Why did the Germans hate the Jews?

[shaun.lawson]

Anglocentric post imho.

 

Yes because Scotland was a Presbyterian as oppose to Anglican.

 

Scotland didn't need Henry VIII to split from Rome.

 

Entirely true - but it was England's split which led to the historical chain of events I mentioned. Mary Queen of Scots' tragic end was all part of that, in a sense.

[Boris]

Entirely true - but it was England's split which led to the historical chain of events I mentioned. Mary Queen of Scots' tragic end was all part of that, in a sense.

 

But Mary was already out on her erse in her own country thanks to John Knox! Nothing to do with England whatsoever!

 

Conversely, if it weren't for the presbyterian Scots the whole "English" Civil War may have been avoided and it was this that led to 1689, the Troubles etc etc...nothing to do with Fat Hal at all.

 

Not to mention James VI's policy of plantations in Ulster. Again brussel sprout to do with Fat Hal.

[shaun.lawson]

But Mary was already out on her erse in her own country thanks to John Knox! Nothing to do with England whatsoever!

 

Conversely, if it weren't for the presbyterian Scots the whole "English" Civil War may have been avoided...nothing to do with Fat Hal at all.

 

That's interesting. You're right about my Anglocentricness: we're barely taught Scottish history at all at school, apart from brief bits about MQOS or the Jacobite Rebellion. And James is seen as significant only when he ascended to the English throne in 1603.

 

So - how did the presbyterian Scots help cause the Civil War?

[southside1874]

No it hasn't, and no it never did.

 

barabas means messiah if translated in Aramaic.

[alwaysthereinspirit]

Wasn't Hitlers Grandmother Jewish?

[Boris]

That's interesting. You're right about my Anglocentricness: we're barely taught Scottish history at all at school, apart from brief bits about MQOS or the Jacobite Rebellion. And James is seen as significant only when he ascended to the English throne in 1603.

 

So - how did the presbyterian Scots help cause the Civil War?

 

They started it!

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenny_Geddes

 

sort of...trouble was brewing in Englandshire but Jenny Geddes started it all off at St Giles one day...

[shaun.lawson]

I'm afraid so Shaun, the first fall out with Rome happened when Robert the Bruce killed the Red Comyn at Dumfries Abbey. Just before the persecution of the Templars.

 

Yes - but to give a couple of examples, if England had never split, would the Jacobite Rebellion have been put down in such a hideous way? And would Scotland have been distrusted by Westminster for so long during the eighteenth century - because it was suspected as having sympathies with France, Spain and Ireland?

[shaun.lawson]

They started it!

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenny_Geddes

 

sort of...trouble was brewing in Englandshire but Jenny Geddes started it all off at St Giles one day...

 

Blimey! That's like a Franz Ferdinand moment (no, not the band!) 277 years earlier. And we weren't taught that at all at school - though in fairness, I was probably asleep in lessons at the time anyway...

[southside1874]

Yes - but to give a couple of examples, if England had never split, would the Jacobite Rebellion have been put down in such a hideous way? And would Scotland have been distrusted by Westminster for so long during the eighteenth century - because it was suspected as having sympathies with France, Spain and Ireland?

 

The Jacobite rebellion and the battle of Culloden never was a battle between Scotland and England. I don't think the Catholic king won many favours, but if it wasn't the fact he was catholic would it not have been another thing?

 

Religion has always been blamed for battles, but we all had battles before the romans pushed their religion onto us. And the Roman Catholic religion was just an extension of the Roman Empire with the Pope taking the place of the Emperor.

[Debut 4]

You have to go back to the start of the christian catholic church. When the romans started debating the new religion (christian) then it dawned on them that they where actually responsible for killing him(Jesus and crucified). They thought they better put a slant (lie) on the story so they said that Pilot(born in Scotland apparently) gave the jews the choice of the baddy (barabas) or the good guy (jesus). The actual choice was between Jesus and James(Jesus's brother). After the fall of the roman empire and the start of the roman religion, the muslims gained control of the "holy land" and the jews started to move through europe carrying the tale about the real story of jesus christ. This was no good to the romans so they persecuted them and drummed into our head they where bad folk and not to be trusted. After the crusades the Templars knew of the real story and hence they got chased and burned etc etc. Now we already have it in our heads that the Jews are bad. Now because of some religious thing and banking the jews became quite good at loaning money and commerce. When Germany was brought to its knees because of the first world war payments again it was easy to point the finger at the jews and to get all their money and property without too many folk bothering.

