Hitler Had African and Jewish ancestry?

[Henry]

I just came across this and thought people here would find it
interesting. A Flemish journalist traced Hitler's living relatives and
ran DNA tests that indicate African and Jewish roots.

http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/dna-tests-reveal-hitler-s-jewish-and-african-roots-1.309938

The article doesn't indicate how many generations back these roots
would have occurred so Hitler may have been completely unaware of them.

--
Henry

[Bill]

On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 19:40:43 -0400, Henry <he...@example.com> wrote:

>I just came across this and thought people here would find it
>interesting. A Flemish journalist traced Hitler's living relatives and
>ran DNA tests that indicate African and Jewish roots.
>

We've all got African roots...

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

[Georg Schwarz]

Henry <he...@example.com> wrote:

> I just came across this and thought people here would find it
> interesting. A Flemish journalist traced Hitler's living relatives and
> ran DNA tests that indicate African and Jewish roots.

I wonder whether you can identify Jewish roots by a DNA test...
Besides, I'm sure that Hitler's archestry has been subject to ample
research in the past, even long before the war.


--
Georg Schwarz http://home.pages.de/~schwarz/
georg....@freenet.de +49 170 8768585

[Padraigh ProAmerica]

Re: Hitler Had African and Jewish ancestry?

Group: soc.history.war.world-war-ii Date: Wed, Mar 13, 2013, 10:41am
From: georg....@freenet.de (Georg Schwarz)

Henry <he...@example.com> wrote:
I just came across this and thought people here would find it
interesting. A Flemish journalist traced Hitler's living relatives and
ran DNA tests that indicate African and Jewish roots.
I wonder whether you can identify Jewish roots by a DNA test... Besides,
I'm sure that Hitler's archestry has been subject to ample research in
the past, even long before the war.

============COMMENT========

Maybe not; there are persistant rumors that Hitlers grandmother was
Jewish; the cemetary she as buried in was turned into a tank training
area so the grave would be obliterated.

--
Georg Schwarz http://home.pages.de/~schwarz/
georg....@freenet.de +49 170 8768585

--
"Roses are reddish,
Violets are bluish,
A leprechaun told me,
St. Patrick was Jewish."--

Harry Golden

[Henry]

On 2013-03-13 18:55, Phil McGregor wrote:

> On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 10:41:57 -0400, georg....@freenet.de (Georg
> Schwarz) wrote:
>
>> Henry <he...@example.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I just came across this and thought people here would find it
>>> interesting. A Flemish journalist traced Hitler's living relatives and
>>> ran DNA tests that indicate African and Jewish roots.
>>
>> I wonder whether you can identify Jewish roots by a DNA test...
>> Besides, I'm sure that Hitler's archestry has been subject to ample
>> research in the past, even long before the war.
>

> When the Germans occupied Austria, evidently the SS went around
> destroying or concealing (mostly the former) many records relating to
> Hitler's immediate or ancestry. They even gave the Jewish doctor who
> had treated his mum what was basically a free pass to get out of the
> country *right now* ... which he evidently did ... Exactly what was
> destroyed is not clear, as I understand it, however the incident with
> the family doctor suggests it may have been more about internal
> political issues rather than anything more substantive ... but so many
> records were destroyed we are unlikely to ever know (at least for
> sure), though I am sure this will not stop rampant (and often
> unfounded) speculation (not that I'm saying the basis for this story
> is either of those things!)
>
I heard a different variant of the doctor story. The version I heard said
the doctor was psychologist who had treated Hitler himself as a child due
to nightmares or the like. Supposedly, Hitler had always appreciated the
kindness of the doctor and personally sent a pass so that the doctor
could get away before it was too late.

As you say, the accuracy of these stories gets harder and harder to
verify with the passage of time, the death of witnesses and destruction
of evidence.

--
Henry

[Bill]

On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 09:21:25 -0400, Phil McGregor
<asp...@pacific.net.au> wrote:


>Indeed. As Kershaw points out in his seminal Biography, we simply
>don't know *why* Hitler got the Iron Cross. There are several
>versions, but, by the time (post war) unbiased (or relatively so)
>observers were able to research it, the few survivors of the period
>turned out to be ... unreliable would be being generous ...

The fact remains that he got it, and the award was unusual for men in
his position.

[mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net]

Phil McGregor <asp...@pacific.net.au> wrote:

> a) He didn't do anything notably brave for it, it was offered as a
> bribe by his CO late in the war for him to "simply" do his job as a
> runner.

Well, he was supposedly recommended for the 1st class medal by Hugo Gutman,
who was Jewish. Not sure how much his anti-Semiitism manifested itself at
the time, so I can't judge his relationship with Gutman. I found this
about his award

"On 4 August 1918, with the Germans in the last throes of their grand
offensive, Hitler received an Iron Cross 1st Class for, 'personal bravery
and general merit.' He had single handily captured a group of Frenchmen
huddled in a shell hole. Cunningly, Hitler had crawled to the lip of
their impromptu shelter and then shouted out to the men that they were
surrounded and had better surrender. Duped by his ruse, the Frenchmen
came along without a fight. Once in power, the Nazi propagandists
explicitly increased the number of prisoners he had captured - a mistake
that the Fuhrer was happy to leave uncorrected."

(Found an account that generally matched that on several sites, but
perhaps they're all referencing some common source?)

You supposedly needed to have received an Iron Cross, 2nd class, before
you could receive the 1st class award. He got that for retrieving a
wounded comrade (his commander, by some accounts) who was lying in
no-man's land, under French fire. It seems pretty clear that, whatever
other faults he had, he served bravely in the war.

Mike

[Bill]

I don't think anyone ever really doubted the physical courage of the
senior Nazis.

But their moral position on just about everything was horrible.

It should make us all terribly suspicious of brave soldiers with
political ambitions.

[mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net]

Well, I'd have my doubts about Himmler in that regard.

> But their moral position on just about everything was horrible.

> It should make us all terribly suspicious of brave soldiers with
> political ambitions.

Or anyone with "true believer" type ambitions.

Mike

[mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net]

Phil McGregor <asp...@pacific.net.au> wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 21:44:49 -0400, mtfe...@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:

> >It seems pretty clear that, whatever
> >other faults he had, he served bravely in the war.

> I didn't mean to imply that he wasn't personally brave ... I don't
> believe that there's any evidence to suggest that, and it would have
> come out in the 1920's before the Nazis came to power *if* such
> evidence existed.

> What I was suggesting is that there is some doubt as to whether he
> earned his medals ... which I got from Kershaw, unless my memory is
> failing me ;-)

Someone (Weber, I think) came out with a book/work recently where he claimed
Hitler's 1st Class medal was some sort of political-type award, which seems
odd considering he didn't seem to be important at the time. Weber also "debunks"
some myths about Hitler and his views being popular among his fellow soldiers.
As I had not seen those "myths" "bunked", I'm not sure what to make of his
claims.

Mike

[Alan Meyer]

Indeed. Even apart from this mitochondrial evidence we have other
evidence that all humans, ancient and modern, descended from African
ancestors.

Assuming that we have ironclad proof of more recent Jewish and/or
African heritage in Hitler's family, that would be an interesting
curiosity but would only be significant to the believers in Nazi type
racial theory.

All of us with a modern understanding of genetics, and even most of us
who don't have that, understand that Nazi racial theory was false, that
the ubermenschen / untermenschen theories were dead wrong, and that Jews
were not the monsters and Germans not the supermen that Hitler imagined
them to be.

Obviously, one reason for the destruction of Hitler's family records had
to be to conceal any questionable origins from his own Nazi supporters.
One also has to wonder however if Hitler himself needed to shield
himself from any "racial" questions about his past. I should think that
it would have devastated him to learn that he was a "mischling", even if
only of the "second degree".

Alan

[Mario]

Alan Meyer, 17:47, sabato 16 marzo 2013:

>
> Obviously, one reason for the destruction of Hitler's family
> records had to be to conceal any questionable origins from his
> own Nazi supporters.
> One also has to wonder however if Hitler himself needed to
> shield
> himself from any "racial" questions about his past. I should
> think that it would have devastated him to learn that he was a
> "mischling", even if only of the "second degree".
>
> Alan

So, the destruction of family records supports the suggestion
that he really had Jew ancestry.

Otherwise, why destroy them?

Maybe a counterfeiting could resist more to criticism.
Maybe not.


--
H

[Rich Rostrom]

mtfe...@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:

> Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > I don't think anyone ever really doubted the physical courage of the
> > senior Nazis.
>
> Well, I'd have my doubts about Himmler in that regard.

Here are the WW I records of 19 prominent Nazis.

Combat veterans (all won at least the Iron Cross):
Hitler, Goering, von Ribbentrop, Hess, Streicher, M�ller

Combat veterans: Ley

Combat veteran (Austrian service): Seyss-Inquart

Served, may have seen combat:
Frank (enlisted 1917 at age 17), Funk (Discharged as
unfit after two years)

Underage (in training at the end of the war):
Himmler, Bormann

Underage: Kaltenbrunner, von Schirach, Speer

Rejected as unfit: Goebbels, Frick (age 37 in 1914)

Lived in Russia, avoided service: Rosenberg

Interned: Sauckel (captured on a ship at sea in 1914)

Eight senior Nazis demonstrated physical courage.

Of the remaining 11, most had no chance to serve,
or may have missed combat service by no choice
of their own. None saw any combat later, except
perhaps brawls with the Freikorps.
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.

http://originalvelvetrevolution.com

[Stephen Graham]

Mario <ack...@ack.ack> wrote:
> So, the destruction of family records supports the suggestion
> that he really had Jew ancestry.
>
> Otherwise, why destroy them?

What it implies is that there was something that someone wished to conceal.
It could be anything from Jewish ancestry to illegitimacy (more likely) to
preventing tracing relatives.

It's not as if this really means anything. We know that hypocrisy is a
routine feature of anyone's ideology.

[Bill]

The Nazi approach to 'who is Jewish' was not rational.

To expect rationality from them when questioning their motives isn't
really expected.

These are people who'd murder you for having a Jewish grandfather you
knew nothing about...

[Bill]

On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 10:35:21 -0400, mtfe...@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:

>Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 21:44:49 -0400, mtfe...@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:
>
>> >wounded comrade (his commander, by some accounts) who was lying in
>> >no-man's land, under French fire. It seems pretty clear that, whatever
>> >other faults he had, he served bravely in the war.
>
>> I don't think anyone ever really doubted the physical courage of the
>> senior Nazis.
>
>Well, I'd have my doubts about Himmler in that regard.

He certainly joined the army in WWI, and was selected for officer
training, although he was too young to have seen combat.

[Bill]

On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 15:30:19 -0400, Rich Rostrom
<rrostrom.2...@rcn.com> wrote:

>mtfe...@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:
>
>> Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > I don't think anyone ever really doubted the physical courage of the
>> > senior Nazis.
>>
>> Well, I'd have my doubts about Himmler in that regard.
>
>Here are the WW I records of 19 prominent Nazis.
>
>Combat veterans (all won at least the Iron Cross):
>Hitler, Goering, von Ribbentrop, Hess, Streicher, M�ller
>

You forget probably the most distinguished Nazi soldier.

Rohm

[Henry]

I read that Himmler once attended an execution of several prisoners. I
don't recall the circumstances or date with any certainty but I _think_
the victims were Jews and they were shot by Einsatzgruppen in the
Ukraine. In any case, Himmler lost his lunch. He acknowledged that in a
letter written shortly thereafter but insisted that, hard as it was to
do such things (meaning executions), they needed to be done.

I'm not sure if that sheds much light on what his personal courage might
have been in a combat situation though.

