destroyed earlier.

Clearly visible on the pole in the middle were the synagogues’ Torah scrolls. There, after first rolling out the scrolls in the square and forcing the rabbis to walk on them, the [Fascists] hung the Torah. Then, before the assembled crowd, they set the pyre ablaze (simultaneously with one of the synagogues, it seems): the Hebrew Bible […] was thus publicly burned.


Page 109:

In Vienna, after Austria joined the Reich in March 1938, Torah scrolls were used as carpets.³¹


Pages 115–118:

The [Germanic Fascists] burned the Hebrew Bible on November 9 and 10, 1938. Not one copy but thousands, not in one place but in hundreds of communities across the Reich, and not only in such metropolises as Berlin, Stettin, Vienna, Dresden, Stuttgart, and Cologne but in such small communities as Sulzburg, a Protestant village in Baden with 1,070 inhabitants where the stone tablets of the Ten Commandments were thrown from the roof of the synagogue and the [Fascists] marched mockingly up and down the main street with Torah scrolls before destroying them.¹ By fire and other means, the destruction of the Book of Books was at the center of Kristallnacht, when fourteen hundred synagogues were set on fire.²

In Berlin, [Fascists] burned the Torah scrolls of the Hebrew Bible in front of the Levetzowstrasse synagogue, while others carried the scrolls from the Fasanenstrasse synagogue to Wittenberg Square and burned them there.³ The scrolls that were saved from Wittenberg Square were later buried by the community in Weissensee according to Jewish tradition.

In Pestalozzistrasse shredded Torah scrolls and prayer books as well as religious objects from the altar littered the area near the synagogue. Children were mockingly marching on the shredded Torah with top hats on.⁴ In the Jewish quarter of Leopoldgasse in Vienna, the Arks and Torah scrolls from four synagogues were piled up in the street and set on fire. In Mosbach, in Baden, a community of five thousand souls, a photograph captured local inhabitants watching as the interior of the synagogue was burned on the morning of November 10.⁵

Destroying the Hebrew Bible in small communities was a public event [that] no one could ignore, one in which children often participated.

In Fritzlar, a small town in Hessen where in the year 919 the Reichstag gave birth to the Holy Roman German Empire, Torah scrolls were rolled along the Nikolausstrasse as Hitler Youth rode their bicycles over them.⁶ Children played with the Torah on the street in Hirschberg, in Silesia, while in Herford, a small town in western Germany, they shredded it to pieces to a general bellowing and laughing.⁷

In the village of Kippenheim, Baden (1,821 inhabitants), youth threw the Torah scrolls into the local brook, while in one quarter of Vienna, schoolchildren were taken to watch the Torah set on fire.⁸

Jewish children conjured their own image of the Bible on that day. Batya Emanuael, thirteen years old, watched with her brother the destruction of a small synagogue that stood next to their house in Frankfurt: “A window was pushed open, a chair flew out. […] It was followed by another chair and yet another. And then there was silence. […] A white snake jumped down from the windowsill and slithered down, down to the ground below, it seemed unending. ‘Scrolls of the Law, Torah Scrolls,’ we gasped, not wanting to believe our eyes.”⁹

In Aachen, [Fascists] tore the Torah in front of the synagogue and put scraps in their pockets, claiming [that] it would bring them good luck (an old belief of unknown origins).¹⁰ In Vienna, Siegfried Merecki, a fifty-one-year-­old lawyer with three children, lived near one of the city’s synagogues. That night he saw “packages being carried away. […] Shadowy figures were moving toward the bridge over the Danube. Then I understood. The Torah scrolls were being taken to the bridge and thrown into the river. I watched and counted six [scrolls] and heard hideous laughter.”¹¹

Also in Vienna, Jews were dressed in the robes and decorations of the Ark and then marched and chased through the streets with torn Torah scrolls tied to their backs, while in Frankfurt Jews were forced to tear up the Torah and burn it.¹² In small Schmieheim, a Protestant community of 752 souls in Baden, [Fascists] rolled the synagogue’s seven Torah scrolls down the street like a carpet. Some rolls were later hung in the train station of the nearby village of Dinglingen bei Lahr.¹³

A Jewish woman who attempted to save the scrolls and ritual objects in Lichtenfeld, Bavaria, was stopped by children. A scuffle ensued, and the woman was killed. The children later played football with the prayer books.¹⁴

In Altdorf, a Catholic village of 1,112 souls in Baden, a [Fascist] mimicked the Jewish prayer in front of the synagogue using the talith, the Jewish prayer shawl, as toilet paper, and then read from the prayer book, spitting invective against Jews.¹⁵ And in Wittlich, in western Germany, “a shouting SA man climbed to the roof, waving the rolls of the Torah: ‘Wipe your asses with it, Jews,’ he screamed while he hurled them like bands of confetti on Carnival.”¹⁶

In Württemberg, a man who picked up Jewish prayer books in the street, presumably as an act of respect toward the holy objects, was later hanged publicly on a tree on the road from Steinach to Hall. In Euskirchen in the Rhineland, the Torah was rolled open and hung from the adorned roof of the synagogue at Annaturmstrasse, visible to the crowd who gathered before the building as well as to those who viewed the smoking temple from a distance. As Torah scrolls burned in a synagogue’s yard in Düsseldorf, German men, some wearing the robes of the rabbis and cantors, danced around the fire.¹⁷


Page 161:

[Wehrmacht] soldiers during the Polish campaign first treated Jews according to anti-­Jewish acts familiar from the prewar years. Previous experience is often the first guide for action. Synagogues were burned and Torah scrolls destroyed all over Poland.


Page 209:

One object was no longer of interest to the [Fascists]. The [Institute for Research on the Jewish Question in Frankfurt] did not [always] bother to collect Torah scrolls, although one official noted that “perhaps the leather can still have some use for bookbinding.” Scrolls were used in areas occupied by the [Third Reich] for binding books and making such leather objects as belts and shoes.⁵³


Quoting Jennifer Hansen-Glucklich’s Holocaust Memory Reframed: Museums and the Challenges of Representation:

Before destroying synagogues throughout Germany and eastern Europe, the [Fascists] would often desecrate and destroy the sacred objects that they found within, including Torah scrolls. This was part of the larger [Fascist] effort not only to wipe out all Jewish communities but to humiliate and eradicate the Jewish culture[s] as well.

In 1941 in Slobodka, Ukraine, for example, [Axis] troops filled the town synagogue with dead cats and forced Jewish inhabitants to tear up Torah scrolls and then strew the pieces across the corpses of the animals. What this event reveals is the fact that destruction was not enough—the Torah, as the book most sacred to the Jewish people and therefore emblematic of Jewish belief and culture as a whole, had to be desacralized and stripped of its power.

Attempts to desecrate sacred Jewish objects appear in anti-Semitic cartoons as well, such as those found in Julius Streicher’s infamous Der Stürmer. In one cartoon, for example, a Jewish man prays before an altar topped with a bag of gold that is marked with a Star of David. Beneath the altar, at his feet, lies a discarded Torah scroll.²⁴ Wealth and greed, the cartoon claims, are what are truly sacred to the Jew; the Torah is merely a prop that is discarded when the real sacred object—money—appears.

It is true that [Fascism] did not invent the act of burning or desecrating the Torah. Indeed, Torah scrolls were often trampled underfoot or burned—along with the synagogues that held them—by mobs during pogroms throughout European history. Torah scrolls were not officially burned by the church, however, as was the case with the Talmud, which was publicly burned a number of times in Italy and France between the thirteenth and sixteenth centuries.²⁵

The destruction of Torah scrolls during the [Fascist era], however, is unparalleled. It is impossible to know how many Torah scrolls were desecrated and destroyed by the [Fascists] throughout [the Third Reich] and its occupied territories, but the number is certainly in the thousands.


:::spoiler (Emphasis added. Click here for more.)
Quoting Jared McBride’s ‘The Tuchyn Pogrom: The Names and Faces Behind the Violence, Summer 1941’:

Most explicitly German involvement in early violence is recounted by one witness, who noted how a few soldiers found a small synagogue in the home of Chaim Szprinc and set alight six Torah scrolls in his yard.⁴¹


Quoting Andreas Schulz in The Greater German Reich and the Jews: Nazi Persecution Policies in the Annexed Territories 1935–1945, page 223:

In Neuhof, ethnic Germans (Volksdeutsche) collected Torah scrolls, wrapped them up with the shorn hair of Jewish women, and tried to force an elderly Jew to set the sacred scriptures on fire. Refusing to do so, he was shot. In the end, the rest of the town’s Jews had to kindle the flames and dance around the burning Torah scrolls.


Quoting World War II: the Encyclopedia of the War Years, 1941–1945, pages 445446:

[Axis] occupation forces randomly killed Polish Jews, taunted and tortured them, or made them perform despicable acts. A favorite: forcing Jews at gunpoint to gather up sacred Torah scrolls and burn them while they danced around the fire singing, “We rejoice that this shit is burning.”


The Axis’s willing collaborators frequently participated in damaging these scrolls, too.
:::

Believe it or not, these remarkably tasteless displays of dominance were not entirely what prompted me to discuss this subject. Inspiration struck after I found an article on shoe soles made from Torahic parchment. Quoting Jay Prosser’s ‘Cecil Roth’s Torah scroll shoe soles: collecting Holocaust relics in Greece’:

Other scrolls, such as the one [that] we find left over in Roth’s shoe soles, were stolen by the [Fascists] or local populations to provide material for new goods. In accordance with halacha (Jewish religious law), the parchment of Sifrei Torah is kosher animal skin and most often calf. Yad Vashem holds a number of leather goods ‘recycled’ from desecrated scrolls, including a handbag, a toy drum, and a wallet.¹⁹

Yad Vashem also holds three shoe soles which are the Sefer Torah fragments most comparable to Roth’s: one pair of insoles found in the shoes of [an Axis] officer in Italy; plus a single sole without any known provenance or history.²⁰ Only in the case of Roth’s Sefer Torah soles can we know the collector, the year, as well as the country of collection. Only with these soles can we reconstruct most of the story involving collection.


To end this on a less depressing note, the Axis’s approach to the Torah was not always as straightforward as these desecrations. Mihai I. Poliec found a curious instance where a few Wehrmacht officials prevented an Axis merchant from destroying Sifrei Torah that he found in a closet, and Jay Prosser’s article talks about the Third Reich sometimes seizing these scriptures as mere trophies, whereafter they eventually ended up in Jewish hands again:

Scrolls faced a number of possible different fates. Fire, bomb, or other damage destroyed some completely. Many were stolen from synagogues to be transported to the Institute for the Study of the Jewish Question in Frankfurt, the antisemitic center for holding and debasing Jewish culture.¹⁶

The fortunate ones were stored and restored after the war. Most famous among these are the Czech Scrolls, the 1,600 scrolls uprooted from synagogues across Bohemia and Moravia, which were held in the Jewish Museum in Prague during the war, then in an abandoned synagogue outside of Prague. In 1964 they were rescued and brought to Westminster Synagogue in London.¹⁷ They are now lent to Jewish communities around the world.



How the First Reich influenced the Third Reich


(This takes four minutes to read.)