 

Jewish people are still today amongst the richest in the world and have a major say in the world economy.

 

Hope it helps, its very brief.

 

Funny you say that. I always felt Hitler wanted to replicate the Romans in many ways, and hating the Jews being one. It sort of makes sense with all the regalia of the rallies and the Nazi salute which the Romans used long before(not nazi then of course).

[shaun.lawson]

The Jacobite rebellion and the battle of Culloden never was a battle between Scotland and England. I don't think the Catholic king won many favours, but if it wasn't the fact he was catholic would it not have been another thing?

 

Religion has always been blamed for battles, but we all had battles before the romans pushed their religion onto us. And the Roman Catholic religion was just an extension of the Roman Empire with the Pope taking the place of the Emperor.

 

I absolutely agree with this. But this reality didn't seem to inform Butcher Cumberland's response much! Catholicism in Scotland seemed to lead to suspicion, mistrust and paranoia in England; it self-evidently wouldn't have been anything like such a problem had the Church of England never been formed in the first place, if you see what I mean?

[Debut 4]

Wasn't Hitlers Grandmother Jewish?

 

Possibly. Although it`s the male surname which carries, the name Hitler is a variation of a Slavic name, there`s many Jews in Slavic lands too. So who knows, maybe his Grandmother was?

[southside1874]

I absolutely agree with this. But this reality didn't seem to inform Butcher Cumberland's response much! Catholicism in Scotland seemed to lead to suspicion, mistrust and paranoia in England; it self-evidently wouldn't have been anything like such a problem had the Church of England never been formed in the first place, if you see what I mean?

 

Indeed, but the North of England was the first place he carried out his actions. I think the civilians would have tried a revolution as they did in France, with or without religion.

 

Folk will have gripes with other folk and often can't find the reason so they blame something else:10900:

 

Do you think Celtic fans would vote for an independent Scotland, not because it was good for Scotland but to just fekk the Rangers fans and their Union Flags?

[southside1874]

Funny you say that. I always felt Hitler wanted to replicate the Romans in many ways, and hating the Jews being one. It sort of makes sense with all the regalia of the rallies and the Nazi salute which the Romans used long before(not nazi then of course).

 

Yes and why didn't Rome ever condemn the treatment of the Jews and the Eastern Europeans? Why did Hitler stop halfway through France?

[shaun.lawson]

Indeed, but the North of England was the first place he carried out his actions. I think the civilians would have tried a revolution as they did in France, with or without religion.

 

Folk will have gripes with other folk and often can't find the reason so they blame something else:10900:

 

Do you think Celtic fans would vote for an independent Scotland, not because it was good for Scotland but to just fekk the Rangers fans and their Union Flags?

 

Yep - they undoubtedly would!

[Sheriff Fatman]

barabas means messiah if translated in Aramaic.

 

No it doesn't it means 'son of the father' or 'son of the leader'. Messiah means 'annointed one'.

[Cisc0 K1d]

I think the Nazi's hate for the Jews was as a result of tribalism, the combination of the Nazi party and the state of the economy were part of the trigger that led them towards genocide. If it's not the Jews in Germany, its another minority group somewhere else :- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history

 

Thankfully over time as we become more integrated, tolerant and understanding of others and better educated and informed we are less tribalistic (if that's even a word).

 

It still a bit weird what comes over people when they become parts of tribes, even if you think of football games people sing and shout the sort of abuse that they would never do if they were on there own. I guess there are even good things that come out of tribalism, it was probably a factor in people joining Macrae's Battalion and putting their lives on the line for others.

[Sheriff Fatman]

The Jacobite rebellion and the battle of Culloden never was a battle between Scotland and England. I don't think the Catholic king won many favours, but if it wasn't the fact he was catholic would it not have been another thing?

 

Religion has always been blamed for battles, but we all had battles before the romans pushed their religion onto us. And the Roman Catholic religion was just an extension of the Roman Empire with the Pope taking the place of the Emperor.

 

Christianity went home with the Romans, it's the Saxons we have to blame for Christianity really taking hold in Britain.

