Debunking Hitler/Nazi redemptionism, rejecting association in service of WN et al. ethnonationalism

Posted by DanielS on Friday, 02 November 2018 06:46.

Part 1 vid is now on line, Part 2 vid is now online, Part 3 vid now on line, Part 4 vid is now on line, Part 5 vid now on line, Part 6 vid now on line, Part 7 vid now on line, Part 8 vid now on line

Debunking and rejecting association with Hitler/Nazi redemptionism in service of coordinating White and other ethno-nationalisms.

Hitler was Not White Nationalist Part 2. Audio now online.

At the suggestion of our friend, Per, from Sweden, we are setting out to provide a resource to debunk and reject Hitler/Nazi redemptionism as it is not representative of White and other ethnonationalisms, but also as its association is severely detrimental to the coordination thereof.

Per suggested that we provide a resource to remove this pejorative association once and for all. Perhaps because I am older and more experienced, I observed (and Per agreed) that we probably would not be able to be rid of this association once and for all for all people - not only because there will be some recalcitrant reactionary Whites, but also because our enemies can be served by this association.

Therefore, what we need to do is to establish an open ended and indefinite series to provide a resource for ethnonationalists of good will to draw upon as need be, for new episodes to be summoned to meet the challenge of claims that there is a necessary association of White Nationalism with Nazi/Hitler redemption.

Audio of Part 3

That’s not to say that we cannot nail-down the greater essence as to why the redemptionist project and its association should be rejected by WN - and we will endeavor to set forth as much in these first discussions - but such an enormous project is bound to be confronted with novices and dilettantes cultivated in demographics and internet bubbles susceptible to misguidance by charlatans and misinforming reactionaries of prior generations, thus bringing new angles for the foreseeable future to challenge true ethnonationalism.

In light of recent events it is necessary to move this project along, the need to be rid of this association is set in high relief.

In addition to findings from my own and Per’s inquiries, we will be drawing upon the critiques of McCulloch, Lindtner, Kelso and more.

The audio and corresponding text of this first installment is now on line.

Text of Part 1

This is DanielS from Majorityrights Radio, an advocate of White ethnonationalism from America, and I’m going to be setting out a podcast series with the help of my colleague, Per, a fellow White ethnonationalist advocate from Sweden.

Part 4 on line at Bitchute

This series will provide resource to distinguish and separate White ethno-nationalism from Nazi and Hitler advocacy.

In podcasts to come, we will expose the false claims being made today by the Hitler and Nazi redemptionists.

Claims that they make about the origins of the second world war - that Hitler only wanted peace and had no responsibility for the outbreak of World War II and other related lies.

We will discuss people’s rude awaking to the fact of hostile interests acting against Whites, their sometimes falling into a false either/or - it’s either Hitler or the YKW… something Per’s seen in his native Sweden, but its true of White Nationalism generally, that there has been a susceptibility to this reaction.

There will be some who will not be able to get beyond this reaction. But others may be helped to an ethnonatnionalist, as opposed to a supremacist position, by fleshing out more awareness of the fact that much ethonanationalism that found itself opposed to Hitler in the war, did in fact have a a good sense that the YKW belonged to another nation, that their interests were quite different from those of European nations, including those on the other side of the Axis powers.

Part 5 on line at Bitchute

But in any case, it’s history. Nobody alive is guilty of any of it and should not be subject to retroactive, collective punishment and violation of their right to survive as peoples - against UN charters.

We are not against Germans, we are for German nationalism as all European Nationalism in alliance against those who would deprive us our ethnonational homelands. We especially do not want fighting between European nations as we need eachother to cooperate in common interests as ethnonationalists against those disregarding and antagonistic to European peoples on the whole; but we do not want to fight any nations, of course, where at all possible, where they are not attacking us.

It’s history. But if we are to go into the history between world wars one and two, the most important fact to underscore is that basically all nations situated between Germany and Russia were against the Soviets; and replete with anti-YKW sentiments - there was large understanding that the YKW were other, that they should not be considered fellow European nationals. These nations knew the situation well enough, but especially, were more than ready to fight AGAINST the Soviets. Furthermore, German nationhood was under no credible threat, especially if it did not antagonize and actively fight against its neighbors, but was willing to deal in the territorial terms that the Versailles Treaty and Treaty of Saint Germain had established with historic and logistic justification - a Germany, by the way, that was huge, including most of what is now western Poland and Kaliningrad.

A German population, speaking of lebensraum, which is the largest European diaspora by far of any White demographic in America - though we are getting ahead of ourselves a bit; that is a factor in the intransigent appeal to Hitler redemption among American WN; and why we are confronted with this situation of having to address egregiously dishonest propaganda that is being used to pander to this, among other White demographics susceptible thus and in particular as they suffer under the destruction of anti-White political correctness.

As we must go into the history then, it is important to address Hitler’s territorial bones of contention and how they were overstated in his mindset - a Frederick the Great 2.0 - that led the Allies to not trust him, especially when he proved to be untrustworthy.

And as we must go into the history then, we need to address a great false either/or that is being presented to ethnonationalsts, between the Soviet and Nazi regimes - when in fact, both were imperialists, and both were terrible regimes largely responsible for massive destruction of property and treasure, the death of tens of millions…

Part 7

...but also setting forth a chain of association with their horrible misdeeds, lending to overwhelming propaganda to this day for those antagonistic to our ethnonational well being, against necessary ethno national and corresponding socially, ethno-nationally conscientious programs in general. Infact, that is a large reason why, in this podcast series, we will use the term Nazi to refer to Hitler’s regime. Not to guilt trip people, but to separate a rogue, imperialist and supremacist regime from the benign aspects of nationalism and corresponding social accountability.

And so, in days to come, we will unfold a series to redress fundamental points, inaccuracies and dishonesty put out by the Hitler/Nazi redemptionists.

No, the Hitler redemptionists, in their claim to be after the truth of history, tend to begin history at or about World War I.

And of course, Germany was a sheer victim of the rest of the world, from the Schiff’s backing of the Trotskies, to the Balfour Declaration, to the Treaty of Versailles.

But really, to do enthnonationalism justice, we need to go further back in history…

.....

Part 2 Audio, Hitler was NOT White or any kind of ethnonationalist - and text:

Hitler was Not White Nationalist Part 2. Audio now online

To commence, we will indicate some of the issues, adding to these issues in the series to come where issues emerge relevant beyond mere detail to be fleshed out and given argumentative support. That is to say, we anticipate an ongoing corrective process.

As we must go into the history, the other side, the side which is subject to a right wing political correctness of its own, needs to be addressed - this quote, alternative media, that sees a niche market in the largest by far White demographics of America - German/Irish - and panders to the fact that they are going to be more susceptible to positive spins on Hitler and Nazi Germany. It is to counter this pandering, that it is necessary to take a corrective postion from an ethnonational standpoint, that does not look upon Hitler and the Nazis as innocent and only acting in accordance to what they should be rightfully entitled.

The map drawn by Versailles and the contentions raised by Hitler are central issues to redress thereupon.

