![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
Would be interested to see any facts on the subject.
Also some elaboration on the sentence: "This helped Germany's weak economy at a time when many Jews were boycotting the country's goods" would be helpful. (Was this a formal boycott? How widespread was it? What was its actual impact, and how long did it last?) Historian932 ( talk) 18:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Assetts, effect of boycott, German exports etc. The question was put a while ago, but I got interested so I looked it up. Assetts: there were 140m RM transferred ( http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ha'avara-Abkommen). In some other source which I will find, it was stated that 12 m RM were providsed by teh German Government in order to facilitate the emigration of German Jews. Regarding the effect of the boycott: F.R. Nicosia reports (Inst. f. Zeitgesch., 37, 1989, Heft 3) that the effect of the boycott was negligible. Total German exports in m RM (Bevölkerung und Wirtschaft 1872-1972, S. 191): 13,483 (1929), 12,036 (1930); 9,599 (1931); 5,739 (1932); 4,871 (1933); 4,167 (1934); 4270 (1935); 4,768 (1936); 5,911 (1937); 5,257 (1938)
It can be seen that the export was continuously low from 1931 onwards; the boycott did not affect this level apparently. The total export is however very large compared with the average Ha'avara transfers (20m RM per year = 0.35%), so that the argument that the exports under the agreement helped the German economy seems a bit far fetched.
Value of transfers: The well known German journalist of Jewish faith Henryk Broder reports in his biographie of a settler in Palestine that a policeman in the 30's earned 5 pound per month, and that 20 pound per month was considered a very good income ( http://einestages.spiegel.de/static/authoralbumbackground/723/adolf_und_seine_soehne.html). The effect of the transfer of £17.5m in seven years must therefore have been quite dramatic; in fact there are scholars who argue that the Ha'avara transfers (or their effects, with foundation of a banks, issue of bonds etc.) laid the foundation for the financial system of the state of Israel (M. Sarnat,The Journal of Economic History Vol. 49, No. 3 (Sep., 1989), pp. 693-698).
And another query: why is Feilchenfeld's book not even mentioned here: It may be biased, but it was written by someone who actually took an active part in the whole thing?
I think you are right, a few more facts would benefit the article; maybe the person who looks after this page may make a move?? -- Gerald Mueller ( talk) 14:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
This article uses [1] as a source; this appears to be an ad site for what seems to be likely a self-published book (Most of the output of Dialog Press lists the same individual as the author), making it a WP:SPS, and thus a discouraged source. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 02:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
"Britain, the USA, and their Jewish populations were not supportive of Jewish volunteers in, and even outside, Palestine. As the war neared the Yishuv’s borders in 1940 and 1941, Ben-Gurion feared for the fate of the Yishuv... The Zionist leadership was skeptical about the mass destruction of Jews even in mid-1942. At the end of 1942, authentic reports of Nazi atrocities reached the Yishuv but the response was not vociferous."
I added a link to Mark Weber : Zionism and the Third Reich. Although apparently this site is accused of being "Holocaust revisionist", this article seems very informative, and sums up many details succinctly and clearly, with sources. I think it would be a good reference for the Haavara article, even though the site it appears on is apparently controversial. Jimhoward72 ( talk) 12:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Institute_for_Historical_Review
On the other hand, if you cited ADL or SPLC as your source, you'd earn a badge of valued contributor --- so you should learn to play the right games. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
87.115.89.118 (
talk)
23:58, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia, and thus The Truth (whatever it may be) are not games. Follow the Christ, should you be Christian, here: let truth be truth, lie a lie.
So no games here allowed.
Zezen (
talk)
16:52, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
As can be seen in the history of this article, one user is insisting on deleting this key reference to the Haavara agreement:
"The Transfer Agreement"] (Edwin Black's book : The Transfer Agreement: The Dramatic Story of the Pact Between the Third Reich and Jewish Palestine, 2001)
I'm not going to keep trying to add it, but just note that now one of the most significant books on the subject no longer appears within the article, while Lenni Brenner's work remains as a source. Jimhoward72 ( talk) 15:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Just give up and cite Jewish sources if you don't want your updates deleted on Wikipedia. ADL and SPLC would do very nicely because they are "unbiased" and "authoritative". Just say "600 trillion Jews perished in the holocaust" and our Jewish masters will be very happy with you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.89.118 ( talk) 00:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Here is some additional content discussing Brenner's work https://fathomjournal.org/an-antisemitic-hoax-lenni-brenner-on-zionist-collaboration-with-the-nazis/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:8C00:5F20:7031:F251:C1BD:99C7 ( talk) 19:09, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
An acquaintance remembered him as ‘a non-student “Marxist agitator” who would stand near the Bancroft strip and rail about the Pope, the Bay of Pigs, and marijuana, indifferent to the fact that most passersby thought he was “certifiably crazy”’ (Berkleyan, 2004). During the 1980s, Brenner worked with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), a Marxist-Leninist faction of the Palestinian Liberation Movement (PLO). Brenner himself is a Trotskyist. He is the author of an attack on the Democratic Party and a book on the American Founders’ views on church-state separation. But it is for his vitriolic assaults on Zionists and the American Jewish community that he is best known. These include Zionism in the Age of the Dictators, as well as The Iron Wall: Zionist Revisionism From Jabotinsky to Shamir, Jews in America Today, and 51 Documents: Zionist Collaboration With the Nazis (Brenner 1983; Brenner 1984a; Brenner 1986; Brenner 2002a).
