1. Greylandra

    Greylandra Member


    So apparently this march 24th 1933 issue of the British news paper, the daily Express has been making its rounds in certain CT circles as proof that "international Jews" brought the war to Germany and not the other way round. There are a few specific claims:

    1) This newspaper predates the start of war by over 6 years.

    2) Actions targeted at a nations finances by an individual or group and not necessarily other nations have historically been considered an act of war.

    3) If by definition, a nation is required to officially declare a war then the UN or the European Union can never be said to be engaging in any war.

    4) If the actions of identifiable ethnicities can be used as a pretext for internment for national security reasons, as happened say with the Japanese Americans and Italians (and others historically) after pearl harbor why should this be held to some other standard.

    I'm sorry to not include links here to any videos or forums which discuss this very topic but it doesn't seem in good form to do so.
  2. Rory

    Rory Senior Member

    Well I thought that sounded ridiculous - but the Daily Express has an archive site dating back to 1900, and the headline is right. Here's the link to the paper that day:


    Looking at it in detail is only open to subscribers. The non-subscriber image is small, but it's not too difficult to make out the words:

    Source: https://www.ukpressonline.co.uk/ukpressonline/getDocument/DExp_1933_03_24_001

    Wikipedia also has an article about this event:
    Last edited: Aug 24, 2019
    • Informative Informative x 1
  3. Agent K

    Agent K Active Member

    The international Jewish boycott of Germany was a response to Nazi persecution of German Jews.
    Do the alt-right neo-Nazis claim that the boycott was unprovoked and Hitler would've been nice to Jews if not for the boycott?
    Would they say that the Montgomery bus boycott was an act of war too? How about boycotts of Israel?

    In 1988, President Reagan signed the Civil Liberties Act to apologize and pay reparations to Japanese Americans who were incarcerated in internment camps during World War II.
    • Agree Agree x 3
  4. jonnyH

    jonnyH Active Member

    It doesn't predate the scapegoating of the Jews by the Nazis.

    It shouldn't be difficult to provide an example of this if there is a wealth of historical precedent. In any case it's unlikely to support the idea that the appropriate response to a boycott of goods by a minority group of globally dispersed people is to round them all up, kill them and annex the rest of Europe.

    EU can never be said to be at war with anyone, it's a trade organisation and doesn't command the power to declare war on behalf of its members, nor does it have any military forces.

    Unsurprisingly many EU member states have shared interests to protect and so it's common to find members cooperating and sharing assets in conflicts that affect several states or the region as a whole, but there is no obligation for all member states to get involved. The member states retain sovereign command over their own armed forces and each have their own processes by which war can be officially declared.

    The UN doesn't have the ability to declare war on behalf of its members either. The main purpose of its existence is to prevent war, as such the notion that its constitution could allow it to engage in war is absurd, notwithstanding the fact that it's diverse membership would most likely prevent any agreement being reached with regards starting any conflict. It commands no army, only peacekeeping forces.

    Because that is not the standard, I don't think many folks look back on the treatment of Japanese Americans and think that it was the right thing to do. German and Italian Britons, of which there were many in the northeast of England and Wales respectively, were not routinely interred so far as I know.
    • Like Like x 1
  5. dc_hatman

    dc_hatman Member

    This is basically a sensationalist headline for an article about a protest by British Jewish people about the treatment of Jews in Nazi Germany. It is unfortunately taken literally and deliberately completely out of context by neoNazis, antisemites and Holocaust denier to justify the Holocaust.

    There was no literal war declared, as Jewish people had no country, no army, no way to literally declare a war. It’s also not the first time a newspaper used over dramatic headlines and the word “War” to sell a newspaper.

    View attachment 38137
    Last edited: Aug 24, 2019
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. Agent K

    Agent K Active Member

    Do neo-Nazis really think that internment of Germans and Italians was justified? And almost all were foreign nationals like foreign students and businessmen, not citizens.
  7. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    It's pretty ridiculous, consider this headline:
    Metabunk 2019-08-24 09-57-22.

    Does this mean peaceful Americas would somehow be justified in rounding up everyone who worked for the Bureau of Land Management? Clearly not.

    Some Jewish people organizing a boycott to protest Germany's actions is not "bringing the war" to Germany. Germany brought the war by invading Poland.
    • Agree Agree x 3
  8. DavidB66

    DavidB66 Member

    In World War II 'enemy aliens' (mainly Germans) in the UK were interned soon after the outbreak of war. The Isle of Man, being an island out of swimming distance from the mainland, was one of the main internment centres. From memory I think the internment applied only to non-UK citizens, not to UK citizens of German origin. I don't think it applied to Italians, as Mussolini didn't join the war against the UK until he was confident that Germany would win! Many Germans were released from internment when the authorities were satisfied they were not Nazi sympathisers. They included many Jews who had migrated to the UK to escape the Nazis. Some others were sent out to Australia or Canada on ships, some of which were unfortunately torpedoed by their compatriots. The internment of enemy aliens was also applied to UK citizens in Germany or German-occupied territories, most famously to P. G. Wodehouse, who made some ill-advised radio broadcasts while under arrest. I don't think the policy of internment was particularly controversial in the UK, as the threat of espionage or sabotage (even by something as simple as leaving a house light visible during the night) was obvious.
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Greylandra

