Debunked: media headline "Judea declares war on Germany" [boycott]

Greylandra

Member
DailyExpress-March1933-judeafrontpage.jpg


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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

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:

https://www.ukpressonline.co.uk/ukp...ssionid=85BAB3F64EA207CE80FBE8C0E28576FD?is=1

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:

DExp_1933_03_24_001_TH.jpg
Source: https://www.ukpressonline.co.uk/ukpressonline/getDocument/DExp_1933_03_24_001
https://archive.org/details/Httpsarchive.orgdetailsJudeadeclareswarongermany

Wikipedia also has an article about this event:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

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.
 

jonnyH

Senior Member
1) This newspaper predates the start of war by over 6 years.
It doesn't predate the scapegoating of the Jews by the Nazis.


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.
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.


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.

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.


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.
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.
 

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:

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.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
proof that "international Jews" brought the war to Germany and not the other way round
It's pretty ridiculous, consider this headline:
https://www.infowars.com/blm-declares-war-on-americans/
Metabunk 2019-08-24 09-57-22.jpg

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.
 

DavidB66

Active Member
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.
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.
 

Greylandra

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.
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:

jonnyH

Senior Member
the internment applied only to non-UK citizens, not to UK citizens of German origin
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.
 

jonnyH

Senior Member
Point 4 I'm not so sure on.
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.
 

Agent K

Active Member
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.
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.
 

Agent K

Active 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:

https://www.ukpressonline.co.uk/ukp...ssionid=85BAB3F64EA207CE80FBE8C0E28576FD?is=1 (http://archive.is/BAtg6)

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:

View attachment 38136
Source: https://www.ukpressonline.co.uk/ukpressonline/getDocument/DExp_1933_03_24_001 (.", "\.)

Wikipedia also has an article about this event:
The Daily Express article itself is pretty clear about the cause and effect.
upload_2019-8-25_0-45-51.png
 
Last edited by a moderator:

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?
 

Agent K

Active 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?
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.
upload_2019-8-25_2-18-49.png
 

DavidB66

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.
View attachment 38140
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.
 

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.)
 
Hi.
I just wanted to inform you that in 1938 [there was this similar article]
https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/71357095
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Shoonra

New Member
The suggestion, from the headline, that Jews started WW2 is about as true as the accompanying photo of Hitler in the presence of four rabbis.
 

qed

Senior Member
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.
Of course, the British invented the notion of concentration camp during the Boer War (1900-1902) against Europeans of Dutch decent.

1577356671590.png1577357988585.png
Lizzie van Zyl a Boer child,
visited by Emily Hobhouse in a British concentration camp

Concentration camps refers to camps operated by the British in South Africa during the Second Anglo-Boer War from 1900–1902. The term concentration camp grew in prominence during that period. The camps had originally been set up by the British Army as refugee camps to provide refuge for civilian families who had been forced to abandon their homes for whatever reason related to the war. However, when the Earl Kitchener took over in late 1900, he introduced new tactics in an attempt to break the guerrilla campaign and the influx of civilians grew dramatically as a result. An epidemic of measles killed thousands.[1] According to the historian and Labour Peer, Thomas Pakenham, Kitchener initiated plans to flush out guerrillas in a series of systematic drives, organised like a sporting shoot, with success defined in a weekly 'bag' of killed, captured and wounded, and to sweep the country bare of everything that could give sustenance to the guerrillas, including women and children ... It was the clearance of civilians—uprooting a whole nation—that would come to dominate the last phase of the war.[2]
Wikipedia: British concentration camps
As Boer farms were destroyed by the British under their "Scorched Earth" policy—including the systematic destruction of crops and the slaughtering or removal of livestock, the burning down of homesteads and farms—to prevent the Boers from resupplying from a home base many tens of thousands of men, women and children were forcibly moved into the camps.[3][4] This was not the first appearance of internment camps, as the Spanish had used internment in Cuba in the Ten Years' War, but the Boer War concentration camp system was the first time that a whole nation had been systematically targeted, and the first in which some whole regions had been depopulated.[5]
Eventually, there were a total of 45 tented camps built for Boer internees and 64 for black Africans. Of the 28,000 Boer men captured as prisoners of war, 25,630 were sent overseas. The vast majority of Boers remaining in the local camps were women and children. Over 26,000 women and children perished in these concentration camps.[6]
From Concentration camps in the South African War? Here are the real facts
The death rate for Boer civilians in the concentration camps in South Africa exceeded this by a factor of 10. It’s well established that 28 000 white people and 20 000 black people died in various camps in South Africa. Between July 1901 and February 1902 the rate was, on average, 247 per 1000 per annum in the white camps. It reached a high of 344 per 1000 per annum in October 1901 and a low of 69 per 1000 per annum in February 1902.

The figures would have been even higher had it not been for the fact that British welfare campaigner Emily Hobhouse exposed the deplorable conditions in the camps. A subsequent report by the Government’s Ladies Commission prompted the British Government to improve conditions. Another factor that reduced the fatality rate was that Lord Milner, High Commissioner for South Africa and Governor of the Cape Colony, took over administration of the camps from the military from November 1901.
 
Top