Why did the Jews leave Auschwitz

[TSR]

Quite a bit, actually. The anti-Nazi boycott could have toppled Hitler's regime in it's infancy. That fear prompted negotiation of the Haavara Agreement with Zionists that allowed German Jews to circumvent the currency restrictions Nazis had placed on all German citizens who wanted to emigrate.

The Nizkor website has a link to the first three chapters of Edwin Black's book, The Transfer Agreement. Check it out for a fascinating side to the history of the Third Reich.

.
"Quite a bit?" Got any actual, you know, numbers to support this?

From your cite:

The Transfer Agreement is Edwin Black's compelling, award-winning story of a negotiated arrangement in 1933 between Zionist organizations and the Nazis to transfer some 50,000 Jews, and $100 million of their assets, to Jewish Palestine in exchange for stopping the worldwide Jewish-led boycott threatening to topple the Hitler regime in its first year.

So, a whopping $2000 per person was to be left to them of their own money for the privilege of being allowed to leave Germany.

And again, what was happening in Germany at this time to make this seem like a good idea to those who left? What had prompted the boycott to begin with?

.

 

[BenBurch]

We all know that Stalin loved Jews, right? Right?

The devil you know or the devil you don't - IF it even happened like that, which I very much doubt.

 

[cwalner]

We all know that Stalin loved Jews, right? Right?

The devil you know or the devil you don't - IF it even happened like that, which I very much doubt.

Not just Stalin, but Russia, in general. The 'wonderful' treatment of Jews at the hands of the Russian government around the turn of the 20th century is the primary reason that I am an American.

 

[Saggy]

Not just Stalin, but Russia, in general. The 'wonderful' treatment of Jews at the hands of the Russian government around the turn of the 20th century is the primary reason that I am an American.

Would you believe the Russians had a final solution to exterminate six million?

From the NYT in 1906-

 

[Matthew Ellard]

Would you believe the Russians had a final solution to exterminate six million?

Well then thank god for the 1917 revolution......

דישע אווטאָנאָמע געגנט Soviet authorities established the autonomous oblast in 1934. It was the result of Joseph Stalin's nationality policy, which allowed for the Jews of the Soviet Union to receive a territory in which to pursue Yiddish cultural heritage within a socialist framework.

 

[cwalner]

Would you believe the Russians had a final solution to exterminate six million?

Hmm, seeing as the post that you are responding to indicates that my ancestors (specifically great grandparents and great great grandparents generations) fled Russia to the US to escape the Pogroms, then no, I have no trouble believing that the Russians were attempting to exterminate the Jews at the turn of the century.

This does not, however, negate the equally strong historical record that in the 1940's, Germany was attempting to do the very same thing.

The major difference was that the advancement of technology in those 40 years meant that the Germans were much more efficient at it.

 

[Saggy]

This does not, however, negate the equally strong historical record that in the 1940's, Germany was attempting to do the very same thing.

Don't forget, they, I'm not quite sure who 'they' were in this case, whoever was handy, I suppose, also tried it during WW I .....

 

[Dogzilla]

Don't forget, they, I'm not quite sure who 'they' were in this case, whoever was handy, I suppose, also tried it during WW I .....

[qimg]http://www.codoh.com/graphics/crucifixthmb.gif[/qimg]

That story is from 1919. Six million Jews in Russia were evidently in mortal peril in 1911 as well. Check it out.

 

[Dogzilla]

.
"Quite a bit?" Got any actual, you know, numbers to support this?

Like, you know, what kind of numbers do you, like, you know, want? The boycott was, like, averted. So, like, you know, like, it didn't happen.

So, a whopping $2000 per person was to be left to them of their own money for the privilege of being allowed to leave Germany.

And again, what was happening in Germany at this time to make this seem like a good idea to those who left? What had prompted the boycott to begin with?

.

The Nazis took over in 1933. In 1931, the Bruening government had enacted currency restrictions which prohibited anybody from taking currency out of Germany without permission. The Nazis inherited that law and don't be stupid and say that Hitler could just do away with that law by decree. He couldn't.

NOBODY could take money out the Reich. Meanwhile, the British were insisting that any Jews entering Palestine had to have at least 1,000 pounds to get in. So the Nazis and the Zionists worked out a way to get around these restrictions. Read a book every once in a while so you don't get tripped up by the sometimes gray areas of Jewish/Nazi cooperation.

 

[TSR]

Like, you know, what kind of numbers do you, like, you know, want? The boycott was, like, averted. So, like, you know, like, it didn't happen.

,
Ah, so not only was Saggy's cited "war" not a war, but it didn't even happen.

Would you let zie know so zie stops lying about it? And why did you try to claim otherwise earlier?
,

He couldn't.

,
What would have stopped him?

Meanwhile, I note that you *still* won't talk about what was happening to Jews at this time in Germany to make forfeiting most of their own money and possessions for the "privilege" of leaving seem like a good idea. Why do you think that might be?
,

 

[Meadmaker]

,
Ah, so not only was Saggy's cited "war" not a war, but it didn't even happen.

What? You can't trust the "Express"?

That's it. From now on, I'm only reading WorldNet Daily.

 

[Thunder]

That story is from 1919. Six million Jews in Russia were evidently in mortal peril in 1911 as well. Check it out.

thank you for posting this.