Has anyone ever heard of a case where Hitler witnessed or participated
in violence after WW I? For instance, was he present during the Night of
the Long Knives? Did he participate? Did he ever tour the camps, like
Aushwitz or witness executions? I'm not sure if he just ordered those
things and then kept his distance or whether he is known to have
actually witnessed them first hand or even particpated.

-----
Henry

[mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net]

Alan Meyer <ame...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 03/12/2013 10:49 PM, Bill wrote:
> > On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 19:40:43 -0400, Henry <he...@example.com> wrote:

(Much deleted)

> Obviously, one reason for the destruction of Hitler's family records had
> to be to conceal any questionable origins from his own Nazi supporters.
> One also has to wonder however if Hitler himself needed to shield
> himself from any "racial" questions about his past. I should think that
> it would have devastated him to learn that he was a "mischling", even if
> only of the "second degree".

True, but it doesn't explain why he treated the former doctor with such
"restraint". Seems it would be easier to simply have him eliminated if
there were any "taint" in Hitler's blood that the doctor might have known
of.

Mike

[Michael Emrys]

On 3/16/13 6:03 PM, Henry wrote:
>
> Has anyone ever heard of a case where Hitler witnessed or participated
> in violence after WW I?

IIRC, during the 1923 attempted putsch when confronted by the army,
Hitler threw himself to the ground while many of his followers held
their ground and were shot down. Whether that was cowardice or just good
sense, I leave to the reader to decide.

Michael

[Henry]

And even if the doctor didn't know anything that would call Hitler's
ancestry
into question, he might still have known things that would have
been very embarassing to Hitler. What if the doctor knew that Hitler had
wet his bed for years? Or slept with his mother? Or tortured small
animals? Or dressed in women's clothing? Any of those and more could
jeopardize Hitler's position within the Nazi Party. Anything like that
would also tend to make eliminating the doctor a very wise move indeed.

Letting the doctor go - if indeed he did so - may suggest that the
doctor was only dangerous to him if he was in Greater Germany but not of
much concern elsewhere. Then again, Hitler did seem to roll the dice
from time to time so maybe he decided to trust the doctor even though he
could present big problems if he talked about what he knew.

-----
Henry

[mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net]

Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 15:30:19 -0400, Rich Rostrom
> <rrostrom.2...@rcn.com> wrote:

> >mtfe...@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:
> >
> >> Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> > I don't think anyone ever really doubted the physical courage of the
> >> > senior Nazis.
> >>
> >> Well, I'd have my doubts about Himmler in that regard.
> >
> >Here are the WW I records of 19 prominent Nazis.
> >
> >Combat veterans (all won at least the Iron Cross):

> >Hitler, Goering, von Ribbentrop, Hess, Streicher, M?ller

> >

> You forget probably the most distinguished Nazi soldier.

> Rohm

Or Udet.

Mike

[mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net]

Henry <he...@example.com> wrote:
> On 2013-03-16 18:40, Bill wrote:
> > On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 10:35:21 -0400, mtfe...@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:

> >> Well, I'd have my doubts about Himmler in that regard.
> >
> > He certainly joined the army in WWI, and was selected for officer
> > training, although he was too young to have seen combat.
> >

> I read that Himmler once attended an execution of several prisoners. I
> don't recall the circumstances or date with any certainty but I _think_
> the victims were Jews and they were shot by Einsatzgruppen in the
> Ukraine. In any case, Himmler lost his lunch. He acknowledged that in a
> letter written shortly thereafter but insisted that, hard as it was to
> do such things (meaning executions), they needed to be done.

This is the account I was thinking of when I mentioned him. Gilbert has
a slightly more expanded account. Supposedly, his nice shiney boots got
splattered by blood or brains.

> Has anyone ever heard of a case where Hitler witnessed or participated
> in violence after WW I? For instance, was he present during the Night of
> the Long Knives? Did he participate? Did he ever tour the camps, like
> Aushwitz or witness executions? I'm not sure if he just ordered those
> things and then kept his distance or whether he is known to have
> actually witnessed them first hand or even particpated.

I wondered about this as well, and I've never read an account that suggested
they did. They were simply content to make this all happen, without bothering
to witness the carnage themselves.

Mike

[Alan Meyer]

On 03/16/2013 03:13 PM, Mario wrote:
...

> So, the destruction of family records supports the suggestion
> that he really had Jew ancestry.
>
> Otherwise, why destroy them?

...

Maybe. I presume we'll never know.

Alan

[mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net]

Combat experience? If they have guns and you don't, why stand in the line of
fire?

Mike

[Rich Rostrom]

mtfe...@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:

> Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 15:30:19 -0400, Rich Rostrom

> > You forget probably the most distinguished Nazi soldier.
>
> > Rohm

Rohm won the Iron Cross 1st Class, but I don't
see his record as outweighing Goering, who won
that, _and_ the Knight's Cross with Swords of the
Royal House Order of Hohenzollern, _and_ the
Pour le M�rite.

> Or Udet.

Udet was a Luftwaffe general, not a senior Nazi.
He never had a Party office of any significance,
and was not even a member before 1933.

[Rich Rostrom]

Henry <he...@example.com> wrote:

> Has anyone ever heard of a case where Hitler
> witnessed or participated in violence after WW I?

Well, obviously the Beer Hall Putsch of 1923.

When the Bavarian police fired on the Nazi
marchers, the man next to Hitler was killed,
and Goering, who was nearby, was wounded.

Robert Murphy, then US Consul in Munich,
was a witness. He wrote later that both
Hitler and Ludendorff "dived to the ground
like the battle-hardened soldiers they were."

Also, if getting blown up counts, the bomb
attack of 20 July 1944.

[Rich Rostrom]

Michael Emrys <em...@olypen.com> wrote:

> IIRC, during the 1923 attempted putsch when confronted by the army,
> Hitler threw himself to the ground while many of his followers held
> their ground and were shot down.

When the Bavarian police fired on the Nazi
marchers, the man next to Hitler was killed,
and Goering, who was nearby, was wounded.

Some later claimed that Ludendorff, who was
in the march, continued to advance fearlessly.

Robert Murphy, then US Consul in Munich,
was a witness. He wrote later that both
Hitler and Ludendorff "dived to the ground
like the battle-hardened soldiers they were."

[wjho...@aol.com]

On Mar 12, 7:40 pm, Henry wrote:
>.... A Flemish journalist traced Hitler's living relatives and

> ran DNA tests that indicate African and Jewish roots.

>.. Hitler may have been completely unaware of them.

Some readers of this thread may remember an occasion
in the early 1980s when perhaps the greatest of post-war
hoaxes pertaining to Adolf Hitler began with a press
release stating that "the most important historical event of
the last ten years," had occurred with the discovery of part
of a diary written by Adolph Hitler which had been found
on a yacht once owned by Herman Goering and had been
acquired by a German antiques dealer, who had sold to a
collector of WWII memorabilia.
According to the press reports, the collector had
learned along the way that the part of the diary he bought
was one of a series of over 20 small notebooks, each of
approx 1000 words allegedly hand-written by Hitler and that
the entire set covered the period beginning in the early
1930s and through WWII.
The story went that all of the diary had been
among other documents being flown out of Berlin by the
Nazi hierarchy in the final days of the war and had survived
the crash of the plane they were on, later being acquired by
and available through the same antiques dealer who had
supplied the first booklet to the aforementioned collector.
The entire series was said to have been
subsequently bought by the German magazine "Stern,"
which vouched for the diary's authenticity, and was at the
time of the press release then in the process of preparing
the entire set for release to the world.
Despite initial public skepticism as to the
authenticity of the alleged diary or diaries, the story took
hold and ultimately fooled not only the publishers of the
German magazine, "Stern" but also duped several
prominent WWII historians. One was Hugh Trevor-Roper
a renowned British "Hitler expert" who had been sent to
exam the diaries by British press magnate, Rupert Murdoch.
Another was Gerhard Weinberg, an academic likewise sent
by the U.S. magazine Newsweek.
After all the hoopla, the truth ultimately came out that
the "diaries" had not been written by Hiler but by the antique
dealer, Konrad Kujau, who was said to have originally
"discovered" them. Kujau, a small time crook who dealt in
wartime memorabilia both authentic and phony, also
happened to have a talent for forgery which served him
well--at least for awhile. After everything had finally blown
over, Kujau was jailed for his efforts.

For those interested in more detailed information about
this complicated Hitler fantasy, a comprehensive chronology
of the hoax from start to finish can be seen here:
http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/archive/permalink/the_hitler_diaries

WJH

[Eunometic]

On Mar 13, 10:40 am, Henry <he...@example.com> wrote:
> I just came across this and thought people here would find it

> interesting. A Flemish journalist traced Hitler's living relatives and

> ran DNA tests that indicate African and Jewish roots.
>

> http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/dna-tests-reveal-hitler-s-jewish-...
>
> The article doesn't indicate how many generations back these roots
> would have occurred so Hitler may have been completely unaware of them.
>
> --
> Henry

Anyone or any group making statements about Adolf Hitlers geneology
are clearly angling to make a political point and their pronouncements
must be taken with reservation. They belong along with other ideas
such as Hitlers supposed latent homosexuality and the focus on his
supposed single testicle.

First it should be noted that the genetic information suggests only
that he may have had some distant North African herritage with it
being much less likely that the Herritage was jewish than that it was
of Berber ancestry. Jews marry out and assimilate at a low rate as
part of a cultural sense of social self preservation many proudly
assert as evidenced by these self same genetic studies however there
was much influx of North African blood into Southern Europe from the
North of the Mediteranean during the period of Greco-Roman
civilisation and the following Byzantine empire.

It should be noted that Nazi racial ideology accepted that Germans
were a mixture of races and indeed that Europeans were as well. It
was not a pure nordicist ideology, they merely valued that part of the
herritage perhaps as many american value their roots. Many Jews both
part and full were accepted as full German under exemptions to the
Nuremberg Laws. Emil Maurice (Hitlers Jail Buddy) and Erhard
Milch(Luftwaffe Leader) spring to mind. In this way the Nurmemberg
Laws were more flexible than so called Jim Crow laws in the 1930s
since they could be administratively be over ruled. It is entirely
incorrect to say that Nazi ideology was Nordic White only, it was
virulently anti-jewish and anti-gypsy but indifferent to Arabs and
despite rants in mein Kampf indifferent to Blacks in terms of
execution of any negative policy. Black's were a kind of bogeyman to
many Germans since the French had used them as mercenaries and
Soliders during the Franco-Prussian war as well as the first world
war.

Haplogroup E1b1b1 is Y-chromosome autonmic DNA transmitted by the male
sperm. So Hitlers distant non White relative would have been male. It
could have entered into his 'gene pool' at any time.

During the period of the Roman empire there was a huge trade from the
North of Africa (North Mediteranean) to the South and a considerable
movement of people. The Roman Army used non patrician Romans from
all over the world as soldiers (so called 'auxiliaries').

For instance there was a sizable community of Syrians in France who
worked as part of the trade during the empires Christian era. (Syria
at the time was also Christian). There was an influx of Nth Africans
into Spain between the Moorish invasion of 700s and the Reconquista
etc.

The Mediteranean trade persisted and after the collapse of Rome even
grew under the Barbarian Kings for 200 years but ended around 700 as
the Jihaads turned the Mediteranean into a piratical sea that was all
but impassable, forced millions of Europeans back from the coast to
avoid Arab/Islamic slave raiding therby precidpating the dark ages.

A union o European woman with a Syrian or North African trader in
distant times is more likely to have been the source of Hitlers E1b1b1
as anything if indeed that is correct at all.

It is worth noting that National Socialism is an explicity racial
ideology but it is also flexible, it had to be to be realisitic and
not seen as lunar.

