Return PolishForums LIVE
  PolishForums Archive :
Archives - 2005-2009 / History  % width 172

Responsibility for Murder of Catholic Poles during WWII ?


MareGaea 29 | 2,752  
26 Oct 2009 /  #121
bimbo

I am Dutch and Jewish and historian, I know my stuff. Pls don't interfere with nonsense that the anti-semitism in the West was worse than in the East. It has been well established that this is not the case.

>^..^<

M-G (a guy named bimbo?)
1jola 14 | 1,879  
27 Oct 2009 /  #122
I am Dutch and Jewish and historian, I know my stuff.

LOL.

Pls don't interfere with nonsense that the anti-semitism in the West was worse than in the East. It has been well established that this is not the case.

Is that why Poland was called Judeum Paradisum?

Here is a question for you. Why do you think islamophobia is so much less visible in Poland than in the Neatherlands? We have a muslim population, yet no one hates them.
MareGaea 29 | 2,752  
27 Oct 2009 /  #123
Here is a question for you. Why do you think islamophobia is so much less visible in Poland than in the Neatherlands? We have a muslim population, yet no one hates them.

Your muslim population is relatively smaller than we have in NL or you have in DE. This is logic, as we have been welcoming them for 4 or 5 decades already. It's a gross overstatement that everybody hates the muslims in NL, it's just a small group that has nothing better to do, therefore wants -again- put the blame for their own failure on a different group. That's all there is.

Is that why Poland was called Judeum Paradisum?

And this has exactly what to do with the fact that anti-semitism is much deeper rooted in the East than in the West? There were large Jewish minorities in the several Western European countries. Anti semitism is a state of mind - one could see the presence of a lot of Jews, muslims or whatever as an opportunity to enrich one own's culture you know.

And besides, just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean that I don't have knowledge of the matter. But that's a gross common median among all anti-semites: everybody who doesn't agree to them has no knowledge about the truth. Don't make me laugh.

>^..^<

M-G (quod est permaneo vicis ego sum iens dissero est)
1jola 14 | 1,879  
27 Oct 2009 /  #124
Your muslim population is relatively smaller than we have in NL or you have in DE. This is logic, as we have been welcoming them for 4 or 5 decades already.

In the same way, if you had as large of population of Jews in Neatherlands, Judeophobia would have been higher.

the fact that anti-semitism is much deeper rooted in the East than in the West?

It was just proportionate to the Jewish population within these areas. Remember, Jews of western Europe found refuge and tolerance for centuries in Eastern Europe. It was their attitude and behavior that caused judeophobia as I explained in earlier posts.

And besides, just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean that I don't have knowledge of the matter. But that's a gross common median among all anti-semites: everybody who doesn't agree to them has no knowledge about the truth. Don't make me laugh.

I have a feeling you are calling me an anti-Semite. Aren't you taking your new-found role as a Jew a little too seriously?

I am Dutch and Jewish and historian, I know my stuff.

I'm still laughing at this one. Here, read this book so you can know your stuff better.

knud.eriksen.adr.dk/Controversybook/

And this one:

biblebelievers.org.au/jewhis1.htm

It starts like this:

THIS BOOK, although written in English and addressed to people living outside the State of Israel, is, in a way, a continuation of my political activities as an Israeli Jew. Those activities began in 1965-6 with a protest which caused a considerable scandal at the time: I had personally witnessed an ultra-religious Jew refuse to allow his phone to be used on the Sabbath in order to call an ambulance for a non-Jew who happened to have collapsed in his Jerusalem neighbourhood.

My previous posts will make more sense to you.
MareGaea 29 | 2,752  
27 Oct 2009 /  #125
Aren't you taking your new-found role as a Jew a little too seriously?

If you're intending to persuade me to use some foul language like your friend Sokrates usually does, then you're wrong. I will just reverse the question back to you: are you taking your role as a racist not a little too serious? I've been a Dutch Jew all my life, only after coming here, this suddenly seemed an issue because many racists and anti-semites in here that, instead of burying their head in shame about being such pathetic losers, actually are proud of being so and are not hindred with any scrupules to proclaim their stuff. I have spent 18 years of my life in schools and Universities, I don't feel the need to defend myself against a nobody who just claims to know everything about the subject he hates. That's all I am going to say about it. Sec.

ultra-religious Jew

And the difference with a extremist religious muslim or hardcore-Christian being...?

I have a feeling you are calling me an anti-Semite.