 

[Dogzilla]

,
Ah, so not only was Saggy's cited "war" not a war, but it didn't even happen.

Would you let zie know so zie stops lying about it? And why did you try to claim otherwise earlier?
,

I have no idea what you're talking about.

,
What would have stopped him?

Hitler had just been elected. He didn't have dictatorial powers.

Meanwhile, I note that you *still* won't talk about what was happening to Jews at this time in Germany to make forfeiting most of their own money and possessions for the "privilege" of leaving seem like a good idea. Why do you think that might be?
,

OK, I can be tolerant of somebody who doesn't know about the Enabling Act and other intricacies of Nazi Germany's infancy, but to not be aware of Nazi anti-Semitism is inexcusable.

 

[ddt]

Hitler had just been elected. He didn't have dictatorial powers.

OK, I can be tolerant of somebody who doesn't know about the Enabling Act and other intricacies of Nazi Germany's infancy, but to not be aware of Nazi anti-Semitism is inexcusable.

Oh, so you are aware of the Enabling Act - from 23 March 1933, which gave Hitler's Cabinet dictatorial powers. Some chutzpah of you to accuse others of ignorance.

And the Transfer Agreement dates from 25 August 1933, i.e., after the Enabling Act. Nice contradiction you've got there.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

Oh, so you are aware of the Enabling Act - from 23 March 1933, which gave Hitler's Cabinet dictatorial powers. Some chutzpah of you to accuse others of ignorance.

And the Transfer Agreement dates from 25 August 1933, i.e., after the Enabling Act. Nice contradiction you've got there.

In addition, Hitler ignored section 2 of the Enabling Act and thus his dictatorship was illegal.

 

[ddt]

In addition, Hitler ignored section 2 of the Enabling Act and thus his dictatorship was illegal.

Could you expand on that? Article 2 reads (in English translation):

Laws enacted by the government of the Reich may deviate from the constitution as long as they do not affect the institutions of the Reichstag and the Reichsrat. The rights of the President remain undisturbed.

The first sentence is moot, as the Reichstag had nothing to say anyhow, so there was no point in making laws affecting the Reichstag.

As to the second sentence: Hindenburg was all but senile, and his major advisor, his son Oskar, was a fan of Hitler's. Did Hitler nevertheless not manage to secure Hindenburg's signature on laws?

 

[Matthew Ellard]

Could you expand on that? Article 2 reads (in English translation):

The first sentence is moot, as the Reichstag had nothing to say anyhow, so there was no point in making laws affecting the Reichstag.

As to the second sentence: Hindenburg was all but senile, and his major advisor, his son Oskar, was a fan of Hitler's. Did Hitler nevertheless not manage to secure Hindenburg's signature on laws?

Hitler abolished the role of the President thus removing the rights of the President in contravention of section 2 of the Act. I guess it is a moot point as no one in Germany was going to take Hitler to the constitutional court as he could bypass the constitution. Imagine trying to read that court case in German if it went ahead!

 

[ddt]

Hitler abolished the role of the President thus removing the rights of the President in contravention of section 2 of the Act. I guess it is a moot point as no one in Germany was going to take Hitler to the constitutional court as he could bypass the constitution. Imagine trying to read that court case in German if it went ahead!

Oh, I'd love to read that (in German of course) if there were such a court case. But I think you're wrong.

On 1 August 1934, Hitler's government issued the "Law on the President of the German Reich" which states that after Hindenburg's death, the office of president would be unified with that of chancellor. It is signed by all members of Hitler's cabinet.

On 2 August 1934, Hindenburg died.

The Enabling Act says: "Die Rechte des Reichspräsidenten bleiben unberührt." (highlight mine). The above law seems not to contradict that - it doesn't change the rights the president has, it only unifies the office with that of chancellor. So, in that sense, what Hitler did seems absolutely legal. (and now I feel dirty for writing that).

I also quickly perused the Weimar Constitution, and it doesn't say anything about the president having to sign laws that have been made by the chancellor and his cabinet. So nothing illegal there either.

It's very hard to point at an illegality here. Enabling Acts had been used by the early (!) Weimar governments, led by Marx. The arrest of the KPD and some SPD members didn't matter in the end, as there was a 2/3 majority anyway. The terror from the SA and the personal threat of arrest certainly helped to get all non-SPD MPs in line in favour of the Enabling Act - that's your best bet. After the law had been passed, Hitler had free rein, he even didn't need the president to pass into law whatever he fancied, when I read the constitution correctly.

Oh, has anyone asked Bennie the Rat why his colleague Kaas pressed the entire Zentrum fraction into voting in favour of giving "atheist monster" Hitler absolute powers?

 

[Horatius]

Imagine trying to read that court case in German if it went ahead!

Well, it would be pretty short.....


"I believe Der Fuhrer ist un Criminal!"

"Bang!"*




*That may not be perfectly grammatical German, but you get the drift.

 

[Dogzilla]

Oh, so you are aware of the Enabling Act - from 23 March 1933, which gave Hitler's Cabinet dictatorial powers. Some chutzpah of you to accuse others of ignorance.

And the Transfer Agreement dates from 25 August 1933, i.e., after the Enabling Act. Nice contradiction you've got there.

And the Zionists just marched into Hitler's office and presented him with the surrender documents to call off the boycott? No negotiation? Nothing leading up to the final document? Jeeeeez.