On Jul 11, 10:24=A0am, "Michele" <nospammiar...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> <a...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ha scritto nel
messaggionews:4449316e-aa5b-4472-9da5-e=
e1827dce919@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On 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
t=
his
> > > > thread, were assimilating strongly to Russian culture even before
t=
he
> > > > Revolution.
>
> > "
>
> > No. This was written by Randy McDonald. Try reading his message, to
whi=
ch
> > 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
w=
ith
> ">" when I quote back. Since others do, I don't think it is a problem
wit=
h
> my software.
>
Can you use something better noticeable than a simple "-"? Sometimes
it is really difficult to figure out who said what.
> 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.
>
OK
> > 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
majori=
ty
> > of
> > the Germans it was selective: a traditionally-clad Polish-Jewish
immigr=
ant
> > street peddler, with his gibberish Yiddish, would be much less welcome
> > anywhere than a German-speaking German professional dressed like a
Germ=
an,
> > who also happened to be Jewish as to his faith or, even less
im****tantl=
y,
> > 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
b=
y 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
hav=
e a
> non-Hitler. With a non-Hitler, you have a non-Nazi Germany, though you
ma=
y
> have a militaristic etc. dictator****p in Germany.
>
Not necessarily. You may end up with a more cautious Hitler who was
just as nasty inside the country as his OTL version. After all, rabid
bellicosity is not a necessary pre-requisite of a brutal regime.
Stalin was much more cautious than Hitller but every bit as nasty
otherwise.
Of course, it is an open question if Hitler could continue his rule
without getting into the further conquests AND without bankrupting
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,
witho=
ut
> Hitler, however...
>
'Flavor' could be different.
> 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;
Goerin=
g
> 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
th=
e
> Jews, and the Nuremberg laws certainly remain. But the Wannsee
conference=
is
> never held... I guess.
I'm not sure that Goering was anti-Semitic in the same form and shape
as Hitler was. But he was definitely very eager to appropriate as much
of a Jewish wealth as was possible.
As for Himmler, SS would probably exist under any scenario and its
boss would be probably the nastiest person available. Or at least will
behave as such (if parallels with Cheka/OGPU/NKVD/....../KGB work). So
we are speculating about degree of a persecution and not about
persecution itself. Nurenberg Laws had been nasty enough and
'Aryanization' started in 1937-38.
> 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
som=
e
> of the countries you mentioned above, in the years running up to their
be=
ing
> involved in active war.
> So one would need to wonder whether these forms of persecutions, falling
=
way
> short of the Endl=F6sung, have the effect of setting the Jews apart
In OTL big part of the Jews were noticeably 'apart' in Lithuania and,
AFAIK, Poland.
>- which
> will probably lead them to preserve their ways and language - or to
force
> them to assimilate faster - which might kill Yiddish.
The obvious question is: was this assimilation possible? In the SU it
started happening as a by-product of the RCW (Jews fleeing from a
countryside to the reasonably big cities to avoid being killed by the
local peasants) and then simplified by an explosive growth of the city-
based activities and goverment's effort to produce big numbers of the
technical specialists. Add to this a total breakdown of the old
society.
I'm not sure if any of these conditions existed in the rest of the
Eastern Europe so it is not impossible to assume that to a big degree
these countries would try to maintain status-quo, especially countries
with a high level of unemployment.
> Probably different
> Jews in different countries react in either way
How one can agrue against statements like this one? :-)
|