Hermeneutic, that is to say, additional historical perspective is necessary to assess the situation and related contentions over the borders set by The Treaty of Versailles and maintained by The Treaty of Saint Germain in the case of the Sudetenland..

And why should the Allies trust the Nazis, why should they sympathize with their claims and why should they not be aggrieved with what happened in WWI? and in prior Prussian / Austrian expansion?

Contra Allied grievances, Hitler’s mindset of Friedrich The Great 2.0 is key.

Ostensibly justifying excuses were used for his imperial aspirations as such, chief among others, an epistemic blunder failing to assess socially corrective human nature in praxis, taking rather a sheer might makes right naturalistic fallacy, that humans are bound sheerly to struggle in nature’s way; a will to power set in motion in this case by false allegations of mass persecution of German civilians and false threat to the German nation to provide pretext for Imperialist and supremacist expansion Eastward.

His defenders frequently lob the straw man that he was being accused of wanting to take over the whole world, when in fact, he did want Europe eastward up to the Urals, which is way more than bad enough considering he was using the guise of his sheer necessity to fight communism; and when, in fact, all nations between Russia and Germany were anti-Soviet.

Of course these nations weren’t perfect either and yes, the Nazis had a number of things correct, in the quote, N/S idea; and it’s nevertheless understandable how people could get wrapped up and go for broke; but it didn’t work and there was much fundamentally wrong about it, it wasn’t just that the Allies were corrupt, that defending Nazi Germany is bad optics for the “normies”, nothing fundamentally wrong other than that the “normies” are not ready to quote, “understand” - nevertheless, it’s history now, and we can learn from it.

It might also be said of some people on the Allied side, that they can learn too - for example, like many of us since those times, we’ve projected our own reasonableness onto the YKW as a group - we thought, as our Allied forebears might have thought, that the YKW would be ok if we were ok to them - they’d be fair and deserved a chance. How many of you grew up aware of the J.Q.? Well, now the YKW have had their chance and we are aware that we need to be in separate governance.

WN has a pretty good feel of that now, but not so much representation of views apart from what is for it, a politically correct Nazi sympathetic perspective and the false either or thereof YKW or Hitler 88.

With that said. Here are some of the topics we are going to address and more:

As we already mentioned, We will be taking a look at historical events which have been distorted by Nazi propaganda.

Events such as the Bromberg “quote bloody Sunday” incident, the Polish/ Slovak border train station take-over by the Poles, the false so called “peace offers” from Hitler to Britain and Poland and why it was valid for the Allies to reject them.

The claim that Hitler only wanted peace with the neighboring Slavic countries, and only wished to get back lands taken from Germany, where a majority of Germans where then living under non-German governments. And so on.

We will also debunk the claims that Hitler and the Nazis were ok with the Slavic peoples and did not see them as subhumans with less right to life.

We will address the Nazi ideology of imperialism, immoral racism and the concept of “might is right” contra healthy nationalism, ethnopluralistic morality and what we view as the right kind of racism.

(Richard McCullochs racial compact and moral racism: http://www.racialcompact.com/ )

We will address the issue of who has had a worse influence in promoting a false, positive idea of the Nazi regime to Americans after the war - George Lincoln Rockwell or William Luther Pierce?

And a great deal more.

Audio of Part 3

Hitler and Nazism were Not White Nationalism, Part 3

Thus we have established a first principle of this discourse, a positive tautology that the World Wars are history, the people of today are not to blame and should not be subject to the collective punishment of losing their peoplehood and corresponding nations.

There is a second principle that we will invoke at this point, one which the internet has provided for in spades, but which White Nationalism has not utilized to anything like its full potential.

That is correctability, the correctability of ideas and understanding through interactive participation, whether through comments or speaking directly to people and engaging correction.

To date, what has been imposed as if correction, has largely been World War II revisionism - which tends to be dishonest excuses and apologetics for Nazi imperialism where not outright recitation of Nazi propaganda that could be falsified rather easily if they cared to do it.

Graudenz, Kulm, Thorn and Bromberg, a would-be occlusive salient. To the south of those cities, Poznan and Gniezno are the cradle of Polish nationhood.

Misrepresentation and omissions of important facts can remain if would-be interlocutors are not of good faith, don’t really want to pursue the truth, such as Nazi apologetics usually claim as their mission.

On the other hand, taking interactive correctability for granted and expecting the voices of correction to chime-in has left me susceptible to allow oversights to linger, because many would-be WN, who’ve accepted the rightist identity and its own political correctness will not say “boo” and alert me to oversights, especially when calling attention to these matters will call negative attention and shoot holes in their pro-Hitler/Nazi position.

There is a third and ancillary tautology to be invoked which is that for whatever grievances that either side had of the times, they were more than made up for.

We will apply this as a third tautological principle then, after ‘it’s history and nobody had anything to do with it’, and after correctability, that is, the tautology that for whatever complaints of the time, “they more than made up for it in retaliation.”

We will take a critical perspective on grievances and injustices alleged by the Nazi apologists, such as allegations made against Polish nationals and partisans, since those allegations have tended to go uncorrected within the philoNazistic PC of so called White Nationalism.

But we need to circle back to our second principle at this point, which is interactive correctability and the fact that so called WN has not been acting in good faith to call matters to attention, especially when they would reflect badly on Nazi Germany.

In previous discussions of Hitler’s complaints over where Versailles borders were drawn, I have made the claim that there were really only three cities of significance lost by Germany - Poznan, Bromberg and Thorn and one made neutral, Danzig (made neutral, not Polish, as in something the Poles could unilaterally return to Germany as misinformed Hitler apologists often claim they should have); and there were some village areas in the corridor and near the Versailles established border where Germans were caught in Polish territory, and we must add that there were Poles caught in German territory. But though Danzig was at the time occupied by Germans, it was a historically disputed city and a strategic city for all concerned, thus justifiably deemed neutral by Versailles. Cities to the south of the corridor, such as Poznan, Gniezno and Leszno, should not have been considered anything remotely but Polish.

While it is true that in previous discussions of this issue I had neglected to mention two cities of significance in the Polish corridor which were inhabited by Germans, Graudenz and Kulm , known in Polish as Grudziądz and Chelmno, it does not change the thesis.

First of all, circling to principle three (mis-spoke; it is “principle two”, correctability that is invoked here) again, that the comment section has been open and feedback of good will is expected to correct oversights such as that.

More fundamentally, these cities being under German political jurisdiction would only extend the salient that would be formed by Bromberg and Torun to obstruct and potentially occlude crucial strategic and economic sea access for Poland.

In addition, Graudenz and Klum were formed of brutal Teutonic and Prussian imperialism on cities that were originally Polish.

Finally, it is a history that only provides more examples of the enormous toll that the Nazis took against impositions of Polish patriotism in these areas; invoking principle three, that they more than made up for it.

Thus, it is no wonder that the Hitler redemptionists didn’t particularly care to take me up on my open offer to correct whatever prior oversights of mine…

.....

Part 4

.....

Hitler was Not White Nationalist Part 5

.....

Hitler was Not White Nationalist Part 6

.....