That's just your personal demon. Get over it.

It was their attitude

Sure. You surely don't need to be pointed out all the restrictions that were imposed on them from the start? After all, you know everything, so I take it you will be fully capable of answering that question. Wonder what the attitude would be of Poles when they faced likewise restrictions when coming into Ireland, the UK or Sweden...

>^..^<

M-G (lunch time)
1jola 14 | 1,879  
27 Oct 2009 /  #126
If you're intending to persuade me to use some foul language like your friend Sokrates usually does, then you're wrong.

You do lose your cool frequently.

I will just reverse the question back to you: are you taking your role as a racist not a little too serious?

Oh, good. So are not calling me an anti-Semite, but a racist, and a...

nobody who just claims to know everything about the subject he hates.

Which subject do I hate now?

That's all I am going to say about it.

That reminds me of a film I saw :)

And the difference with a extremist religious muslim or hardcore-Christian being...?

You haven't done your homework that I assigned you. You should have read on:

Professor Isreal Shahak

Instead of simply publishing the incident in the press, I asked for a meeting which is composed of rabbis nominated by the State of Israel. I asked them whether such behavior was consistent with their interpretation of the Jewish religion. They answered that the Jew in question had behaved correctly, indeed piously, and backed their statement by referring me to a passage in an authoritative compendium of Talmudic laws, written in this century.

I reported the incident to the main Hebrew daily, Ha'aretz, whose publication of the story caused a media scandal.

The results of the scandal were, for me, rather negative. Neither the Israeli, nor the diaspora, rabbinical authorities ever reversed their ruling that a Jew should not violate the Sabbath in order to save the life of a Gentile. They added much sanctimonious twaddle to the effect that if the consequence of such an act puts Jews in danger, the violation of the Sabbath is permitted, for their sake.

You surely don't need to be pointed out all the restrictions that were imposed on them from the start?

What do restrictions have to do with their belief and conduct toward non-Jews? Besides, self-imposed restrictions were far more constricting, but you know nothing about that. Yet.

BTW, Israel Shahak was a Polish Jew.
MareGaea 29 | 2,752  
27 Oct 2009 /  #127
What do restrictions have to do with their belief and conduct toward non-Jews? Besides, self-imposed restrictions were far more constricting, but you know nothing about that. Yet.

What a lousy way of saying that you don't know. Self-imposed restrictions? You haven't got a clue, haven't you? I suggest you read up on your Jewish history.

Edit, but just to give you a hint:

About 1.5 million Jews lived in the Russian Empire in the beginning of the nineteenth century. Confined within the Pale of Settlement, they were subjected to stringent anti-Jewish regulations.

Now go and preach your anti-semitism somewhere else.

>^..^<

M-G (sec)
1jola 14 | 1,879  
27 Oct 2009 /  #128
Tactics like that make you an unworthy opponent. That's all you got?

I suggest you read up on your Jewish history.

Great. Recommend a book that you have actually read.
MareGaea 29 | 2,752  
27 Oct 2009 /  #129
Tactics like that make you an unworthy opponent

I didn't start those tactics, I only respond to them and if this means lowering myself to your level for a short while, then so be it. You couldn't answer the questions and instead you start turning and twisting.

Edit: another part...

Persecuted in western Europe, Jews began migrating to Poland in the fourteenth century, and from there they moved to the presentday Lithuanian, Ukrainian, and Belorussian republics, until by the mid-seventeenth century they numbered in the hundreds of thousands.

>^..^<

M-G (tiens)
1jola 14 | 1,879  
27 Oct 2009 /  #130
Now go and preach your anti-semitism somewhere else.

So you are calling me an anti-Semite after all. LOL. How Jewish of you to resort to that.



What's next? You're going to call me a Nazi, right?

Anyway, I hope I've been of help to help you understand some of the causes of Judeophobia. Read the books I have suggested.
MareGaea 29 | 2,752  
27 Oct 2009 /  #131
And some more...

There was however one area where this new attitude did not apply, and the exception was numerically more important, and in its way more significant, than the rule. In *Russia (where there was no important Jewish settlement until the annexation of those areas of the old Polish kingdom which had the largest Jewish population) these were years not of progress but (with rare intervals) of reaction, and in 1881 a wave of massacres (*pogroms) began on a scale and of a type which recalled the Middle Ages, to be followed by economic and social restrictions of unprecedented scope (the *"May Laws").