At least in this version: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Haavara_Agreement&oldid=504258295 of the article, the footnote number "[1]" is labeled as a "[dead link]"(that is, " dead link").
I tried to find the correct "source" page on the (apparently voluminous!) web site yadvashem.org ... (and apparently that web site has been re-organized -- or at least the URLs of some parts of it / some pages of it, have changed -- since the last time this dead link was still alive).
I have not gone ahead and edited the article ["yet"], because I am not sure that this is the correct source: http://www1.yadvashem.org/odot_pdf/Microsoft%20Word%20-%203231.pdf ...however, I did take the liberty of making a "snapshot" (archival) copy of that on-line .pdf file (from the web site, yadvashem.org) so that, if/when I do edit the article, to (perhaps) give some new life to that dead link, it will be possible to provide also an "archiveurl" field [value] in the "cite web" entry (or whatever it is) inside the "ref" tag in the wiki markup. The "archiveurl" field [value] is this: http://www.webcitation.org/6CIvFzuL6 ...and it should not change, even if the re-organizing (if any) of the web site yadvashem.org continues to occur in the future.
Any comments? Before I try to go resurrect that dead link? Thank you, -- Mike Schwartz ( talk) 01:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I tried to insert https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/he/0/0f/Paltreu1.jpg here via the file tag, but I give up, sorry.
Zezen ( talk) 21:02, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation. I once managed to insert a similar DE wiki-only file into the PL wiki just by toying with its URL. Here I failed.
It's too much hassle to upload it separately to Commons, so I leave it to another Wikipedian. Zezen ( talk) 01:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
For the info of all: I reuploaded it to Commons, and it works now. Yay! Zezen ( talk) 16:54, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Some editors coming to this page display a deep ignorance of the history of Nazi Germany, in particular, the fact that beginning in April 1933 laws were enacted depriving enormous numbers of "non-Aryans" (read: Jews) of government jobs (as teachers, professors, judges, and bureaucrats of all kinds), barring Jewish students from universities, and forbidding them form practicing in the professions (as physicians, musicians in orchestras, attorneys, accountants, etc.). Enormous numbers of Jews were forced to flee, others sent their children abroad, which, was, of course, the intent of the anti-Jewish laws. the point is that this Transfer Pact was created as a direct consequence of severe anti-Semitic laws, not to mention the fact that immediately after Hitler's election Nazi thugs began beating Jews up in the streets. The idea that merely because gas chambers had not yet been erected, Jews were moving out of Germany voluntarily (being supported by an editor making reverts on the page) is incorrect. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 00:28, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
This article fails to reflect either the facts about its subject or the environment in which it operated. Actually, in 1933 and in the following several years most German Jews did not wish to leave Germany, which is thoroughly documented and not disputed between historians. Writing as if the Holocaust was already upon them is misleading. It is also false to write, or imply, that assets were being seized from Jews at that time. That happened later, but the problem addressed by the agreement was the transfer of assets out of Germany, not the loss of assets. Before this agreement, Jews emigrating to Palestine (or anywhere else) had to leave most of their assets behind in Germany. The agreement allowed them to transfer a lot of the value to Palestine in a way that was not an economic burden on Germany. Many other things entirely missing from the article are (1) the Jewish boycott of German goods, which is emphasised as a key part of the context by all of the sources, (2) the major role of Consul-General Wolff, without whom the agreement probably wouldn't have happened, (3) the reasons why the German government agreed to it (only some years-later opinion of one person is mentioned). Incidentally, though we don't need Edwin Black's book, I don't see any reason that it is uncitable. Zero talk 00:42, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
There's also an issue that the article both says it ended in 1938 and in 1939 - which one is right? And there is a weird stray paragraph in the "The Transfer Agreement" section, presumably orphaned during editing wars. Can anyone sort them out? BobFromBrockley ( talk) 17:42, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
