I read Ron Rosenbaum's article with great interest and feel it was well reasoned. I can well appreciate his outrage at his comments about a second holocaust being so misrepresented by the authors of the book about the Jewish lobby. As a freelance historian, I know what it feels like to have this happen, though the context was altogether less weighty.

But I do have one concern. Is it really fair to say, as Mr. Rosenbaum does several times, that the world "willingly permitted the first holocaust"? I've read fairly extensively about the rise of Nazism and the politics leading up to WWII. German Jews were, of course, increasingly repressed by the Nazis as the 1930s wore on, and Nazi rhetoric made clear things would only get worse for them. Many tried to flee to the western democracies, but were often not accepted for a variety of reasons, anti-Semitism being one of them. Is this the basis for Mr. Rosenbaum's assertion--the fact that the western democracies failed to take in the Jews who were trying to flee Germany before WWII, so thereby "willingly permitting" them to later be slaughtered? I'd really like to know the answer to this.

If this IS the basis of his claim, is it really fair? I mean, what the German Jews were fleeing in the late 1930s was an increasingly harsh and repressive regime; the actual holocaust--the forced shipment of Jews to camps for extermination--did not begin in earnest until after the war began, by which time nothing could be done except win the war. Seems to me, therefore, that to prove the world "willingly permitted" the actual holocaust, one would have to prove the western democracies knew that the Jews they turned away in the late 1930s were destined for slaughter but deliberately turned them away anyway. Certainly there were warning signs, but did the West--the "world"--really have reason to seriously believe that Germany--a highly industrialized Western nation--was capable of such barbarity? Am I reading this right? Any input on this question I would much appreciate. Sincerely, Curt Nelson

The Allies (by which I mean England and...uh, France [*cough*], to say nothing of America, though they jumped into the game MUCH too late) were not ignorant to the realities on the ground in Nazi occupied territory: certainly the concentration camps, if not their ovens and gas chambers, of which the Allies awareness of their existence is less clear. Nevertheless, they had every chance to cripple the Nazi transport of Jews and other "undesirables" (Gypsy's, homosexuals, subversives, intellectuals, etc.) by repeated bombing the hell out of their train tracks, but they never did. Why? Well, that I don't know. And then there was, of course, the famous silence of Pope Pius XII. Semantically, whether or not the West were complicit in these atrocities through their lack of initiative, they certainly saw the fight to prevent world domination as superior to a proactive attempt to preserve human rights.

I think youre reading this right and so the OP's original article is flawed in its generalization. A few additional points that from my reading all the posts have not been hit squarely on the head:

1) the AIPC is so powerful and essentially controls our government and its foreign policy because they maintain a policy of targeted non-re-election. That is, if as an elected official you dare to speak out against zionest Israel and its own version of terrorism or question its actions you are targeted to not be re-elected. Your opponent, any oponent as long as he/she tows the pro-Israel line, is suddenly awash in a sea of campaign contributions while you and your campaign are smeared. And we know how our politicians love power now don’t we?

2) Those that follow the Jewish faith deserve their own country only as much as the Methodists, Quakers or Buddists do. Especially when one considers that Israel’s land grab in 1948(?) was only possible with the strong military, political and financial support of the United States and Britian, the worlds two strongest countries at the time. What about the people that already lived there for hundreds and hundreds of years? And don’t give me that crap that those that follow the Jewish faith need to have their own country because it says so in the Bible because if that’s the case, we should also have our foreign policy include building a boat big enough to hold two of all the species of animals as well as all that other gibberish.

The fact that our countries Middle east foreign policy is based on that good ol' best seller the Bible (The Bible are you f-n kidding me?) is a sourec of never ending embaressment.

To take this a bit further...I had a disturbing conversation recently with a woman who accused my family (rural German farmers) of being guilty of the atrocities against the Jews in WWII.

My family was just trying to survive - it was a war and Germany wasn't a fun place to be during that time. When you are gang raped on a daily basis and watch your young siblings buried alive (by Russian troops) it's hard to care about anything else that is going on. I pointed out the obvious fact that, unlike today, home phones and the internet were unheard of, making information difficult to come by. My grandparents knew "something" was happening but not what.