[Sheriff Fatman]

Possibly. Although it`s the male surname which carries, the name Hitler is a variation of a Slavic name, there`s many Jews in Slavic lands too. So who knows, maybe his Grandmother was?

 

The story of his ancestry is a bit complicated, best answered bu a person on the QI message board.

 

There's a bit of confusion about Hitler's ancestry, largely because of two brothers who had the same name, and who probably both had illicit relationships with the same unmarried woman.

 

Hitler's father was Alois Hitler (born Alois Schicklgruber), and his mother was Klara P?lzl. Now then, Alois Schicklgruber was illegitimate, which is why as a child he used his mother's surname.

 

That mother was called Maria Schicklgruber, and she went on to marry a man named Johann G Hiedler - and hence Alois adopted a variant spelling of that man's surname. The tricky bit though is who Alois's father was - some reckon that it was Johann G Hiedler, while others say that it was his brother, who rather confusingly was called Johann N Hiedler. (Johann N was married, so would have been unable to acknowledge the paternity even if it was the case.)

 

Meanwhile, Klara P?lzl's mother was a woman named Johanna Hiedler, who was Johann N's legitimate daughter from that marriage.

 

So then. If we take it that Maria married the man who had fathered her child, then Alois and Klara were first cousins once removed. But if it was actually Johann N who had impregnated Maria, then Alois was indeed Klara's uncle.

 

The Church wouldn't have allowed that marriage, and it considered Johann G to have been Alois's father. That was because Alois, as an adult, convinced the local priest to write out a birth certificate declaring him as such. Johann G had died by then, but Johann N was still alive and a wealthy man - so it's entirely possible that he bribed the priest to do so, so that his illegitimate son would appear to be his legitimate nephew.

[The People's Chimp]

No, there is no way you can create that form of hate without a basis. .

 

It's actually quite easy.

 

You need only look at conflicts through the years to see that man has an innate sense of savagery and hatred of fellow man, a tribalism which is easily ignited and hatred can be created without a basis.

[shaun.lawson]

It's actually quite easy.

 

You need only look at conflicts through the years to see that man has an innate sense of savagery and hatred of fellow man, a tribalism which is easily ignited and hatred can be created without a basis.

 

Sadly, it's still what we do best. I agree with him about the need for a 'basis' though: it's just that that basis invariably owes its power to total and utter ignorance.

[Guest]

So let me get this right....

 

The jews have been persecuted since before jesus was born, who himself was the king of the jews, but instead of freeing him they freed a murderer, over the last 2000 years they have been on the wrong end of the stick as far as various rumours are concerned from having horns, to having a desire to be running the finances of the world.

 

This may be contraversial, but has everyone been wrong for the past 2000 years?

[leginten]

Christianity went home with the Romans, it's the Saxons we have to blame for Christianity really taking hold in Britain.

 

Isn't it the case that Christianity was alive and well in Ireland throughout this period and that Scotland was christianised from there? I think it is difficult to make a case for the whole island having been converted from the south.

 

Hence my amazement when Simon Schama, in one of the episodes of his A History of Britain (sic), introduced the topic of the christianisation of Britain and talked about nothing other than St. Bede.

[southside1874]

No it doesn't it means 'son of the father' or 'son of the leader'. Messiah means 'annointed one'.

 

Yes your right. Getting confused with the story here:stuart:

 

Both called Jesus though, thats where I got confused.

 

I can't quite remember what Mary said when the choice was made. I have only lost one son..........or something along these lines.

 

This drink ravaged brain of mine:10900:

[southside1874]

Christianity went home with the Romans, it's the Saxons we have to blame for Christianity really taking hold in Britain.

 

I thought it was St Augustine that first landed in England after the Saxons allowed the "pagan" gods to thrive again. I think the blame of the spread of Christianity lies fairly and squarely at the doors of Rome, after Jesus and his disciples of course.

[Sheriff Fatman]

Yes your right. Getting confused with the story here:stuart:

 

Both called Jesus though, thats where I got confused.

 

I can't quite remember what Mary said when the choice was made. I have only lost one son..........or something along these lines.

 

This drink ravaged brain of mine:10900:

 

Yeah the story goes that his name was Jesus Barabbas, the main theory for that being that Jesus was a popular name at the time. Trouble is the name Jesus is not a name that anybody living around the time would ever recognise as it has gone through a number of mistranslations over the years. The other problem is that Barabbas isn't a name, it is a description of who he was.