Quoting Carroll P. Kakel’s The Holocaust as Colonial Genocide, pages 27–9, 35, 37–8 & 63:

To the Germans of the 1920s and 1930s, hearing the call of their medieval and Prussian forebears, the ‘German East’ signified a ‘return to the pristine, lost past of the Teutonic Order and Frederick the Great, and heralded a paradise to be regained’,⁸ a paradise, the [Fascists] said, of blood and soil (Blut und Boden).


A Fascist knight defending a peasant from communism.

The Order of the Teutonic Knights was a crusading military order which conquered territory in the eastern Baltic lands during the Middle Ages. Founded in the Holy Land [today occupied Palestine], in 1190, in the midst of the crusades — as a military organization to care for sick and wounded crusaders — the Order drew its members from the ranks of German nobility.

The Order soon began a systematic conquest of lands along the Baltic coast, conquering what was then Prussia and Livonia (the medieval name for Estonia and Latvia). As a result of its Baltic crusades, by 1400, the Order controlled a large territory along the Baltic coast. During their Baltic crusades, the Teutonic Knights adopted a harsh policy towards the region’s indigenous peoples — slaughtering any who opposed them and ‘removing’ others from their ancestral grounds.

In the wake of the Order’s conquests, tens of thousands of German settlers flooded these lands, as part of a state‐sponsored German immigration and ‘Germanization’ of these lands. Desirous of more lands, the Teutonic Knights launched a pre‐emptive strike against the Polish–Lithuanian state near the village of Tannenberg, in July 1410.


A Gautag 1936 Hildesheim postcard featuring a round swastika in the background and a giant knight in front of it.

The strategy backfired, however, resulting in a disastrous defeat which left half the knights dead on the battlefield and severely weakened the Order. The Order of the Teutonic Knights never regained its influence, prestige or success.¹⁰


A 2nd Saxon War Wounded and Veterans’ Day (Nationalsozialistische Kriegsopferversorgung or National ‘Socialist’ War Casualty Assistance Organisation) NSKOV postcard. It depicts a knight holding a tower shield that bears a swastika in its centre. Behind him is the Wehrmacht holding umpteen Fascist banners.

For late‐nineteenth century and early‐twentieth century Germans, the turn to ‘the East’ was, in their view a ‘return’, a chance to complete the plan started by their thirteenth‐century ancestors when crusading Teutonic Knights had conquered and ‘Germanized’ ‘the East’ by ‘the sword’. The example of the Teutonic Knights’ Baltic crusade would provide a powerful historical precedent for twentieth‐century Germans committed to continuing what they saw as the inevitable and timeless German ‘drive to the East’ (Drang nach Osten) and expansion onto Slavic lands.

Under [his brand of fascism], Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf, his new Reich would ‘march on the road of the Knights of the Teutonic Order of yore’ who obtained ‘sod for the German plow and daily bread for the nation’ by the sword, to win new ‘living space’ [Lebensraum] in ‘the East’ for the German people.¹¹ Hitler’s second (and largest) war for ‘living space’ — the assault on the Soviet Union — was named Operation Barbarossa after a crusading twelfth‐century German emperor.

In [the Third Reich], Himmler depicted the Schutzstaffel/protection squad (or SS) as a revival of the Order of the Teutonic Knights, taking the Order as a model for his SS.¹² In their propaganda, the [Fascists] portrayed the Teutonic Knights crusade as the forerunner of Hitler’s wars for ‘living space’ in ‘the East’. In short, the [German Fascists] saw themselves (amongst other things) as the Teutonic Knights of the twentieth century.¹³


Vichy propaganda depicting an Axis soldier as literally embodying a Crusader.

During the World War I era, wartime German soldiers on the Eastern front, as well as the post‐war German Baltic Freikorps fighters, saw themselves as resurrected thirteenth‐century Teutonic Knights seeking new ‘living space’ in the ‘German East’. These two episodes also reminded their fellow Germans of the glories of the medieval past, when crusading Teutonic Knights had conquered and ‘Germanized’ the Slavic East ‘by the sword’.


A knight inside of a Fascist swastika. He holds a sword in his right hand and a Fascist standard in the other.

In a huge battle, lasting 26–31 August 1914, the German Army defeated the Russian Army, a battle christened the Battle of Tannenberg — redeeming in German expansionist eyes the 1410 defeat of the Teutonic Knights by a combined Lithuanian and Polish force. The victory at Tannenberg was followed by further German eastern victories during 1915. […] Intoxicated with ‘the East’, the Baltic Freikorps, as one of its members later recollected, saw themselves as resurrected Teutonic Knights, as a ‘new race of military farmerhood, a battle‐ready chain of colonizers, which believed that it had a Teutonic Knight mission to fulfill’.


A mid‐1930s postcard depicting the Third Reich’s head of state as a knight.

Drawn by [Fascist] intentions in ‘the East’ (which sought to mirror earlier Baltic Freikorps aims of conquest, expansion, settlement and colonization), many Freikorps fighters joined the fledg[l]ing [Fascist] movement. Citing historical precedent, the [German Fascists] saw themselves as reconquering land that the Germanic Teutonic Knights had won and settled many centuries before.

In their view, they were merely ‘taking back’ land that had once been ‘German’ and, in Hitler’s spatial fantasy, making this land ‘German again’.⁶¹ […] On the morning of 22 August 1939, [Berlin] exhorted [its] generals to ‘have no pity’ during the coming war with Poland; the coming Polish campaign (dubbed ‘Operation Tannenberg’, aimed at avenging the 1410 defeat of the Teutonic Knights) was to be carried out, [it] said, with ‘the greatest brutality and without mercy’.


(Emphasis added in all cases.)

On a minor note, the Fascists’ infamous desire to create a ‘Thousand Year Reich’ was likely inspired by the opinion that the First Reich began in 800 C.E. and finally ended in 1806 C.E. (I say ‘opinion’ because some historians argue that the First Reich actually began in 962 C.E.)

See also: The Devil’s Historians: How Modern Extremists Abuse the Medieval Past

William J. Diebold’s ‘The Nazi Middle Ages’ in Whose Middle Ages?: Teachable Moments for an Ill-Used Past

Castle Studies and the Idea of Europe: Medievalism in German-Speaking Europe between Politics and Scientific Research, 1918–1945

Protestant pioneer Martin Luther influenced the Fascists


:::spoiler Click here for events that happened today (March 18).
1903: Galeazzo Ciano, Axis diplomat, was born in Livorno, Toscana.
1913: Werner Mölders, Axis pilot, came into existence.
1920: Adolf Schicklgruber departed Berlin after a planned coup failed to start.
1933: Iwane Matsui became a member of the Imperial Japanese Supreme War Council as Major General Kennosuke Otsuka became the Taiwan Army’s chief of staff.
1937: In an attempt to improve his image in the Arab world and symbolize hisself as its supposed protector, Benito Mussolini staged a propaganda event in which he received a ceremonial sword from Arab leaders from Fascist‐occupied Libya. Likewise, the Fascists in Guadalajara faced off antifascist forces around the same time that the Blackshirt Division ‘Dio lo vuole’ in Spain disbanded.
1938: Adolf Schicklgruber and Benito Mussolini met at Brennero in the Brenner Pass on the Italian–Austrian border; Mussolini agreed to enter a war on the Reich’s side at an opportune moment. Additionally, Imperial troops captured Tengxian, Jiangsu Province, China after a two‐day battle.
1939: While in Vienna in Reich‐occupied Austria, Adolf Schicklgruber approved the formation of a German protectorate in Slovakia. As well, some Imperial troops boarded barges at Xingzi, Jiujiang, Jiangxi Province, China, sailed south ten kilometers on the Yangtze River, and disembarked to assault Chinese positions at Wucheng.
1940: Luftwaffe bombers attacked a Netherlandish trawler off Ijmuiden, the Netherlands, killing several folk including the captain and the first mate.
1941: The Reich centralized all coal mining and distribution, and the Reich’s head of state met with Wilhelm Keitel, Alfred Jodl, and Erich Raeder; Raeder urged Berlin to convince the Empire of Japan to attack Singapore and recommended that Berlin reveal the plans for Operation Barbarossa to the Empire of Japan. Aside from that, Erwin Rommel departed North Africa for a meeting with his Chancellor, and Axis submarine U‐105 attacked Allied convoy SL‐68 west of Senegal at 0400 hours, sinking one British ship and slaughtering the entire crew.
1942: The first A4 rocket exploded on Test Stand VII at Peenemünde, Germany during a combustion chamber test, and Axis aircraft assaulted Port Moresby, Australian Papua.
1943: Vichy France repealed some antisemitic laws, it seems. Meanwhile, Oswald Mosley and Diana Mosley received Norah Elam and Dudley Elam while in imprisonment in London, and the Allies accidentally(?) struck civilian facilities in the Reich, killing one hundred eight folk and wounding over one hundred.
1944: At 1100 hours, Auschwitz prisoner Rudolf Friemel married neoslave Margarita Ferrer at the camp’s Registry Office. This was the only case where a prisoner was allowed to marry in the camp. Apart from that, the Axis airfield at Lechfeld experienced an Allied bombing raid, and so did Hamburg.
1945: Albert Speer, sensing his Chancellor’s wish to potentially order the Greater German Reich’s destruction so as to prevent Allied capture, attempted to persuade him not to destroy Germany’s future. The Axis lost both Boppard and Kolberg to the Allies. Still, an Axis V‐2 rocket hit the Speaker’s Corner at the edge of Hyde Park in London that morning, massacring three folk and seriously injuring nine.
1956: Pietro Tacchi Venturi, Fascist collaborator, dropped dead.
1967: Erik Hansen, Axis general, died.
:::


This entry was edited (3 months ago)

Mustard Gas Massacres & Atrocities Committed by the Fascists in 1939 against Ethiopians


(Alternative link. Alternative link.)

Even though all the aforesaid atrocities are horrific, the mustard gas massacre in Ametsegna Washa also called the cave of Zeret was shockingly cruel and inhumane. […] This massacre was the undocumented and forgotten massacre. Sadly, the cave is not conserved well. This study, therefore, attempted to open a new avenue of discussion by revealing the mustard gas massacre of the inhabitatnt of Menz, Jamma, Merhabete, and Jiru in Ametsegna Washa in 1939 and thereby call for […] Italy and [the] Vatican [to] apolog[ize] and [offer] adequate reparation.


(Unfortunately, the author’s grasp of English grammar is poor, but presently this is the best research that we have on this important topic. If anybody requests it I can rewrite this article for legibility.)

:::spoiler
[Excerpt]

During the night the [Fascists] thr[e]w 12 barrel[s] filled with mustard gas into the mouth of the cave from the second cliff called Gedam. On the morning of that day, Easter day, the [Fascist] soldiers attacked [with] the 12 barrel[s] from the right side of the first cliff, Kelawuha around Dimdm Washa. They also continuously attacked the mouth of the cave with artillery and machine‐gun fire.

Initially, there were no symptoms and difficulties associated the mustard gas. After nine hours, the gas became active and affected all peoples inside the cave. The number of affected peoples increased at 12 hours. It affected their eyes, skin, and respiratory system.