In the talk above, one editor argued Edwin Black's book, The Transfer Agreement, is not a WP:RS because self-published, but this has been questioned more recently by another editor. Is there consensus on this? And another editor has removed references to Francis R Nicosia's book as WP:POV. Is there consensus on that? BobFromBrockley ( talk) 17:27, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't see any evidence that Black's book is self-published. The first edition was published by Macmillan, one of the world's largest publishers. Starting in 2001 it was published by Carroll & Graf, a division of the Avalon Publishing Group. In 2007, Carroll & Graf was shut down, and soon after that Dialog Press published it. I don't see any reason to believe that Dialog Press is a vanity press, but even it is the previous editions were for sure not self-published. Zero talk 09:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Published this year (and perhaps a useful source): David Cesarani, Final Solution, the Fate of the Jews 1933-1949. ← ZScarpia 12:08, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
The image of a certificate is pretty useless without knowing what it is. The caption doesn't help. I think it is some sort of personal receipt, but my German is crap. If we can't figure out what it is, we should delete it. Zero talk 14:42, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
No to the deletionsim, @ Zero. If you do not read German (why? It is almost English! very easy for an average English speaker - think Chinese or Turkish), do not even suggest deleting it. Read the Hebrew version hereof on why not. (Disclaimer: I inserted it myself hereto, with some effort, a couple of months ago, and I am happy that it survived the edit wars, battled in my absence herefrom). Zezen ( talk) 17:02, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
VQuakr please add Antisemitism Category to the article based per our discussion on /info/en/?search=Talk:Antisemitism#Antisemitism_Category "the Haavara page has no Antisemitism category tag or any sub-category Antisemitism tag. but it has a Zionism category tag. The page itself looks Antisemitic based on the categories. here is supporting news paper article to Antisemitism http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/world-history/adolf-hitler-zionism-zionist-nazis-haavara-agreement-ken-livingstone-labour-antisemitism-row-a7009981.html " so as Wikipedia is unbiased and neutral, please let's keep it so! thank you, Igor Berger ( talk) 05:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Igorberger, I won't remove your {{ POV}} tag, but I strongly recommend that you read the template's documentation, which says (in part) "Use this template when you have identified a serious issue regarding WP:Neutral point of view. ... This template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to lack a neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality, independent, reliable secondary sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the public." What is the "serious issue regarding Neutral point of view", that you don't like the way Wikipedia categorizes its articles? What reliable sources indicate that Wikipedia's categorization scheme is not neutral? — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 16:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Many Wikipedia articles have a Category and a number of sub categories within that category as tags. Having the world Antisemitism in the category with articles dealing with Antisemitsm is very important for Jewish identity and Judaism. i propose a compromise, if we can add the sub category of Antisemitism category "Antisemitism in Germany" to Haavara Agreement i would see this NPOV and a job well /info/en/?search=Category:Antisemitism_in_Germany Igor Berger ( talk) 08:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
VQuakr would like your opinion on my proposed compromised to add "Antisemitism in Germany" category to the article. thank you Igor Berger ( talk) 04:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
The 'Responses' section says " Wise and other leaders of the Anti-Nazi boycott of 1933 argued against the agreement, narrowly failing to persuade the Eighteenth Zionist Congress in August 1935 to vote against it".
Does that mean that the 18th congress voted for it?
If so, then the wording should make that point explicit since that is the main focus of the subject not the (minority) opposition.
Perhaps I'm being pedantic, but how about:
" Despite Wise and other leaders of the Anti-Nazi boycott of 1933 arguing against the agreement, the Eighteenth Zionist Congress in August 1935 narrowly [how narrowly?] voted to support it". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.167.214 ( talk) 15:37, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Why on earth does this article use the term "NSDAP" to refer to the Nazi party? This only confuses readers. NSDAP actually redirects to Nazi Party. 202.81.249.163 ( talk) 17:09, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The paragraph:
"Within the Nazi movement, a variety of (increasingly radical) "solutions" to the "Jewish Question" were proposed both before and after the NSDAP was in government, including expulsion and the encouragement of voluntary emigration. Widespread civil persecution of German Jews began as soon as the NSDAP was in power.[10] For example, on 1 April, the NSDAP organized a nationwide boycott of Jewish-owned businesses in Germany; under the Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service which was implemented on 7 April, Jews were excluded from the civil service; on 25 April, quotas were imposed on the number of Jews in schools and universities. Jews outside Germany responded to these persecutions with a boycott of German goods."