So, tell me, there is no anti-semitism that is not ignited by the Jews themselves? Because that's what you're saying constantly. And you were of course wrong. But that's no surprise.

>^..^<

M-G (tiens)
derek trotter 10 | 203  
27 Oct 2009 /  #132
We talk here about Jews of West end East like they were the same people. What is main difference between them? focus on the fact the Jews have problem with integration with host country for centuries but something happen sharply after era of enlightenment( Jews had its own version or rather offspring - Haskala ) and as a result changed completely European and North American Jewry. Jews of that time and particularly in German Empire, Austro-Hungarian Empire, Britain and Netherlands start to focus on completely different things however Jews of part of ex Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth taken by Russian Empire stuck up ( cos of lack of proper university s )and turn to extreme form of Judaism based only on written low of Torah and most important on broad use of Talmud (which was basically a commentary of Torah for Jewish people how to live among other nations in that time ( Babylonian or Roman times - so completely different time) but again - a commentary.

So heavily focusing on Talmud and in reaction to lacking of access to proper education majority of eastern Jews turned to kabbalah things - western folks enjoyed in that time completely different live.

So West Jews- Reformist Jews, East Jews - orthodox Jews. They are like different species.
1jola 14 | 1,879  
27 Oct 2009 /  #133
All Jews were orthodox till fairly recent times.

I was talking in general throughout time. As we have seen from the quotes from Israel Shahak, Judaism is not exactly friendly toward non-Jews. Pointing that out is, of course anti-Semitic. This attitude, IMO, was the main cause of Judeophobia. M-G does not want to talk about that; he would rather flood us with pogroms and holocaust will come next. (without sources).

No one denies that people, once they were able to learn what Jews thought of non-Jews, disliked them.
derek trotter 10 | 203  
27 Oct 2009 /  #134
I was talking in general throughout time. As we have seen from the quotes from Israel Shahak, Judaism is not exactly friendly toward non-Jews

not whole Judaism but Talmudic Judaism

cite form Shahak bio from wiki

According to Shahak Talmudic Judaism is a totalitarian religion where rabbinical law governs every aspect of Jewish behaviour.[20] Shahak's approach to the subject draws on both Karl Popper's concept of a closed society, his analysis of totalitarian thought-patterns in Plato's thought, and also on Moses Hadas's suggestion of a Platonic influence on rabbinical thought.[21] He views Jewish chauvinism and religious fanaticism as grounded in this theological tradition. For Shahak, the religious roots of this 'Jewish ideology' had two important consequences:

* Attempts by Western analysts to explain contemporary Israeli politics in purely secular terms such as imperialism are fundamentally flawed.
* More controversially, that 'Jewish chauvinism' can be a causal factor in antisemitism, and that both must be fought simultaneously.

Shahak also analyses the period from the beginning of the last millennium (CE) to the advent of the modern state when most Jews lived under rabbinical law in segregated communities. These communities, writes Shahak, were under the patronage of non-Jewish nobles who typically used them to enforce their authority on a non-Jewish peasant class. Rebellions by such peasants in which all feudal agents were attacked, Shahak argues, have wrongly been perceived as anti-Jewish persecutions. Consequently, he calls for significant parts of Jewish history to be re-evaluated from a universal perspective.
vetala - | 382  
27 Oct 2009 /  #135
I think both of you are prejudiced.
1jola - your comments are far too accusatory. You're making a huge fuss over nothing. You seem to be desperate just to find something to accuse the Jews of.

Maregea - you, on the other hand, seem desperate to prove that Poland has always been the worst place for Jews to live which is simply ridiculus. Like 1jola mentioned, Poland used to be called Paradisus Judeorum FOR A REASON. Life in Poland was much better for Jews than in most other countries, you can't deny it. As for restrictions - please remember that in the past there were things called ''social classes" and Jews were by no means the only ones with restrictions. Jews were certainly below nobles but still above the peasants - considering that nobles made up only about 10% of the Polish population it basically means that Jews were better off than the other 90% - unfair? Also, it wasn't impossible for a wealthy Jew to become a nobleman - and tax collectors, innkeepers and estate managers are rarely poor. I'm sure that Tatars, Ukrainians and Belorussians in Poland would love to have such a 'terrible' life.
1jola 14 | 1,879  
27 Oct 2009 /  #136
not whole Judaism but Talmudic Judaism

Which would only exclude a small number of Karaites. The rest follow the Talmud. Someone correct me as I'm not sure.
MareGaea 29 | 2,752  
27 Oct 2009 /  #137
Judaism is not exactly friendly toward non-Jews. Pointing that out is, of course anti-Semitic. This attitude, IMO, was the main cause of Judeophobia. M-G does not want to talk about that; he would rather flood us with pogroms and holocaust will come next. (without sources).