    Greylandra Member

    Fine points, thank you. I feel 1-3 are nailed down pretty well. Point 4 I'm not so sure on.
    Since finding this Article I come to learn of even Canada interning Ukrainians (and other Europeans) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Mountain_Internment_Camp#targetText=The Castle Camp, which was,Austrian, Hungarian and German descent.
    Many of these theorists point to examples such as the above, (and countless others) and draw an equivalency. Sort of "if it's good for the goose it's good for the gander"

    Personally I'm left dumbfounded by the fact that so many of the allied nations interned so many ethnic Europeans and hardly a word, historically, about it and all before world war 2.

    These CTists have a very insidious and subversive way of shifting perspective when debating them. It's like the goal posts of outright denial of the holocaust is not the objective for these people. They tend to just illustrate facts that move, at least a portion, of the onus for the war, and atrocities, away from Germany. I'll admit I'm now, slightly unsure of my own history on the topic.
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 24, 2019
  10. jonnyH

    jonnyH Active Member

    That fits with my somewhat anecdotal understanding. My German-British grandfather was not interred, nor was my German (I think) great grandparents, though they would have arrived in the UK long before WW2. Both generations suffered a touch from discrimination by ordinary citizens which precipitated a move from the northeast to Bradford, but no interference from the government.
  11. jonnyH

    jonnyH Active Member

    I agree that's not my strongest point, but it's not their strongest point either. If they can't produce a viable argument that the Germans were at war with the Jews then whether or not it was de rigeur at the time to round up those that share your wartime enemy's ethnicity is irrelevant.

    If they can't establish points 1-3, point 4 doesn't matter.
  12. Agent K

    Agent K Active Member

    When you're at war with a country, it makes sense to be suspicious of foreign nationals of that country, who are technically loyal to that enemy country. They can even be deported, because they're not citizens of your country. For example, in the wake of the 1979 hostage crisis in Iran, President Carter ordered all Iranians with student visas to report to U.S. immigration officials or else face possible deportation, and he invalidated all visas issued to Iranian citizens for future entry into the United States.
    But German Jews were citizens of Germany, not foreign nationals, and they couldn't even participate in a boycott of their own country. What were they supposed to do, only buy imports? The "insidious and subversive" arguments ignore or swap cause and effect. The Nazis initiated the persecution of Jews who did nothing wrong, which is why Nazi Germany was boycotted and not the Weimar Republic.

    Neo-Nazis can't agree whether to justify or deny the Holocaust. I debated one who said that Hitler punished Jews for their treachery, or something to that effect. So I asked him what the punishment was, and he replied that it was confiscation of "stolen" Jewish property, so in his mind that was the extent of it.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  13. Agent K

    Agent K Active Member

    The Daily Express article itself is pretty clear about the cause and effect.
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 25, 2019
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Rory

    Rory Senior Member

    What is the source for the Express front page in the OP? It's very different to the one in the Express archives.

    Photoshopped? Cobbled together? Maybe from articles inside the paper?
  15. Agent K

    Agent K Active Member

    I don't know, some newspapers are issued twice a day, but only one issue of the Express is archived. I doubt there's an international edition of the tabloid. But I don't see the point in cobbling together a fake front page.
    There's a higher resolution version of it that looks like it was physically scanned, with writing on the back.
  16. DavidB66

    DavidB66 Member

    The whole front page has been substantially revised. Note that even the weather forecasts are different: one is 'fair, mild', the other is 'fine, cooler'. I think the one with 'fine, cooler' is a later edition. Note that in the 'fair, mild' one there is a brief report under 'Late News' saying 'Labour Leader Bereaved'. In the 'fine, cooler' edition this is expanded to a piece headed 'Mrs George Lansbury Dead', and followed up on the inside pages. I would guess that the earlier edition was printed on the previous evening (Thursday) and distributed via train to reach provincial newspaper sellers before morning. Revised edition(s) would be printed during the night and distributed by van to sellers in London and surrounding areas in time for the morning 'paper rounds'. Within my lifetime this was a standard practice for the 'Fleet Street' newspapers. I don't see any reason to doubt that both versions are authentic.
    • Agree Agree x 2
  17. Rory

    Rory Senior Member

    Yep, that makes perfect sense.

    ("Mrs George Lansbury", by the way, had some quite illustrious descendants: Angela Lansbury (of Murder She Wrote and Bedknobs and Broomsticks) and Oliver Postgate, creator of Bagpuss, the Clangers, Noggin the Nog, and Ivor the Engine, among them.)
  18. Lasse Kristensen

    Lasse Kristensen New Member

    I just wanted to inform you that in 1938 [there was this similar article]
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 21, 2019 at 11:56 AM
    • Informative Informative x 1
  19. Agent K

    Agent K Active Member

    That's almost five years after the 1933 boycott.