It could read:
"Within the Nazi movement, a variety of (increasingly radical) "solutions" to the "Jewish Question" were proposed both before and after the NSDAP was in government, including expulsion and the encouragement of voluntary emigration. Widespread civil persecution of German Jews began as soon as the NSDAP was in power.[10] Jews outside Germany responded to these persecutions with a boycott of German goods. In turn, Germany responded in kind. On 1 April, the NSDAP organized a one-day nationwide boycott of Jewish-owned businesses in Germany, which would later be re-instated if the Anti-Nazi boycotts continued; Later, under the Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service which was implemented on 7 April, Jews were excluded from the civil service; on 25 April, quotas were imposed on the number of Jews in schools and universities." Overgrown Dwarf ( talk) 11:28, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
{{
edit extended-protected}}
template. The requested edit makes it sound like the Nazi persecution of Jews was a response to the boycott of German goods, which is a ludicrous position not supported by reliable sources.
Eggishorn
(talk)
(contrib)
19:28, 4 May 2018 (UTC)re: "The requested edit makes it sound like the Nazi persecution of Jews was a response to the boycott of German goods" Why would you think that when the Boycott itself was a response to the Nazi persecution of Jews? Clearly, the thoughtful reader would understand what came first. There seems to be too little concern with conveying the facts and more concern with what readers may "think", especially that they only think one thing - "Jews played no role in the conflict other than unwitting victims." barking ( talk) 18:50, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
How is it that the last sentence in paragraph #2 of Background reads "Jews outside Germany responded to these persecutions with a boycott of German goods." when this is clearly factually incorrect in respect to the examples given? The Boycott began in March - days before and therefore could NOT have been a response to the stated Nazi actions. Also, the "Anti-Nazi boycott of 1933" Wiki-page states "Nazi officials denounced the protests as slanders against the Nazis perpetrated by "Jews of German origin", with their Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels proclaiming that a series of "sharp countermeasures" would be taken against the Jews of Germany in response to the protests of American Jews. Goebbels announced a one-day boycott of Jewish businesses in Germany of his own to take place on April 1, 1933, which would be lifted if anti-Nazi protests were suspended.[12] This was the German government's first officially sanctioned anti-Jewish boycott." ( section: Nazi counter-boycott). This kinda makes some previous feedback expressing reservations about correcting this error seem unreasonable.
Correcting this gross mis-representation is well overdue. How do we get this fixed? barking ( talk) 00:54, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
The line about Arlosoroff should be edited to read that he was murdered, not assassinated, and that the question of whether his murder was political remains open at the very most. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nelamm ( talk • contribs) 16:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
There has been back and forth on the page about
this category, Jewish collaboration with Nazi Germany. As it is contested, the onus on getting consensus for inclusion is on those who want it added, as per
WP:ONUS. Key policy to bear in mind is at
WP:CATEGORY: Categorization of articles must be
verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories... Categorization must also maintain a
neutral point of view. Categorizations appear on article pages without annotations or referencing to justify or explain their addition; editors should be conscious of the need to maintain a neutral point of view when creating categories or adding them to articles. Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial; if the category's topic is likely to spark controversy, then a list article (which can be annotated and referenced) is probably more appropriate.
Personally, I am against adding it because it is controversial not neutral.
BobFromBrockley (
talk)
12:44, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
This might sound like a small thing, but when the article says "for the Yishuv, the new Jewish community in Palestine, it offered access to both immigrant labour and economic support," it is implying the Yishuv had arrived in Palestine recently, which was simply not the case. The Old Yishuv had been in Palestine for millennia, and the New Yishuv had been there for 60 years since the 1880s. The use of the word "new" serves to imply there was no Jewish community in Palestine until very recently before the Haavara Agreement. I would recommend cutting out the word "new" entirely.
-- EricSpokane ( talk) 19:45, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
All used of "NSDAP" should be replaced by the term "Nazi Party" or "Nazis."
NSDAP is implying the Nazi term "National Socialism" to be valid. It is not. That term was an intentional misnomer, and Fascist propaganda.
Using "NSDAP" is respecting Nazi propaganda and Nazi wishes.
Everyone knows who the Nazis are, it is both archaic and invalid to use "NSDAP."
It needs to be replaced by "Nazis" or "Nazi Party." 161.97.215.12 ( talk) 20:17, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
citation #14 in the article (after "assassinated" under "Responses") links to a casino website. the original source is available via web archive at https://web.archive.org/web/20190331082823/http://reformjudaismmag.net/rjmag-90s/999eb.html. can someone with edit access update this? 69.113.236.26 ( talk) 15:32, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
Would be interested to see any facts on the subject.