These quotes exemplify:

"Therefore, for the Fascist, everything is in the State, and nothing
human or spiritual exists, much less has value,-outside the State. In
this sense Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State, the
synthesis and unity of all values, interprets, develops and gives
strength to the whole life of the people." - Mussolini

In contrast national socialism was different

"The State is only a means to an end. Its end and its purpose is to
preserve and promote a community of human beings who are physically as
well as spiritually kindred." - Adolf Hitler

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

"Eunometic" <euno...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:c66d86a8-b241-4856...@o9g2000pbt.googlegroups.com...

> Anyone or any group making statements about Adolf Hitlers geneology
> are clearly angling to make a political point and their pronouncements
> must be taken with reservation.

Eunometic is a classic example.

> They belong along with other ideas
> such as Hitlers supposed latent homosexuality and the focus on his
> supposed single testicle.

Lots of historical figures have had claims made about their sexuality
and other attributes, as people put modern interpretations on their
behaviour, usually a move that says more about the modern
person.

> First it should be noted that the genetic information suggests only
> that he may have had some distant North African herritage with it
> being much less likely that the Herritage was jewish than that it was
> of Berber ancestry.

Ah yes, of course, as if Jewish is genetic, as opposed to the fact
the DNA reports someone of probable North African/Middle
Eastern origin (or a descendant of such a person) as measured
by the DNA of the modern populations, ended up contributing
to the Hitler family line. That person could have been a Muslim
you know, or Pagan, or Christian, and so on.

Meantime the current understanding is all humans have African
origins. Though more distant in most cases than the Eunometic
attempt to push the Hitler DNA marker's arrival in the family.

And around 10% of the current German population has the
marker Hitler had.

> Jews marry out and assimilate at a low rate as
> part of a cultural sense of social self preservation many proudly
> assert as evidenced by these self same genetic studies

Strange as it may seem there have been significant barriers to people
of the Jewish faith marrying out for centuries, and that includes the
non Jewish people's ideas as well. As for the assimilate at a low rate
that is largely determined by whether society allows them to assimilate,
not some sort of Jewish keep it in the family policy.

As is well known people of the Jewish faith were well integrated into
Western European society in the 1920's and 1930's. Then the Nazis
decided to reverse that.

> however there
> was much influx of North African blood into Southern Europe from the
> North of the Mediteranean during the period of Greco-Roman
> civilisation and the following Byzantine empire.

By the way Southern Europe is North of the Mediterranean.

I just love the "blood" tag, not DNA, reminds you of the rhetoric
of the 1930's and earlier. Meantime the Byzantine Empire was
rather lacking in European possessions north of the Alps, since
it was the Eastern Roman Empire. It did control the Balkans at
the start and then regained them for a time, the Empire tended to
grow and shrink over the course of its existence.

Also as techniques improve and more work is done it is becoming
clearer people (or rather a subset of people) moved about a great
deal while they were alive throughout history, the 20th century ideas
about historical mobility underestimated the situation.

Essentially the Eunometic cry is Hitler's non European DNA
contribution was so long ago it does not matter. Sort of like the
people Hitler knew who he exempted from various racial laws.
And of course the idea it could be Jewish is out of the question.
Meantime people can note the author of the study the media
reports are going on never said Jewish, only where the DNA
marker is currently most common, and it is a minority in current
Jewish populations. The media added the (possible) Jewish tag.

> It should be noted that Nazi racial ideology accepted that Germans
> were a mixture of races and indeed that Europeans were as well.

It should be noted that Eunometic is not exactly bothering with the
truth here, Aryans were pure. That some Germans were not pure
or worse was part of the ideology. The other thing is of course the
ideology was not exactly logical about race at times, given so much
of it stemmed from Hitler's prejudices and needs of the moment.
So Croats went from Slavs to more Germanic when they became
German allies, plus there are the attempts to explain the Japanese
in "racial terms".

> It
> was not a pure nordicist ideology, they merely valued that part of the
> herritage perhaps as many american value their roots.

You see the idea is to make it so Americans say valuing their Polish
ancestry think it is a good idea to announce that makes them superior
and deserving to rule the place, and places like say Germany.
Eunometic has this tendency to ignore Nazi ideology in favour of
whitewash and try to turn people like those who respect the family
history into being the same as Nazis

And as for "pure nordicist" that is easy, it was Hitler's prejudices
and they had contradictions.

> Many Jews both
> part and full were accepted as full German under exemptions to the
> Nuremberg Laws. Emil Maurice (Hitlers Jail Buddy) and Erhard
> Milch(Luftwaffe Leader) spring to mind.

You see the Eunometic thinking does work so much like the 1930's
German Government. Part Jewish? Attend the synagogue every
second, third or fourth week? Is there part Catholic? Part Muslim?

Milch was never Jewish, nor Maurice, the latter having a great
grandfather who was Jewish.

Essentially many Jews is code for a handful of people Hitler or the
senior Nazi leadership knew personally and preferred to keep but
who also had a Jewish ancestor within the time limits the Nazis set
for their "blood" definition of Jewish.

> In this way the Nurmemberg
> Laws were more flexible than so called Jim Crow laws in the 1930s
> since they could be administratively be over ruled.

You see it works like this, Hitler made some exceptions for people
who had never practiced the Jewish faith but had ancestors who
did. Therefore the claim is the laws were more flexible than some
US laws, or translation, the Nazis were not much on law, the
leadership in particular saw themselves as exempt.

> It is entirely
> incorrect to say that Nazi ideology was Nordic White only, it was
> virulently anti-jewish and anti-gypsy but indifferent to Arabs and
> despite rants in mein Kampf indifferent to Blacks in terms of
> execution of any negative policy.

On the other hand people can note the reality being dark skinned
put people into the Roma and Jewish category in Nazi thinking.
And though there was no extermination program against dark
skinned people there was active discrimination and violence.
Essentially there were not enough dark skinned people in Nazi
control to attract enough attention.

Also Arabs were useful if they could revolt against the British and
the French.

> Black's were a kind of bogeyman to
> many Germans since the French had used them as mercenaries and
> Soliders during the Franco-Prussian war as well as the first world
> war.

Note above we have no discrimination, now we have reasons given
for discrimination.

How horrible that people of dark skin should actually fight against
the Germans.in formed armies. Please let us know all the dark
skinned mercenaries that fought for France in the rather short
Franco-Prussian War, which was of course fought mainly in
France. Add most of WWI in the west was mainly in France
as well.

> Haplogroup E1b1b1 is Y-chromosome autonmic DNA transmitted by the male
> sperm. So Hitlers distant non White relative would have been male. It
> could have entered into his 'gene pool' at any time.

What is probably the most amusing thing here is the declaration the
ancestor was distant but it could have occurred at any time. Given
the claims it may have been via Hitler's grandfather, and yes I know
that claim has problems. Especially given the number of Germans
carrying the marker.

> During the period of the Roman empire there was a huge trade from the
> North of Africa (North Mediteranean) to the South and a considerable
> movement of people. The Roman Army used non patrician Romans from
> all over the world as soldiers (so called 'auxiliaries').

I know this is silly but you do understand citizenship of Rome could be
conferred on anyone living within the Empire? Service in the army
would help such an application? The Roman armies of the Empire
tended to have a minority of patrician Romans and they were in the
legions, not just as auxiliaries.

Also there were few Inuit, Chinese, North and South Americans
and Australians etc. in the Roman armies.

> For instance there was a sizable community of Syrians in France who
> worked as part of the trade during the empires Christian era. (Syria
> at the time was also Christian). There was an influx of Nth Africans
> into Spain between the Moorish invasion of 700s and the Reconquista
> etc.

Apparently this is all about a plea that Hitler's DNA embarrassment,
(for the Nazis anyway) that part of it came from a group mainly
concentrated in North Africa these days, should not be considered
important because is must have happened a long time ago.

> The Mediteranean trade persisted and after the collapse of Rome even
> grew under the Barbarian Kings for 200 years but ended around 700 as
> the Jihaads turned the Mediteranean into a piratical sea that was all
> but impassable, forced millions of Europeans back from the coast to
> avoid Arab/Islamic slave raiding therby precidpating the dark ages.

You know the Eunometic history requires non Germans to be
barbarians.

Meantime the actual European dark ages started as the Roman
Empire fell, so 5th or 6th century. The dark refers to the way the
historical record goes dark, not a lot of documents and the
archaeology also has problems. The main immediate cause of the
fall of the western Roman Empire was of course those invasions
by the Germanic tribes. So Eunometic has to move things two or
three hundred years.and blame someone else.

And yes it was more complicated that just the invasions.

Piracy tends to occur when the sealanes cannot be policed.

> A union o European woman with a Syrian or North African trader in
> distant times is more likely to have been the source of Hitlers E1b1b1
> as anything if indeed that is correct at all.

Translation, Hitler could have had the embarrassing DNA put into
the family line at any time and the earlier the better for Eunometic.
Note there is no claim out there the female involved was European,
however it seems clear she is being declared acceptable, despite
no DNA information being provided. The idea two of Hitler's
ancestors were non European seems unacceptable, but of course
it actually what happened, and it was far more than two. It took a
long time for Humans to move out of Africa.

Now given the latest ideas about inter breeding with Neanderthals
get ready for tests for those markers.

> It is worth noting that National Socialism is an explicity racial
> ideology but it is also flexible, it had to be to be realisitic and
> not seen as lunar.

You see Eunometic believes Nazi racial theory is realistic, not lunar.
Most people understand it is the opposite.

> These quotes exemplify:
>
> "Therefore, for the Fascist, everything is in the State, and nothing
> human or spiritual exists, much less has value,-outside the State. In
> this sense Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State, the
> synthesis and unity of all values, interprets, develops and gives
> strength to the whole life of the people." - Mussolini

In other words the people only matter as long as they are of use
in the plans of the leader and do what they are told.

> In contrast national socialism was different
>
> "The State is only a means to an end. Its end and its purpose is to
> preserve and promote a community of human beings who are physically as
> well as spiritually kindred." - Adolf Hitler

You see one quote rules them all, and Eunometic keeps preferring
a nice quote about Nazi Germany over the reality of its actions.

For example no attempt to quote Mussolini about the Jewish faith,
and Italian Government actions versus the Hitler quotes and actions.

How about the quote where Hitler says all the children will be
National Socialist, despite the views of their parents.

Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.

[Rich Rostrom]

"Geoffrey Sinclair" <gsinc...@froggy.com.au> wrote:

> "Eunometic" <euno...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message

> > Anyone or any group making statements about Adolf Hitlers geneology
> > are clearly angling to make a political point and their pronouncements
> > must be taken with reservation.
>
> Eunometic is a classic example.

I don't think he would deny that.

> > First it should be noted that the genetic information suggests only
> > that he may have had some distant North African herritage with it
> > being much less likely that the Herritage was jewish than that it was
> > of Berber ancestry.
>

> Ah yes, of course, as if Jewish is genetic...

The idea of Jewish ancestry having a genetic
representation is the basis of the OP, not
some racialist idea introduced by Eunometic.

Jews have cited genetic studies that show
descent from the ancient Hebrews, refuting
claims that Ashkenazic Jews were mostly
descended from Khazar converts.

> > Jews marry out and assimilate at a low rate as
> > part of a cultural sense of social self preservation

> Strange as it may seem there have been significant barriers to people
> of the Jewish faith marrying out for centuries, and that includes the
> non Jewish people's ideas as well. As for the assimilate at a low rate
> that is largely determined by whether society allows them to assimilate,
> not some sort of Jewish keep it in the family policy.

Strict endogamy as a defense against assimilation
has been practiced by many cultural minorities:
Parsees in India, Druze in the Middle East, and
Jews through most of history, in some cases right
up to the present. There is a fairly large Syrian
Jewish community in NYC which prohibits intermarriage
not only with Gentiles but even with other Jews.