Children, women, [and] elders were entered into the next part of the cave to g[e]t protection but never survived. According to Bishawu Tesema, survivor of the massacre, at 12 hours even the patriotic fighters became unconscious, mad, and insan[e]. This was a very difficult condition for those who resisted the gas through the use of onion[s] and their urine. It was difficult to control them even [when] they t[ook] guns to kill those who [we]re in the cave.

On the night of that day, Grazmach (later dejazmach Teshome Shenkut) decided to leave the cave. He gathered those resistance fighters who resisted the gas and escaped at night using several tactics. Along with Grazmach Shenku, Demeke Chufa (his home is kelawuha 3 km from the cave), Zemelak Wube (from Zeret), Welde‐Tsadik Dosegna were the survivor[s]. Fesese Tesema and Bishawu Tesema […] also survived but left […] with […] blindness.

After some days of the massacre, [the Fascists] entered the cave and murdered inhumanely those [who] survived but in between life and death. According to the survivor, the total number of 5,500 lost their life due to the [massacre] committed by Italy. But there [are] different data with regard to this number. The Memory written by Dejazmach Teshome Shenkut estimates [it] to be more than 3,000 thousand[.]

[…]

Still today there are human body r[em]nants, clothes made up of cotton, cereal basket[s] and gun[s]. The archaeological remains revealed that women had been playing a crucial rôle in the war. As shown in the entrance part of the cave, there were tools and equipment used for food and beverage preparation.

This shows that the task given to women is similar [to that in] normal condition[s]. There are also individuals who mandated to defend the cave. They will defend the cave from the left and right side of the cave. One of the cave defender was Bash Gelamt who was killed by [Fascists].


(Emphasis added.)
:::

This entry was edited (2 years ago)

Fascist plans for mass Jewish settlement in Ethiopia (1936–1943)


(This takes approximately two minutes to read.)

Daniel Summerfield’s claims about Ethiopian Jews, such as ‘[e]ven in the years following the official implementation of racist policy both in Ethiopia and Italy and despite the fact that ‘Ethiopian Judaism’ was effectively disbanded, […] their legal status under the Fascists was the same if not better than other ethnic groups in Ethiopia and that they were even at times granted extra benefits’, come across as absolutely incredible (regardless of Emanuela Trevisan Semi’s affirmation with them).

However, they are easier to believe when we take into account this unorthodox variant of Herzlianism that some Fascists were seriously proposing:

Sir Noel Charles, the Counsellor of the British embassy in Rome, also expressed the view that the fascist racial laws might serve as a prelude to Jewish settlement in Ethiopia. In a letter of September 10, to the British Foreign Secretary, Lord Halifax, he observed that “various indications” suggested that “it was not by accident” that the Italian decree of September 3, which “banished foreign Jews and Italian Jews nationalised [sic] since the war from Italy and Libya and the Aegean Islands, made no mention of Ethiopia.” Discussing the question of settlement in some detail he continued:
“Since the introduction of this and other decrees regarding Jews I have heard from several sources that the authorities have been suggesting to Jews who have complained that life in Italy is being made impossible for them, that a solution of their difficulties would appear to offer itself in emigration to Ethiopia. The Times correspondent now tells me that a colleague of his recently taxed the Ministry of Italian Africa with the intention of sending Jews to Ethiopia and elicited the admission that, while nothing had been definitely decided, it was in fact proposed that an area should be set aside suitable for both agricultural and industrial development to which both Italian Jews and foreign Jews at present in Italy would be permitted to go.



Thus, while the Fascists still favored segregation, they did not implement brutally anti‐Jewish policies in Ethiopia either, not out of any sincere compassion for Ethiopian Jews but merely to discourage them from emigrating: this was going to be the Jews’ home now — at least five million Jews’ new home, in fact — and scaring them off would have defeated that purpose. Hence, some Polish Jews sought to settle in Ethiopia (and a scammer eagerly exploited them).

Additionally:

One of the chief protagonists of the scheme for settling Jewish refugees in Ethiopia at this time was, interestingly enough, President F. D. Roosevelt of the United States who, desirous of deflecting Jewish immigration away from the States, wished, according to his Jewish aide Bernard Baruch, to establish a “sanctuary in Africa, financed by private funds and open to all refugees,” and on one occasion “sketched a map of Africa on a scratch pad, outlining the temperate, largely unpopulated areas where such a scheme might be put into effect.”


(Emphasis added in all cases.)

This entry was edited (3 weeks ago)

Christmas under the Third Reich


The media in this post is not displayed to visitors. To view it, please go to the original post.

It is true that a minority of Fascists saw Christianity as irredeemable and Semitic to the core, but others presented their own bizarre reinterpretations of scripture, and supposed parallels in Indo‐European religions, to ‘prove’ that Christianity had in fact been an ancient Aryan tradition all along. For example:

The völkisch thinkers Fritsch and Chamberlain maintained that the Old Testament derived from “the literatures and religions of older pre‐Jewish peoples of culture,” and that it drew on “old Aryan conceptions.”^61^ What should be retained from the Old Testament depended on the individual author, though most völkisch writers seem to have included the Prophets.

One of the greatest consequences was that this created parallel “Christianities”: one a perverted, “Jewish” understanding of Aryan religion that had conjoined the Old and New Testaments in their entirety and become orthodox faith—the other a religion that traced Aryan faith through the Bible to Jesus.

Steigmann‐Gall argues that neo‐pagans referring positively to Christianity indicated “ambiguity and ambivalence” in their views, but the situation was more complex than this. The belief that Christianity was a corruption of Aryan (pagan) faiths may well explain some of this apparent “ambivalence.”^62^

Wälsung’s articles were subsequently published in 1920 as a book by Lorenz Spindler Verlag, which simultaneously published Friedrich Döllinger’s Baldur and the Bible, a work that argued that much of the Old Testament was “Germanic” myth. Döllinger was one of the many pseudonyms of Karl Weinländer, who summarized his own views in Atlantis, the Edda, and the Bible (1922).^63^

He argued that Baldur and the Bible had demonstrated “that Jesus was not a Jew, but rather an Aryan, that therefore Christianity derives from an Aryan–Germanic source, and that the pre‐Jewish and allegedly Jewish culture of Palestine was Germanic”—in short, that paganism was Christianity. Exactly like Wälsung, Weinländer/Döllinger considered the “people of God” to be the “Aryans, Aramaens = Armanen” (Arier, Aramäer = Armanen): they were worshipers of the “light‐god” and were the “predecessors and successors of Christ.”^64^


Thus, many anticommunist neopagans were hardly as hostile to Christianity as one might expect:

Steigmann‐Gall posited a dichotomy in religious terms: he noted “the contested nature of religious meaning in [German Fascism],” but argued that the battle lines had been drawn between neo‐pagans and those who advocated an Aryan Christianity—referring to these respective groups as “paganists” and “positive Christians.”^8^ Although Steigmann‐Gall agreed that the neo‐pagans were a part of the [NSDAP], he questioned the extent to which they were truly anti‐Christian.^9^

[…]

Dietrich held that there had been an “obfuscation of the true sense of Christianity” because “non‐Aryan Priests” had “shrouded and mongrelized this Aryan–Christian faith,” just as “the mongrelized Rabbis of the judaized Israelites had made the hebraic version of the Edda (the Bible) into a Jewish book” by twisting whatever “did not fit with their racial soul, [but] without […] being able to touch the core, which, because it was of a pure Aryan spirit, was incomprehensible to them.”^113^

This article, with its pagan–Christian elements (the Edda as the Bible, the swastika as the cross), placed the [NSDAP] firmly within the esoteric völkisch tradition. In fact, Dietrich’s opinion was close to that of Döllinger: the Bible was “Aryan‐Germanic” pagan myth that had been misunderstood and misappropriated by the Jews. Once again, the Jews were not the Israelites.


If religion was an expression of race—which many Fascists believed—and if parallels could be found in Indo‐European faiths, then according to their logic it only followed that Christianity must have been Indo‐European as well, and not the product of a culture‐destroying race.

Nevertheless, many NSDAP officials sought to reduce the Christian elements in their celebrations of Christmas, or what they often called Julfest:

The report about the first Nazi Christmas was likely written by the paper’s editors, not Hitler, though it had every appearance of his approval: in fact, his own New Year’s greeting appeared just beneath it.^99^ The theme of the event was “to bring joy to poor children and to honor the Party.” Christ was not mentioned, and the report noted that the larger purpose of the celebration was to bring together “the loyal and worthy core of a movement to which the German future must belong.”^100^

The reason for this was the disastrous situation in postwar Germany, principally the revolutions of 1918–19: “All this the Edda and the teachings of the Armanen had already prophesied in ancient times.”^101^

Indeed, the paradise sought by the party was not the Christian one, but rather that of the Norse gods: “One day more happy times will come for the Aryan race—a new Idafeld.”^102^ The reference to the Edda clearly meant Ragnarok, or the “twilight of the gods.”^103^ The fact that this first Christmas event was held at solstice was consistent with the notions of sun‐worship underlying List’s work.


Pictured: Adolf Schicklgruber having fun at Julfest.

In fact, the Nazi Christmas of 1921 (actually held on January 9, 1922) was openly advertised as the celebration of pagan solstice:
The celebration of Christmas represents the most German of all celebrations. Through it our people have, since time immemorial, celebrated the great turning point in the annual cycle, the day on which the sun begins once more to constantly expand the height of its orbit in the sky, the day on which, in the midst of winter, the soul of the people is awakened once more by the yearning for a new spring.^130^



Pictured: A Fascist Christmas, featuring some sort of Nordic Santa Claus.

There was a consistent scarcity of references to Christianity throughout the Third Reich’s Julfest propaganda. For example, a Fascist published a short story that paralleled the Nativity story in several ways, but otherwise had no direct references to Christianity.

Many have interpreted this as evidence of the German Fascists’ overwhelming anti‐Christian sentiment, though it is likelier that the intention was to make Julfest more appealing to the non‐Christian Fascists. It is important to note that many Christians theirselves have declined to celebrate Christmas, recognizing it as mostly unbiblical, and some still refuse to celebrate it for the same reason. One has to question seeing signs of anti‐Christian sentiment in purifying a holiday that was hardly Christian to being with!

Lastly, I would like to clarify that I have no interest in condemning either Christians or neopagans by publishing this topic. Despite the façade, this has little to do with religion: a Catholic peasant in Guatemala would have found strikingly little in common with an upper‐class Catholic in the Reich, and I have met one Nordic neopagan (I don’t meet many neopagans in general) who explained to me that Nordic lore actually implies a positive view of miscegenation; neofascist neopagans are typically clueless of the lore and appropriate the faith simply for ultranationalist reasons.


:::spoiler Click here for events that happened today (December 25).
1941: The Axis acquired Hong Kong, and Axis trooped landed at Jolo, but Berlin sacked Heinz Guderian over conflicting visions on the strategy for war against the Soviet Union.
:::

Neocolonial soldier in West Bank murders Palestinian who converted to Judaism


Ben Avraham tried several times to begin the process of conversion, but was denied by Israeli authorities, according to Ynet. He was eventually accepted on to a programme in the Israeli city of Bnei Brak.