She said, point blank, that b/c they didn't personally attempt to stop the murders that they were responsible (even though they didn't know Dachau from a hole in the wall). She neglected to acknowledge that gays, Catholic priests, blacks, and gypsies were also targets - and went as far as to say that "they aren't the same [as Jews]." She said that I, as the grandchild of Germans, was also guilty and that I had "the blood of Jews" on my hands. She told me to donate to Israel. I told her to take a flying leap.

My friend of many years stood there and egged her on and agreed. I no longer consider that person my friend.

Any opinions? I was surprised that someone could uphold the philosophical idea of "collective guilt" - I've never liked the works of Margaret Gilbert. I've always thought it was a load of crap. Reactions, please! It would be like me hating my former Russian college roommate for what was done to my family...completely idiotic.

"The fact that our countries Middle east foreign policy is based on that good ol' best seller the Bible (The Bible are you f-n kidding me?) is a sourec of never ending embaressment."

...haha, YES!!

That's complete nonsense. It is well documented fact that the Allied air campaign tried desperately to cripple the transportation network to disrupt the entire economy. Yet year after year, the German economy actually produced more. Yet here you are, claimng that there was a railroad somewhere that could have been destroyed, would have stayed destroyed, and totally shut down the concentration camps. I can see it now, the commandant at Auschwitz upon learning a railroad had been bombed issuing the order to free all the Jews in the concentration camp. "We're not getting enough food shipped in to feed them all. The only fair thing to do is let everyone go. Please watch your step on the way out, we don't want any unnecessary injuries."

The fact is that the object of the war was to defeat the Nazis. A happy by-product of that effort was the shutting down of the concentration camps. When people carry on about this nonsense, it leaves the impression that the US should only have been concerned about the Jews, and if they could reach an agreement to extricate them from Nazi lands, than the war could have been ended leaving the Nazis in control of Europe and inflicting their reign of terror on everyone else. Should the US have been only concerned about Jews? No. We should care about Jews because they are human beings, the same as all other humans, and equally worthy of our moral concern.

I guess it depends on what you mean by "collective guilt." I certainly believe in collective responsibility in the sense that citizens of a nation are collectively responsible for the actions of that nation's government, at least to the extent that they're in a position to influence the government. But still that boils down to the idea that one has an individual share of a larger societal responsibility. Personally I think your grandparents probably did own a share of that responsibility, though I'm in no position to say how much. It sounds like your grandmother took it to a further extreme than I would have thought appropriate based on your description of the circumstances.

However, I don't think there's such a thing as hereditary guilt. The holocaust wasn't your fault. Nor in general is there any hereditary responsibility to atone for the crimes of ancestors, the possible exception being when one is still enjoying the benefits of those crimes. For instance, if your grandparents had come into the possession of some diamonds or rare works of art expropriated from deported Jews, and such properties subsequently financed your trust fund or college education, then maybe you might oughta think about sending a few bucks to a Jewish orphange from time to time.

morganja:

You really ought not to put words in my mouth. Sure the Allies bombed railroads to interrupt shipments of food and supplies, and sure the German machine was (for a time) working more efficiently and, for all appearances, winning the was in Europe. All I'm saying is that the existence of concentration camps were not a major concern for the Allies in the overall scheme of things. To take my statements and conclude that I believe the German's would have simply liberated their ghettos is beyond idiotic. I'm not trying to make any grand statements, just stating the facts for what they're worth. Keep smokin' that herb.

Ted and Pa and GEStelz:

You know nothing about Middle East politics, then or now. You can draw a straight line from the mid-18th century through to the modern day, beginning at the height of the Ottoman empire right on up to the current situation throughout the WHOLE Middle East. I could write a book trying to refute your astounding ignorance, but plenty of history scholars have already done that. I will throw you one bone, though: America had nothing to do with the creation of the Jewish state. You would know this if you had ever bothered to pick up a history book, but it goes without saying that you have not. You really ought to. Oh, and one other thing: the close-mindedness of shitheads like yourselves embody everything that is wrong with the world. Douchebags.

manaschvitz , If you have some facts or well reasoned opinions based on what you know about the motivations or funding of the campaigns of our slimey politicians by all means jump right in. Otherwise I suggest you crawl back under your rock.