Also some elaboration on the sentence: "This helped Germany's weak economy at a time when many Jews were boycotting the country's goods" would be helpful. (Was this a formal boycott? How widespread was it? What was its actual impact, and how long did it last?) Historian932 ( talk) 18:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Assetts, effect of boycott, German exports etc. The question was put a while ago, but I got interested so I looked it up. Assetts: there were 140m RM transferred ( http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ha'avara-Abkommen). In some other source which I will find, it was stated that 12 m RM were providsed by teh German Government in order to facilitate the emigration of German Jews. Regarding the effect of the boycott: F.R. Nicosia reports (Inst. f. Zeitgesch., 37, 1989, Heft 3) that the effect of the boycott was negligible. Total German exports in m RM (Bevölkerung und Wirtschaft 1872-1972, S. 191): 13,483 (1929), 12,036 (1930); 9,599 (1931); 5,739 (1932); 4,871 (1933); 4,167 (1934); 4270 (1935); 4,768 (1936); 5,911 (1937); 5,257 (1938)
It can be seen that the export was continuously low from 1931 onwards; the boycott did not affect this level apparently. The total export is however very large compared with the average Ha'avara transfers (20m RM per year = 0.35%), so that the argument that the exports under the agreement helped the German economy seems a bit far fetched.
Value of transfers: The well known German journalist of Jewish faith Henryk Broder reports in his biographie of a settler in Palestine that a policeman in the 30's earned 5 pound per month, and that 20 pound per month was considered a very good income ( http://einestages.spiegel.de/static/authoralbumbackground/723/adolf_und_seine_soehne.html). The effect of the transfer of £17.5m in seven years must therefore have been quite dramatic; in fact there are scholars who argue that the Ha'avara transfers (or their effects, with foundation of a banks, issue of bonds etc.) laid the foundation for the financial system of the state of Israel (M. Sarnat,The Journal of Economic History Vol. 49, No. 3 (Sep., 1989), pp. 693-698).
And another query: why is Feilchenfeld's book not even mentioned here: It may be biased, but it was written by someone who actually took an active part in the whole thing?
I think you are right, a few more facts would benefit the article; maybe the person who looks after this page may make a move?? -- Gerald Mueller ( talk) 14:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
This article uses [1] as a source; this appears to be an ad site for what seems to be likely a self-published book (Most of the output of Dialog Press lists the same individual as the author), making it a WP:SPS, and thus a discouraged source. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 02:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
"Britain, the USA, and their Jewish populations were not supportive of Jewish volunteers in, and even outside, Palestine. As the war neared the Yishuv’s borders in 1940 and 1941, Ben-Gurion feared for the fate of the Yishuv... The Zionist leadership was skeptical about the mass destruction of Jews even in mid-1942. At the end of 1942, authentic reports of Nazi atrocities reached the Yishuv but the response was not vociferous."
I added a link to Mark Weber : Zionism and the Third Reich. Although apparently this site is accused of being "Holocaust revisionist", this article seems very informative, and sums up many details succinctly and clearly, with sources. I think it would be a good reference for the Haavara article, even though the site it appears on is apparently controversial. Jimhoward72 ( talk) 12:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Institute_for_Historical_Review
On the other hand, if you cited ADL or SPLC as your source, you'd earn a badge of valued contributor --- so you should learn to play the right games. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
87.115.89.118 (
talk)
23:58, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia, and thus The Truth (whatever it may be) are not games. Follow the Christ, should you be Christian, here: let truth be truth, lie a lie.
So no games here allowed.
Zezen (
talk)
16:52, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
As can be seen in the history of this article, one user is insisting on deleting this key reference to the Haavara agreement:
"The Transfer Agreement"] (Edwin Black's book : The Transfer Agreement: The Dramatic Story of the Pact Between the Third Reich and Jewish Palestine, 2001)
I'm not going to keep trying to add it, but just note that now one of the most significant books on the subject no longer appears within the article, while Lenni Brenner's work remains as a source. Jimhoward72 ( talk) 15:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Just give up and cite Jewish sources if you don't want your updates deleted on Wikipedia. ADL and SPLC would do very nicely because they are "unbiased" and "authoritative". Just say "600 trillion Jews perished in the holocaust" and our Jewish masters will be very happy with you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.89.118 ( talk) 00:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Here is some additional content discussing Brenner's work https://fathomjournal.org/an-antisemitic-hoax-lenni-brenner-on-zionist-collaboration-with-the-nazis/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:8C00:5F20:7031:F251:C1BD:99C7 ( talk) 19:09, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
An acquaintance remembered him as ‘a non-student “Marxist agitator” who would stand near the Bancroft strip and rail about the Pope, the Bay of Pigs, and marijuana, indifferent to the fact that most passersby thought he was “certifiably crazy”’ (Berkleyan, 2004). During the 1980s, Brenner worked with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), a Marxist-Leninist faction of the Palestinian Liberation Movement (PLO). Brenner himself is a Trotskyist. He is the author of an attack on the Democratic Party and a book on the American Founders’ views on church-state separation. But it is for his vitriolic assaults on Zionists and the American Jewish community that he is best known. These include Zionism in the Age of the Dictators, as well as The Iron Wall: Zionist Revisionism From Jabotinsky to Shamir, Jews in America Today, and 51 Documents: Zionist Collaboration With the Nazis (Brenner 1983; Brenner 1984a; Brenner 1986; Brenner 2002a).