[shaun.lawson]

So let me get this right....

 

The jews have been persecuted since before jesus was born, who himself was the king of the jews, but instead of freeing him they freed a murderer, over the last 2000 years they have been on the wrong end of the stick as far as various rumours are concerned from having horns, to having a desire to be running the finances of the world.

 

This may be contraversial, but has everyone been wrong for the past 2000 years?

 

Yes, they have. As others have explained, the Jews were forced into the role of moneylenders by regimes who then targeted them as an easy scapegoat during difficult economic times. To make matters worse, the Jews had no homeland, so could be portrayed as 'infecting' the blood of other, 'purer' races, as Hitler did to devastating effect.

 

This is largely why the state of Israel was created: to stop history repeating itself yet again. Sadly, it just turned the Palestinians into the victims of the victims, and we all know the rest.

[southside1874]

So let me get this right....

 

The jews have been persecuted since before jesus was born, who himself was the king of the jews, but instead of freeing him they freed a murderer, over the last 2000 years they have been on the wrong end of the stick as far as various rumours are concerned from having horns, to having a desire to be running the finances of the world.

 

This may be contraversial, but has everyone been wrong for the past 2000 years?

 

Not everyone for two thousand years no:21:

[HMFCjamieHMFC]

The reason for the economic ****storm that Germany was in was because the Democratic government borrowed huge sums of money from USA which was riding high on the stock market, and when that crashed. So did Germany

 

 

 

Im not saying I harbour their views, what I was trying to say is that the circumstances in Germany were so bad that decent people would vote for them. I was trying to say that I can sympathize with the normal German people who were living in fear.

 

America loaned Germany the money to help pay the repeartions of the treaty of Versailes and to help improve Germany.

[Sheriff Fatman]

Isn't it the case that Christianity was alive and well in Ireland throughout this period and that Scotland was christianised from there? I think it is difficult to make a case for the whole island having been converted from the south.

 

Hence my amazement when Simon Schama, in one of the episodes of his A History of Britain (sic), introduced the topic of the christianisation of Britain and talked about nothing other than St. Bede.

 

When the Romans left Britain Christianity died out in England (exept small pockets in Cornwall). It survived quite nicely in Wales, with Irish Christianity stemming from a spread from Wales. Scotland was later converted by those Irish Celtic Christians. The re-convertion of England really started with Pope Gregory sent Augustine to Kent to convert the Angles and Saxons to Roman Catholic Christianity. Over a period of time the Roman Church out manuvered the Celtic Church and gradually surpassed it as the pre-eminant church in the Scotland, England, Ireland and Wales.

[Johanes de Silentio]

Goes back a long way further than the 1930s.

 

In 1095, at the Council of Clermont, Pope Urban II urged the masses to reclaim the Holy Lands from the Infidels, thus launching the First Crusade.

 

Unfortunately, during the same speech, The Pope also said something along the lines of "Aye, and by the way, if yous happen to run into any Jews along the way, please feel free to give them a good hard ****in' kickin' anaw!"

 

A little thing called pogroms.

 

Of course, the Jews were and are (probably with some justification) accused of crucifying our lord and saviour a good bit earlier.

 

Then, of course, there's the Jews' legendary acquisitiveness and materialism.

 

Why specifically the Nazis of the 1930s, though?

 

Simple - their Chancellor was a ruthless, sadistic, psychotic maniac.

 

For the record, the persecution of any individual or group on religious, or racial grounds is wrong, imo.

[jamboinglasgow]

Goes back a long way further than the 1930s.

 

In 1095, at the Council of Clermont, Pope Urban II urged the masses to reclaim the Holy Lands from the Infidels, thus launching the First Crusade.

 

Unfortunately, during the same speech, The Pope also said something along the lines of "Aye, and by the way, if yous happen to run into any Jews along the way, please feel free to give them a good hard ****in' kickin' anaw!"

 

A little thing called pogroms.

 

Of course, the Jews were and are (probably with some justification) accused of crucifying our lord and saviour a good bit earlier.

 

Then, of course, there's the Jews' legendary acquisitiveness and materialism.

 

Why specifically the Nazis of the 1930s, though?

 

Simple - their Chancellor was a ruthless, sadistic, psychotic maniac.