After a long process, he converted and changed his name.

[…]

"They put me in the government building in Hebron with other people and the guards told everyone that I had converted and that I was Jewish," he said at the time, Ynet reported. "Every time inmates attacked me, strangled me and beat me very hard."

He said that Palestinian religious figures attempted to convince him to retract his conversion, but he declined.

Ben Avraham sought to become [a] citizen [under Zionism] following his conversion, but was repeatedly denied and ignored by authorities, according to Noam Arnon, a spokesperson for illegal […] settlements in Hebron.

"Jewish friends… strove for him, supported him financially, and tried to help him stabilise his life, but to no avail. He lived between two worlds: the Muslim world that abused him, and the state of Israel that turned its back on him," Arnon said on Thursday.


I have a feeling that the reason that Muslims alienated him had less to do with his Judaism and more to do with a perception of ‘betrayal’ or a suspicion that he might have been working for the enemy. Either way, this tragedy is another valuable confirmation that, in the end, the Zionist ruling class sees ordinary Jews as expendable.

Zionism rendered the Jewish boycott on German goods useless


The media in this post is not displayed to visitors. To view it, please go to the original post.

(Mirror.)

Quoting Faris Yahya’s Zionist Relations with Nazi Germany, pages 21–3:

The efforts of anti[fa] Jewish circles to organise a boycott of [the Third Reich] arose as a counter‐measure to the [Reich] authorities’ boycott of 1 April 1933.

This was “a general boycott […] of all Jewish places of business and of all Jewish doctors, lawyers and other professional men. From that day, for the next six years and a half, there was a succession of acts of increasing inhumanity until the outbreak of war ushered in a region of unparalleled barbarity. The boycott was merely a prelude to a system of persecution that robbed Jews of every source of livelihood.”^22^

Jews in many parts of the world hoped that by retaliating with a boycott of German goods they could show solidarity with their oppressed co‐religionists and perhaps pressure the [Third Reich] into relaxing the persecution. The Zionists’ signature of the Ha’avara agreement effectively sabotaged this hope. “The result was that in the thirties, when American Jewry took great pains to organise a boycott of German merchandise, [Zionist‐occupied] Palestine, of all places, was swamped with all kinds of goods ‘made in Germany’.”^23^

Well b[e]fore the 18th Zionist Congress, the Zionist movement has made clear its intention of sabotaging the anti[fascist] boycott. The Zionist Federation of Germany went so far as to reassure a senior [Reich] official that “the propaganda which calls for boycotting Germany, in the manner it is frequently conducted today, is by its very essence completely un‐Zionist.”^24^

The unfortunate precedent was thus created of sacrificing the interests of the Jewish masses in Europe for the sake of Zionist political ambitions. The usefulness of this was not lost on the [Fascists].

“In signing […] the Ha’avara agreement, the [Reich] authorities were simultaneously pursing two objectives: breaching the boycott organised against Germany by the Jews in various foreign countries and facilitating the departure of Jews from the Reich to Palestine.

“But, little by little, the second objective came to be considered the more important in Berlin. On one hand, the effects of the Jewish boycott had been considerably weakened while on the other hand, the expatriation of the Jews had become one of the major goals of the [Third Reich’s] internal policy. Now the Zionists were the only ones, among Jews and [gentiles], to propose a constructive solution to the Jewish problem in [the Third Reich] and above all to be able to put it into effect. The Ha’avara had provided them with the means for this. The [Fascist] government could not remain indifferent to that. Thus one saw the Ministries of the Interior and the Economy simultaneously vying with each other to establish the Ha’avara and develop the activities of the Zionist Organisation in Germany.

“The organs of the Ha’avara thus gradually acquired a dominant, even privileged, position in German–Palestine trade… Urged on by the Zionist leaders in [the Third Reich], the 19th Zionist Congress, which met in Lucerne from 20 August to 3 September 1935, decided to place the whole Ha’avara system under the direct control of the Zionist Executive Committee whose shares, held hitherto by the Anglo‐Palestine Bank, were consequently transferred. In 1933, the transfer operations realised by the Ha’avara were for 1,254,956 marks. In 1937, they reached the value of 31,407,501 marks.”^25^


(Emphasis added.)


:::spoiler Click here for events that happened today (January 19).
1863: Werner Sombart, ex‐socialist turned fascist economist, existed.
1883: Hermann Abendroth, the Third Reich’s Kapellmeister of the Gewandhausorchester Leipzig, was created.
1932: Joseph Goebbels and Adolf Schicklgruber travelled to Munich, Germany together; en route, Goebbels attempted to convince Adolf Schicklgruber to run for the office of the President of Germany.
1939: The Fascists launched T10 at the F. Schichau yard in Elbing, Germany (now Elblag, Poland).
1940: Fascist submarine U‐9 torpedoed and sank Swedish(!) merchant ship Patricia, massacring nineteen folk but leaving four alive. Fascist submarine U‐55 sank Norwegian vessel Telnes off the Orkney Islands, Scotland, slaughtering eighteen folk, and submarine U‐59 torpedoed and sank French steamer Quiberon off Great Yarmouth, England, exterminating the crew. Fascist submarine U‐44 began tracking Greek steamer Ekatontarchos Dracoulis in the Bay of Biscay. Around midnight, U‐44 fired a torpedo at the Greek ship, but the torpedo detonated prematurely before reaching the target.
1941: Benito Mussolini visited Adolf Schicklgruber at Berchtesgaden, accepting Reich assistance in North Africa, but not Albania. The Chancellor noted that he would launch an invasion of Greece if British troops there began to threaten the oil refineries at Ploiesti, Romania. The Axis lost the railway junction at Kassala, Sudan, on the border with Axis‐occupied Eritrea to the Allies, and it lost its submarine Neghelli along with its entire crew to Allied depth charges. Luftwaffe Stuka dive bombers assaulted Valletta Harbour, Malta for the fourth consecutive day, damaging a couple Allied ships but losing an aircraft in the process. Lastly, Luftwaffe aircraft bombed RAF Feltwell in England.
1942: The Axis commenced its conquest of Burma; it captured the airfield at Tavoy (now Dawei). Axis troops landed at Sandakan, British North Borneo unopposed and an Axis air raid took out the headquarters of the Indian 45th Brigade in Malaya. Tōkyō named Rensuke Isogai Hong Kong’s new Governor‐General.
1943: Axis troops landed at Wewak, New Guinea, but the Empire of Japan lost a cargo ship off Honshu to Allied torpedoes.
1944: Although the Wehrmacht managed to avoid being encircled at Novgorod, the Axis had to cancel a motor torpedo boat raid on Allied‐held Naples. The Axis likewise lost the Usines Ratier airscrew works, in southwestern France; the resistance wrecked it so thoroughly that it never resumed production in wartime. The charges with 30‐minute fuses, laid while Axis guards patrolled the yards outside, detonated with such force that one 30‐ton press was sent twenty‐five feet into the air.
1945: Adolf Schicklgruber ordered that any attacks or retreats by divisions or larger units must be approved by him beforehand. The Reich commenced evacuating settlers from Breslau, Germany (now Wroclaw, Poland) as the Axis lost the Łódź Ghetto to the Soviets. Of the ghetto’s more than 200,000 inhabitants in 1940, fewer than 900 had survived the Axis occupation. Later, an Axis V‐2 rocket hit Town Quay, Barking, London.
1979: Moritz Jahn, Fascist principal, died.
1983: The authorities arrest Axis war criminal Klaus Barbie in Bolivia.
:::


The Third Reich was the source of 60% of all investment in Zionist-occupied Palestine from 1933–1939


Quoting Lenni Brenner’s Zionism in the Age of the Dictators, chapter 6:

The debate over the Zionist–Nazi pact continued angrily until 1935. The Haʻavara rapidly grew to become a substantial banking and trading house with 137 specialists in its Jerusalem office at the height of its activities. The regulations were always changing in response to [Berlin’s] pressure, but in essence the agreement was always the same: German Jews could put money into a bank inside Germany, which was then used to buy exports which were sold outside Germany, usually but not exclusively in Palestine.

When the émigrés finally arrived in Palestine, they would receive payment for the goods that they had previously purchased after they had finally been sold. Fiscal ingenuity extended Haʻavara’s operations in many directions, but throughout its operation its attraction to German Jews remained the same: it was the least painful way of shipping Jewish wealth out of [the Third Reich].

However, the [Third Reich] determined the rules, and they naturally got worse with time; by 1938 the average user was losing at least 30 per cent and even 50 per cent of his money. Nevertheless, this was still three times, and eventually five times, better than the losses endured by Jews whose money went to any other destination.¹³²

The top limit through the Haʻavara scheme was 50,000 marks ($20,000 or £4,000) per emigrant, which made the Haʻavara unattractive to the richest Jews. Therefore only $40,419,000 went to Palestine via Haʻavara, whereas $650 million went to the United States, $60 million to the United Kingdom and other substantial sums elsewhere. Yet if, in terms of German Jewry’s wealth, Haʻavara was by no means decisive, it was crucial to Zionism.

Some 60 per cent of all capital invested in Palestine between August 1933 and September 1939 was channelled through the agreement with the [Third Reich].¹³³ In addition, the British set the annual Jewish immigrant quota, using the weak economic absorptive capacity of the country to limit their number; however, ‘capitalists’ — those bringing in over £1,000 ($5,000) — were allowed in over quota.

The 16,529 capitalists were thus an additional source of immigrants as well as an economic harvest for Zionism. Their capital generated a boom, giving Palestine a wholly artificial prosperity in the midst of the world‐wide Depression.

At first the WZO tried to defend itself against the charges of boycott‐scabbing and outright collaboration by insisting that the Haʻavara transfers did not really break the boycott, since [the Third Reich] did not receive foreign currency for its goods as they were all purchased inside the country for marks.

However, Berlin soon demanded part payment for some of the commodities in foreign currency and soon, too, the WZO started soliciting new customers for [the Third Reich] in Egypt, Lebanon, Syria and Iraq. Eventually the Zionists began exporting oranges to Belgium and Holland using [Fascist] ships.¹³⁴ By 1936 the WZO began to sell Hitler’s goods in Britain.¹³⁵


(Emphasis added. Note that ‘Haʻavara’ refers to a trading company that the World Zionist Organisation established to trade with the Third Reich.)

An example of this investment was the ‘Agreement for Transferring Property from Germany to Palestine: Details of the Three Million Mark Agreement’, which is available in the Zionist Record. Excerpt:

The Ministry of Economic Affairs has today published the full text of the decree providing for the transfer of Jewish property from Germany to Palestine.

The decree, which is numbered 54, and is dared August 28th, states that an agreement was concluded “with the Jewish bodies concerned,” for “promoting Jewish emigration to Palestine by releasing the necessary sums without putting excessive strain upon the foreign currency funds of the Reichsbank, and at the same time for increasing German exports to Palestine.”

The Reichsbank is for this purpose opening two special accounts for the Bank of Temple Society, it states, in favor of the Anglo‐Palestine Bank.