As a (college-trained) historian, as far as I know, you are generally correct. There was at least some concern for the Jews in Germany, as evidenced by Hitler having a well-known German-Jewish athlete (a boxer I belive, and his name escapes me, someone refresh my memory) paraded around Europe and the US before WWII specifically on a "truth" mission, to let everyone know, as they could see by the fact that he was Jewish and ok, that all the Jews in Germany were ok as well, even though Hitler was beginning the ghettozation etc. of the Jews as the guy was speaking. However, the infamous "final solution" and the vast majority if not all the massive exterminations did not begin until after the war began (technically the "final solution" was hatched and began 1941-42). Even after that, like someone said earlier, there wasn't much information of the holocaust leaking out to the people of Germany, much less the rest of the world. There were little bits that came out and people thought there was something happening, but no one fathomed the magnitude and scope of what happened (the amounts of deaths and styles of execution in particular) until the liberation of the camps occured. There is infamous newsreel taken by the Allies of Allied troops taking horrified government officials and civilians of the towns where the concentration camps were through the camps to show them what happened. Most Germans in fact were fairly out of the loop. To the majority of civilians, these were work camps at worst.

All I'm saying is that the existence of concentration camps were not a major concern for the Allies in the overall scheme of things.

Exactly why should it have been a major concern for the allies? I know next to nothing about the military, but even I know that in war, soldiers differentiate between just two kinds of people: Their people..... and everyone else. Is that harsh? Damned straight that that's harsh, but in case you didn't know, WAR IS NOT CALLED HELL FOR NOTHING!!! Death was just as bad for a soldier who bought it with a bullet as it was for a Jewish child inhaling her last poison gas and (say whatever you will about the effectiveness of the Allied strategic bombing campaign) by any reasonable calculus of the war, a bomb dropped on a munitions factory could save more soldiers's lives than a bomb on the train tracks to Dachau/Auchwitz/Treblinka/etc.

War is Hell, pal. That and a nickel will get you a cup of coffee.

manaschvitz, huh? So the anti-Semitism rises to the surface. God, I love you hicks out there in Pennsyltucky. You want some facts, here's a few for you. You wrote:

"Especially when one considers that Israel’s land grab in 1948(?) was only possible with the strong military, political and financial support of the United States and Britian, the worlds two strongest countries at the time."

Once again, America had nothing to do with the creation of the state of Israel. And as for Britain? They did their damndest to suppress ALL Jewish imigration following the first and smallest wave arrived in 1945 (this is of course excluding the minority of Jews who had been there for centuries as well as the handful who had immigrated in the 1880's and again in the 1920's). Not only that, once Arab-Jewish tensions began to reach their boiling point, the British got up and split in no time.

It is worth mentioning, and this is somewhat tangential, that a great deal of Arab hatred for Israel and Jews in general is due to the humiliating string of defeats suffered at the hands of a people whom they had considered for centuries to be weak and subservient. Historically, Jews have always been treated better in Arab countries than they had been in Europe, just so long as they knew their place.

But why listen to me? I'm just another part of the octopus whose tentacles strangle the Earth through our absolute control of the media and financial institutions. Can't wait for Passover to bake my matzohs with the blood of Christian children.

You're a fool.

nbahn:

That's ridiculous. You can't get a cup of coffee for a nickel.

And you seem a little angry. May I suggest a xanex?

You might do better to respond to those worthies via a reply to their posts as opposed to mine, but anyway, I have really gotta take exception to one thing:

shvitz1983:

America had nothing to do with the creation of the Jewish state. You would know this if you had ever bothered to pick up a history book....

Seems to me that without the strong support of the US for the creation of Israel, and its subsequent enormous military, economic, and diplomatic support, Israel wouldn't have been created and wouldn't have lasted very long, either. And if in fact Israel's continued ability to act as it pleases, and with impunity, doesn't depend on the US, maybe all that money going to AIPAC could be used for something more necessary to Israel's well-being.

Not only that, once Arab-Jewish tensions began to reach their boiling point, the British got up and split in no time.

So: The bombing of the King David Hotel by Irgun had nothing to do with it???!!!

You're full of it.