 

For the record, the persecution of any individual or group on religious, or racial grounds is wrong, imo.

 

 

its a while since I last read Urbans speech but I am pretty sure he wasn't the one to called for the Jews to be attacked. In fact I am pretty certain he wouldn't have. Early medieval popes needed the Jews, they were the catalyst for the coming of judgement days, so most popes offered protection to the Jews (this is seen by some bishops offering protection.) It wasn't until Innocent III in the early thirteenth century who changed the way the papacy viewed the Jews. The pograms were done by ordinary christians who thought what was the point of marching thousands of miles to attack the enemy in the holy land when the enemy of christ was living in their own lands.

 

They did come with some pretty nasty ways of killing them, most of them involve barrels, either being put in a barrel with spikes in it and rolling them down a hill or putting them in and setting the barrel on fire.

[alwaysthereinspirit]

So let me get this right....

 

The jews have been persecuted since before jesus was born, who himself was the king of the jews, but instead of freeing him they freed a murderer, over the last 2000 years they have been on the wrong end of the stick as far as various rumours are concerned from having horns, to having a desire to be running the finances of the world.

 

This may be contraversial, but has everyone been wrong for the past 2000 years?

 

Why would you believe this post to be in any way controversial?

[Johanes de Silentio]

its a while since I last read Urbans speech but I am pretty sure he wasn't the one to called for the Jews to be attacked. In fact I am pretty certain he wouldn't have. Early medieval popes needed the Jews, they were the catalyst for the coming of judgement days, so most popes offered protection to the Jews (this is seen by some bishops offering protection.) It wasn't until Innocent III in the early thirteenth century who changed the way the papacy viewed the Jews. The pograms were done by ordinary christians who thought what was the point of marching thousands of miles to attack the enemy in the holy land when the enemy of christ was living in their own lands.

 

They did come with some pretty nasty ways of killing them, most of them involve barrels, either being put in a barrel with spikes in it and rolling them down a hill or putting them in and setting the barrel on fire.

 

Of course, any historical document is open to interpretation.

 

However, it is the contention of many eminent mediaeval historians that the Pope most certainly did encourage pogroms - many historians will cite this as a historical fact, based on actual evidence.

 

What is certain is that, during the first Crusade, many Christians travelling from Western Europe to the Holy Lands did in fact sack, rape, loot, and pillage numerous Jewish settlements along the way - again this is a historical fact. I wasn't there, mind!

 

Therefore, it would seem that Jews were persecuted as early as 1095.

 

Probably earlier too - much earlier, but that's not my period.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the Aryan belief in the 'master race' yet. That was their justification for the lebensraum that inspired their early adventures into Eastern Europe.

 

As for the Jews, they were the primary propaganda target because they had money and influence and the Nazis wanted that. The Final Solution was only dreamt up during the War after years of that propaganda and the fact that Hitler had gone slightly mad.

[jamboinglasgow]

Of course, any historical document is open to interpretation.

 

However, it is the contention of many eminent mediaeval historians that the Pope most certainly did encourage pogroms - many historians will cite this as a historical fact, based on actual evidence.

 

What is certain is that, during the first Crusade, many Christians travelling from Western Europe to the Holy Lands did in fact sack, rape, loot, and pillage numerous Jewish settlements along the way - again this is a historical fact. I wasn't there, mind!

 

Therefore, it would seem that Jews were persecuted as early as 1095.

 

Probably earlier too - much earlier, but that's not my period.

 

are you sure about this. If you mean medieval popes after 1215 than I agree. The fourth Latern council of 1215 carried various cannons which changed the relationship of the pope and church towards the Jews.

 

I am not doubting that pograms did happen after the call of the first crusade as they did, and the crusaders did kill Jews as they went. What I am just saying that it wasn't papal policy (at least offically) until 1215.

[Sheriff Fatman]

What is certain is that, during the first Crusade, many Christians travelling from Western Europe to the Holy Lands did in fact sack, rape, loot, and pillage numerous Jewish settlements along the way - again this is a historical fact. I wasn't there, mind!

 

Crusaders weren't too fussy about where they sacked if there was money involved, they sacked Constantinople because they hadn't been paid by the Byzantine Emperor.

