<am05@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:4449316e-aa5b-4472-9da5-ee1827dce919@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jul 11, 9:14 am, "Michele" <nospammiar...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> <a...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ha scritto nel
>
messaggionews:35473620-4dc9-42f5-bbea-5a2da25c3894@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Jul 11, 3:14 am, "Michele" <nospammiar...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > <a...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ha scritto nel
> >
messaggionews:1745ce31-3545-4470-926d-a4aaebd4835f@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > On Jul 10, 3:35 am, "Michele" <nospammiar...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > My name is here, but you are not replying to something I wrote.
>
> Actually, I do. I can see your original text in your reply.
>
> >Actually you
> > have snipped everything I wrote, as evidenced below.
>
> You should check whatever you are using because this was not the case.
> But, in case you do have problem with your software, the preserved
> piece from your post is below:
>
> "> > I'd separate the Soviet Jews from the non-Soviet central and
> eastern> > European Jews. Soviet Jews, as has been noted elsewhere in
this
> > > thread, were assimilating strongly to Russian culture even before
the
> > > Revolution.
>
> "
>
> No. This was written by Randy McDonald. Try reading his message, to
which
> I
> replied, quoting the above. You'll find the first appearance of this
> sentence is in his message, not mine.
>
I see. Unfortunately, in your post his text and your response appeared
in exactly the same format (no extra > or any clear separator) so I
had no obvious reason to go any further backwards.
- Indeed, I only manually added the sign that you see at the beginning of
this sentence ("-"), because for some reason, some people's messages
(including yours at times, it seems, see the sentence above) don't come
with
">" when I quote back. Since others do, I don't think it is a problem with
my software.
Anyway, you don't have to take my comments as a personal offense.
- Indeed I did not. But I do dislike another guy's words being put in my
mouth. I was only setting the record right.
> If you want to address something I wrote, this is it:
>
> "- Sorry, but a WWII-less world also means a Nazi-less world. And the
> German
> Jews were not segregated, and a sizable part of them were assimilating
> fast,
> before the Nazis came to power. There was prejudice, but for the
majority
> of
> the Germans it was selective: a traditionally-clad Polish-Jewish
immigrant
> street peddler, with his gibberish Yiddish, would be much less welcome
> anywhere than a German-speaking German professional dressed like a
German,
> who also happened to be Jewish as to his faith or, even less
im****tantly,
> as
> to his ancestry only."
Actually, I'm not positive that no-WWII is necessarily equal to no-
Nazism. There can be multiple scenarios under which the 3rd Reich
exists for decades without a major military conflict.
- I agree that there are many scenarios where post-WWI Germany is ruled by
a
militaristic, anti-Communist, racist and ruthless dictator****p, and that
government doesn't give us WWII. I disagree that such an outcome can be
achieved by a _Nazi_ Germany, where by Nazi I mean the above, with Hitler
in
his historical position.
Let's say that Hitler is satisfied with getting Austria and Czechia
and not that obsessed with Danzig/Eastern Prussia issue (for example,
there is an agreement on a connecting highway).
- No, let's not say that. To have such a Hitler you basically have to have
a
non-Hitler. With a non-Hitler, you have a non-Nazi Germany, though you may
have a militaristic etc. dictator****p in Germany.
Or, even better, he
dies in 1939 (say, plane crash or some natural cause) and Goerring (or
whoever would be his successor at this time) is considerably less
bellicose.
- That is a possibility, I agree. At this point you'd have Nazi Germany,
but
without Hitler. It remains to be seen how much Nazi does it remain,
without
Hitler, however...
Then, the German Jews are being persecuted but not the
Polish, Lithuanian, Latvian, Rumanian and Hungarian ones.
-...for instance, it remains to be seen what "persecuted" means in this
case. If Hitler died, then Himmler doesn't remain around for long; Goering
highly dislikes him, and in a 1940 contest, Himmler isn't the stronger.
Goering takes care of him. Therefore, Heydrich also goes. Now Goering was
anti-Semitic and he certainly wasn't against plucking their wealth off the
Jews, and the Nuremberg laws certainly remain. But the Wannsee conference
is
never held... I guess.
Now if we want to go into the details of what "persecuted" means,
anti-Jewish measures and occasional violence did take place in OTL in some
of the countries you mentioned above, in the years running up to their
being
involved in active war.
So one would need to wonder whether these forms of persecutions, falling
way
short of the Endlösung, have the effect of setting the Jews apart - which
will probably lead them to preserve their ways and language - or to force
them to assimilate faster - which might kill Yiddish. Probably different
Jews in different countries react in either way.
|