See Lenni Brenner’s 51 Documents: Zionist Collaboration With the Nazis for the full text.

Lastly, while I hate to state the obvious, I am afraid that it is now justified since there are more neoliberals than usual on this website, so I’ll go ahead and say it: no, demonstrating Zionism’s links with Fascism does not mean that I have anything against Jews. Zionism has nothing to do with protecting Jewish people, unless it intends to protect them by ensuring that thousands of Palestinian civilians won’t be able to breathe anymore, let alone meet Jews. So don’t pretend that a pseudodemocracy that lets dozens of thousands of its own citizens waste away in poverty can possibly hope to represent millions of people from around the world. If Zionism were about caring for Jewish people, its earliest head of state would never have said that he would rather have half a million Jews gone and half a million serving Zionism than both halves living safely in another part of the world:

A month after the [Fascist] pogrom against Germany’s Jews, famously known as Kristallnacht, [David Ben Gurion] stated on December 7, 1938: “If I knew it was possible to save all [Jewish] children of Germany by their transfer to England and only half of them by transferring them to Eretz‐Yisrael, I would choose the latter—because we are faced not only with the accounting of these [Jewish] children but also with the historical accounting of the Jewish People.”


(Source.)


:::spoiler Click here for events that happened today (September 17).
1939: The Reich submarine U-29 sunk the British aircraft carrier HMS Courageous.
1940: Due to setbacks in the Battle of Britain and approaching autumn weather, Berlin postponed Operation Sea Lion.
1944: Axis forces occupied San Marino but quickly suffered an Allied assault. (Coincidentally, Allied airborne troops parachuted into the Netherlands as the ‘Market’ half of Operation Market Garden, and Soviet troops launched the Tallinn Offensive against the Third Reich and anticommunist Estonian units. Lastly, an Axis war criminal, General Friedrich Zickwolff, died of a disease whilst in France.)
1953: Hans Feige, Axis general, mustered up the decency to drop dead.
2013: Eiji Toyoda, Axis industrialist, expired.
:::


Reminder that the Italian Fascists killed hundreds of thousands of Africans


The media in this post is not displayed to visitors. To view it, please go to the original post.

Briefly quoting Micheal Clodfelter’s Warfare and Armed Conflicts, pages 354–5:

After Mussolini had seized power, he determined to end the Libyan insurrection. […] Over 100,000 Senussi, nearly 50 percent of the tribe’s population, had died during the insurrection, most of them in Graziani’s concentration camps.

[…]

In the fall of 1935, Mussolini sent [an army] into Ethiopia to avenge the defeat of Adowa in 1896 and to expand the Fascist empire. […] Ethiopian military and civilian dead, many of them from the barbarous [Fascist] bomb and mustard gas attacks, were estimated as high as 275,000.


Although this history may seem elementary, I never see anticommunists even mention this, and I am willing to bet that you don’t either. That’s really all that I have to say.

This entry was edited (1 year ago)

Reminder that Fascist Italy was a valuable ally to the Third Reich


Although it sounds obvious, various people—from disgruntled Axis commanders to well meaning historians—have nevertheless played down Fascist Italy’s rôle in World War II and have exaggerated the Italian army’s deficiencies, portraying it as risibly incompetent. On the contrary, battling the Regio Esercito (the Italian equivalent to the Wehrmacht) was not easy:

Although the historiographic debate still rages on, the false narratives of the post war era have begun to fade away. Contemporary experts on the Second World War would intensely disagree that it was “more detrimental for Germany to have Italy as an ally than simply to have fought her as an enemy.”⁷⁸ While clearly incapable of fighting a first class world power by herself, Italy was valuable ally to Hitler.

In Bruce Watson’s history of the North African theatre, he writes that the British had to shatter “Rommel’s Panzer Armie Afrika – and its supporting Italian divisions.”⁷⁹ The phrasing of this statement has it backwards.

From 1940 to mid‐1943 Italy — not [the Third Reich] — was the primary Axis power in both Africa and the Balkans. Vast amounts of Anglo‐American material and hundreds of thousands of men that could have been used against [the Third Reich] instead was devoted to fighting [Fascist] Italy.

Italian assistance held up the Western powers and allowed [the Third Reich] to concentrate the majority of its strength on the Eastern Front. Even after [the Kingdom of] Italy’s surrender, the collaborationist Italian Social Republic continued the fight for the Axis.

After [the Kingdom of] Italy’s [capitulation], the [Third Reich] was forced to redeploy significant forces to cover the areas once occupied by the [Regio Esercito]. This forced the [Third Reich’s] forces stationed on the [Soviet] front to be substantially reduced. By June 1944, there were 52 German divisions in Italy and the Balkans — about 18.3 per cent of [the Third Reich’s] 285 divisions.⁸⁰

When the [Soviets] launched their great summer offensives of 1944, there were simply not enough Germans left to stop them. Additionally, Allied troops previously held down in North Africa were redirected to Operation Overlord. Without Italian support, the German Reich's attempt to turn back the Allied advance would prove pointless.

Anglo‐Saxon historiography not only overlooks the Italian rôle in the war, but [the Reich’s] other ‘minor’ allies as well. The Third Reich’s survival was dependent on the immense effort made by all of the nations that fought beside it. Without the combat troops, logistical support, and occupation forces provided by her allies, [the Third Reich] could not have fought for so long in as many theatres as it did.

German “arrogance, indifference, and ineptitude” concerning their allies led to horrific loss of life. Forty six non‐German divisions from [other] Axis Armies were wiped out at Stalingrad alone.⁸¹ Without the contributions of Italy, Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, and Finland, [the Third Reich’s] collapse would have come much earlier.


(Emphasis added.)

See also: Understanding Defeat: Reappraising Italy’s Role in World War II

Fascist Italy at War: Men and Materiel

This entry was edited (9 months ago)

Most of the Fascists denied that Jesus was Jewish


The media in this post is not displayed to visitors. To view it, please go to the original post.

(This takes approximately nine minutes to read.)

The importance and significance that J.C. has to a wide variety of people and cultures has lead to a wide variety of often wildly different summaries about him. Hence, people’s summaries of J.C. tend to tell us more about them than they do about him. That being said, the most explicit evidence that J.C. was Jewish comes from John chapter 4. A Samaritan identifies him as Jewish, and he does not deny it. In fact, he states this in verses 21–23:

You worship guessing in the dark; we Jews worship in the clear light of day. G-d’s way of salvation is made available through the Jews.


:::spoiler (And that was not all.)
From Luke 2:21 (MSG):

When the eighth day arrived, the day of circumcision, the child was named Jesus, the name given by the angel before he was conceived.


There are almost no records whatsoever of ancient European goyim practising circumcision, and the few that we have mention it strictly as a medical procedure rather than a ritual. Otherwise, both the Greeks and the Romans abhorred it. Likewise, the evidence that any of the Germanic tribes practiced it is nearly nonexistent, and even this marginal evidence is probably a fabrication inspired by scripture. There are also no records of ancient Jews forcibly circumcising goyim in the post-Hasmonean period.
:::

In contrast to today, few ordinary Christians were aware of the Nazarene’s Jewish roots. Since many churches were explicitly anti-Jewish, acknowledging those roots would lead to cognitive dissonance and all sorts of awkward questions that would be hard to reconcile with Christian anti-Judaism. Since Christian anti-Judaism has a tragically long history, the presumption of a gentile Jesus is actually surprisingly old.

In premodern times, it was common for European artists to bestow their god and most of his disciples with a European goy’s facial features, whereas their Jewish rivals (including Judas Iscariot) had stereotypical ‘Jewish’ features. For byspel, as early as the 9th century there is a work that depicts an icon of the hanged one taking damage from ‘two tormentors, identified as Jews by their “Jewish garments” (a barely visible knot of the cowl) and their facial features—a receding forehead, combined with an elongated jaw and nose to demonstrate their wickedness.’ Needless to say, the hanged one’s icon lacks those features, thereby implying that he was gentile.

Many Christian scholars were aware of the Nazarene’s Jewish heritage, but academic pushback came in the long 19th century, at the height of European colonialism. To the best of my knowledge, it was Johann Gottlieb Fichte who was the first thinker to explicitly propose that the Nazarene was gentile. Quoting Léon Poliakov’s The Aryan Myth: A History of Racist and Nationalist Ideas in Europe, pg. 101:

In many respects Fichte was an astonishing forerunner. It was he, once again, who was the first to question the ethnic origin of Jesus of Nazareth and to conclude that he was not perhaps of Jewish stock,* thus sweeping aside the greatest obstacle in the quest for an authentically German religion.

As a result, even the genealogies of the New Testament came to be doubted. Those of the Old Testament had already been discredited by the rationalist Lutheran theologians of the eighteenth century and nobody in Germany gave any further thought to Ashkenaz as a national ancestor.


Susannah Heschel’s excellent The Aryan Jesus: Christian theologians and the Bible in Nazi Germany traces the concept of a specifically Aryan redeemer all the way to Ernest Renan, who proposed in 1863 that his god was born Jewish but miraculously matured into an Aryan. Although the Fascists might not have borrowed this concept directly from Renan, he, like Fichte before him, most certainly laid the groundwork for future theologasters, making the preposterous idea of an Aryan Galilean more acceptable.

One of these theologasters was Houston Stewart Chamberlain (not to be confused with Neville Chamberlain). Quoting, World Fascism: A Historical Encyclopedia, vol. 1, pg. 45:

Chamberlain and others like him tried to rebuild an acceptably “Aryan” or “Nordic” version of Christianity by severing Jesus entirely from Judaism. They built on the work of German Protestant critics of the Bible to preach that Jesus himself had not in fact been a Jew; to do this they exploited the idea of his Galilean origins: Galilee (in northern Palestine), it was claimed, having been inhabited by heathen, non-Jewish tribes, as opposed to Judah (in southern Palestine, around Jerusalem). There was said to be a pure, original version of the non-Jewish teachings of Christ, which had been traduced after his death by the Jew St. Paul.


Telling the Germanic Fascists about J.C.’s actual heritage was of no help, as one ‘political pastor’ learnt painfully:

With an oily voice that could have covered a ton of sardines, he shouted emotionally to the crowd:
“…and there is another reason why I cannot understand the National Socialist hatred of the Jews. We all know that the Savior was descended from the Jews and that Christ himself therefore was a Jew. If we are to be Christians, we must bow before the Jews, not fight them as the National Socialists do in such an unchristian way!”

The pastor probably expected howls of outrage from the speaker, but they did not come. And the farmers gave no sign of wanting to tear the speaker to bits. They were waiting eagerly for his response.

“Well, the pastor wants us to believe that Christ was a Jew. But we are good Christians who paid attention to what we were taught.

We learned that Christ was G-d’s son, not the son of some Hebrew. Besides that, the Catholic Church teaches that Holy Mary, the mother of Christ, died a virgin. That means she never had sexual relations with a man, certainly not with a flat-footed garlic Jew. And thirdly, according to Catholic doctrine, Christ was born by a miracle, not by the normal natural process. Finally, the church teaches that ‘Holy Spirit came upon’ the Virgin Mary. He must, therefore, be regarded as the father or source of Christ. Surely not even the pastor wants to tell us that the Holy Spirit is a Jew!”