[Cabbie754]

I think the Nazis didn't like anyone they felt were not German and the Jews were about the lowest of the low as far as they were concerned. It is however interesting to note that before the mass killing of the Jews, the Nazis exterminated their own German disabled children by giving them lethal injections.

[Johanes de Silentio]

are you sure about this. If you mean medieval popes after 1215 than I agree. The fourth Latern council of 1215 carried various cannons which changed the relationship of the pope and church towards the Jews.

 

I am not doubting that pograms did happen after the call of the first crusade as they did, and the crusaders did kill Jews as they went. What I am just saying that it wasn't papal policy (at least offically) until 1215.

 

I am sure about this - it may not have been general papal policy, but it is on record that Pope Urban II did encourage pogroms at the Council of Clermont in 1095.

 

Of course, like everything, this would be a matter for debate, but there has been much scholarly debate on this precise point.

 

I'm more than happy to be proved wrong, but there certainly has been much debate on this.

 

Of course, historians and clerics, like anybody, always have an angle, so there may well be an element of bias involved on both sides of the debate.

 

If you have the time to look into this, jamboinglasgow, it would be good to get your take on it.

[Johanes de Silentio]

Crusaders weren't too fussy about where they sacked if there was money involved, they sacked Constantinople because they hadn't been paid by the Byzantine Emperor.

 

Yup, that's true.

 

All I'm saying is

 

1) The Pope is on record encouraging pogroms when launching the Crusade in 1095.

2) It is a matter of record that jews were persecuted by Crusading Christians from 1095 on.

 

Clearly, this in no way implies a causal link between the former and the latter, but it's certainly possible.

 

Indeed, another major topic of debate is whether Crusaders were motivated by material gain or by genuine spirituality.

 

The answer tends to be, as always, a little from column A, and a little from column B.

[jamboinglasgow]

I am sure about this - it may not have been general papal policy, but it is on record that Pope Urban II did encourage pogroms at the Council of Clermont in 1095.

 

Of course, like everything, this would be a matter for debate, but there has been much scholarly debate on this precise point.

 

I'm more than happy to be proved wrong, but there certainly has been much debate on this.

 

Of course, historians and clerics, like anybody, always have an angle, so there may well be an element of bias involved on both sides of the debate.

 

If you have the time to look into this, jamboinglasgo, it would be good to get your take on it.

 

Guess we have to agree to disagree. I studied early medieval papacy two years ago as one of my modules for my history degree. It was only one term in so some stuff went by without huge detail being put in. My lecturer I do remember saying about the papacy being supportive towards the jews till 1215. And for what I saw that evidence backed that up.

 

However I also know what historians are like so though I am not aware about it there is probably debate about this issue and to be honest I might try and look into this debate a bit more to see what I can see. THe module covered Gregory VII more than Urban II. There was also a module I could of done on the crusades but I did other issues instead, I covered the crusades for my Highers.

 

You seem to have covered this part of history, out of interest did you also study history at university or has it been a bit of interest that drove you to have a closer look at this period?

[Tazio]

Every hardcore party needs to create a bogeyman for people to hate so they can feed on the insecurities of voters. Especially the poor and desperate.

 

In Germany the jews were the easy target, if it was to happen in Germany now it would be the Turks. In France the Algerians. In Britain the Pakistanis. And so on.

[Johanes de Silentio]

Guess we have to agree to disagree. I studied early medieval papacy two years ago as one of my modules for my history degree. It was only one term in so some stuff went by without huge detail being put in. My lecturer I do remember saying about the papacy being supportive towards the jews till 1215. And for what I saw that evidence backed that up.

 

However I also know what historians are like so though I am not aware about it there is probably debate about this issue and to be honest I might try and look into this debate a bit more to see what I can see. THe module covered Gregory VII more than Urban II. There was also a module I could of done on the crusades but I did other issues instead, I covered the crusades for my Highers.

 

You seem to have covered this part of history, out of interest did you also study history at university or has it been a bit of interest that drove you to have a closer look at this period?

 

Of course, individual Popes don't always carry out Papal policy - look at the guy who was Pope during WWII - very strange behaviour, indeed!

 

I'm not especially interested in this period, but I do have an Honours degree in History - this doesn't make me an expert - it's just a bit of paper, but then so is The Bible, imo.

 

I did write an essay on the first Crusade, though, which is why I know that there has been some discussion on this very point, but, as a skeptic, I'll never know whether it was true or not, because I wasn't there.