It wasn't until much later that you introduced Israel Shahak, and then again, it's one view that doesn't necessary has to be shared by all Jews everywhere. Why don't I hear you talk about the restrictions that were put upon the Jews in Russian and Polish societies? Why do you point out ONLY this point? I have pointed out with my quote that many restrictions have been imposed on Jewish ppl throughout time. It's not really surprising that they are not very enthousiastic towards the ppl that put these upon them. Look at the Poles: the Soviets have been putting many restrictions upon them for over 4 decades after WW2, and I cannot say that the Poles are really that sympathetic towards the Russians because of that. That's understandable, and I don't blame them for it. Just like I don't blame the Jews for not really being friendly towards ppl that restrict their life in quite some ways.

And the other thing that bothers me is that you in all your ways to explain the phenomaena you still find ways to blame the Jews themselves for hatred against them. You never look at any other side, just keep pointing out that the "Judaic faith was not very friendly" towards non-Jewish ppl. Maybe the "Christian faith wasn't really friendly towards Jewish ppl" as well? Have you ever explored that pssbility? Guess you didn't and instead keep hammering on that ONE point, which is imho not the only reason for anti-semitism. It's a much more complex issue that happens in the psyche of non-Jews and has among other things, to do with the "strangeness" of Jews, compared to non-Jews, their habits and the fact that they were used by Polish nobility to do the dirty jobs they didn't want to do themselves. And whereas it's easier to simply blame the Jews ("them") than those Polish noblemen (after all, they are part of "us"), the Jews were the sucker in this case. And this was instigated maybe not solely, but for the biggest part by the non-Jewish population. And to me it just seems that this hammering on the fact that Judaism may or may not be so friendly towards gentiles, to find reasons, excuses or whatever to still say "hey look, it's not us, it's them!" Because that is what racism and anti-semitism is all about: the primitive "us against them" feeling, present in every individual as we all are primitive creatures still, no matter how advanced we may be.

>^..^<

M-G (sec ergo sum)
1jola 14 | 1,879  
27 Oct 2009 /  #138
your comments are far too accusatory. You're making a huge fuss over nothing.

Am I really? From the same author:

ACCORDING TO THE JEWISH religion, the murder of a Jew is a capital offense and one of the three most heinous sins (the other two being idolatry and adultery). Jewish religious courts and secular authorities are commanded to punish, even beyond the limits of the ordinary administration of justice, anyone guilty of murdering a Jew. A Jew who indirectly causes the death of another Jew is, however, only guilty of what talmudic law calls a sin against the 'laws of Heaven', to be punished by God rather than by man.

When the victim is a Gentile, the position is quite different. A Jew who murders a Gentile is guilty only of a sin against the laws of Heaven, not punishable by a court.1 To cause indirectly the death of a Gentile is no sin at all.2

Any comments?
vetala - | 382  
27 Oct 2009 /  #139
Any comments?

"No wickedness comes anywhere near the wickedness of a woman.....Sin began with a woman and thanks to her we all must die" (Ecclesiasticus 25:19,24).

"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I don't permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner"

(I Timothy 2:11-14).

"The birth of a daughter is a loss" (Ecclesiasticus 22:3).

"Keep a headstrong daughter under firm control, or she will abuse any indulgence she receives. Keep a strict watch on her shameless eye, do not be surprised if she disgraces you" (Ecclesiasticus 26:10-11).[/i]
1jola 14 | 1,879  
27 Oct 2009 /  #140
Not a lot of feminism in these two religions.
PlasticPole 7 | 2,650  
27 Oct 2009 /  #141
Nice collection of verse, Vetala. It shows how the religions (Christianity and Judaism) lose touch with today's modernism. We don't live by those rules so much now, unless we are born into a fundamentally Islamic family. Modern Jews aren't quite as sexist as that, neither are most Christians. There are exceptions.
MareGaea 29 | 2,752  
27 Oct 2009 /  #142
vetala

I am reacting the way that I am approached. If somebody comes with reasonable arguments, I will react reasonable. However, if somebody tries to convince me that it's basically the Jews' own fault, then I will react and I will do so accordingly and adjusted to the person who approaches me. The more that person exhaggerates, the more I will. Depends a bit on the topic as such. But you're right, I tend to lose my objectivity at times, which is not a good thing and I am well aware of that.