> As is well known people of the Jewish faith were well integrated into
> Western European society in the 1920's and 1930's.

In terms of ancestry, this was very recent.

> I just love the "blood" tag, not DNA, reminds you of the rhetoric

> of the 1930's and earlier...

There are statements in this post worth questioning.
Getting bent over a very common language usage
is not useful.

> Essentially the Eunometic cry is Hitler's non European DNA
> contribution was so long ago it does not matter.

Which is almost certainly true.

> > It is entirely
> > incorrect to say that Nazi ideology was Nordic White only, it was
> > virulently anti-jewish and anti-gypsy but indifferent to Arabs and
> > despite rants in mein Kampf indifferent to Blacks in terms of
> > execution of any negative policy.

There were a handful of part black children in
Germany, many the result of liaisons with French
colonial troops during the occupation of the
Rhineland. These children were persecuted, if
not murdered, by the Nazis. Also, during the
1940 campaign in France, many black French
colonial soldiers were murdered by German
troops after surrendering. One such massacre
was committed by the 7th Panzer Division under
that paragon of miitary honor, Erwin Rommel.

> > The Mediteranean trade persisted and after the collapse of Rome even
> > grew under the Barbarian Kings for 200 years but ended around 700 as
> > the Jihaads turned the Mediteranean into a piratical sea that was all
> > but impassable, forced millions of Europeans back from the coast to
> > avoid Arab/Islamic slave raiding therby precidpating the dark ages.
>
> You know the Eunometic history requires non Germans to be
> barbarians.

Geese louise. The Barbary pirates are a well
established historical fact. There are severe
problems with this narrative - Mediterranean
commerce didn't shut down, and Moslem pirate
attacks didn't depopulate the European coasts -
but to see a mention of the Barbary pirates
only as an attempt to exculpate Germans seem
paranoid. It _is_ true that after the Moslem
conquest of North Africa, migration (by slave
trade and other means) from Africa into Europe
largely stopped.

>
> > It is worth noting that National Socialism is an explicity racial
> > ideology but it is also flexible, it had to be to be realisitic and
> > not seen as lunar.
>
> You see Eunometic believes Nazi racial theory is realistic, not lunar.
> Most people understand it is the opposite.

Well, it had to appear at least marginally plausible
and back off from the most ludicrous outcomes.

> You see one quote rules them all, and Eunometic keeps preferring
> a nice quote about Nazi Germany over the reality of its actions.

There is a point to these quotes. Hitler
(and Nazism) were more "Romantic" (in the
cultural/artistic meaning) than Mussolini
and the Fascism.

Hitler saw the Nazi state as a means to
Germanic victory in the great race-struggle
of history - that struggle being the battle
of the superior to control the inferior.

Mussolini had no such ideas. Fascism was to
make the Italian nation strong, but there
was no dominate-the-world agenda.

It's part of why Hitler was much more aggressive
than Mussolini.

[Roman W]

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 13:15:37 -0400, "Geoffrey Sinclair"
<gsinc...@froggy.com.au> wrote:
> Strange as it may seem there have been significant barriers to
people
> of the Jewish faith marrying out for centuries, and that includes
the
> non Jewish people's ideas as well. As for the assimilate at a low
rate
> that is largely determined by whether society allows them to
assimilate,
> not some sort of Jewish keep it in the family policy.
> As is well known people of the Jewish faith were well integrated
into
> Western European society in the 1920's and 1930's. Then the Nazis
> decided to reverse that.

Actually in the part of Eastern Poland my wife comes from Jews in the
countryside married Gentiles fairly often, so that many Catholic
people around Lublin area have some Jewish ancestors.

RW

[Roman W]

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 15:54:00 -0400, Rich Rostrom
<rrostrom.2...@rcn.com> wrote:
> up to the present. There is a fairly large Syrian
> Jewish community in NYC which prohibits intermarriage
> not only with Gentiles but even with other Jews.

Some marriage restrictions among Jews in America have to do with the
attempt to avoid some common genetic diseases (e.g.
Kreutzfeld-Jacob). Young couples are advised to get a genetic test
done before getting married.

RW

[ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk]

In article <NZadnSsrHOqJVczM...@westnet.com.au>,

gsinc...@froggy.com.au (Geoffrey Sinclair) wrote:

> Add most of WWI in the west was mainly in France
> as well.

France made extensive use of Colonial troops on the Western Front in
WW1. Off course given where the major French colonies were the majority
of these were probably Berbers. Come to that units of the Indian Army
also served on the Western Front and there were labour battalions that
had a large percentage of Chinese. The Allied side of the Western Front
was definitely multi-racial.

> Service in the army
> would help such an application?

Roman Citizenship was granted to all residents late in the third
century or early in the fourth. Prior to that only citizens, plebian or
patrician, could enlist in the Legions. Anyone else had to enlist in an
Auxiliary unit. Successful completion of an IIRC 20 year term earned a
grant of citizenship for the Auxiliary and his children. Death in
service could result in a grant of citizenship to any children. The
privileges of citizenship eroded over the years and by the time of the
general grant differed very little from general population.


Ken Young

[Mario]

Geoffrey Sinclair, 18:15, martedￜ 26 marzo 2013:

>> It is entirely
>> incorrect to say that Nazi ideology was Nordic White only, it
>> was virulently anti-jewish and anti-gypsy but indifferent to
>> Arabs and despite rants in mein Kampf indifferent to Blacks
>> in terms of execution of any negative policy.
>
> On the other hand people can note the reality being dark
> skinned put people into the Roma and Jewish category in Nazi
> thinking. And though there was no extermination program
> against dark skinned people there was active discrimination
> and violence. Essentially there were not enough dark skinned
> people in Nazi control to attract enough attention.
>

Of course.
I've read that there were a few Black Germans, a negligible
number.


--
H

[Mario]

Roman W, 04:43, mercoled� 27 marzo 2013:

I think the most endogamic group is the Samaritans.


--
H

[Mario]

Roman W, 04:38, mercoled� 27 marzo 2013:

I've read recently that 20% of Spaniards have Jewish ancestry,
and 10% Moorish/Muslim ancestry (maybe that came from genetic
studies).


--
H

[Mario]

ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk, 14:29, mercoledￜ 27 marzo 2013:

Anyway in Roman civilization race had little importance.


--
H

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

"Rich Rostrom" <rrostrom.2...@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:rrostrom.21stcentury-...@mx05.eternal-september.org...

> "Geoffrey Sinclair" <gsinc...@froggy.com.au> wrote:
>
>> "Eunometic" <euno...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
>> > Anyone or any group making statements about Adolf Hitlers geneology
>> > are clearly angling to make a political point and their pronouncements
>> > must be taken with reservation.
>>
>> Eunometic is a classic example.
>
> I don't think he would deny that.

Hard to given the posting record but it has been tried.

>> > First it should be noted that the genetic information suggests only
>> > that he may have had some distant North African herritage with it
>> > being much less likely that the Herritage was jewish than that it was
>> > of Berber ancestry.
>>
>> Ah yes, of course, as if Jewish is genetic...
>
> The idea of Jewish ancestry having a genetic
> representation is the basis of the OP, not
> some racialist idea introduced by Eunometic.

The idea of "blood" or in modern terms DNA goes back quite
a while, the fact various people claim there is a genetic link to
a given religion does not make it right.

And I suggest you review the Eunometic posts before making the
above statement, though I agree the Eunometic prejudices are
derivative, not original.

> Jews have cited genetic studies that show
> descent from the ancient Hebrews, refuting
> claims that Ashkenazic Jews were mostly
> descended from Khazar converts.

Only Jews cite those links? Like the idea is not part of the claims
about who are the true descendents of the people who lived in the
area of modern Israel in biblical times?

That the anti Jewish groups are not making DNA claims?

As of the current thinking it seems clear the Europe's Jewish
population is largely carrying genes from the Middle East, that
is there has been no significant input from other groups but there
are lots of people in the Middle East with the same markers who
are definitely not Jewish.

>> > Jews marry out and assimilate at a low rate as
>> > part of a cultural sense of social self preservation
>
>> Strange as it may seem there have been significant barriers to people
>> of the Jewish faith marrying out for centuries, and that includes the
>> non Jewish people's ideas as well. As for the assimilate at a low rate
>> that is largely determined by whether society allows them to assimilate,
>> not some sort of Jewish keep it in the family policy.
>
> Strict endogamy as a defense against assimilation
> has been practiced by many cultural minorities:
> Parsees in India, Druze in the Middle East, and
> Jews through most of history, in some cases right
> up to the present. There is a fairly large Syrian
> Jewish community in NYC which prohibits intermarriage
> not only with Gentiles but even with other Jews.

And there is actually a genetic reason for some of those rules.

Meantime the fact some minorities choose to marry within their
minority is not disputed. The fact the Jewish faith has been a
minority and regularly not tolerated is a good reason why there
was not a great deal of inter marriage. As for throughout history
that simply over states the situation if it implies it is mainly coming
from the Jewish side. Given the status of Jewish people in
Christian Europe the genetic results are not surprising.

Is the idea assimilate means they must be willing to marry within the
general population, as opposed to being culturally similar, the music,
the sport, the patriotism?

Otherwise the aristocracy is not assimilated.

>> As is well known people of the Jewish faith were well integrated into
>> Western European society in the 1920's and 1930's.
>
> In terms of ancestry, this was very recent.

In reality this has varied across time, with pogroms and expulsions in
most of Christian Europe at one time or another, it was usually better
in the Moslem world. Again my idea of assimilate is cultural, not being
totally indistinguishable.

>> I just love the "blood" tag, not DNA, reminds you of the rhetoric
>> of the 1930's and earlier...
>
> There are statements in this post worth questioning.

Which you have chosen to largely ignore, concentrating on my reply.

> Getting bent over a very common language usage
> is not useful.

No it is simply pointing out how parallel the Eunometic view is to
that of the 1930's German government. A regular occurrence.

>> Essentially the Eunometic cry is Hitler's non European DNA
>> contribution was so long ago it does not matter.
>
> Which is almost certainly true.

I know, but it is amusing to see the attempt to say it does not matter
while trying to defend Nazi ideology that says it does.

>> > The Mediteranean trade persisted and after the collapse of Rome even
>> > grew under the Barbarian Kings for 200 years but ended around 700 as
>> > the Jihaads turned the Mediteranean into a piratical sea that was all
>> > but impassable, forced millions of Europeans back from the coast to
>> > avoid Arab/Islamic slave raiding therby precidpating the dark ages.
>>
>> You know the Eunometic history requires non Germans to be
>> barbarians.
>
> Geese louise.

What exactly do you call moving history 200 or 300 years so blame
can be put onto a given group of people for something they did not
have any real contribution to?

> The Barbary pirates are a well
> established historical fact.

Quite correct, trouble is they have nothing to do with the onset of the
Dark Ages in Europe.

> There are severe
> problems with this narrative - Mediterranean
> commerce didn't shut down, and Moslem pirate
> attacks didn't depopulate the European coasts -
> but to see a mention of the Barbary pirates
> only as an attempt to exculpate Germans seem
> paranoid.

Good, now tell me why, given the Eunometic record, people should
not note the attempt rewrite history as an attempt to move "blame"
from the group Eunometic considers so wonderful to a group that
has a considerable hate following these days? (Islam)

You have read the Eunometic posts? Not just this one? Or were
you like most people too busy laughing at the time?

In definition terms the European Dark Ages are said to follow the
fall of the Western Roman Empire, that fall was immediately caused
by invasions of mainly Germanic tribes, with other contributions like
changes of climate and disease as well as other human actions.