His argument resulted in explosive laughter. Defeated on his own ground, the red-faced ultramontane Jew-lover had no choice but to disappear as fast as possible. Only later did he remember that he had left his hat and coat behind.


Surprisingly, even some fascist neopagans believed that J.C. was Aryan. Quoting David I. Kertzer’s The Pope and Mussolini: The Secret History of Pius XI and the Rise of Fascism in Europe, pg. 204:

Alfred Rosenberg […] argued that G-d created humans as separate races; the superior Aryan race was destined to rule over the others. Jesus was an Aryan, he explained, but his Jewish apostles had polluted his teachings. Catholicism was the bastardized product of this Jewish influence.


Bryan Mark Rigg’s Lives of Hitler’s Jewish Soldiers: Untold Tales of Men of Jewish Descent Who Fought for the Third Reich, ch. 4:

Many [Fascists] denied the fact that Jesus was a Jew. For instance, commander of the SS Heinrich Himmler claimed that Jesus was not Jewish.⁸ He was joined by several theologians throughout Germany who claimed Jesus came from “non-Jewish blood.”⁹ Julius Streicher, head of the notorious newspaper Der Stürmer, called Christ the “greatest anti-Semite” ever.¹⁰

Regardless of the nonsense [that] the [Fascist] religious élite preached, the Jew Jesus, the central figure in Christianity, presented Hitler with a dilemma: either exempt him from his racial ideology or face millions of angry Christians who believed the Bible when it said [that] Jesus was Jewish. Hitler therefore dubbed Jesus an Aryan, and [so-called Positive] Christianity made images of Jesus look more Nordic and no longer described him as the advocate of love, but as the bearer of the sword for the rebirth of the Volk.¹¹

Hitler believed [that] Jesus did not practice Judaism, but was the greatest early fighter in the war against the Jews. Nor was he, according to Hitler, the apostle of peace. Hitler believed that Jesus preached against capitalism and [that] this was why the Jews, his archenemies, killed him. What Christ had started, Hitler said [that] he would finish.¹²


This bombastic call to continue the Nazarene’s purportedly violent mission has precedents at least as old as the eleventh century. As usual, the Fascists introduced nothing new.

The theology that J.C. was a Gentile had adherents outside of the Third Reich. For example, quoting Nicholas M. Nagy-Talavera’s The Green Shirts and the Others: A History of Fascism in Hungary and Romania, pg. 170:

[Ferenc] Szálasi, too, found the idea of Jesus being of Jewish descent intolerable. Hitler made an Aryan out of Christ during his table talks. Szálasi improved his days while in prison in 1938 by establishing “with the help of the Bible” the family tree of the Redeemer — arriving at the conclusion that, after all, He is not Jewish! Jesus, according to Szálasi, belonged to the “Godvanian race” (whatever that means), which is related to the Hungarians!


Ionut Florin Biliuta’s Sowing the Seeds of Hate: The Antisemitism of the Orthodox Church in the Interwar Period:

Alexandru C. Cuza […] recommended to Orthodox theologians that they adopt a new Christology in line with his antisemitic views. He ‘cleansed’ Jesus of His Jewishness and proclaimed the end of the ‘Judaic religion’; the main messianic attribute of Christ was that of being an assiduous fighter against the Jews. […] In order to refute the […] idea that Christianity was a Jewish religion and its founder had been a Jew, [Nichifor] Crainic envisaged Christ as a divine–human person in whom there was no hint of Jewish blood, thus radicalising the […] hypothesis of an Aryan Jesus[.]


Scott Beekman’s William Dudley Pelley: A Life in Right-Wing Extremism and the Occult, chapter 6:

In defense of his stance that the Jews had no special place in the past, Pelley argued that Jesus Christ was not a Jew. He posited that Christ was “not a Judaist, or any other kind of a Hebrew, but a Galilean” descended from immigrant Gauls. According to Pelley, Christ actually hated the Jews for violating G-d’s precepts and “drove the Jews out of the Temple with a whip of ropes.” Pelley noted that Christ “looked Gentile, thought Gentile, acted Gentile, came from a Gentile province, talked Gentile, died with Gentile courage for a principle, and withal was the world’s outstanding anti-Semite of all time.”³³


Occasionally, an anti-Jewish Christian, such as Michael von Faulhaber, would acknowledge that the Nazarene was Jewish but awkwardly gloss over it as ‘unimportant’. One example from Henry Munson’s ‘Christianity, Antisemitism, and the Holocaust’:

Bishop Hilfrich of Limburg admitted that Jesus had been a Jew in his pastoral letter for Lent 1939, but he insisted that “the Christian religion has not grown out of the nature of this people, that is, is not influenced by their racial characteristics.” He added the usual assertion that the Jews had killed Jesus and had been cursed by G-d ever since (Lewy 1999, p. 132). Once again, we see traditional Christian hostility toward the Jew effortlessly meshed with racial antisemitism.


It is hardly unusual for antisemites to allow a few exceptions to their bigotry.

I should mention that while the New Testament has some worrisome verses, I am reluctant to agree with Prof. William Nicholls’s pessimistic conclusion that ‘No uncritical reader of the New Testament could easily come away with any but the most negative opinion of Jews.’ Be that the case, it would be easy for someone to conclude likewise about the Hebrew Bible, which does not exactly portray all Jews as perfect little saints either, to put it succinctly. Simply put, the relationship that all Abrahamic scriptures have with Jews is complex and ruling-class goyim concentrated on the unappealing aspects of that relationship according to the political needs of the day.

Finally, I want to comment on the erroneous lessons that too many people take from the importance of religion in the Third Reich. Many Christian apologists have overstated the neopagan elements, the relations with Islam, or even claimed that the German Fascists were atheist secularists. In contrast, Christianity’s critics have stressed the Christian elements in the Third Reich to the point of implying that Christianity was responsible for the Shoah. Neither of these extremes is analytically sound.

In truth, the Fascist bourgeoisie nurtured culturally as well as politically specific variants of Christianity that it used to justify, but not effect, its actions. The ruling classes controlled these variants of Christianity, not the other way around, and they had little in common with the Christianity of either Dr. Martin Luther King or Óscar Romero. MLK and Óscar Romero read the parable of the Good Samaritan and would have rather been either the Samaritan or even the victim than the robbers. The Fascists, if they did not overlook the parable completely, surely would have rather been the robbers than any of the ‘weaklings’ in the tale.

This entry was edited (1 month ago)

Little-known medal marks Fascist–Zionist co-operation in 1933


The media in this post is not displayed to visitors. To view it, please go to the original post.

The Zionists proposed that the status of German Jews be regulated on a group basis, and asked for government help towards emigration. Von Mildenstein, approached to write something favourable about Zionism and its project in Palestine, agreed on condition that he could make a visit, accompanied by Kurt Tuchler. He was favourably impressed, and saw advantages for Germany, as well as for the SS as proposers of a policy.

A series of article entitled “Ein Nazi faehrt nach Palestina” began in September 1934 in Der Angriff, Goebbels’ newspaper. It ran for twelve parts. Von Mildenstein saw in the Jewish settlement on the land a form of rebirth fitting [Fascist] notions about blood and soil, as well as a way of ridding Germany of Jews. But life was difficult in Palestine, and problems were looming, in Palestinian Arab resistance to Zionist colonisation and British rule.

The SS concluded written Agreements with the Zionist organization to ensure that Jews in Germany or under their control were forced to emigrate, selling their assets, the proceeds of which were placed in German bank accounts which would be available to the Jewish Agency for the purchase of goods and services from Germany IF the deportee agreed to settle in Palestine.


Fascism and Zionism: two sides of the same coin?


The Third Reich supported Zionism


Quoting Lenni Brenner’s Zionism in the Age of Dictators, chapter 7:

It was only after his mother died, and he moved from provincial Linz to Vienna, that Hitler found occasion to question the glib assumptions of his youth. For there he wandered through the old inner city and encountered a Galician Hasid, ‘an apparition in a black caftan and black hair locks. Is this a Jew? was my first thought.’ But the more he thought about what he had seen, the more his question assumed a new form: ‘Is this a German?’¹⁶⁷ It is in the context of his earliest ruminations on what was, for him, the central question of existence that he introduced Zionism into his opus.
And whatever doubts I may still have nourished were finally dispelled by the attitude of a portion of the Jews themselves. Among them there was a great movement, quite extensive in Vienna, which came out sharply in confirmation of the national character of the Jews: this was the Zionists.
It looked, to be sure, as though only a part of the Jews approved this viewpoint, while the majority condemned and inwardly rejected such a formulation. But… the so‐called liberal Jews did not reject the Zionists as non‐Jews, but only as Jews with an impractical, perhaps even dangerous, way of publicly avowing their Jewishness.¹⁶⁸

There is no better proof of Zionism’s classic rôle as an outrider to anti‐Semitism than Hitler’s own statement. What more, the reader was to ask, could any reasonable person need? However, before 1914 Hitler had no need to concern himself further with Zionism, as the prospects of a revived Jewish state seemed very remote. It was the Balfour Declaration, Germany's defeat and the Weimar revolution that made him think again about Zionism.

[…]

By 1919 Rosenberg had already explained Zionism in his book, Die Spur des Juden im Wandel der Zeiten (The Trace of the Jews in the Wanderings of Time)[.] It was just another Jewish hustle; the Zionists only wanted to create a hide‐out for the international Jewish conspiracy. Jews were, by their racial nature, organically incapable of building a state of their own, but he felt that Zionist ideology served wonderfully as a justification for depriving Germany’s Jews of their rights and that, perhaps, there was the possibility of future use of the movement for the promotion of Jewish emigration.

Hitler soon began to touch on these themes in his talks, and on 6 July 1920 he proclaimed that Palestine was the proper place for the Jews and that only there could they hope to get their rights. Articles supporting emigration to Palestine began appearing in the party organ, the Volkischer Beobachter, after 1920, and periodically party propagandists would return to the point, as did Julius Streicher in a speech given on 20 April 1926 before the Bavarian Landtag.¹⁶⁹ But for Hitler the validity of Zionism only lay in its confirmation that the Jews could never be Germans. In Mein Kampf, he wrote:

For while the Zionists try to make the rest of the world believe that the national consciousness of the Jew finds its satisfaction in the creation of a Palestinian state, the Jews again slyly dupe the dumb goyim. It doesn’t even enter their heads to build up a Jewish state for the purpose of living there; all they want is a central organisation for their international world swindle, endowed with its own sovereign rights and removed from the intervention of other states: a haven for convicted scoundrels and a university for budding crooks.¹⁷⁰

Jews lacked the essential racial character to build a state of their own. They were essentially leeches, lacking in natural idealism, and they hated work. He explained:

For a state formation to have a definite spatial setting always presupposes an idealistic attitude on the part of the state‐race, and especially a correct interpretation of the concept of work. In the exact measure in which this attitude is lacking, any attempt at forming, even of preserving, a spatially delimited state fails.¹⁷¹

In spite of any early musings about Zionism’s efficacy in eventually promoting emigration, the [German Fascists] made no effort to establish any relationship with the local Zionists. On the contrary, when the Zionist Congress met in Vienna in 1925, the [German Fascists] were among those who rioted against their presence.¹⁷²


(Those of us who have studied Fascism in depth know that such vacillations were usually only temporary, as we shall soon see.)