At least in this version: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Haavara_Agreement&oldid=504258295 of the article, the footnote number "[1]" is labeled as a "[dead link]"(that is, " dead link").
I tried to find the correct "source" page on the (apparently voluminous!) web site yadvashem.org ... (and apparently that web site has been re-organized -- or at least the URLs of some parts of it / some pages of it, have changed -- since the last time this dead link was still alive).
I have not gone ahead and edited the article ["yet"], because I am not sure that this is the correct source: http://www1.yadvashem.org/odot_pdf/Microsoft%20Word%20-%203231.pdf ...however, I did take the liberty of making a "snapshot" (archival) copy of that on-line .pdf file (from the web site, yadvashem.org) so that, if/when I do edit the article, to (perhaps) give some new life to that dead link, it will be possible to provide also an "archiveurl" field [value] in the "cite web" entry (or whatever it is) inside the "ref" tag in the wiki markup. The "archiveurl" field [value] is this: http://www.webcitation.org/6CIvFzuL6 ...and it should not change, even if the re-organizing (if any) of the web site yadvashem.org continues to occur in the future.
Any comments? Before I try to go resurrect that dead link? Thank you, -- Mike Schwartz ( talk) 01:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I tried to insert https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/he/0/0f/Paltreu1.jpg here via the file tag, but I give up, sorry.
Zezen ( talk) 21:02, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation. I once managed to insert a similar DE wiki-only file into the PL wiki just by toying with its URL. Here I failed.
It's too much hassle to upload it separately to Commons, so I leave it to another Wikipedian. Zezen ( talk) 01:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
For the info of all: I reuploaded it to Commons, and it works now. Yay! Zezen ( talk) 16:54, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Some editors coming to this page display a deep ignorance of the history of Nazi Germany, in particular, the fact that beginning in April 1933 laws were enacted depriving enormous numbers of "non-Aryans" (read: Jews) of government jobs (as teachers, professors, judges, and bureaucrats of all kinds), barring Jewish students from universities, and forbidding them form practicing in the professions (as physicians, musicians in orchestras, attorneys, accountants, etc.). Enormous numbers of Jews were forced to flee, others sent their children abroad, which, was, of course, the intent of the anti-Jewish laws. the point is that this Transfer Pact was created as a direct consequence of severe anti-Semitic laws, not to mention the fact that immediately after Hitler's election Nazi thugs began beating Jews up in the streets. The idea that merely because gas chambers had not yet been erected, Jews were moving out of Germany voluntarily (being supported by an editor making reverts on the page) is incorrect. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 00:28, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
This article fails to reflect either the facts about its subject or the environment in which it operated. Actually, in 1933 and in the following several years most German Jews did not wish to leave Germany, which is thoroughly documented and not disputed between historians. Writing as if the Holocaust was already upon them is misleading. It is also false to write, or imply, that assets were being seized from Jews at that time. That happened later, but the problem addressed by the agreement was the transfer of assets out of Germany, not the loss of assets. Before this agreement, Jews emigrating to Palestine (or anywhere else) had to leave most of their assets behind in Germany. The agreement allowed them to transfer a lot of the value to Palestine in a way that was not an economic burden on Germany. Many other things entirely missing from the article are (1) the Jewish boycott of German goods, which is emphasised as a key part of the context by all of the sources, (2) the major role of Consul-General Wolff, without whom the agreement probably wouldn't have happened, (3) the reasons why the German government agreed to it (only some years-later opinion of one person is mentioned). Incidentally, though we don't need Edwin Black's book, I don't see any reason that it is uncitable. Zero talk 00:42, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
There's also an issue that the article both says it ended in 1938 and in 1939 - which one is right? And there is a weird stray paragraph in the "The Transfer Agreement" section, presumably orphaned during editing wars. Can anyone sort them out? BobFromBrockley ( talk) 17:42, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