Dark Ages are a "Bad Thing", so the German contribution is
removed, the definition of start time is moved and Islam is
blamed, a religion that is probably currently more acceptable
that Judaism to hate in many parts of the west. Completely
consistent with many Eunometic attempts to rewrite history.

> It _is_ true that after the Moslem
> conquest of North Africa, migration (by slave
> trade and other means) from Africa into Europe
> largely stopped.

A few hundred years after the European Dark Ages began.

Actually as people are doing things like going through the DNA and
putting together more details the reality is not as clear cut. Europe
wanted lots of luxury goods but did not generate a lot of things to
sell in return. So trade fell away, but there was still trade, and note
the number of Christians in the Holy Land, with new arrivals, before
the Crusader period.

And yes, given the different sides of the Mediterranean then had
very different cultural structures it is not surprising movement dropped
compared to when the Romans and therefore a single culture
controlled all the coastlines.

>> > It is worth noting that National Socialism is an explicity racial
>> > ideology but it is also flexible, it had to be to be realisitic and
>> > not seen as lunar.
>>
>> You see Eunometic believes Nazi racial theory is realistic, not lunar.
>> Most people understand it is the opposite.
>
> Well, it had to appear at least marginally plausible
> and back off from the most ludicrous outcomes.

It could be sold as plausible at the time and in some senses today, the
we are number 1 syndrome, modern people tend to use different
groups as the "good guys" with various relics still preferring the older
prejudices. The point about Nazi ideology is it was mainly Hitler's
prejudices with the inherent contradictions and was altered to fit
current politics.

And the whole idea is not realistic.

>> You see one quote rules them all, and Eunometic keeps preferring
>> a nice quote about Nazi Germany over the reality of its actions.
>
> There is a point to these quotes.

Beyond the misleading, given the idea one quote is supposed to
represent all of Nazi Germany?

> Hitler
> (and Nazism) were more "Romantic" (in the
> cultural/artistic meaning) than Mussolini
> and the Fascism.

Yet both systems had their ideas of approved art and other expression,
both had their ideal warrior males fighting the good fight.

> Hitler saw the Nazi state as a means to
> Germanic victory in the great race-struggle
> of history - that struggle being the battle
> of the superior to control the inferior.

And surprisingly that also gives justification for the superiors of the
superiors to run an autocratic government, with everyone doing
what they are told.

Not to mention the way the state was automatically superior to
the individual.

> Mussolini had no such ideas. Fascism was to
> make the Italian nation strong, but there
> was no dominate-the-world agenda.

As opposed to recreating the Roman Empire? Which meant changing
the ownership of quite a lot of territory? Why exactly was the Italian
military so big both numerically and as a percentage of the economy?

Then with the Empire established is the belief Italy would go defensive,
even if it then controlled all territory that had Roman control for at least
a few years?

> It's part of why Hitler was much more aggressive
> than Mussolini.

Any idea it could have a lot to do with capabilities? How long would
Italy have lasted if it had picked a fight with France alone? Britain?

The Italian operations in Libya, Ethiopia and Albania come to mind
as conquests. Greece as an attempted conquest.

[Rich Rostrom]

Roman W <bloody_rabb...@gazeta.pl> wrote:

> Rich Rostrom <rrostrom.2...@rcn.com> wrote:
> > There is a fairly large Syrian Jewish community in
> > NYC which prohibits intermarriage not only with
> > Gentiles but even with other Jews.
>
> Some marriage restrictions among Jews in America have to do with the

> attempt to avoid some common genetic diseases...

Such restrictions are _against_ endogamy.
Genetic diseases appear as a consequence
of mating between two people with a common
ancestor. If that ancestor was a carrier
of a harmful recessive gene, it is possible
for both of the two people to be carriers,
creating a 1/4 chance of the child having
the disease. Most people carry some bad
recessives, but it is unlikely that a couple
will have any matching pairs unless they
have common ancestry - what used to be
called 'inbreeding'.


The "Syrian" Jewish community _requires_
endogamy; the rule was established quite
explicitly to prevent assimilation, before
any sort of genetic testing was possible.

[Michael Emrys]

On 3/27/13 8:27 AM, Geoffrey Sinclair wrote:
> Any idea it could have a lot to do with capabilities? How long would
> Italy have lasted if it had picked a fight with France alone? Britain?

Interestingly enough (for me at least), I have recently been pondering
that very question. The SWAG I came up with is that if by some
outrageously unlikely turn of events the war had solely been between
Italy and the British Empire, I'd give Italy maybe two years before it
would be asking for terms. But that assumes a pretty vigorous British
rearmament and declarations of war by the Dominions, and neither of
those would be a certainty if Britain were only faced with Italy. If a
reduced tempo of operations occurred, it might take another year or so.
On the other hand, defeat for Italy might not be quite as total. I think
Mussolini would have been discredited and removed if it was Italy who
was the aggressor here, but it might have been able to retain More of
its possessions and earlier conquests. And there would not have been the
prolonged fight on its territory between Germany and the Allies, with
all its horrendous consequences.

Michael

[The Horny Goat]

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 13:15:37 -0400, "Geoffrey Sinclair"
<gsinc...@froggy.com.au> wrote:

>How about the quote where Hitler says all the children will be
>National Socialist, despite the views of their parents.

Isn't that just a Nazi version of the old quote about the Jesuits to
the effect that give them a boy at 5 and he will be theirs for life?

I'm sure they weren't the only ones that said that.

[The Horny Goat]

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 11:27:39 -0400, "Geoffrey Sinclair"
<gsinc...@froggy.com.au> wrote:

>Meantime the fact some minorities choose to marry within their
>minority is not disputed. The fact the Jewish faith has been a
>minority and regularly not tolerated is a good reason why there
>was not a great deal of inter marriage. As for throughout history
>that simply over states the situation if it implies it is mainly coming
>from the Jewish side. Given the status of Jewish people in
>Christian Europe the genetic results are not surprising.

The reverse is also true - as anti-Semiticism largely fades into the
past at least in the western world, the rate of assimilation greatly
increases.

The Jews aren't the only ones - look at the assimilation rate of the
Nisei and Sansei in North America. Of the Japanese Canadians I
personally know a minority are married to "one of their own".

You're a Canadian so I know you know the name Paul Kariya - whose late
father (who I knew personally) was a real life Mr. Miyagi (minus the
Medal of Honor of course) and was a local inspiration but was one of
those who chose a bride not of Japanese origin.

(Now admittedly the Jews were never prevented from bringing their
wives and daughters to North America the way the Japanese were so this
may be an imperfect analogy)

[Eunometic]

On Mar 13, 10:40 am, Henry <he...@example.com> wrote:
> I just came across this and thought people here would find it
> interesting. A Flemish journalist traced Hitler's living relatives and
> ran DNA tests that indicate African and Jewish roots.
>
> http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/dna-tests-reveal-hitler-s-jewish-...
>
> The article doesn't indicate how many generations back these roots
> would have occurred so Hitler may have been completely unaware of them.
>
> --
> Henry

The story turns out to be nonsense and has been rejected by the
scientific community.

The so called "Flemish Journalist" was being deliberatly misleading.
Not unexpectadly the gullible and sensational print media fell for
it. It seems any lie or speculation can be written about Hitler and a
range of fools will lap it up.

Furthermore if Hitler had Nth African ancestry it would not be a
problem for Nazi racial ideology, as I will explain.

Family Tree DNA, the largest Y-chromosome testing organization for
genealogy and ancestry purposes later announced that the
interpretation of Hitler's ancestry given by certain media outlets,
based on information released by Jean-Paul Mulders and historian Marc
Vermeeren, is highly questionable. With a Y-chromosome database
containing close to 200,000 samples from different populations, Family
Tree DNA's Chief Y-DNA Scientist, Professor Michael Hammer said that
"scientific studies as well as records from our own database make it
clear that one cannot reach the kind of conclusion featured in the
published articles." Based on Family Tree DNA records, no more than 9%
of the populations of Germany and Austria belong to the haplogroup
E1b1b, and among those, the vast majority - about 80% -are not
associated with Jewish ancestry. "This data clearly show that just
because one person belongs to the branch of the Y-chromosome referred
to as haplogroup E1b1b, that does not mean the person is likely to be
of Jewish ancestry," said

Professor Hammer.
Mulders confirmed the misinterpretation of his account with the
following statement to Family Tree DNA: "I never wrote that Hitler was
a Jew, or that he had a Jewish grandfather. I only wrote that Hitler's
haplogroup is E1b1b, being more common among Berbers, Somalian people
and Jews than among overall Germans. This, in order to convey that he
was not exactly what during the Third Reich would have been called
'Aryan.' All the rest are speculations of journalists who didn't even
take the trouble to read my article, although I had it translated into
English especially for this purpose."

One of the Major Nazi idealogues was Alfred Rosenberg. He gave
extremely high praise to the Berbers of North Africa, praised their
creative spirit and contrasted it against the destructive nature of
Jews. He regarded them as White and Aryan. He (correctly) notes
that about 10% of them are natural blondes. (Hard to notice since the
Arab Muslim conquests imposed the dress codes of Islam). (See
Rosenbergs "Myth of the 20th Century)

Hence a touch of Berber ancestry would have been no disgrace. Nor
would a touch of Greek ancestry. Hitler described the Reichstag as "A
Greek Marvel in Germany"

[Bill]

On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 09:23:56 -0400, Eunometic <euno...@yahoo.com.au>
wrote:

He (correctly) notes
>that about 10% of them are natural blondes. (Hard to notice since the
>Arab Muslim conquests imposed the dress codes of Islam).

On the men?

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

"Eunometic" <euno...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message

news:cd124ceb-25d3-47d7...@u5g2000pbs.googlegroups.com...

> On Mar 13, 10:40 am, Henry <he...@example.com> wrote:
>> I just came across this and thought people here would find it
>> interesting. A Flemish journalist traced Hitler's living relatives and
>> ran DNA tests that indicate African and Jewish roots.
>>
>> http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/dna-tests-reveal-hitler-s-jewish-...
>>
>> The article doesn't indicate how many generations back these roots
>> would have occurred so Hitler may have been completely unaware of them.
>

> The story turns out to be nonsense and has been rejected by the
> scientific community.

Not quite, the story was exaggerated by reporting the worst
possible result for those who follow Hitler's beliefs, the
science community rejects the emphasis and implied conclusions
in many of the stories, not the presence of the DNA marker.

The science is pointing out there are no pure humans of any
type, despite the various racist ideologies.

> The so called "Flemish Journalist" was being deliberatly misleading.
> Not unexpectadly the gullible and sensational print media fell for
> it.

Or to put it another way having some fun at the expense of those
who follow the same beliefs as Hitler.

> It seems any lie or speculation can be written about Hitler and a
> range of fools will lap it up.

Eunometic has been a prime example.

> Furthermore if Hitler had Nth African ancestry it would not be a
> problem for Nazi racial ideology, as I will explain.

Actually Eunometic will once again copy without attribution to
start with,

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

Is one of many sites carrying the following text.

End of copied text.

> One of the Major Nazi idealogues was Alfred Rosenberg.

Hitler noted the Rosenberg book should not be taken as official
party policy and claimed not to have read it, Goebbels liked it at
fist then decided the opposite.

> He gave
> extremely high praise to the Berbers of North Africa, praised their
> creative spirit and contrasted it against the destructive nature of
> Jews. He regarded them as White and Aryan.

It seems the book is available as a download, so it will be interesting
to see what exactly the book says if anyone has the time to wade
through the hatred. It seems like the sort of book Eunometic would
read. Next it looks like the Rosenberg idea is if a population reports
some blondes they must be Aryan to some degree.