Hitler was Not White Nationalist Part 7

In five minutes, Professor Margaret MacMillan destroys Pat Buchanan and David Duke’s claim that Hitler was bargaining in good faith, and that he only wanted what was “unjustifiably” taken from Germany by Versailles, that he didn’t have imperial supremacist war in mind all along, irrespective of its potential and real destruction to European peoples, including his own, German.

.....

Part 8 on line at Bitchute

Tags: Activism, Anti-racism, Boundaries and Borders, Crusade against Discrimination in Britain, Cultural Marxism, Demographics, Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests, European Nationalism, Far Right, Free Speech, Genetics & Human Bio-Diversity, Geopolitics, Global Elitism, Globalisation, Greater Israel Project, Hermeneutics, History, Immigration, Immigration and Politics, Islam & Islamification, Jewish Diaspora, Kurdish Nationalism (PKK) (YPJ/G), Nazism, NGOs, Pervasive Ecology, Polish Nationalism, Political analysis, Political Philosophy, Popular Culture, Russian Politics, Separatist Alliance, Social Constructionism, Syndicalism, That Question Again, U.S. Politics, War of Discourse, White Genocide Project, White Genocide: Africa, White Genocide: America, White Genocide: Europe, White Nationalism, World Affairs

Comments:

Posted by Part 1 Audio on Sat, 03 Nov 2018 21:10 | #

Part 1 Audio

Posted by The Treaty of Versailles on Sun, 04 Nov 2018 20:36 | #

The Treaty of Versailles

Posted by Audio Part 2 Hitler was NOT WN on Mon, 05 Nov 2018 18:54 | #

Posted by Ward Kendall on Tue, 06 Nov 2018 14:34 | #

I addressed this very issue in my non-fiction book, Beyond This Horizon - A White Nationalist Blueprint For Tomorrow, in the hope that the white nationalist/alt-right movement might shed this detrimental connection to the Third Reich. It’s a connection that’s long been promoted on Stormfront Forum, as well as elsewhere on the Internet. And I say this even though Adolf Hitler had many positive qualities, as I showcased in my novel, Eternity Beach, evidence that I am not an indiscriminate Hitler basher. That said, it all comes down to our quest for political power in this country, and how to achieve it. And though we certainly had a conspicuous hand in getting a nationalist like Trump elected, which even The New York Times recently acknowledged in an article profiling my novel, Hold Back This Day, and how it helped Trump, alongside other white nationalist novels. So we have succeeded in making our presence indelible, and yet…we are still being held back by the echoes of a 75 year old war. By all rights, we as white nationalists should’ve established a national headquarters years ago, with a paid staff, not unlike the SPLC but one promoting our ideas. That future could’ve been, but as Beyond This Horizon points out, we squandered that opportunity - and repeatedly.

In the end, we simply cannot win using the icons, symbols, flags, and talking points of a defeated World War II adversary. That won’t fly here in America, or anywhere else in the Anglo-sphere - which, let’s face it, makes up the US, Canada, the UK, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa. All those countries fought the Nazis, and they are not about to embrace that which they defeated decades ago. But…they might embrace the idea that the white majority in all those countries are worth defending against invading non-white hordes, as I have long proposed in my novels - and as Trump is somewhat imperfectly trying to do as well. In our stubborn adherence to Neo-Nazism, we have wasted a lot of intellectual talent, such as the recent passing of Harold Covington - a smart man steeped in serving the failed idea of a “Fourth Reich” in the Pacific Northwest, as well as the current remnants of the National Alliance, among others.

Finally, I believe we can do better - much better. We have some good minds on our side, but, like scattered buckshot, they are not concentrated into one striking force like a high-powered sniper bullet. That’s because we have too many “leaders” meandering along their own dead-end paths. Instead, we need to unite - and streamlining our Cause under one banner and one goal is the right idea - even Adolf Hitler saw that. But here in the 21st century we must forge our own, unique quest under new banners and new symbols, united by a common plan of action.

“Beyond This Horizon - A White Nationalist Blueprint For Tomorrow” - an inside look at the white nationalist movement, its objectives, its leaders, and its future

Posted by Per Nordin on Wed, 07 Nov 2018 16:24 | #

Great Daniel. I´m looking forward to talking with you soon about this important subject.

Posted by Audio & Text of Part 3 now on line on Tue, 13 Nov 2018 00:05 | #

Now on line: Audio of Part 3; and Text

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 13 Nov 2018 08:10 | #

At 3:45, I mis-spoke. It is “principle two”, of correctability that is being invoked here.

Posted by Part 4 is now on line on Fri, 16 Nov 2018 14:35 | #

Posted by Part 5 is now on line on Tue, 20 Nov 2018 21:11 | #

Posted by Behind Poznan's Cathedral on Tue, 20 Nov 2018 21:38 | #

A view to the backside of Poland’s cathedral. The cylindrical section closest to the viewer is actually where the first kings of Poland are entombed. I’m afraid my friend Maciej was a bit intoxicated ...we had fun.

P.S., it is not a Malcolm X hat that he has on, even though it may look that way in the cursory glance afforded.

Mieszko I

Reign: 960–992
Predecessor: Siemomysł
Successor Bolesław I Chrobry
Born c. 930

Died May 25, 992 (aged 61–62)

Poznań, Poland

and his son and Successor, Bolesław I the Brave, Born in Poznań 967

Reign Duke: 992 – 18 April 1025 (?)
King: until 17 June 1025
Coronation 18 April 1025,
Gniezno Cathedral, Poland.
Predecessor Mieszko I
Successor Mieszko II Lambert

Died June 17, 1025 (aged 57–58)
Kraków?
Burial Cathedral Basilica of Sts. Peter and Paul, Poznań

Posted by Mieszko I on Tue, 20 Nov 2018 21:52 | #

Mieszko I

Reign: 960–992
Predecessor: Siemomysł
Successor Bolesław I Chrobry
Born c. 930

Died May 25, 992 (aged 61–62)

Poznań, Poland

Mieszko I c. 930 – 25 May 992) was the ruler of the Polans from about 960 until his death. A member of the Piast dynasty, he was a son of the legendary Siemomysł, and a grandson of Lestek. He was the father of Bolesław I the Brave (the first crowned king of Poland) and of Gunhild of Wenden. Most sources make Mieszko I the father of Sigrid the Haughty, a Nordic queen, though one source identifies her father as Skoglar Toste, and the grandfather of Canute the Great (Gundhild’s son), and the great-grandfather of Gunhilda of Denmark, Canute the Great’s daughter and wife of Henry III, Holy Roman Emperor.

The first Christian ruler of territories later called Poland, Mieszko I is considered the creator of the Polish state. He continued the policy of both his father and grandfather, who were rulers of the pagan tribes located in the area of present-day Greater Poland. Through both alliances and the use of military force, Mieszko extended ongoing Polish conquests and early in his reign subjugated Kuyavia and probably Gdańsk Pomerania and Masovia. For most of his reign, Mieszko I was involved in warfare for the control of Western Pomerania, eventually conquering it up to the vicinity of the lower Oder river. During the last years of his life, he fought the Bohemian state, winning Silesia and probably Lesser Poland.