[T]he [German Fascists] primarily focused on denouncing the Jews, rather than explaining what they would do about them after they won. However, for decades ‘[insert slur here] to Palestine!’ had been the slogan of European anti‐Semitism, and the [Fascist] propagandists used it in their own agitation. In June 1932 the centrepiece for one of their largest anti‐Jewish rallies, in Silesian Breslaw, was a huge banner telling the Jews to ‘get ready for Palestine!’¹⁷⁴ During the anti‐Jewish boycott on 1 April 1933, pickets at the department stores handed out an imitation ‘one‐way ticket to Palestine’ to Jewish‐looking passers‐by.¹⁷⁵

[…]

Not only would wholesale Jewish emigration make Berlin unpopular among other capitals, but what would happen after the arrival of large numbers of Jews in any of the major cities of the world? They would incite others, and not just Jews, against the Reich and the effect they could have on Germany’s trade might well be devastating. It was within this context that the Zionists, Sam Cohen of Hanotea and the ZVfD in Germany, first appeared with their proposals.

Haʻavara had several obvious advantages to the [Fascists]. If Jews went to Palestine, they would only be able to complain to other Jews. In fact, they would even be a moderating influence there, since the fear of worse consequences for their relatives in Germany, if anything were done to make the [Fascists] cancel the Transfer, would make them reluctant to agitate on a large scale. But the most important use of the Haʻavara agreement was for propaganda. The [Fascists] now had something to show their foreign detractors who said they were incapable of any policy toward the Jews other than physical brutality.

[…]

[The Third Reich] regarded the will of the Führer as having the force of law, and once Hitler had pronounced, an avowedly pro‐Zionist policy developed. Also in October Hans Frank, then the Bavarian Minister of Justice, later the Governor‐General of Poland, told the Nuremberg parteitag that the best solution to the Jewish question, for Jews and Gentiles, alike, was the Palestinian National Home.¹⁷⁸ […] Jews could still leave for any country that would have them, but now Palestine became the propagandists’ preferred solution to the Jewish question.

[…]

By 1934 the SS had become the most pro‐Zionist element in the [NSDAP]. Other [Fascists] were even calling them ‘soft’ on the Jews. Baron von Mildenstein had returned from his six‐month visit to Palestine as an ardent Zionist sympathiser. Now as the head of the Jewish Department of the SS’s Security Service, he started studying Hebrew and collecting Hebrew records; when his former companion and guide, Kurt Tuchler, visited his office in 1934, he was greeted by the strains of familiar Jewish folk tunes.¹⁸²

There were maps on the walls showing the rapidly increasing strength of Zionism inside Germany.¹⁸³ Von Mildenstein was as good as his word: he not only wrote favourably about what he saw in the Zionist colonies in Palestine; he also persuaded Goebbels to run the report as a massive twelve‐part series in his own Der Angriff (The Assault), the leading [Fascist] propaganda organ (26 September to 9 October 1934). His stay among the Zionists had shown the SS man ‘the way to curing a centuries‐long wound on the body of the world: the Jewish question’.

It was really amazing how some good Jewish boden under his feet could enliven the Jew: ‘The soil has reformed him and his kind in a decade. This new Jew will be a new people.’¹⁸⁴ To commemorate the Baron’s expedition, Goebbels had a medal struck: on one side the swastika, on the other the Zionist star.¹⁸⁵


(Emphasis added in all cases.)


:::spoiler Click here for events that happened today (October 11).
1879: Ernst Mally, Axis philosophist and educator, was delivered to the world.
1884: Friedrich Karl Rudolf Bergius, Axis chemist who worked for I.G. Farben, started his life.
1901: Masanobu Tsuji, Axis army officer and politician, was born.
1937: The Duke and Duchess of Windsor toured the Third Reich for twelve days and met Adolf Schicklgruber on 22 October.
1941: Axis‐occupied Macedonia faced a war of liberation.
1942: Off Guadalcanal, United States Navy ships intercepted and defeat an Axis force.
2013: Erich Priebke, SS commander who was responsible for the Ardeatine massacre, finally dropped dead after obstinately living long enough to become a centenarian.
:::


This entry was edited (7 months ago)

How Fascism Ruled Women, by Victoria de Grazia


(Alternative copy. Mirrors. Mirrors.)

:::spoiler
[Excerpt]

My goals in this book have been threefold: first, to explore the experience of women under Mussolini's dictatorship: second, to study the creation and impact of fascist sexual politics in the light of broader changes in Italian society during the first part of this century; and, last, through comparisons with other European nations, to highlight how an avowedly fascist régime handled the entry of women into the age of mass politics in the wake of World War I and during the hard times of the 1930s.

This book thus proposes a double scope, as a synthesis and an interpretation. More than an exhaustive account of all of the multifarious patterns of state meddling, social custom, and sexual behavior, it is intended to provoke questions, invite comparisons, and stimulate research.

[…]

Class differences among women were as sharp as ever under the fascist régime, and the fascists exploited the diversity of social mores and sexual behaviors to isolate upper‐ and lower‐class women from one another. The régime’s social provisions mainly affected women of the lower classes; for abnormalities in the condition of their families were most likely to attract busybody social workers, and they were the most needy and had the fewest alternative sources of aid.

But no matter how highly placed the women were, or how personally secure, none were impervious to the antifemale policies of the régime. Keeping in mind class distinctions, along with differences of age and geographical provenance, I have sought here to document how official policies, reinforced by stereotypes circulated through the mass media, standardized public discourse about women.


(Emphasis added.)
:::

This entry was edited (3 years ago)

The Third Reich funded most of the Zionist settlements in Palestine from 1933 to 1941


The media in this post is not displayed to visitors. To view it, please go to the original post.

Pictured: An advertisement (in German & Hebrew) from the 1930s encouraging German Jews to use Haʻavara.

Quoting Edwin Black’s The Transfer Agreement: The Dramatic Story of the Secret Pact Between the Third Reich and Jewish Palestine, page 379:

In the period between late 1933 and 1941, over $30 million had been transferred directly via Haavara. Perhaps another $70 million had flowed into Palestine via corollary [Fascist] commercial agreements and special international banking transactions, this during a period when the average Palestinian Jew earned a dollar a day.

Some of [Zionism’s] major industrial enterprises were founded with those monies, including Mekoroth, the national waterworks; Lodzia, a leading textile firm; and Rassco, a major land developer. And vast quantities of material were stockpiled, including coal, irrigation pipes, iron and metal products for companies and enterprises not yet in existence.

From 1933 to 1941, approximately one‐hundred immigrant settlements were established along strategic corridors in western Galilee, the coastal plan, and in the northern Negev. About sixty of these settlements were established between 1936 and 1940. Most were possible only because Haavara or Haavara‐related funds flowed to Zionist agencies for land purchase and development.

And the settlements were made possible in large part because the Haavara economy had expanded the worker immigrant quota, allowing the influx of halutzim and German settlers. In 1948, the outline of these strategic settlements approximated the borders of the [neocolony], for each settlement was not only a demarcation of Jewish life, each was an outpost of [Zionist] defense where battles were fought and a boundary line was ultimately drawn.

Between 1933 and 1941, 20,000 German Jews directly transferred to Palestine via Haav[a]ra. Many of them never collected their money, and often when they did, it was only partially in cash and mostly in mandatory stocks and mortgages. Another 40,000 German Jews emigrated to Palestine during this period via the indirect and corollary aspects of transfer. Many of these people, especially in the late 1930s, were allowed to transfer actual replicas of their homes and factories—indeed rough replicas of their very existences.


(Emphasis added.)

Cheer to PalestineRemembered.com for leading me to this.


:::spoiler Click here for events that happened today (January 11).
1897: August Heißmeyer, SS functionary, rudely imposed his presence on us.
1942: Axis forces captured Kuala Lumpur, the capital of the Federated Malay States, and assaulted Tarakan in Borneo.
1944: Galeazzo Ciano, Fascist Minister of Foreign Affairs, dropped dead.
1994: Helmut Poppendick (heh), SS physician, bit the dust. Yes, an SS member lived for so long that the short twentieth century was over.
1995: Speaking of Axis personnel who lived for too long… Theodor Peter Johann Wisch, SS commander, took his long overdue dirtnap.
:::

This entry was edited (1 year ago)

Fascist Italy practised apartheid


Quoting Tekeste Negash’s Italian Colonialism in Eritrea, 1882–1941, pages 96–7:

For E.A. Scaglione, a biographer of Governor Aosta, [Fascist] Italy pursued a policy, during the 1937–40 period, that was very similar to that of apartheid. According to Scaglione's interpretation, the East African empire was to be divided into three geographical zones.

In the first zone, entirely inhabited by Italian colonists, autonomous politico‐administrative structures were to be developed. The colonial state would be obsolete as it was envisaged that the first zone would become the home of an Italian community, planted in African soil. The second zone was a much wider area, and where the main economic activities were to be controlled by [Fascist] agro‐industry. The natives were not to be pushed out completely as they were required to provide labour for [Fascist] capital.

The last zone was presumably to comprise all the areas that were of least economic interest to [the Fascist bourgeoisie]. This third zone was to be at the disposition of the natives. The colonial state was to function as a mediator between the first and the other two zones.

On the basis of the laws which made inter‐racial cohabitation punishable, Angelo Del Boca, has argued that [Fascist] Italy pursued policies that were similar to the system of apartheid as practiced […] in the Republic of South Africa. For Professor Denis Mack Smith, a British scholar of Italian history, ‘the most notable contribution of Fascist Italy to colonialism was the theory and practice of apartheid’. Similar views have also been expressed by Professor Sergio Romano in his concluding comments on the Italian invasion of Libya.

In his anthology on Italian Imperialism, Professor Aldo Mola concurred with the summation of Denis Mack Smith that Italy pursued a policy of apartheid in Africa. Explaining the class basis of Italian colonial racism, Professor Mola emphasized that it did not help to qualify the ‘apartheid’ nature of [Fascist] native policy by presenting numerous cases of commercial sexual contacts between [Fascist] colonizers and their Eritrean ‘madames’ which permeate colonial chronicles.

The purposes of racial laws and the basis of [Fascist] racism according to Mola were not only to create a barrier against the consequences of inter‐racial sexual contacts but to reaffirm in a very drastic manner the immutability of the relations between the colonizer and the colonized.

However, for professor Alberto Sbacchi, the author of the most substantial study on [Fascist] colonialism in Ethiopia, 1936–40, colonial policies are discussed as conglomerations of isolated episodes rather than as a well‐defined and coherent system of relations between the colonizer and the colonized.


(Emphasis added.)

Roma and Sinti in Fascist Italy: from expelled foreigners to dangerous Italians


In November 1928, a (top secret) circular was issued which warned against a new danger linked with the [Romani] entering Italy: Communist propaganda. It stated that the Third International was literally paying the [Romani] to keep the contact between Comintern headquarters and its peripheral organs in the Kingdom of Italy; consequently: ‘greater rigour was needed in applying the existing policies to keep the [Romani] out of the Kingdom — as they might upset or endanger state law and order [my italics]’, let alone the safety of the public order.