Modern Jews aren't quite as sexist as that, neither are most Christians. There are exceptions.

Some men still are, but that's not particularily religion-driven, more frustration-driven :)

>^..^<

M-G (does like vetala)
F15guy 1 | 160  
27 Oct 2009 /  #143
It seems to me many so called followers of all three religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam have been responsible for heinous crimes against their fellow men and woman. They have all killed those of other religions as well as their fellow co-religionists. Sometimes in the name of God, other times because they were envious of their brothers and sisters.

I have no doubt if God exists , he, she or it is on none of their sides.
PlasticPole 7 | 2,650  
27 Oct 2009 /  #144
When you look at the universe, there's no telling what side a creator would be on. As far as religion goes, that's only one elemental factor in humankind's blood lust. I chalk it up to the human condition and not a component in any one religion. Humans can become violent and always look for justifications for it and find them, even if others don't agree. Welcome to humanity's dark side!!!

Humans tend to be at their most violent when they feel threatened in some way, or they fear they will lose their resources.
MareGaea 29 | 2,752  
27 Oct 2009 /  #145
F15guy

But that's what I have been trying to say - it's mainly a matter of "my God is better than your God" in other words: "my dad is much stronger than your dad". Religion generally brings a lot of trouble with it. One could ask himself whether you might not be better without it.

I have no doubt if God exists , he, she or it is on none of their sides.

I think God is deep inside yourself and you believe in him/her/it if you believe in yourself. The "he she or it" part reminded me of the "God" that appears in the Southpark X-mas episode :)

Jesus Southpark

Couldn't find a pic of the "God" in Southpark on any non-blocked site, but Jesus is a good second best ;)

>^..^<

M-G (nah)
1jola 14 | 1,879  
27 Oct 2009 /  #146
Because that is what racism and anti-semitism is all about: the primitive "us against them" feeling, present in every individual as we all are primitive creatures still, no matter how advanced we may be.

Would you say that Judaism is a racist religion? Since the ladies took notice, here is something from the same author:

This does not imply that sexual intercourse between a Jewish man and a Gentile woman is permitted - quite the contrary. But the main punishment is inflicted on the Gentile woman; she must be executed, even if she was raped by the Jew: 'If a Jew has coitus with a Gentile woman, whether she be a child of three or an adult, whether married or unmarried, and even if he is a minor aged only nine years and one day - because he had willful coitus with her, she must be killed, as is the case with a beast, because through her a Jew got into trouble'45 The Jew, however, must be flogged, and if he is a Kohen (member of the priestly tribe) he must receive double the number of lashes, because he has committed a double offense: a Kohen must not have intercourse with a prostitute, and all Gentile women are presumed to be prostitutes.46

I have pointed out with my quote that many restrictions have been imposed on Jewish ppl throughout time. It's not really surprising that they are not very enthousiastic towards the ppl that put these upon them.

Yes, many restrictions were placed on the racist Jews who thought of gentiles as little more than beasts.
PlasticPole 7 | 2,650  
27 Oct 2009 /  #147
Would you say that Judaism is a racist religion? Since the ladies took notice, here is something from the same author:

All religions are racist religions. Even though they aren't techinically races, they are religions. It would make them "religionist". All religions are religionist religions.
vetala - | 382  
27 Oct 2009 /  #148
1jola, you never know when to stop, eh?
MareGaea 29 | 2,752  
27 Oct 2009 /  #149
Yes, many restrictions were placed on the racist Jews who thought of gentiles as little more than beasts

Most rulers who put the restrictions upon them had no clue about the contents of the Judaic beliefs. There goes your theory. And again, you're doing it: putting the blame on the Jews themselves.

>^..^<

M-G (tralala)
1jola 14 | 1,879  
27 Oct 2009 /  #150
All religions are racist religions.

At the moment we are discussing Judaism and its beliefs contributing to Judeophobia.

1jola, you never know when to stop, eh?

I'm sorry you find Judaism offensive.

Most rulers who put the restrictions upon them had no clue about the contents of the Judaic beliefs. There goes your theory.

Not true.

Archives - 2005-2009 / History / Responsibility for Murder of Catholic Poles during WWII ?Archived