Mieszko I’s alliance with the Czech prince, Boleslaus I the Cruel, strengthened by his marriage in 965 to the Czech Přemyslid princess Dobrawa, and his baptism in 966 put him and his country in the cultural sphere of Western Christianity. Apart from the great conquests accomplished during his reign (which proved to be fundamental for the future of Poland) Mieszko I was renowned for his internal reforms, aimed at expanding and improving the so-called war monarchy system.

According to existing sources, Mieszko I was a wise politician, a talented military leader, and a charismatic ruler. He successfully used diplomacy, concluding alliances, first with Bohemia, then Sweden, and the Holy Roman Empire. In foreign policy, he placed the interests of his country foremost, even entering into agreements with his former enemies. On his death, he left to his sons a country with greatly expanded territories, and a well-established position in Europe.

Mieszko I also enigmatically appeared as “Dagome” in a papal document dating to about 1085, called Dagome iudex, which mentions a gift or dedication of Mieszko’s land to the Pope (the act took place almost a hundred years earlier).

It is roughly his borders that Poland was returned to in 1945.

Source Wikipedia.

Posted by "Frederick The Great" on Wed, 21 Nov 2018 07:16 | #

The Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth after the First Partition (1772)

First Partition of Poland

Frederick The Great had despised Polish people since his youth, and numerous statements are known in which he expressed anti-Polish prejudice, calling Polish society “stupid” and stating that “all these people with surnames ending with -ski, deserve only contempt”. He passionately hated everything associated with Poland, while justifying his hatred and territorial expansion with ideas of the Enlightenment. He described Poles as “slovenly Polish trash”; referring to them in a letter from 1735 as “dirty” and “vile apes”, and compared the Polish peasants to American Indians.

Frederick undertook the conquest of Polish territory under the pretext of an enlightened and civilizing mission, particularly given his negative perceptions about Poland and the traditions of its ruling elite, all of which merely provided a convenient path for the “sanguine ameliorism” of the Enlightenment and heightened assurance in the “distinctive merits of the ‘Prussian way’”. He prepared the ground for the partition of Poland-Lithuania in 1752 at the latest, hoping to gain territorial bridge between Pomerania, Brandenburg and East Prussian provinces. Frederick was himself partly responsible for the weakness of the Polish government, having inflated its currency with Polish coin dies obtained during the conquest of Saxony in 1756. The profits exceeded twice the peacetime national budget of Prussia. He opposed attempts of political reform in Poland, and his troops bombarded customs ports on the Vistula, thwarting Polish efforts to create a modern fiscal system. As early as 1731 Frederick had suggested that the country would be well-served by annexing Polish Prussia in order to join the separated territories of the Kingdom of Prussia.

According to Scott, Frederick was eager to exploit Poland economically as part of his wider aim of increasing Prussia’s wealth. Scott views this as a continuation of his previous violations of Polish territory in 1759 and 1761 and raids within Greater Poland until 1765. After acquiring dies from which the currency of Poland was struck Prussia issued debased Polish coins, which drove money out of Poland into Hohenzollern territory – this resulted in 25 million thalers in profit, while causing considerable monetary problems for Poland.

Lewitter says: “The conflict over the rights of religious dissenters [in Poland] had led to civil war and foreign intervention.” Out of 11 to 12 million people in Poland, 200,000 were Protestants and 600,000 Eastern Orthodox. The Protestant dissidents were still free to practice their religion, although their schools were shut down. All dissidents could own property, but Poland increasingly reduced their civic rights after a period of considerable religious and political freedoms. They were allowed to serve in the army and vote in elections, but were barred from public offices and the Polish Parliament the Sejm, and during the 1760s their importance became out of proportion compared to their numbers. Frederick exploited this conflict as means to keep Poland weak and divided.

Empress Catherine II of Russia was staunchly opposed to Prussia. At the same time Frederick opposed Russia, whose troops had been allowed to freely cross the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth during the Seven Years’ War of 1756–63. Despite their personal hostility, Frederick and Catherine signed a defensive alliance in 1764 that guaranteed Prussian control of Silesia in return for Prussian support for Russia against Austria or the Ottoman Empire. Catherine’s candidate for the Polish throne, Stanisław August Poniatowski, was then elected King of Poland in September of that year, and she controlled Polish politics.

Frederick became concerned, however, after Russia gained significant influence over Poland in the Repnin Sejm of 1767, a position which also threatened Austria and the Ottoman Turks. In the ensuing Russo-Turkish War (1768–74), Frederick supported Catherine with a subsidy of 300,000 rubles, albeit with reluctance as he did not want Russia to become even stronger through acquisitions of Ottoman territory. The Prussian king achieved a rapprochement with Emperor Joseph and the Austrian chancellor Kaunitz.

Frederick The Great‘s representative in St. Petersburg, his brother Prince Henry, convinced Frederick and Maria Theresa (after Russia occupied the Danubian Principalities in 1769–70), that the balance of power would be maintained by a tripartite division of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth instead of Russia taking land from the Ottomans. They agreed to the First Partition of Poland in 1772, which took place without a war. Frederick claimed most of the Polish province of Royal Prussia. Prussia annexed 20,000 square miles (52,000 km2) and 600,000 inhabitants, the least of the partitioning powers. However, Prussia’s Polish territory was also the best-developed economically. The newly created province of West Prussia connected East Prussia and Farther Pomerania and granted Prussia control of the mouth of the Vistula River. Frederick also invited German immigrants to the province, hoping they would displace the Poles. Maria Theresa only reluctantly agreed to the partition, to which Frederick sarcastically commented, “she cries, but she takes”.

Frederick himself, tried further propaganda to justify the Partition, portraying the acquired provinces as underdeveloped and improved by Prussian rule. According to Karin Friedrich these claims were accepted for a long time in German historiography and sometimes still reflected in modern works.

Frederick did not justify his conquests on an ethnic basis, however, unlike later nationalists, 19th-century German historians. Dismissive of contemporary German culture, Frederick instead pursued an IMPERIALIST policy, acting on the security interests of his state. Frederick II settled 300,000 colonists in territories he had conquered, and enforced Germanization.

After the first partition Frederick engaged in plunder of Polish property, confiscating Polish estates and monasteries to support German colonization, and in 1786 he ordered forced buy-outs of Polish holdings. The new strict tax system and bureaucracy was particularly disliked among the Polish population, as was the compulsory military service in the army, which didn’t exist previously in Poland.[86] Frederick abolished the gentry’s freedom from taxation and restricted its power. Royal estates formerly belonging to the Polish Crown were redistributed to German landowners, reinforcing Germanization. Both Protestant and Roman Catholic teachers (mostly Jesuits) taught in West Prussia, and teachers and administrators were encouraged to be able to speak both German and Polish. Economic exploitation of Poland, especially by Prussia and Austria, followed the territorial seizures.

Frederick looked upon many of his new Polish citizens with scorn, but carefully concealed that scorn when actually dealing with them. Frederick’s long-term goal was to remove all Polish people from his territories, both peasants and nobility. He sought to expel the nobles through an oppressive tax system and the peasantry by eradicating the Polish national character of the rural population by mixing them with Germans invited in their thousands by promises of free land.

