Mr_Chips:
It has always puzzled me why anti-semitism was able to spread so quickly in europe before and during the Second World War.
I think I may have found some answers in the Shoah interviews by Claude Lanzmann.
On disc two, Lanzmann is interviewing locals from the village of Chelmo who describe life when Jewish people lived in the town. They were clearly not well liked as they "controlled the capital" of the town, and apparently had the Poles working in their service.
"The Poles had to serve them and work"
So whilst the Polish women had to work to survive, the Jewesses did not work at all and "only thought of their beauty and clothes"; in the process attracting the local Polish men and obviously infuriating the local women. The Jews apparently owned all the best houses facing the streets, decorating them with Jewish symbols that still were visible in the video. Meanwhile whilst the Poles lived behind them with the privys.
According to the locals, "All Poland was in Jew's hands." They owned the industries along with the Germans, were dishonest people because they "imposed their prices" (ie ripped people off with high prices during extreme poverty) and were generally unfriendly to the locals.
Rather than attempting to assimilate in any way with their hosts, the Jews dressed and groomed themselves according to their customs and were in the eyes of the locals, ugly to look at with long beards and strange hair. They constructed a huge Synagog in the middle of town which is still visible in the video, and considering the state of the town when the movie was filmed, it was a rather lavish, imposing and ostentatious display of wealth: especially considering the extreme poverty in Poland pre WW2.
Not surprisingly, several of those interviewed indicated that they were happy that the Jews had left and not returned.
After watching this, I can't help but think that Theodor Herzl (the founder of the Zionist movement) was correct in his assertion that anti-Semitism could not be defeated or cured - as the Jews were their own worst enemy when it came to public relations with their hosts.
Herzl writes "The Jewish question persists wherever Jews live in appreciable numbers. Wherever it does not exist, it is brought in together with Jewish immigrants. We are naturally drawn into those places where we are not persecuted, and our appearance there gives rise to persecution. This is the case, and will inevitably be so, everywhere, even in highly civilised countries—see, for instance, France—so long as the Jewish question is not solved on the political level. The unfortunate Jews are now carrying the seeds of anti-Semitism into England; they have already introduced it into America."
If one considers the experience of the inhabitants of Chelmo once the Jews "settled" there anything to go by, Herzl's views make absolute sense. If the Jew's themselves are carrying the seeds of anti-semitism according to Herzl , presumably by their conduct, can it reasonably be concluded that they themselves are responsible?
Surely it is reasonable to argue that if the Jew's, by their own admission, willingly and deliberately engage in a course of conduct that they are acutely aware has resulted in repeated persecutions to those engaging in said conduct; they are, by doing so, instigating and provoking a an anticipated result and as such are directly responsible for any consequences thereof.
This of course might explain why they are so heavily into promoting the concept of "tolerance" and "understanding" as an integral part of the Holocaust as that conveniently excuses them of responsibility for their own contributions. According to their logic, they should be freely allowed to enter any country and exploit it's people and resources for profit with the intention of NEVER assimilating with the locals and only helping other Jews, without any recourse whatsoever.
Sounds like a very one-sided deal to me..