 

I think it's worth pointing out that many mediaeval historians who wrote on this topic are also clerics/theologians.

 

Never forget academic bias.

 

It does seem that we're destined to disagree on this, but that's ok.

[jamboinglasgow]

Of course, individual Popes don't always carry out Papal policy - look at the guy who was Pope during WWII - very strange behaviour, indeed!

 

I'm not especially interested in this period, but I do have an Honours degree in History - this doesn't make me an expert - it's just a bit of paper, but then so is The Bible, imo.

 

I did write an essay on the first Crusade, though, which is why I know that there has been some discussion on this very point, but, as a skeptic, I'll never know whether it was true or not, because I wasn't there.

 

I think it's worth pointing out that many mediaeval historians who wrote on this topic are also clerics/theologians.

 

Never forget academic bias.

 

It does seem that we're destined to disagree on this, but that's ok.

 

well its good to meet another jambo with an honours history degree.

 

I think its good to always debate history, as we will have know for sure what the truth of all of history. I think having a slight skepticism is also good. Questioning is always good to seek ideas in history.

[Sharpie]

In those days even in our own Country Jews were perceived to be the majority in the professions, running the universities and the successful retail outlets. With us it didn't seem to get any further than comments regarding this, the names we had for Jewish people, and poems about there physicality to wit protuberant noses. One line apparently quoting the bible, at least thats what I was told. " the Lord said unto Moses all Jews shall have big noses".

 

As stated by Tazio I agree that Hitler and his minions needed someone to hate to rally his support around, he chose the Jews as proved they were not at that time very much up for a fight and thought compliance would be the right thing to do. By the time they had learned different the effort at the Warsaw ghetto was too little too late.

 

There is no doubt in my mind and I may be stating the obvious that our present troubles are a direct result of Hitler 's Germany, with a push to the Arabs by the British deceit of WW1. We should not forget either that Britain and America both refused entry to many Jews fleeing Germany. The other saying about when they came for the others I turned away now there is no one to come for me. Heavily paraphrased I admit but the sentiment remains true, the nazi's had a reason to kill evberyone at some time. Even many of their own. A despicable cowardly bunch who all took the easy way out.

[Denny Crane]

Conversely, if it weren't for the presbyterian Scots the whole "English" Civil War may have been avoided and it was this that led to 1689, the Troubles etc etc...nothing to do with Fat Hal at all.

 

Or to give it its proper title: "The War of the Three Kingdoms"

[Cade]

The Jews were NOT the Nazis most hated section of society.

 

The Nazis REALLY hated the Slavs (Russiand, Coratians, Serbians etc etc).

 

They killed WAY more Slavs than they killed Jews. The Jews were just one of a number of different ethnic groups that the Nazis wanted otu of the way so they could expand their Reich.

 

The entire point of WW2 was to expand EAST into Russia, Yoguslavia and Ukraine to make room for more Germans.

 

The war in the west of Europe was little more than revenge for the treaty of Versailles.

 

The figures speak for themselves. 5million Jews dead worldwide. 15million Slavs dead from USSR alone.

[Johanes de Silentio]

well its good to meet another jambo with an honours history degree.

 

I think its good to always debate history, as we will have know for sure what the truth of all of history. I think having a slight skepticism is also good. Questioning is always good to seek ideas in history.

 

[Johanes de Silentio]

Random fact no 595:

 

Michael Howard was the first Jewish leader of the British Conservative Party since Disraeli in the 19th Century - and Howard was not well liked!

 

Many prospective Conservative Party leaders were denied the leadership for the specific reason that they were Jewish.

 

For whatever reason, certain people have got it in for Jewish people - it needs to stop!

[shaun.lawson]

Random fact no 595:

 

Michael Howard was the first Jewish leader of the British Conservative Party since Disraeli in the 19th Century - and Howard was not well liked!

 

Many prospective Conservative Party leaders were denied the leadership for the specific reason that they were Jewish.

 

For whatever reason, certain people have got it in for Jewish people - it needs to stop!

 

As it does with black people, Hindus, Moslems, gay people, you name it really. I still find it intriguing that the Tories have had two Jewish leaders while no other party have had any though; and as for Howard not being well liked... it wasn't because he was Jewish. It's because he was a ****!