Against their will, [Romani] thus managed to embody all the fears of the Fascist régime, so that their supposed ‘dangerousness’ significantly increased. This may have been linked to the régime’s awareness of the growing hostility of most Slovenians and Croats living in Venezia Giulia.


See also: The persecution of Rom and Sinti in Fascist Italy

This entry was edited (2 years ago)

How Fascist Italy oppressed gay men


The media in this post is not displayed to visitors. To view it, please go to the original post.

Pictured: Wilhelm von Gloeden, a gay photographist who lost almost all of his work to the Fascists. (NSFW)

Although many of us (correctly) associate fascism with heterosexism, there is surprisingly little discussion on how Fascist Italy in particular oppressed queer folks, and if you resort to English Wikipedia you’ll find no more than a few paragraphs on the topic. Perhaps you assume that Fascist Italy pursued a campaign à la Third Reich. While your imagination is not terribly far from the truth, it isn’t perfectly accurate either.

Fascist Italy’s oppression of the LGBT+ community differed in some respects from the Third Reich’s and resulted in fewer deaths, but that hardly makes the oppression that gay Italians suffered any less serious or less worthy of remembrance either. Quoting Michael R. Ebner’s The Persecution of Homosexual Men under Fascism, in Gender, Family and Sexuality: The Private Sphere in Italy, 1860–1945:

Unlike Nazi Germany, where explicitly anti‐homosexual legislation and propaganda drove brutal repression, Fascist Italy did not specifically proscribe homosexuality in its legal codes or focus on anti‐homosexual themes in speeches and other official propaganda. Neither the régime’s penal code, the so‐called Rocco Code (1930), nor its public security laws (the 1926/1930 Testo Unico per la Pubblica Sicurezza) directly named same‐sex sex acts as crimes or threats to public security.

However, Fascism was definitely hostile to homosexuality. Vincenzo Manzini, a prominent jurist of the era, noted that the Fascist squads who helped bring Mussolini to power attacked homosexuals, corroborating this claim with a story about a group of ‘pederasts’ that regularly socialised at one another’s homes in Venice.

‘Around 1925’, he recalled, ‘the squadre d’azione (action squads) violently rooted out those degenerates and forced the police to take action’. More significantly, though, the Fascist régime’s legislators devoted significant time and attention to developing a strategy for eradicating homosexuality from Italian national life.


It is quite challenging to accurately estimate how many gay men and suspected homosexuals Fascist Italy directly persecuted. The only thing that we can say with certainty is that the total number could not have been smaller than one thousand:

Though difficult to ascertain, the total number of homosexual victims of Fascism was at least several thousand, a hypothesis born out by an itemisation and partial enumeration of the régime’s techniques of repression. […] From 1927 to 1939, the Bolletino della Scuola di polizia scientifica published a yearly breakdown of all case files [which] show [that] over a thousand homosexuals were registered by the Scuola from 1927 to 1939. This number does not include the years 1940–3, and neither does it account for Roman homosexuals arrested but not studied by the Scuola.


As elsewhere in Europe, gay men were frequently disparaged as ‘pederasts’, though the author has found little evidence that that was actually the case. Added to this were other stereotypes:

At the local level, police believed that homosexuals were inherently criminal. If some homosexuals were prostitutes or vagabonds, then all of them were. Stereotypes and a visceral disgust for the behaviour, appearance and mannerisms of homosexual men drove police commissioners to persecute them.

A closer examination of investigations leading to confino politico sentences demonstrates how these motives — stereotypes and prejudice — drove repression at the local level, while the régime’s ideological or programmatic rationale — the improvement of the Italian national stock — provided a universal and specifically Fascist justification.

[…]

Modesti reported that some of these men engaged in prostitution and extortion, while many others were only tangentially linked to Eugenio and Elio’s alleged criminal underworld. One public security concern posed by homosexuals, according to Modesti, was their frequent unemployment and inherent laziness.

Moreover, he reported, many ‘pederasts’ had sex with men of more ‘elevated social classes’ for the purpose of material gain. This type of relationship inevitably led to ‘sadism, the corruption of minors, libidinous acts, extortion, robbery [and] homicide’. As evidence he offered the example of a Swiss professor who had been murdered in Florence during the summer of 1934.

Modesti also stressed the young age of some Florentine homosexuals, referring to them generally as ‘very young’, even though only a few were under the age of 20. Elsewhere in Italy, police voiced similar concerns. Though minors were involved in a few isolated cases, police officials were largely concerned with young men.


Even gay men who willingly served the neopatriarchy (such as Ernst Röhm) were not immune to heterosexist persecution:

Indeed, though a few of the 30 men investigated were unemployed and allegedly prostituted themselves, most were lower‐middle to middle‐class professionals, employed as white‐collar workers, antique dealers, salesmen, shopkeepers, artists and draftsmen, or in other professions or trades. One was a Greek teacher, one a successful merchant, and another a wealthy property owner. Many belonged to the Fascist Party, and most were held to be ‘favourable to the Régime’.

[…]

The ‘most dangerous’ of the group was a 22‐year‐old unemployed electrician named Giovanni, who was married with two young children. Though he did not belong to the party, Giovanni had fought as a volunteer Blackshirt (a member of the Fascist militia) in Ethiopia. The danger posed by Giovanni, according to the Florentine police commissioner, was evidenced by his public behaviour and the lurid details of his sex life.


The penalties for gay men ranged from surveillance (thus inhibiting their sex lives), to cavity searches, to penal labor, or—keeping in with the bourgeois state’s eugenic policies—to confinement, specifically in work houses, hospitals, asyla, colonies, or elsewhat:

Fascist […] executive provincial commissions […] regularly condemned so‐called ‘pederasts’ to ‘common police confinement’ (confino comune), exiling them to small villages in the Italian south or interning them on island ‘confinement’ colonies for a renewable period of one to five years. No evidence of wrongdoing was required, and the accused was granted no defence.

[…]

Mussolini and Bocchini also determined whether an individual belonged in confino comune, for common ‘criminals’, or confino politico, for behaviour the régime deemed inimical to its political power or key initiatives. During the period 1936–9, approximately 100 men were deported to political confinement for ‘pederasty’.

Like the approximately 15,000 other Italians who shared their fate over the course of the régime, including many of Italy’s most militant anti‐Fascists, these men were deported to small villages and island ‘political’ colonies in southern Italy.

The small number of homosexuals sent to political confinement should not be interpreted as a sign of limited repression. The régime used confino politico selectively, and even a small presence of a political or social group often indicated large‐scale repression via other practices and institutions.

For example, the provincial commissions also inflicted noncustodial police sanctions such as ammonizione — a type of probation which required an individual to adhere to a curfew, to report to the police every morning, and to not arouse ‘suspicion’ — and diffida, a warning that an individual was under investigation. The number of individuals subjected to these measures for any specific reason is unknown, but the commissions assigned them more frequently than confino.

Police in Fascist Italy also had the authority to arrest, question, incarcerate and otherwise do whatever they wanted with an individual. In 1939 in Catania, a Sicilian provincial capital south of Mount Etna, the local police commissioner reported to Rome that in recent years he had stepped up police surveillance on cafés, dance halls, seaside and mountain resorts, and other public areas where homosexuals gathered.

His agents regularly arrested and detained (fermi per misure di sicurezza) suspected ‘pederasts’, and once in custody, they were interrogated and often subjected to humiliating anal examinations (visite sanitarie) to determine whether or not they had engaged in ‘passive pederasty’, or ‘anal coitus’. These ‘medical examinations’ were not unique to Catania.


(Emphasis added in all cases.)

As for how many homosexuals that the Italian Fascists killed, this is very difficult to answer, and the author does not propose any quantities; we will probably never know for sure. Nonetheless, I myself suspect that it was in the dozens (if not hundreds) due to police violence, extrastate violence, or the terrible living conditions in the prisons and penal colonies:

Life in the island confino colonies, especially on the Tremiti islands, was characterised by poor nutrition, unsanitary living conditions and monotony. Fresh water transported from the mainland had to be rationed to the detainees, and infectious diseases, malnutrition, dehydration and chronic exhaustion were common.


Further reading:

Private life and public morals: fascism and the ‘problem’ of homosexuality

Queer in Europe during the Second World War

The Pathologisation of Homosexuality in Fascist Italy: The Case of ‘G’

This entry was edited (1 year ago)

‘Murder of the Jews’: The testimony of Germans and Austrians who were part of Fascism’s murder machine


Those of us who have seen just how ferocious settlers’ hatred for Palestinians can be are likely to notice similarities as they listen to this documentary.

And I was just amazed the way [that] the police were just standing by and not doing anything. They didn’t intervene, you know. It’d all been arranged by higher authority, so the police were not allowed to intervene in any way against the stormtrooper mobs who were carrying out this action.
What did the people there say?
People were just standing around gawking, so, in other words, as if it served the Jews right.



[…]

You see, nobody bothered about how the people were to live, how they were to work. If somebody fell down, they just couldn’t care less.

They were given nothing, paid nothing, no food? Why did they work there…? Why did they work there…?
Well, in the eyes of the people there, to work for a German company would mean that you lived longer, you see.
They knew that they had to die?
Of course they knew that. It was obvious. By April 1942 they all knew. Even the Jews, every one of them. They knew what was going on.



[…]

And I said to him, ‘How can you reconcile that with your Hippocratic oath?’ And then he replied, ‘Because I have sworn a Hippocratic oath, I cut a festering appendix out of the human body. The Jews are the festering appendix in the body of Europe, and must be cut out.’

[…]

[T]here was an SS man there, SS people, who had told me how they had come to do it voluntarily, compulsorily, it was certainly not simple to explain. In Austria, for example, people, young men, were brought into the SS during ’44 whose fathers had been killed in the camps, so that was going on too, you know. But the typical thing was a talk with an SS man who said, ‘Well, we grew up like that. The priest, that is the clergyman who gave us instructions, he said, ‘Well, it was the Jews who killed Christ, you know.’’ And so that stuck in our minds, of course, and for all the others too. That is not the explanation, but that was his, uh…

Justification?
…justification, that the others had told him that the Jews were guilty something, namely of the murder of Christ, although the people were really not at all pious, so you can’t say that was the reason for it, but that was an explanation for him. A justification for him.



:::spoiler Events that happened today (December 28).
1898: Shigematsu Sakaibara, Axis admiral, was born.
1941: Operation Anthropoid, the plot to murder the high‐ranking Axis officer Reinhard Heydrich, commenced.
1943: After eight days of brutal house‐to‐house fighting, German 1st Parachute Division lost the Italian town of Ortona to the 1st Canadian Infantry Division.
1959: Ante Pavelić, Axis dictator and war criminal, was at least kind enough to finally bite the dust.
1989: Hermann Julius Oberth, Axis rocket scientist, expired.
:::

This website uses cookies. If you continue browsing this website, you agree to the usage of cookies.