In the talk above, one editor argued Edwin Black's book, The Transfer Agreement, is not a WP:RS because self-published, but this has been questioned more recently by another editor. Is there consensus on this? And another editor has removed references to Francis R Nicosia's book as WP:POV. Is there consensus on that? BobFromBrockley ( talk) 17:27, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't see any evidence that Black's book is self-published. The first edition was published by Macmillan, one of the world's largest publishers. Starting in 2001 it was published by Carroll & Graf, a division of the Avalon Publishing Group. In 2007, Carroll & Graf was shut down, and soon after that Dialog Press published it. I don't see any reason to believe that Dialog Press is a vanity press, but even it is the previous editions were for sure not self-published. Zero talk 09:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Published this year (and perhaps a useful source): David Cesarani, Final Solution, the Fate of the Jews 1933-1949. ← ZScarpia 12:08, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
The image of a certificate is pretty useless without knowing what it is. The caption doesn't help. I think it is some sort of personal receipt, but my German is crap. If we can't figure out what it is, we should delete it. Zero talk 14:42, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
No to the deletionsim, @ Zero. If you do not read German (why? It is almost English! very easy for an average English speaker - think Chinese or Turkish), do not even suggest deleting it. Read the Hebrew version hereof on why not. (Disclaimer: I inserted it myself hereto, with some effort, a couple of months ago, and I am happy that it survived the edit wars, battled in my absence herefrom). Zezen ( talk) 17:02, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
VQuakr please add Antisemitism Category to the article based per our discussion on /info/en/?search=Talk:Antisemitism#Antisemitism_Category "the Haavara page has no Antisemitism category tag or any sub-category Antisemitism tag. but it has a Zionism category tag. The page itself looks Antisemitic based on the categories. here is supporting news paper article to Antisemitism http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/world-history/adolf-hitler-zionism-zionist-nazis-haavara-agreement-ken-livingstone-labour-antisemitism-row-a7009981.html " so as Wikipedia is unbiased and neutral, please let's keep it so! thank you, Igor Berger ( talk) 05:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Igorberger, I won't remove your {{ POV}} tag, but I strongly recommend that you read the template's documentation, which says (in part) "Use this template when you have identified a serious issue regarding WP:Neutral point of view. ... This template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to lack a neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality, independent, reliable secondary sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the public." What is the "serious issue regarding Neutral point of view", that you don't like the way Wikipedia categorizes its articles? What reliable sources indicate that Wikipedia's categorization scheme is not neutral? — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 16:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Many Wikipedia articles have a Category and a number of sub categories within that category as tags. Having the world Antisemitism in the category with articles dealing with Antisemitsm is very important for Jewish identity and Judaism. i propose a compromise, if we can add the sub category of Antisemitism category "Antisemitism in Germany" to Haavara Agreement i would see this NPOV and a job well /info/en/?search=Category:Antisemitism_in_Germany Igor Berger ( talk) 08:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
VQuakr would like your opinion on my proposed compromised to add "Antisemitism in Germany" category to the article. thank you Igor Berger ( talk) 04:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
The 'Responses' section says " Wise and other leaders of the Anti-Nazi boycott of 1933 argued against the agreement, narrowly failing to persuade the Eighteenth Zionist Congress in August 1935 to vote against it".
Does that mean that the 18th congress voted for it?
If so, then the wording should make that point explicit since that is the main focus of the subject not the (minority) opposition.
Perhaps I'm being pedantic, but how about:
" Despite Wise and other leaders of the Anti-Nazi boycott of 1933 arguing against the agreement, the Eighteenth Zionist Congress in August 1935 narrowly [how narrowly?] voted to support it". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.167.214 ( talk) 15:37, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Why on earth does this article use the term "NSDAP" to refer to the Nazi party? This only confuses readers. NSDAP actually redirects to Nazi Party. 202.81.249.163 ( talk) 17:09, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The paragraph:
"Within the Nazi movement, a variety of (increasingly radical) "solutions" to the "Jewish Question" were proposed both before and after the NSDAP was in government, including expulsion and the encouragement of voluntary emigration. Widespread civil persecution of German Jews began as soon as the NSDAP was in power.[10] For example, on 1 April, the NSDAP organized a nationwide boycott of Jewish-owned businesses in Germany; under the Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service which was implemented on 7 April, Jews were excluded from the civil service; on 25 April, quotas were imposed on the number of Jews in schools and universities. Jews outside Germany responded to these persecutions with a boycott of German goods."