By such means, Frederick boasted he would “gradually…get rid of all Poles”.

Posted by Frederick the Great Queen of Prussia on Wed, 21 Nov 2018 19:20 | #

Frederick the Great and the Enigma of Prussia 1/5

In the Spring of 1945, Adolf Hitler retreated to the Fuhrer Bunker 16 meters below the streets of Berlin. The Russian army was closing in on the German capital. World War II was all but over. But even in his last days, Hitler refused to accept defeat. He continued to draw inspiration from the deeds of his hero - a legendary German leader, whose portrait was the only image to adorn the walls of Hitler’s private shelter. Frederick the Great, the…

Posted by Dance of national coordination on Thu, 22 Nov 2018 08:17 | #

Dance of national coordination

Posted by Part 6 Audio/Visual is now on line on Mon, 26 Nov 2018 08:42 | #

Posted by Margaret MacMillan part 7 Hitler wasn't WN on Wed, 05 Dec 2018 21:26 | #

Hitler was Not White Nationalist Part 7

Posted by Last of intro (Part 8) Hitler Not WN on Wed, 12 Dec 2018 12:03 | #

Posted by Myles Power on Thu, 03 Jan 2019 17:41 | #

Debunking gassing deniers

Debunking (Tobin’s) gassing denial

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycsHUrCM9Q0

Part 1)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w68gDfCbyBA

Posted by mancinblack on Thu, 03 Jan 2019 23:21 | #

Die verbindung @18 ist tot, Daniel.

Posted by debunking debunker videos on Fri, 04 Jan 2019 01:26 | #

Thanks, Mancinblack. Here are what should be the working links.

Debunking (Tobin’s) gassing denial

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycsHUrCM9Q0

Part 1)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w68gDfCbyBA

I don’t mind these kinds of videos because I don’t see the denial stuff as necessary and it doesn’t help (to say the least).

Posted by mancinblack on Fri, 04 Jan 2019 16:23 | #

Here’s a link to a blog run by the guy who made the “Bromberg Blutsonntag debunked” video

https://imgur.com/a/725A7

He addresses all the claims made by Deniers and debunks them. Debunks them good.

Polish teachers from Bromberg about to be murdered among the Nazi revenge executions.

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 05 Jan 2019 17:10 | #

Thanks, Mancinblack.

Here’s another thread that discusses the matter with sanity

https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/polish-atrocities-before-the-war.510574/

It’s baffling that any WN have gone along with the Nazi propaganda on the Bromberg events.

It’s important to get this episode understood correctly as its vast misrepresentation, distortion and propagandization performed massive psuedo-justification for the Nazi invasion.

Posted by mancinblack on Fri, 11 Jan 2019 18:05 | #

In this C4 interview Rachel Riley relates how Corbyn and Holocaust denial have given her a stronger Jewish identity, which I suppose is the inevitable consequence of much online dialogue these days. Riley says a number of things, particularly in the second part of the interview, which I would personally agree with and overall I found her surprisingly impressive. So when she dismissed the suggestion that she might consider a career in politics, I was somewhat relieved.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-f6suP-Ojo&t=1709s

Posted by Germany 1928-29 on Fri, 25 Jan 2019 15:05 | #

Footage of Germany from 1928-29
...shows them suffering so badly as a result of the Versailles Treaty that they had no choice but to go to war (LOL)

0:08 - The Graf Zeppelin passes over Berlin (Aug 15, 1929)
0:29 - Dance orchestra playing in Kroll’s Garden, Berlin (Sep 6, 1928)
1:32 - English group outside pub, bugle call and procession in Hesse (1929)
3:23 - Carnival and crowded streets in Bad Dürkheim (Sep 8, 1929)
8:24 - Sledding in Müggelberge, Berlin (Jan 8, 1929)
10:36 - Chimney sweeps in Berlin (1929)
11:32 - Paul von Hindenburg reviews troops (Aug 12, 1929)
12:06 - Bavarian pub (Nov 24, 1928)
13:26 - Beer festival in Munich (Sep 25, 1929)
17:04 - Festival day in Rastatt (July 22, 1928)
18:57 - Train departing Hesse (1929)

Posted by dancing on the edge of a volcano on Fri, 25 Jan 2019 23:07 | #

I’m afraid the link isn’t working, Daniel.

Posted by Thanks for the heads-up on Sat, 26 Jan 2019 00:06 | #

Thanks for the heads-up

This should work:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcaAh_tYidY

Posted by Frederick's middle-men on Sun, 19 May 2019 07:13 | #

While Polish aristocracy was culpable in the mid 1650’s of deploying Jewry as middle-mean to exploit peasants, the Fredericks were not immune to this kind of practice either….

Frederick the Great’s Jewish Policy: Between Containment and Profit, Part 1

- by Guillaume Durocher, TOO, 17 May 2019:

Frederick’s attitude towards this inheritance is of interest because, as monarch of the Enlightenment, he held no religiously-motivated hostility towards the Jews, nor was he affected by the anti-Semitic racial theories which would become popular in the nineteenth century. Instead, the Prussian king’s policies were determined by his classical education, which informed his outlook in general, political pragmatism, and his actual personal experience with Jews.

Frederick essentially upheld his predecessors’ approach, justifying hard-headed population policies limiting Jewish growth by the need to protect the economic balance, mores, and well-being of Prussia as a whole. In this, Frederick’s approach appears reminiscent of the muscular communitarian population policies of Plato and Aristotle, two philosophers whom he had carefully studied. As we shall see, while Frederick maintained and reinforced the policies of his predecessors, he was not able to overcome their contradictory character, paving the way for their dismantlement under his successors.

The Political Inheritance: Jewish Policy in Prussia before Frederick II

As elsewhere in Europe, whether Jewish settlement should even be allowed was a contested question in the history of Brandenburg-Prussia. In 1309, the Teutonic Order, a state of warrior-monks which had conquered East Prussia and violently converted the native pagans to Christianity, prohibited Jews from entering their territory. Nonetheless, given the economic importance of Jewish merchants in Poland, Jews were allowed to enter temporarily for business.