> He (correctly) notes
> that about 10% of them are natural blondes. (Hard to notice since the
> Arab Muslim conquests imposed the dress codes of Islam). (See
> Rosenbergs "Myth of the 20th Century)

The men cover their hair? The women in Tunisia all cover their hair?

Blondes in North Africa were around in Egyptian times. Meantime
the 10% blonde sort of comes from Rosenberg, who notes one area
has 10% blondes another more, the rather more accurate descriptions
are that some tribes of Berbers have a proportion of blonde haired
people. Eunometic just decides Rosenberg is right at 10%.

The related proportion of red haired people seems to be ignored.
As is the strong possibility the genes were introduced via the slave
trade in the middle ages.

Suddenly Sean Connery playing a Barbary Pirate almost makes
sense, assuming a Scottish English teacher.

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

Think Sahara as a first approximation for locality. Berber (replacing
Barbary) is a language and a culture, it possible to be Berber in
culture but not language and vice versa.

> Hence a touch of Berber ancestry would have been no disgrace.

Berbers have at times included people of the Jewish faith, as well
as Christians and pagans and are now majority Muslim.

> Nor
> would a touch of Greek ancestry. Hitler described the Reichstag as "A
> Greek Marvel in Germany"

Note by the way the groups in the quote, "Berbers, Somalian people
and Jews ". Eunometic announces one is acceptable, decides being
of Greek ancestry is acceptable to the Nazis, despite their actions
in WWII, and ignores Somali and Jewish as options.

It seems the media articles are having an effect with attempts to
find ways to claim Hitler fitted Nazi race ideology, rather than
race ideology is a joke and in any case Hitler defined Nazi
ideology. Somehow it seems likely Hitler would have defined
things so he was Aryan.

[Eunometic]

On Mar 17, 12:44 pm, mtfes...@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:
> Alan Meyer <amey...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On 03/12/2013 10:49 PM, Bill wrote:
> > > On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 19:40:43 -0400, Henry <he...@example.com> wrote:
>
> (Much deleted)
>
> > Obviously, one reason for the destruction of Hitler's family records had
> > to be to conceal any questionable origins from his own Nazi supporters.
> > One also has to wonder however if Hitler himself needed to shield
> > himself from any "racial" questions about his past. I should think that
> > it would have devastated him to learn that he was a "mischling", even if
> > only of the "second degree".
>
> True, but it doesn't explain why he treated the former doctor with such
> "restraint". Seems it would be easier to simply have him eliminated if
> there were any "taint" in Hitler's blood that the doctor might have known
> of.
>
> Mike

The doctor had treated Hitlers mother. At one point the Hitler family
was under severe financial stress and the Doctor did not invoice for
his services. Hitler was quite close and dedicated to his mother.
Hitler was not known for being an ingrate and remembered this mercy.
He could in no way have been unkind to a man who had been kind to his
beloved mother who most likely expressed gratitude to the Doctor. It
would spoil a memmory. A nationalist and an ex military man is
likely to have a strong sense of 'loyalty'. The one way you would
get yourself killed by Hitler is by interfering with or blocking the
unity of the German people. Bavarian seperatists and Austrian
Dictators were all liquidated. Just about anything else he could
forgive and tollerate.

As I have pointed out previously the Nuremberg laws could be over
ruled completely and often were. A Jews Having WW1 service was one
such reason particulary if a medal was involved such as the Iron Cross
classes.

Apparently some people can't understand that Hitler had polite
Austrian manners and charm, could be gratefull and forgiving, loved
his pets, was gutted when he had his first dog stollen, liked women
(not men). Like many pop idols and Queen Elizabeth he pretended to
single and available to enhance his charisma with the opposit sex and
to seem like he was dedicated to the nation. He was very aware of his
appearence and always appeared in public in his old uniform in order
to appear humble, constant and reliable.

Everything is couched in terms of the "Incompehensible, ultimate evil"
style of nonsense so beloved of the "history channel". It doesn't
help that one of Hitlers "eminant" biographers Ian Kershaw is such a
fruit loop supporting such a nonsensical 'perspectiver'

Understanding Hitler is simple, he wanted to ensure that Germans would
survive the outrages of the treaty of Versailes and that the deaths of
his collegues was not in vain. At some point he decided that Jews
produced the majority of those hostile and corrosive to the existance
of the German people. He exposes his awakening to this in Mein
Kampf. Once that decision had been accepted everything else is
logical from then on.

[ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk]

In article
<6d01e426-2296-4051...@vh9g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,

euno...@yahoo.com.au (Eunometic) wrote:

> Understanding Hitler is simple, he wanted to ensure that Germans would
> survive the outrages of the treaty of Versailes

Oddly enough Hitler came to power after Germany had survived the
outrages of Versailles for over 15 years and looked likely to survive
for the foreseeable future. The hyper-inflation was the result of
decisions of the Weimar government and German armed forces were getting
round the armament limitations. Things like the Kazan tank school,
Lufthansa, government subsided gliding clubs and reducing the period of
army conscription and extending reserve service were all intended to
provide a reservoir of trained men for future expansion.

As for what Hitler intended try reading his book. He wanted to make
Germany dominant in Europe get Lebensraum in the East and establish a
Greater Germany. All thing the military clauses of Versailles were
intended to prevent.

Ken Young

[mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net]

Eunometic <euno...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

> > True, but it doesn't explain why he treated the former doctor with such
> > "restraint". Seems it would be easier to simply have him eliminated if
> > there were any "taint" in Hitler's blood that the doctor might have known
> > of.

> likely to have a strong sense of 'loyalty'. The one way you would
> get yourself killed by Hitler is by interfering with or blocking the
> unity of the German people. Bavarian seperatists and Austrian
> Dictators were all liquidated. Just about anything else he could
> forgive and tollerate.

Well, there was also being Jewish, Rom, homosexual...

> Apparently some people can't understand that Hitler had polite
> Austrian manners and charm, could be gratefull and forgiving, loved
> his pets, was gutted when he had his first dog stollen, liked women
> (not men). Like many pop idols and Queen Elizabeth he pretended to
> single and available to enhance his charisma with the opposit sex and
> to seem like he was dedicated to the nation. He was very aware of his
> appearence and always appeared in public in his old uniform in order
> to appear humble, constant and reliable.

All very true.

> Everything is couched in terms of the "Incompehensible, ultimate evil"
> style of nonsense so beloved of the "history channel". It doesn't
> help that one of Hitlers "eminant" biographers Ian Kershaw is such a
> fruit loop supporting such a nonsensical 'perspectiver'

Yes, people don't understand that until it shows its true nature, evil
doesn't come packaged like a demon or zombie in a movie. It doesn't say,
"Good evening, I'm Evil, and I'll be your leader today." Instead, it has
some canniness, and charm, the ability to persuade people to cross lines
they wouldn't ordinarily cross. People like that most often have some social
graces and insights that allow them to reach the point where their more
beastial tendencies can be unleashed. And, with said track record of
charm, they can convince at least some of their followers that the
monstrous acts are really for the good of the people. People without
the charm but the same nastiness are limited to being psychopaths.

> Understanding Hitler is simple, he wanted to ensure that Germans would
> survive the outrages of the treaty of Versailes and that the deaths of
> his collegues was not in vain. At some point he decided that Jews
> produced the majority of those hostile and corrosive to the existance
> of the German people. He exposes his awakening to this in Mein
> Kampf.

Yes, he was delusional.

> Once that decision had been accepted everything else is
> logical from then on.

Sorry, no, it isn't; one doesn't build an empire by declaring war on every
major power within reach, at the same time. One doesn't "preserve" one's
people by fighting to the absolute, bitter end.

And please explain how the Rom or homosexuals were "jewish".

Mike

[Mario]

Bill, 17:32, martedￜ 2 aprile 2013:

Sicily too has a percentage of blonde people.

They say it was a result of the Norman conquest.


I think that blonde people in Muslim locations could derive from
Slavic slaves sold there.

There are also many (African) Black looking Arabs, from slave
ancestors.


I don't understand why a light haired person should be
considered superior in anything to dark haired persons.


--
H

[Alan Meyer]

On 04/05/2013 09:20 AM, Eunometic wrote:

...
> Understanding Hitler is simple,

I think Hitler had a rather complex personality, not a simple one.

> he wanted to ensure that Germans would
> survive the outrages of the treaty of Versailes

"Survive"? That's not the best choice of words. They were already
surviving and starting a war in which millions of Germans would die is
hardly a way to ensure Germans' survival.

> and that the deaths of
> his collegues was not in vain.

How was that? I supposed we might say that, if the purpose of World War
I was to conquer territory for Germany, then Hitler's colleagues did
indeed die in vain, since territory was lost, not gained. Starting a
new war to conquer territory could make their sacrifice good - if they
really did want to die for the purpose of conquering territory for Germany.

Personally, I wouldn't want to fight, much less die, to conquer
territory for or from anybody. That seems like throwing away one's life
to me. It also seems that Hitler threw away the lives of millions of
Germans for nothing good whatsoever.

> At some point he decided that Jews
> produced the majority of those hostile and corrosive to the existance
> of the German people. He exposes his awakening to this in Mein
> Kampf.

"Awakening" is another odd word here. We sometimes talk about people
awakening to facts. But can one awaken to a fantasy?

It is an obvious fantasy to think that Jews, as a group, were hostile
and corrosive to the existence of the Germany people. Hostile how?
Corrosive how?

Hitler's "solution" to this "problem" illustrates as well as anything
how deeply psychotic and delusional was his "awakening". He killed
Polish, French, Dutch, Italian, Russian and Bulgarian Jews who were not
in Germany. He killed Jewish grandmothers. He killed babies born to
Jews. He killed people who grew up as Christians and had no idea that
they had Jewish ancestors. He killed people born to Jewish parents who
did not believe in Judaism and rejected Judaism. He killed Jewish men
who fought for Germany in World War I and even won medals in WWI. He
killed people who did far more for Germany than many non-Jewish Germans
while protecting other Germans who were clearly criminals - as in the SA
and SS.

And of course he also killed Rom (gypsies), political opponents, and
harmless cripples and mental "defectives".

Do you get the picture here Eunometic? We aren't talking about a simple
man who awakened to certain facts. We're talking about a homicidal maniac.

> Once that decision had been accepted everything else is
> logical from then on.

If that's "logical" I think that you have a notion of "logic" akin to
your notion of "simple" and "awakening".

Alan

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

"Eunometic" <euno...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message

news:6d01e426-2296-4051...@vh9g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

> On Mar 17, 12:44 pm, mtfes...@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:
>> Alan Meyer <amey...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > On 03/12/2013 10:49 PM, Bill wrote:
>> > > On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 19:40:43 -0400, Henry <he...@example.com> wrote:
>>
>> (Much deleted)
>>
>> > Obviously, one reason for the destruction of Hitler's family records
>> > had
>> > to be to conceal any questionable origins from his own Nazi supporters.
>> > One also has to wonder however if Hitler himself needed to shield
>> > himself from any "racial" questions about his past. I should think
>> > that
>> > it would have devastated him to learn that he was a "mischling", even
>> > if
>> > only of the "second degree".
>>
>> True, but it doesn't explain why he treated the former doctor with such
>> "restraint". Seems it would be easier to simply have him eliminated if
>> there were any "taint" in Hitler's blood that the doctor might have known
>> of.
>>
>> Mike
>
> The doctor had treated Hitlers mother. At one point the Hitler family
> was under severe financial stress and the Doctor did not invoice for
> his services. Hitler was quite close and dedicated to his mother.

So essentially the doctor was allowed to go and managed to stay out
of Nazi hands, what would have happened had he been captured is
unclear.

> Hitler was not known for being an ingrate and remembered this mercy.

