Posted on 01/17/2003 3:12:21 AM PST by knighthawk
Edited on 05/07/2004 7:09:12 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
PARIS -- Jewish parents tell their sons not to wear yarmulkes. A rabbi is stabbed. Elderly women are frisked before entering synagogues -- just in case. As the stresses of being Jewish in France multiply, some feel it safer to hide their religion. Others have decided the only solution is to pack up and leave -- more than twice as many as a year earlier, according to statistics by the Jewish Agency.
(Excerpt) Read more at detnews.com ...
Watch out, though, as he can be a little political at times (in his sympathy for socialism). It is not severe and cannot diminish the almost indispensible detail of this book.
I would also recommend the six part memoir of WWII by Winston Churchill (if you don't mind his justifiable ego); "Nazi Germany" by Klaus Fischer (obscure but VERY authoritative); "Russia at War 1941-1945" by Alexander Werth. Oddly enough, the old TIME-LIFE series on World War II is an excellent entry-level series, though it spans something like 30 volumes of 200 pages each. But it is laid out like a magazine and is excellent for introduction. (Ebay or libraries only).
Hmmm, what else? For about $75 you can find the Thames Television series "World at War" on DVD: 31 hours of fine documentary films, many of which include interviews with the principals. These films (53 minutes each) are heavy meals and can be viewed over and over before all the information is digested. Narration by Sir Lawrence Olivier is classic.
Martin Gilbert's "The Holocaust" is a typical starting point for that topic. As far as the point of view of the GI, get anything by Cornelius Ryan or Stephen Ambrose.
Finally, if you need a book on a specific aspect of the war, let me know. I can probably recommend a title.
Jews are easy to scapegoat - we don't riot like Palestinians do.
If the French Catholics had been put in boxcars by a bunch of willing French collaborators and there were an anti-Catholic European undercurrent the way there is an anti-semitic one, they would be wise to bail out too.
Please Freepmail me if you want on or off my infrequent ping list.
Because the only real estate that they claim is also claimed by others and they are always considered unwelcome guests wherever they go. Killing Jews is a cheap way to gain property and Mohammad (and the Popes up until recently) preached that killing them would please Allah or God as the case may be.
It appears that France is still under Nazi occupation.
The upshot of all this pretending is that the French have not yet much dealt with their real WWII history, which is predominantly a history of anti-semitism, collaboration, and weasling. A couple of old creeps have been prosecuted but that sort of thing so easily becomes self-excusing -- we tossed out the bad apple so now our barrel is clean.
This, by the way, is why having the supposedly Center-Right Chirac in power does not make France a more reliable ally -- Chirac is a Guallist, and there really isn't anything to Gaullism besides the la gloire charade.
From The New York Sun, January 17, 2003
Under the headline "Defending France's Jews," the New York Times fetched up yesterday with an editorial calling on the French government to protect its Jews. It's nice to see that there are some Jews that the Times editorialists would like to protect, since the newspaper's concern for the safety of the ones in Israel often seems somewhat attenuated. In fact, the Times editorial mentions that the surge in French anti-Semitism has led to a doubling in the number of French Jews moving to Israel. A cynic might speculate that this is the source of the Times' concern with French anti-Semitism.
What's stunning is how the Times stakes out a middle ground. "Americans and Israelis are too quick to link violence by young North African delinquents to France's Vichy past. The two have little to do with each other," the Times says, finding a way to criticize Israelis even in the context of an editorial headlined "Defending France's Jews." There's little recognition by the Times that French anti-Semitism runs deeper than merely "young North African delinquents." No mention, for instance, of the French ambassador to Britain calling Israel "that sh___ little country" at a dinner party in England. No North African youth, he. No mention, either, of the cartoon in the leftist French newspaper Liberation that, as an account in the July issue of Commentary put it, showed Prime Minister Sharon "standing next to a cross with a hammer and nails in his mouth. The caption: 'no Christmas for Arafat. But he is welcome on Easter.' " Liberation is not edited by North African youths, nor did the classical anti-Semitic image of the Jew as Christ-killer originate with North African youths.
If it were merely angry Arab youths that the French Jews sought to escape, after all, those French Jews might not be so eager to move to Israel.
Because the only real estate that they claim is also claimed by others and they are always considered unwelcome guests wherever they go. Killing Jews is a cheap way to gain property and Mohammad (and the Popes up until recently) preached that killing them would please Allah or God as the case may be.
OK..I buy that killing Jews, or anyone else for that matter, is a cheap way to gain real estate...The other suggestions don't seem to fit reality, however.
Consider: there is no broad squabble for land here in the U.S. but they aren't loved here either....France the same..as well as most of Western Europe. No the problem must lie elsewhere.
As far as the Allah situation goes...Well....they and their horrid politicized religion have had a multi-century hatred of just about everyone else...an essential factor to their leadership retaining power in this world (leaving the brain-washed and the ignorant to do their dirty work in exchange for a laughable "black hole" in the next).
I also don't buy the idea that the Popes..in recent centuries..made an edict that Jews were to be killed. If this is true I would like some historical, non-Jewish references
Nonetheless, my question goes unanswered I suppose.
Thanks for your answer anway. 44
New York Sun, January 17, 2003
Under the headline "Defending France's Jews," the New York Times fetched up yesterday with an editorial calling on the French government to protect its Jews. It's nice to see that there are some Jews that the Times editorialists would like to protect, since the newspaper's concern for the safety of the ones in Israel often seems somewhat attenuated. In fact, the Times editorial mentions that the surge in French anti-Semitism has led to a doubling in the number of French Jews moving to Israel. A cynic might speculate that this is the source of the Times' concern with French anti-Semitism.
What's stunning is how the Times stakes out a middle ground. "Americans and Israelis are too quick to link violence by young North African delinquents to France's Vichy past. The two have little to do with each other," the Times says, finding a way to criticize Israelis even in the context of an editorial headlined "Defending France's Jews." There's little recognition by the Times that French anti-Semitism runs deeper than merely "young North African delinquents." No mention, for instance, of the French Ambassador to Britain calling Isreal "that sh---- little country" at a dinner party in England. No North African youth, he. No mention, either, of the cartoon in the leftist French newspaper Liberation that, as an account in the July issue of Commentary put it, showed Prime Minister Sharon "standing next to a cross with a hammer and nails in his mouth. The caption: 'no Christmas for Arafat. But he is welcome on Easter.'" Liberation is not edited by North African youths, nor did the classical anti-Semitic image of the Jew as Christ-killer originate with North African youths.
If it were merely angry Arab youths that the French Jews south to escape, after all, those French Jews might not be so eager to move to Israel.
Only if half the blacks in the US had teamed up with Hitler in the '40's and transported the Jews to Aushwitz, as did the French. If the the blacks in Flatbush team up with middle eastern jihadists, I would certainly recommend that the Jews there leave for safer environs.
Unitarians are not Christians.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.