The Great Elector of Brandenburg, George William, became duke of Prussia in 1619, acquiring the Order’s former lands. The Jews’ economic importance had gradually grown over the centuries, eventually attaining a dominant position in East Prussia. According to the Jewish Virtual Library:

In 1664 Moses Jacobson de Jonge of Amsterdam received very favorable commercial privileges (subsequently renewed) in Memel , where he became the most important merchant, paying more customs dues than any of his Christian counterparts. He became a Court Jew in 1685 and his sons inherited the function. In Koenigsberg, capital of East Prussia, Jews were permitted to graduate in medicine from the university in 1658, and Jewish merchants were encouraged to settle soon after. A synagogue was built there in 1680 and a cemetery opened in 1703. The community grew during the 18th and 19th centuries, remaining the economic, social, and religious center of the region. In the latter half of the 18th century Jewish communities were founded in Elblag, Marienwerder, Lyck , and elsewhere.[2]

In Branbenburg proper, the principality centered around Berlin, Elector Joachim II had expelled Jews in 1573. Frederick William of Brandenburg (r. 1640–1688), also known as the Great Elector, reversed this policy. He inherited small territories in western Germany containing Jews and granted them the right to remain. Frederick William also encouraged Jewish settlement to favor reconstruction following the terrible devastation of the Thirty Years’ War (which killed a third of the population of Germany). There is the common pattern of undemocratic princes for selfish economic reasons granting favors to the Jews against the popular will, as the Jewish Virtual Library writes:

The elector disregarded his subjects’ objections to Jewish settlement, being concerned with the economic benefits he derived from direct taxation of the Schutzjuden [Protected Jews, an official status] and indirect taxation through customs, tolls, and excise, which the Jews paid at a higher rate. During his reign, the Berlin Jewish community grew to 40 families, that of Halberstadt to 86, that of Frankfurt to 43, while 15 families had settled in Pomerania.[3]

Frederick William allowed Polish Jews to trade (but not settle) in Brandenburg, he hired Israel Aron as a military contractor, purveyor to the mint, and Court Jew, and he allowed 50 Jewish families expelled from Vienna in 1670 to settle in Berlin, on the grounds of their being “rich and wealthy persons, prepared to bring and invest their means here.”[4]

Frederick William then had already set many of the trends of Jewish policy in Brandenburg-Prussia: general opposition to Jewish settlement, while allowing exceptions insofar as Jews were economically useful to the State, whether as temporary merchants, investors, military contractors, or minters.

In his history of Prussia, Frederick the Great writes positively of his ancestors’ Jewish policy as reflecting moderation, tolerance, and economic good sense (a passage written around 1748):

The electors of Brandbenburg acted wisely in these troubles: they were moderate and tolerant. Frederick-William, who had acquired, by the peace of Westphalia, provinces which gave him Catholic subjects, did not persecute them; he even allowed a few Jewish families to establish themselves in his States, and granted them synagogues.[5]

Frederick later makes clear that the primary benefit was in enabling petty trade with Poland: “The Elector even allowed a few Jewish families to take residence in his States; Poland’s vicinity made their mediation useful, to discharge into this kingdom the dregs of our thrift stores.”[6] In the same passage, Frederick praises the Great Elector for religious tolerance in welcoming 20,000 hard-working Calvinists exiled from France.

Frederick’s father was Frederick William I of Prussia (reigned 1713–40), so-named because by then and unlike the Great Elector, the duchy of East Prussia had been converted into a formal kingdom. Frederick William was a notoriously tough and frugal monarch, focusing above all on the development of his army and earning the title of ‘Soldier-King.’ As a hardheaded ruler, Frederick William introduced the principle of halting the growth of the Jewish population, unless this was specifically shown to be economically beneficial. The Jewish Virtual Library writes:

Under his son Frederick William I (1713–40), a generally harsh regime was introduced. On his accession he ordered a thorough inquiry into Jewish affairs, the outcome of which was the law of 1714 restricting to one the number of sons who could inherit their father’s right of residence (Schutzbrief); to be granted this right the second son had to possess 1,000 taler and pay 50, and the third son twice these amounts. Thus a dominant theme in Prussian-Jewish relations, the attempt to restrict and even to reduce the number of Jews, was formally introduced. In 1717 the king appointed Moses Levin Gomperz as Oberaeltester (“chief elder,” parnas) of Berlin and Prussian Jewry, an appointment probably connected with the supervision of the just distribution of the tax load, conducted by representatives of communities and Landjudenschaften [self-governing Jewish communities]. In 1728 the sum was fixed at 15,000 taler annually, to be reapportioned every five years. In 1730 a new Jewry law was promulgated: the eldest son was now obliged to own 1,000 and pay 50 taler and the second twice these amounts; all were subject to the condition that the number of protected Jews (Schutzjuden) in any given locality should not increase. Foreign Jews in possession of at least 10,000 taler were allowed to settle in Prussia. The law also prohibited Jews from engaging in all crafts (except seal engraving) competing with Christian guilds; it prohibited them from dealing in a large number of goods (mainly local produce). Peddling, in particular, was suppressed. Commerce in luxury wares (expensive textiles, spices, etc.) was permitted, as was moneylending and dealing in old clothes. The law applied not only to Brandenburg but to all Prussian territories, creating uniform conditions for the Jews and defining (in article 24) their juridical relationship to the state. The regular tax load was raised, in addition to extraordinary exactions. Jewish merchants were encouraged to become entrepreneurs and invest in manufacture, particularly of textiles (silk, ribbons, satin, lace, etc.). These businessmen were granted highly favorable conditions. Thus the king passed on to his son a basically contradictory policy, at the same time mercantilist and anti-Jewish; needing and encouraging Jews for their economic contribution, he attempted to restrict their rights and numbers.[7]

Frederick’s “Enlightened” Toleration of Religious Minorities

Nineteenth-century relief showing the arrival of the Huguenots in Prussia (1685). After the Wars of Religion, Prussia welcomed productive French Protestants such as these.

Frederick the Great’s own knowledge of Jews and Judaism was informed by a wide-ranging Christian and classical education which has since long gone out of fashion in the West. He was familiar with the Bible, Jewish ethics, and the many stories of the ancient Israelites. However, Frederick often voiced harsh criticisms of the Jewish religion, but this was generally no worse than his contemptuous attitude towards organized religions in general, including Christianity.

Frederick’s attitude towards religious minorities was, a priori, one of tolerance typical of the Enlightenment period: rather than excluding or persecuting religious minorities, bloody massacres had been sadly common during the Wars of Religion, he was among those who would welcome them so long as they were productive citizens. He is even supposed to have said: “All religions are just as good as each other, as long as the people who practice them are honest, and even if Turks and heathens came and wanted to populate this country, then we would build mosques and temples for them.”[8]

Frederick’s attitude was then symptomatic of many philosophers, from the ancient Stoics to the present day, who see the presence of reason and pro-social instincts in all human beings as a means to attain universal brotherhood, not recognizing that these might be unequally distributed and inflected by powerful human tendencies, such as greed and ethnocentric sentiments. Frederick’s often critical views on the Jews were then not motivated by Christian, chauvinist, or later racial ideology.

[...]

Frederick’s personal views on Jews in no way inhibited dialogue and collaboration with individual Jews. The king wrote to the Jew Lion Gomperz saying he enjoyed the latter’s critique of the German language.[14] Frederick had also granted the famous Jewish intellectual Moses Mendelssohn the status of a “Protected Jew,” giving him right of residence in his realm.

Posted by Frederick's Jewish policy Part 2 on Sun, 19 May 2019 07:40 | #

Frederick the Great’s Jewish Policy: Between Containment and Profit, Part 2

- by Guillaume Durocher, TOO, 18 May 2019:

Voltaire at the court of Frederick the Great.