Actually Hitler was an ingrate, you only have to look about how much
was all about him in his eyes. Then add the example of his behaviour
in 1945, ordering the total destruction of Germany.

> He could in no way have been unkind to a man who had been kind to his
> beloved mother who most likely expressed gratitude to the Doctor. It
> would spoil a memmory.

Before the Nazis started their killing program, while they were in their
exclusion period, a doctor was told to leave or else. Real gratitude.

> A nationalist and an ex military man is
> likely to have a strong sense of 'loyalty'.

This sweeping generalisation is rather wrong, as has been shown
by the many disloyal nationalists and ex military personnel, in
particular those who are sure they need to radically alter the
direction of the country.

> The one way you would
> get yourself killed by Hitler is by interfering with or blocking the
> unity of the German people.

Apparently a homosexual advocating unity was safe. There were lots
of reasons people why were killed by the Nazis, and blocking the
claimed unity of German speakers was way down the list, below the
political opponents.

Try for example living on land Hitler decided deserved to be taken
by the master race.

> Bavarian seperatists and Austrian
> Dictators were all liquidated. Just about anything else he could
> forgive and tollerate.

You sort of wonder how the Nazis could have killed so many people
with the claimed paragon of virtue running the place. There were a
long list of reasons why the Nazis murdered.

> As I have pointed out previously the Nuremberg laws could be over
> ruled completely and often were.

Actually no, what Eunometic did was find a couple of people in the
Nazi inner circle who were not Jewish by any standards except those
of the Nazis who were left alone. This is then claimed to be "often".

Any thought that not passing the laws in the first place was by far
the better option?

> A Jews Having WW1 service was one
> such reason particulary if a medal was involved such as the Iron Cross
> classes.

This, when it was erratically applied during the period of expulsions was
again a minority, and it stopped.

> Apparently some people can't understand that Hitler had polite
> Austrian manners and charm, could be gratefull and forgiving, loved
> his pets, was gutted when he had his first dog stollen, liked women
> (not men).

Apparently some people prefer a fictional account of Hitler, including
failure to notice the reports of him having bad manners. When in power
Hitler tended to polite as a political tool.

> Like many pop idols and Queen Elizabeth he pretended to
> single and available to enhance his charisma with the opposit sex and
> to seem like he was dedicated to the nation.

1) Elizabeth the first never married.
2) Elizabeth the second was married while still a princess.
3) Hitler was unmarried until just before he died.

Strangely enough married leaders can still be charismatic.

> He was very aware of his
> appearence and always appeared in public in his old uniform in order
> to appear humble, constant and reliable.

Of course the appearance was meant as a deception.

> Everything is couched in terms of the "Incompehensible, ultimate evil"
> style of nonsense so beloved of the "history channel".

No, lots of people have gone through the Hitler personality and noted
the banality of evil.

> It doesn't
> help that one of Hitlers "eminant" biographers Ian Kershaw is such a
> fruit loop supporting such a nonsensical 'perspectiver'

Translation Kershaw's conclusions are not liked.

> Understanding Hitler is simple, he wanted to ensure that Germans would
> survive the outrages of the treaty of Versailes and that the deaths of
> his collegues was not in vain.

Ah yes, of course Versailles is declared an outrage, then of course
Germany was surviving quite well after the hyperinflation until the
depression. As for collegues died in vain, they largely did.

And of course by the time Hitler came to power the Versailles
treaty was being relaxed.

> At some point he decided that Jews
> produced the majority of those hostile and corrosive to the existance
> of the German people.

Or alternatively fixed on an identifiable group to blame for all the bad
things, a fairly normal tactic.

> He exposes his awakening to this in Mein
> Kampf. Once that decision had been accepted everything else is
> logical from then on.

I like the term awakening instead of becoming delusional, and also
the idea the killing program and invading places full of non German
speakers and having large Jewish populations is logical.

[Alan Meyer]

On 03/27/2013 11:05 AM, Mario wrote:
...

> I've read that there were a few Black Germans, a negligible
> number.

That is the language we use today. In those days, in Germany, the
notion of "German" would have totally excluded black skin. "German" was
first of all a "racial" concept (in the pseudo-scientific Nazi sense of
race.) People living in the Crimea who were descendants of German
emigrants from 130 years before were "German" even if they didn't speak
German and did not hold German citizenship. Jews, Rom, blacks, and
others who lived in Germany, spoke German and held German citizenship
were not German by Nazi criteria.

Alan

[The Horny Goat]

On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 17:59:38 -0400, Alan Meyer <ame...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Not to mention that there were all kinds of people that were German
citizens but never really considered themselves German - Alsatians
born after 1871 for instance. (My great-grandmother was one of these
born in the late 1870s and emigrated to America in the late 1890s - my
grandfather records she wept tears of joy on 11/11/1918 because she
knew that Alsace would be returning to France - she always considered
herself French though she never legally was - and despite the fact
that she had a surname that most would consider German in origin)

No doubt there were quite a number ex-Danes in Schleswig-Holstein in
the same position.

[Rich Rostrom]

Alan Meyer <ame...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On 03/27/2013 11:05 AM, Mario wrote:
> ...
> > I've read that there were a few Black Germans, a negligible
> > number.
>
> That is the language we use today. In those days, in Germany, the
> notion of "German" would have totally excluded black skin.

Even the most fanatically purist Nazi would
recognize these people as _half_-German. The
very idea of the "mischling" implies that person
has elements of both heritages.

They would even acknowledge that these people had
German _nationality_. Of course they would also
insist that the existence of such "half-breeds"
was offensive and that they should be "removed".

> "German" was
> first of all a "racial" concept (in the pseudo-scientific Nazi sense of
> race.) People living in the Crimea who were descendants of German
> emigrants from 130 years before were "German" even if they didn't speak
> German and did not hold German citizenship.

Nationality is a fairly straightforward condition.
Ethnicity is much more slippery, but it is real.
The _volksdeutsch_ of eastern Europe were a real
condition.

And people claim (and recognize) ethnicity in the
descendants of migrants, even when substantially
assimilated. Many Americans say they are "Italian"
or "Polish" or "Irish", even though they were born
in the U.S. and speak not a word of any language
but English. This is separate from their identity
as Americans.

> Jews, Rom, blacks, and others who lived in Germany,
> spoke German and held German citizenship were not
> German by Nazi criteria.

I'd bet, though, that the Rom didn't think of
themselves as "German". Except perhaps in the sense
that Roma from Germany differentiated from Roma from
Hungary or Romania.

I'd also guess that in that era, a _lot_ of the
traditionalist Orthodox Jews resident in Poland didn't
consider themselves "Poles". It would be interesting
to learn if the Jews in Poland participated in the
Polish resistance to Russian rule in the 1800s. I
suspect few. However, in the Polish republic of
1918-1939, Jews were citizens and served in the Polish
army. Again it would be interesting to find out how
many Jews served in the Polish exile forces.

There were many other such disjunctions between
nationality and ethnicity in Europe, of varying
effect. For instance, a significant fraction of the
population of Finland was ethnic Swedish. But I'm sure
they were just as willing to fight the Soviets in 1939
as any other Finnish citizens.

There were also significant emigr� communities: Greeks
and Armenians, for instance. Peter Calvocoressi was
one of the top analysts of Enigma decrypts at
Bletchley Park. According to his memoir _Top Secret
Ultra_, he was born in the Greek community established
by refugees from the Chios massacres of 1830 - not just
Greek, but consciously Chiot. They lived in Britain,
but also in British India - Calvocoressi, his mother,
and his maternal grandmother were all born there.
Calvocoressi wrote that he was still "over half Greek"
when he entered Oxford.

[Roman W]

On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 14:48:06 -0400, Rich Rostrom
<rrostrom.2...@rcn.com> wrote:
> I'd also guess that in that era, a _lot_ of the
> traditionalist Orthodox Jews resident in Poland didn't
> consider themselves "Poles". It would be interesting
> to learn if the Jews in Poland participated in the
> Polish resistance to Russian rule in the 1800s.

Look up "Berek Joselewicz". He commanded a whole Jewish formation.
Later the Jews were involved much less. Mickiewicz had a big idea of
mobilising the Jewish population's involvement in the Polish struggle
against the Russian rule. Polish nobility's antisemitism probably
wouldn't make it too easy.

I
> suspect few. However, in the Polish republic of
> 1918-1939, Jews were citizens and served in the Polish
> army. Again it would be interesting to find out how
> many Jews served in the Polish exile forces.

They weren't welcomed with open hands there, AFAIK.

RW

[Alan Meyer]

On 04/13/2013 02:48 PM, Rich Rostrom wrote:
...

> Nationality is a fairly straightforward condition.
> Ethnicity is much more slippery, but it is real.
> The _volksdeutsch_ of eastern Europe were a real
> condition.
>
> And people claim (and recognize) ethnicity in the
> descendants of migrants, even when substantially
> assimilated. Many Americans say they are "Italian"
> or "Polish" or "Irish", even though they were born
> in the U.S. and speak not a word of any language
> but English. This is separate from their identity
> as Americans.

...

Yes, I agree with these and the other points in your posting.

Ethnicity is complicated, even in the United States, the famed "melting
pot". I had an American friend of Irish Catholic heritage who married
an American girl of Italian Catholic heritage and found that some
relatives on each side regarded this as a "mixed marriage".

Central and Eastern Europe had the problem in spades and, as the breakup
of Yugoslavia reminds us, the problem still exists.

We think of Europe as the birthplace of nationalism, and I think it was,
coming first perhaps to France. But other parts of Europe were not
broken into nation states until after the first World War. In the
empires of Central and Eastern Europe, ethnicity was very important.

In the Jewish communities there were people on both sides of the
national / ethnic divide. In France perhaps half of the Jewish
community embraced the Napoleonic reforms, gave up their peculiarly
Jewish attire and Jewish institutions, and came to see themselves first
and foremost as Frenchmen. Another part, especially in Alsace, resisted
this Frenchification.

The Napoleonic influence was also strong in Germany and many Jews came
to consider themselves as Germans first. The whole "Reform" Jewish
movement was an attempt by German Jews to convert Judaism from an ethnic
identity to a purely religious one. The German reform Jews, a large
contingent of the German Jewish population, asserted that they could be
German Jews in _precisely_ the same way that others were German
Lutherans or German Catholics. Many of these people thought that they
had made great progress in that direction and that history was on their
side. Many of them could not believe that Hitler would carry the German
people with him in his extreme antisemitism and could not believe that
Hitler would still be in office for all of the years that he was.

"Westernizing" or "Europeanizing" also moved east into the Russian
Empire. It happened later than in France but by the mid 19th century,
many Jews were speaking Polish, Ukrainian or Russian at home, were
participating in politics (insofar as that was possible in Russia)
alongside non-Jewish people, and were educating their children as best
they could with European rather than Jewish educations - learning
languages, science, philosophy, literature, medicine, engineering, and
so on rather than studying Hebrew, the Bible, and the Talmud. Some
rejected religion altogether and condemned all forms of ethnic
identification.

Unfortunately, this change in self-perceived Jewish identity was not in
sync with parallel changes occurring in the gentile communities.
Movements among Germans, Poles, Ukrainians, Czechs, Serbians,
Hungarians, and some others were going in the opposite direction. While
some Jews were abandoning their ethnicity, many other Europeans were
emphasizing theirs. They were not hospitable to the idea of people
belonging to other ethnic groups joining theirs.

What a tragedy resulted. We can only hope that the lessons of this
tragedy are not forgotten.