It could read:
"Within the Nazi movement, a variety of (increasingly radical) "solutions" to the "Jewish Question" were proposed both before and after the NSDAP was in government, including expulsion and the encouragement of voluntary emigration. Widespread civil persecution of German Jews began as soon as the NSDAP was in power.[10] Jews outside Germany responded to these persecutions with a boycott of German goods. In turn, Germany responded in kind. On 1 April, the NSDAP organized a one-day nationwide boycott of Jewish-owned businesses in Germany, which would later be re-instated if the Anti-Nazi boycotts continued; Later, under the Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service which was implemented on 7 April, Jews were excluded from the civil service; on 25 April, quotas were imposed on the number of Jews in schools and universities." Overgrown Dwarf ( talk) 11:28, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
{{
edit extended-protected}}
template. The requested edit makes it sound like the Nazi persecution of Jews was a response to the boycott of German goods, which is a ludicrous position not supported by reliable sources.
Eggishorn
(talk)
(contrib)
19:28, 4 May 2018 (UTC)re: "The requested edit makes it sound like the Nazi persecution of Jews was a response to the boycott of German goods" Why would you think that when the Boycott itself was a response to the Nazi persecution of Jews? Clearly, the thoughtful reader would understand what came first. There seems to be too little concern with conveying the facts and more concern with what readers may "think", especially that they only think one thing - "Jews played no role in the conflict other than unwitting victims." barking ( talk) 18:50, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
How is it that the last sentence in paragraph #2 of Background reads "Jews outside Germany responded to these persecutions with a boycott of German goods." when this is clearly factually incorrect in respect to the examples given? The Boycott began in March - days before and therefore could NOT have been a response to the stated Nazi actions. Also, the "Anti-Nazi boycott of 1933" Wiki-page states "Nazi officials denounced the protests as slanders against the Nazis perpetrated by "Jews of German origin", with their Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels proclaiming that a series of "sharp countermeasures" would be taken against the Jews of Germany in response to the protests of American Jews. Goebbels announced a one-day boycott of Jewish businesses in Germany of his own to take place on April 1, 1933, which would be lifted if anti-Nazi protests were suspended.[12] This was the German government's first officially sanctioned anti-Jewish boycott." ( section: Nazi counter-boycott). This kinda makes some previous feedback expressing reservations about correcting this error seem unreasonable.
Correcting this gross mis-representation is well overdue. How do we get this fixed? barking ( talk) 00:54, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
The line about Arlosoroff should be edited to read that he was murdered, not assassinated, and that the question of whether his murder was political remains open at the very most. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nelamm ( talk • contribs) 16:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
There has been back and forth on the page about
this category, Jewish collaboration with Nazi Germany. As it is contested, the onus on getting consensus for inclusion is on those who want it added, as per
WP:ONUS. Key policy to bear in mind is at
WP:CATEGORY: Categorization of articles must be
verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories... Categorization must also maintain a
neutral point of view. Categorizations appear on article pages without annotations or referencing to justify or explain their addition; editors should be conscious of the need to maintain a neutral point of view when creating categories or adding them to articles. Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial; if the category's topic is likely to spark controversy, then a list article (which can be annotated and referenced) is probably more appropriate.
Personally, I am against adding it because it is controversial not neutral.
BobFromBrockley (
talk)
12:44, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
This might sound like a small thing, but when the article says "for the Yishuv, the new Jewish community in Palestine, it offered access to both immigrant labour and economic support," it is implying the Yishuv had arrived in Palestine recently, which was simply not the case. The Old Yishuv had been in Palestine for millennia, and the New Yishuv had been there for 60 years since the 1880s. The use of the word "new" serves to imply there was no Jewish community in Palestine until very recently before the Haavara Agreement. I would recommend cutting out the word "new" entirely.
-- EricSpokane ( talk) 19:45, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
All used of "NSDAP" should be replaced by the term "Nazi Party" or "Nazis."
NSDAP is implying the Nazi term "National Socialism" to be valid. It is not. That term was an intentional misnomer, and Fascist propaganda.
Using "NSDAP" is respecting Nazi propaganda and Nazi wishes.
Everyone knows who the Nazis are, it is both archaic and invalid to use "NSDAP."
It needs to be replaced by "Nazis" or "Nazi Party." 161.97.215.12 ( talk) 20:17, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
citation #14 in the article (after "assassinated" under "Responses") links to a casino website. the original source is available via web archive at https://web.archive.org/web/20190331082823/http://reformjudaismmag.net/rjmag-90s/999eb.html. can someone with edit access update this? 69.113.236.26 ( talk) 15:32, 26 October 2023 (UTC)