Frederick, Voltaire, and the Jews

Frederick the Great and the famous French philosopher Voltaire had one of the most celebrated relationships between prince and intellectual of the Enlightenment. Indeed, on this rests some of Frederick’s claims to being an “enlightened despot.” Voltaire himself was a vociferous critic of both the Jewish religion and Jews as a people. He wrote in his Philosophical Dictionary: “It is with regret that I speak about the Jews: this nation is, in many respects, the most detestable which has sullied the earth.” Voltaire’s letters to Frederick have numerous critical comments on Jews. For instance, reacting to Catherine II of Russia’s sending a Jew to Egypt to investigate the situation in the country, he said: “The Jews have always loved Egypt, whatever their impertinent story [Exodus] says.”[1] Voltaire appears to have been much more emphatically anti-Semitic than Frederick.

Frederick and Voltaire fell out for various reasons, one of the most important being displeasure over crooked financial dealings between Voltaire and a Jew, Abraham Hirschel.

[...]

Peddlers, Spies, and Messengers: Jews in Frederick’s Wars

Jews are perhaps most often referred to in Frederick’s correspondence in the context of the numerous wars he waged. They appear in numerous settings as friend, foe, or background element, but always as something rather distasteful: as currency-manipulating financiers, as wartime merchants, as spies used by both sides, and as the unwanted residents of conquered territories.

Frederick, while generally considering Jews a problem due to their growing population and penchant for usury and scams, was not above employing Jews for their skills (dubious or not) in finance and trade. The Jewish Encyclopedia reports: “Among the king’s Jewish mint-masters (‘Münzjuden’) were Ephraim, 1754; Moses Isaac and Daniel Itzig, 1756; Daniel Itzig and Ephraim, 1758; and Veitel Heine Ephraim, 1773.”[4] The Jewish Virtual Library says: “During the Seven Years’ War (1756–63) Frederick relied on monetary manipulations effected by Daniel Itzig , V.H. Ephraim , and other purveyors to the mint. His armies were provisioned by Jewish military contractors (supplying horses, grain, fodder, wine, etc).”[5]

In his History of the Seven Years’ War (completed in 1763, the last year of the war), the miniature world war in which Frederick doubled the size of his kingdom by conquering Silesia from the Austrians, the king writes that Jews were used by the enemy as wartime merchants:

The duke of Württemberg [an enemy of Frederick, allied with the Austrians] marched towards Saxony with the resolution of plundering friend and foe alike. With this in view, he had himself followed by a whole synagogue of Jews, to sell off his booty. We called this company of Hebrews his Sanhredrin.[6]

During that same war, Frederick wrote letters in which he refers to Jewish homes destroyed by his forces (apparently during combat) and orders that the Jews of occupied Bohemia must pay two florins per head to finance military operations.[7]

Jews apparently had a major role in the wars of the region as spies, messengers, and traders. Frederick wrote in anger to a Polish prince in 1759:

It is known that almost all the Jews under your domination have principally served as spies for my enemies, and I do not go into detail here on what grounds many of your Jews are suspected of being the responsible for the torching of Glogau, burning my magazines, at which, unfortunately, they have succeeded at only too well.[8]

Frederick himself however was also happy to employ Jewish messengers and spies, notably a certain Isaak Sabatskt, and advised his subordinates to do the same. Jews apparently knew the region well and had good contacts with the Russians. On one occasion he advised that messages ought to be carried by “beggars, Jews, or other disguised people.”[9] On another occasion, Frederick rejected the offer of a Jew, sent by a Lithuanian nobleman, to send a report on the situation on the Polish-Russian border, saying: “I will never give money to Polish Jews or magnates.”[10]

Frederick in his military campaigns generally considered Jews to be shifty and unreliable. He advised his commander in the conquered city of Glogau: “you have the most justified reason to keep a very vigilant eye on all people, and especially on the Jews,”[11] a comment indicating that he thought Jews no loyalty to either side but would exploit the situation to their advantage. He later wrote to the same commander: “To the city-dwellers, Jews in particular, be very attentive, so that the Russians cannot know through them what is going on in the city.”[12] Probably for the same reason, Frederick ordered that Poles and Jews not be allowed into the city of Glogau, requiring them to trade their wares in the suburbs.[13]

Frederick considered Jews to be distasteful, untrustworthy, and antisocial in their dealings, but he was not above using their abilities in service of the manipulative and deceitful aspects of warfare, namely financial manipulation and espionage.

Later, in 1772, Frederick would mention Jews as a major concern in the lands he had conquered as a result of the First Partition of Poland. He remarks on these Jewish populations as part of his comments on the general scene of an unpromisingly desolate and severely underdeveloped country. Frederick wrote to his younger brother Prince Henry,[14] who had helped secure the partition:

I say to all those who wish to hear that I saw on my way [through the conquered territory] only sand, firs, moors, and Jews. It is true that I have work cut out for me with this portion, because I believe that Canada [which was still overwhelmingly wild] is as civilized as this Pomerelia. There is no order, no development; the towns are in a deplorable state. For example, Culm must contain eight hundred houses, but not one hundred are standing, and those who inhabit them are Jews, or monks, and still these are the most miserable [houses].[15]

Frederick writes proudly in his memoirs of having then worked to develop these conquered territories:

These towns were rebuilt and populated. Culm had a house where five young people from the nobility were raised by masters who gave all their attention to instruct them; one-hundred-and-eighty schoolmasters both Protestant and Catholic were placed in different areas and employed by the government. One did not know what education was in this unfortunate country; also it was without manners as well as knowledge. Finally, we sent back to Poland over four thousand Jews who had been begging or stealing from the peasants.[16]

[...]

Frederick’s goal was then not to eliminate the Jews but to maintain the demographic balance and status quo between Christians and Jews, and to restrict Jewish settlement in certain areas. The Jewish Encyclopedia further adds that Frederick took tough measures against Jewish usury and criminality, including a doctrine of collective responsibility of the (partially self-governing) Jewish community:

By the rescript of 1750, severe penalties were imposed on those Jews who practised usury. In 1752–53 interest rates were fixed at 12 per cent per annum, and in 1755 at 6 per cent and 7 per cent. Bankrupts were harshly dealt with; and the entire Jewish community of a locality was made responsible for the crimes committed by Jewish thieves (1773). In 1770 the oppressive usury laws were somewhat modified by repeal acts.[22]

The text of Frederick’s 1750 Decree justifies these measures. Frederick asserts that both legal Jews and illegal immigrant Jews had been massively involved in fraud:

We have noticed in our kingdom of Prussia . . . and particularly also in this capital [Berlin] various faults and abuses among the licensed and tolerated Jews, and have particularly observed that the rampant increase of these abuses has caused enormous damage and hardship, not only to the public, particularly to the Christian inhabitants and merchants, but also to Jewry itself. For this reason and because of the surreptitious entry of unlicensed Jews — foreigners and those who are all but without a country — many complaints and difficulties have arisen.[23]

Frederick claims that Jews had turned illegal trading into a systematic enterprise:

It has been noticed that many Jews and Jewish boys from other cities and provinces that are subject to us have tarried in Berlin, year in and year out, and almost daily, constantly coming and going, and, as it were, relieving one another. Through private and public trading, they have done tremendous damage, not only to the entire public, but particularly to the entire Christian and authorized Jewish trade, and have at the same time deceived and duped our treasures through all sorts of fraud and malicious practices.[24]

Frederick asserts that out of a “paternal” feeling, he wished to protect his lawful subjects, both Christian and Jewish. The king sought to balance the interests of his subjects so that “a proportion may be maintained between Christian and Jewish business opportunities and trades, and especially that neither may be injured through a prohibited expansion of Jewish business activity.”[25]

[...]