Alan

[Alan Meyer]

On 04/02/2013 09:23 AM, Eunometic wrote:

> ... Based on Family Tree DNA records, no more than 9%

> of the populations of Germany and Austria belong to the haplogroup
> E1b1b, and among those, the vast majority - about 80% -are not
> associated with Jewish ancestry. "This data clearly show that just
> because one person belongs to the branch of the Y-chromosome referred
> to as haplogroup E1b1b, that does not mean the person is likely to be
> of Jewish ancestry," said

To even make a statement like this implies a serious misunderstanding of
genetics.

What is "Jewish ancestry"? What does it have to do with genetics?

If a person whose biological parents were not Jewish is raised as a Jew,
or if he converts to Judaism from some other religion or from no
religion, and then has a child whom he raises as a Jew, does that child
have "Jewish ancestry"? Do the children of the child have Jewish ancestry?

"Jewish" is not a genetic concept any more than "Catholic", "Muslim",
"Afghan", or "French" is a genetic concept.

If we compare DNA from different populations we will find that some
people with black skin have more alleles in common with some people with
white skin, than some people with white skin have with other people with
white skin, or that some people with black skin have with other people
with black skin. The same is true if we compare German Jews and German
non-Jews.

My father was the biological offspring of two Jewish parents of German
Jewish descent. He had blond hair and blue eyes, as did his sister and
(I think) his father. I know his father had blue eyes but his hair was
grey when I knew him. If blond hair and blue eyes are "Germanic" and
are key features of being "Aryan" then my father was more German and
more "Aryan" than Adolf Hitler. I have no doubt that if he and Hitler
stood side by side in a lineup, many more Nazis would have picked my
father as the "German" and Hitler as the "Jew" than vice versa.

Eunometic, the whole concept that you have accepted is a lie. It uses
the language of genetics but it has nothing in common with genetic
science. Worse, it uses the pseudo-science of Aryan genetics to justify
conclusions about the worth of people that have nothing whatever to do
with genetic differences. There are fools and criminals of every
genetic heritage, and there are fine people of every genetic heritage.
To promote the superiority of some people over others based on "racial"
heritage is nothing but ignorance and bigotry.

You are absolutely right when you say that whether Hitler had African or
Jewish ancestry makes no difference. But it's not because it might not
really have been African or Jewish. It's not because the genetics are
unclear. It's because the genetics are irrelevant. If both of Hitler's
parents had been Jews, Hitler would still have been Hitler. We have to
evaluate Hitler, not on the basis of this or that allele of a gene, but
on what he did as a human being. And what he did was criminal on the
largest imaginable scale.

Haven't you learned _anything_ from the sordid history of Nazism?

Alan

[Rich Rostrom]

Alan Meyer <ame...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> "Jewish" is not a genetic concept any more than "Catholic", "Muslim",
> "Afghan", or "French" is a genetic concept.

Tell that to the "rebuild the Temple" activists who
are using DNA tests to find descendants of the ancient
_Kohanim_ (who by law were the only men who could
serve as priests of the Temple).

"Jewishness" has several dimensions, and one of them
is descent from Jewish ancestors, who in turn were
descended from the original Israelites.

Not all Jews have this, but recent DNA studies have
revealed genetic markers that are common in nearly all
Jewish communities, including Sephardim, Mizrahim, and
Ashkenazim. Even the Beta Israel of Ethiopia have
traces of Israelite genes.

Obviously, Jewishness is not defined exclusively by
ancestry. But ancestry is a common component of Jewish
identity.

[Michael Emrys]

On 4/15/13 11:37 AM, Rich Rostrom wrote:
> Even the Beta Israel of Ethiopia have traces of Israelite genes.

I realize this is drifting off topic, but can you tell me how they can
be sure what constitutes "Israelite genes"? It isn't like they had
testing kits 3,000 years ago.

Michael

[Mario]

Michael Emrys, 22:03, luned� 15 aprile 2013:

I suppose they found markers that are present or frequent in Jew
populations A, B, C, and absent or rare in non-Jew populations
X, Y, Z.


--
H

[mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net]

Rich Rostrom <rrostrom.2...@rcn.com> wrote:
> Alan Meyer <ame...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > "Jewish" is not a genetic concept any more than "Catholic", "Muslim",
> > "Afghan", or "French" is a genetic concept.

> Tell that to the "rebuild the Temple" activists who
> are using DNA tests to find descendants of the ancient
> _Kohanim_ (who by law were the only men who could
> serve as priests of the Temple).

> "Jewishness" has several dimensions, and one of them
> is descent from Jewish ancestors, who in turn were
> descended from the original Israelites.

That would include both Muslims and Christians, though.

And "religous scientists" are often not scientists.

Mike

[Michael Emrys]

On 4/15/13 1:45 PM, Mario wrote:
> Michael Emrys, 22:03, lunedě 15 aprile 2013:

But all that means is that present Jewish populations, or some of them
at any rate, share a common set of ancestors. That, to my mind, does not
prove that those ancestors were necessarily the historical Israelites.
Now, if those genes could be recovered from bones that have been
positively identified as Israelite remains, they would have a much
stronger case.

Michael

[Alan Meyer]

On 04/15/2013 02:37 PM, Rich Rostrom wrote:
> Alan Meyer <ame...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> "Jewish" is not a genetic concept any more than "Catholic", "Muslim",
>> "Afghan", or "French" is a genetic concept.
>
> Tell that to the "rebuild the Temple" activists who
> are using DNA tests to find descendants of the ancient
> _Kohanim_ (who by law were the only men who could
> serve as priests of the Temple).
>
> "Jewishness" has several dimensions, and one of them
> is descent from Jewish ancestors, who in turn were
> descended from the original Israelites.
>
> Not all Jews have this, but recent DNA studies have
> revealed genetic markers that are common in nearly all
> Jewish communities, including Sephardim, Mizrahim, and
> Ashkenazim. Even the Beta Israel of Ethiopia have
> traces of Israelite genes.
>
> Obviously, Jewishness is not defined exclusively by
> ancestry. But ancestry is a common component of Jewish
> identity.

I suspect that the "rebuild the Temple" activists are kidding
themselves. Who are they testing? Is it only people who claim to be
Jews? What would they do if a Chinese guy or a German or a Catholic nun
from Spain got tested and had the same alleles - whatever those are?
And if a rabbi who can document 10 generations of Kohanim rabbis in his
ancestry turns out not to have the allele, what then? What if his
father and mother each have the gene but he doesn't?

When two chromosomes have the same genes a difference in one of the
nucleotide pairs making up the string of nucleotide pairs that
constitute a gene, is called having two different "alleles" of the gene.
Oftentimes the two different alleles are functionally identical, i.e.,
the two different "codons" containing the differing nucleotides
translate to the exact same amino acid during gene expression leading to
absolutely identical protein "phenotypes" from the two different
"genotypes". The distinction does not produce a difference. I other
cases, it does produce a difference, but almost certainly not the
difference that the racialists have in mind.

With the exception of chromosome 23 that determines sex, all humans (and
with some changes, all plants and animals) have two copies of each gene,
one inherited from the mother and one from the father. In a great many
of us, we are "heterozygous" for any given gene, meaning that the allele
on one chromosome is slightly different from the allele on the other.

If you have one copy of a particular allele, inherited perhaps from your
mother, and your wife does not have any copies of it, then each of your
children has a one in two chance of inheriting one copy of that allele.
If you are a Kohanim and your wife is not, and if you have two
children, only one of whom has the allele in question, is that the only
one who is a Kohanim? If that child is a girl, can she become an
orthodox rabbi and the boy cannot?

You and your wife can each be heterozygous for a particular allele. In
that case, each of your children has a three in four chance of getting
at least one copy of the allele and a one in four chance of not getting
any copy of it. If you have a child that doesn't have the allele, is it
not your child? You and your wife are both Kohanim but your child is
not? Hmmmm.

Now let's get down to brass tacks and ask the question, what does this
gene do that is of such interest in determining our character and our
future and our right to live in Germany or marry a Christian or live in
Jerusalem or become a rabbi.

Suppose it turns out that the gene produces a protein that makes a girl,
but not a boy, 25% more likely to develop tonsillitis? What if if
possession of two copies of the gene make a person red-green color
blind? What if the allele affects whether you have attached earlobes or
earlobes that are unattached at the bottom? What if it determines
whether you have a "widow's peak" on your forehead, or get male pattern
baldness, or have a wider than usual collarbone, or have ridges in your
fingernails, or are susceptible to attack by some particular species of
bacterium, or are more likely to develop lung cancer or Alzheimer's
Disease? Don't laugh (or maybe do laugh, this would, after all, be
uproarious if people didn't take it so seriously), this is very much the
kind of visible effect that gene variations often have.

What in the world does any of that have to do with being a Kohanim, or a
Jew, or a German, or an Aryan, or any fool thing you can think of?

I agree with you that populations that have interbred for many years are
likely to have more genetic material in common with each other than with
other populations that have separately interbred for many years. That
is easily established and accords with our understanding of genetic
science - although the interbreeding populations are not always what the
racists imagine them to be. Even if a particular allele is found more
in Ethiopian Jews and German Jews than in Ethiopian Coptics and German
Lutherans, that doesn't mean that the total genome of Ethiopian Jews is
more similar to that of German Jews than of German Jews to German
Lutherans or Ethiopian Jews to Ethiopian Coptics. The reverse is almost
certainly the case.

What doesn't accord with genetic science is imagining that this has
anything to do with one's ability to be a rabbi, or an SS officer, or to
practice the Jewish religion, or some other religion, or no religion.

We can prove that people born on the same day all around the world were
born with the same conformation of the solar system. If you and I were
born on the same day, the relationship between Mars and Jupiter was
close to the same on that day for each of us. We can also prove that
someone born 30 days later was born during a different spatial
relationship between Mars and Jupiter. Even today there are ignorant
people who believe that this is significant and even determinative in
their lives. They read the astrology columns and believe what the
charlatans tell them.

Nazi racial theorists, and Jewish "rebuild the temple" activists, are
both prey to the same kind of superstition as the believers in
astrology. They seize on an actual physical fact about the world that
can be verified by science, and extrapolate from that fact to something
that has zero relationship to the facts they are citing.

I can go on and on about this, explaining the molecular biology of
genetics to any level you like (it's a hobby of mine), or explaining why
the implications drawn from genetics by the Nazis and the "rebuild the
temple" activist Jews are both unscientific and absurd. But I'm hoping
that I've conveyed enough of the argument to make my case.

Alan

[Chris Morton]

On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 18:41:14 -0400, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>You forget probably the most distinguished Nazi soldier.
>
>Rohm

Ah yes, the equivalent of Jerry Sandusky with the Silver Star...

[Chris Morton]

On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 10:35:21 -0400, mtfe...@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:

>Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 21:44:49 -0400, mtfe...@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:
>
>> >wounded comrade (his commander, by some accounts) who was lying in
>> >no-man's land, under French fire. It seems pretty clear that, whatever
>> >other faults he had, he served bravely in the war.
>
>> I don't think anyone ever really doubted the physical courage of the
>> senior Nazis.
>
>Well, I'd have my doubts about Himmler in that regard.

Quite true.

I believe that "Berlin 1945" has some rather uncomplementary things to
say about his lone endeavor as a "field" commander in 1945.
Supposedly, after being on the receiving end of some Soviet shelling,
he got "sick" and was relieved for "illness".

That seems to fit Himmler's "character" to a tee.

I've also heard that one of the catalysts for the switch to industrial
murder instead of ad hoc shooting was Himmler's presence at a mass
shooting where he got some brain matter on his lapel, causing him to
hurl. Not too long after that, more "scientific" methods of mass
murder began to be investigated.

[Chris Morton]

On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 17:42:43 -0400, Stephen Graham
<gra...@speakeasy.net> wrote:

>It's not as if this really means anything. We know that hypocrisy is a
>routine feature of anyone's ideology.

And most especially Nazi ideology.