Frederick did not ban Jewish moneylending outright: “Inasmuch as the money-business is a particular source of Jewish support, Jews are therefore allowed to lend money on pledges now as in the past.”[29] However, he was concerned about the cohesion of the army, and thus loans to non-commissioned officers and other soldiers were not allowed without approval from their company commander.

[...]

There were nineteen factories and mills owned by Jews during Frederick’s reign, among them Daniel Itzig’s lead-factory at Sorge and his oil-mill at Berlin (Geiger, “Geschichte der Juden in Berlin,” ii. 93).[35]

This highlights a contradiction in the Prussian kings’ Jewish policy, including Frederick’s: over the years, Jews’ rising wealth would allow them to increasingly pressure the government break down restrictions on them.

End of Part 2 of 3.

Posted by Silesia 1740 on Sun, 19 May 2019 21:04 | #

Frederick the Great’s Jewish policy Part 3

- by Guillaume Durocher, TOO, 19 May 2019:

The Political Testament of 1752 and the Jews: “The Most Dangerous of Sects”

Frederick the Great’s two political testaments are significant documents—systematic presentations of political doctrine, which rulers of Brandenburg-Prussia had composed since the days of the Great Elector (apparently inspired by Richelieu). These expound not only many of Frederick’s general doctrines but also contain his longest and most explicit comments on Jews and justifications concerning his Jewish policy. These are therefore essential documents for understanding the monarch’s thinking.

In the Political Testament of 1752, the Jews are presented essentially as an economic problem. Their numbers in Prussia had increased substantially following Frederick’s conquest of Silesia in the 1740s, which had also lengthened the country’s border with Poland, where Jews had an important economic role. Under the heading, “On Rules for Commerce and Manufactures,” Frederick writes on the need for industrial policy, local manufacturing, and tariffs. In this context, he says of the Jews:

One must watch over the Jews and prevent them from getting involved in wholesale trade, prevent their numbers from increasing, and, at fraud they do, deprive them of the right of residence, for nothing is more contrary to the merchants’ commerce than the illegal trade done by the Jews.[1]

Frederick, a deist, was essentially contemptuous of all traditional religious stories and organizations. Under the heading “On Ecclesiastics and Religions,” he advocates religious tolerance rather than fanaticism, ensuring civil peace and prosperity for “Catholics, Lutherans, Reformists, Jews, and many other Christian sects.”[2]

All that having been said, Frederick notes that the Jews are nonetheless “the most dangerous of sects” due to their economic practices:

The Jews are the most dangerous of sects, because they harm Christian trade and are useless to the State. We need this nation for some trade with Poland, but one must prevent their numbers from increasing and fix them, not at a certain number of families, but a certain number of heads, and restrict their commerce and prevent them from wholesaling, so that they only be retailers.[3]

Frederick therefore opposed Jews not on religious grounds but because he thought them prone to fraud, detrimental to other businesses, and useless to the State, except in enabling trade with underdeveloped Poland.

[...]

The Jewish Virtual Library confirms this trend, also reinforced by the large Jewish population Prussia acquired by conquering parts of Poland:

In Berlin, Breslau, and Koenigsberg the upper strata of the Jews, who were rich and influential, took the first steps toward assimilation, acquiring the General-Privilegium, which granted them the rights of Christian merchants (such as freedom of movement and settlement). Through the First Partition of Poland (1772) Prussia’s Jewish population had almost doubled, and Frederick feared above all an influx of Jews from the newly annexed province of West Prussia.[11]

It is no wonder that Frederick’s policy proved unsustainable and was gradually dismantled by his successors. The Jewish Virtual Library notes: “Frederick’s nephew, Frederick William II (1786–97), inaugurated a period of liberalization and reform in Prussia. As crown prince, he had borrowed large sums from Berlin’s Jewish financiers.”[12] The vicious circle of Jewish emancipation, Jewish economic, political, and cultural empowerment, and anti-Semitism would of course culminate in the apocalyptic conflict between Jews and Germans in the first half of the twentieth century.

Posted by Katyusha salute on Memorial Day on Mon, 25 May 2020 06:34 | #

Who Only Europe Know

It is a tricky thing, as one certainly does not like to show appreciation really, for anything coming from the The Soviet Army, the most primitive army, representing a nightmare ideology in practice beyond imagination….

Yet to some of us, the sound of Katyusha rockets (sometimes referred to as “Stalin’s organs”) raining down on the Nazi invaders (representing another nightmare ideology in practice beyond imagination) is strangely soothing and comforting.

Katyusha Rocket Artillery ~~EARRAPE~~ music to my ears.

mancinblack posted a music video by a group called Rome, which incorporates the sound of Katyusha rockets:

Who Only Europe Know - It seems they understand the sound aright, what it means to us, who only Europe know.

And if the sound of Katyshusha is understood as coming from something deeper than the Soviet Union, but from those fighting in defense of a European kind, mother Russia (the motive of most of their fighters, where motivated at all, i.e., not compelled to fight), it is a strangely comforting sound, a relentless sound overwhelming the Nazi invasion and its own ruthless, would-be tyranny.

But while I have grudging appreciating for the sound, on this day, which is appreciated in the sense of the European element of Russia wailing through its depths in the fight against Hitler, I want to express my deep appreciation of course, not to the Soviet rapists/Bolshevik monsters, but to the Western Side of the Allies which served and sacrificed to kick Hitler’s ass.

And the more I hear so called White Nationalists trying to redeem him and the Nazi regime, the more I hear them blame and denigrate other European peoples who do not feel allegiance to Hitler, the more they lie and make up excuses, the more I hear them whine ONLY about the suffering of those under Nazi auspices during the war, the more they ignore if not spit on the graves of those European peoples Hitler murdered, the more I am glad that Hitler was destroyed.

Thank you from the bottom of my heart for those fighting men who served and sacrificed to defeat Hitler. Indeed, it was an unnecessary war; Hitler was a war monger and he should never have started the war.

Katyusha Rocket

All Nations between Germany and Russia were anti Soviet and anti Semitic (anti Semitic, thus willing to work on deportation plans; and even many Russians would be anti Soviet and anti Semitic). Moreover, there is no way that England and The United States would allow The Soviet Union to overtake Germany and the rest of Western Europe.

Therefore, the war was unnecessary and happened because Hitler was a supremacist, imperialist war monger.

Katyusha Rocket

Katyusha Rocket Artillery ~~EARRAPE~~ music to my ears.

The Motherland Calls

Hitler and Nazism were Not White Nationalism, Part 3

Part 4

Hitler was Not White Nationalist Part 5

Hitler was Not White Nationalist Part 6

Hitler was Not White Nationalist Part 7

Comments:

Post a comment:

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Categories

Contributors

Links

MR Central & News

Comments