Well it turns our very rapidly in the early 20s, but you claim with no consequences.

Again to Cantor:

“West of Poland the great majority of Jews were eager and willing to transform themselves – to shave their beards, wear up to date clothes, give their sons and usually their daughters a secular education, and be of immediate service to the government and society. … East of Germany there remained a huge mass of unassimilated Jews who threatened to turn around and move westward.”

Ultimately they did just that.

So the question then becomes whether it was the 'petty bourgeois' with their anti Jewish sentiments, rather than the strictly working classes with their notions of socialism that would be over represented among NAZI membership.

“In early 1933, just before Hitler's appointment to the chancellorship, the party showed an under-representation of "workers", who made up 30% of the membership but 46% of German society. Conversely, white-collar employees (19% of members and 12% of Germans), the self-employed (20% of members and 10% of Germans) and civil servants (15% of members and 5% of the German population) had joined in proportions greater than their share of the general population.”
Wikipedia

This clearly illustrates the primacy of anti-Semitic over socialist notions within the party.

Steele Redux- Do you know what "active listening" is? You don't have to agree with mhaze but I think it's at least important to try to understand why he sees things the way he does- but that's just me.

I think you're referring to the difference between Sephardic and Ashkenazi Hebrews- but my knowledge isn't so good.

mhaze- Thanks for your explanation and your patience.

History is full of subtleties- my understanding of mhaze's comments-

"Even though the Nazi's may not have liked Hebrew's" they didn't gain public support through like policies- they gained public support by focusing on the things that the local peoples cared about- in this case "economic problems".

Mao said for example- don't talk about the capitalists, talk about the greedy landlords- because the people know who they pay their rent to.

Perhaps Cantor didn't even understand the subtlety here or perhaps it didn't match the narrative.

Dear Canem Malum,

You said of mhaze: “You need to find out from mhaze how he sees the situation”.

Yet we already know exactly how he sees the hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees that poured into Germany from the East, they were apparently 'fictitious', full stop.

The rest of the discussion has been around him defending that position, one he has yet to disavow.

Now in his defense you are casting doubt about Cantor's take on the situation: “Perhaps Cantor didn't even understand the subtlety here or perhaps it didn't match the narrative.”

Norman Cantor was a Rhodes Scholar, did his Phd at Princeton University, was a Fullbright Professor at Tel Aviv University, he served as Dean of NYU's College of Arts & Sciences, as well as a professor of history, sociology and comparative literature and was an emeritus professor there until his retirement.

You appear to be attempting to put mhaze on some kind of equal footing with Cantor.

Do you have any idea how ridiculous that is? You are asking that I take mhaze's views into account to balance Cantor? Crazy.

I have let an eminent and well respected history professor make most of my argument for me. Mhaze has just primarily offered up his opinion derived mostly from the argument that because the books he read didn't go into this in depth then it can't stand.

Mhaze is politically and therefore ideologically programmed to want to attack socialism. Any loosening of the charge the Hitler was a socialist weakens his world view. That is why he is holding on to this totally discredited take.

“The Jews weren't the most important issue in the rise of the Nazis much less a small, transient, wave of refugees which was already over by the time the Nazis became interested in getting northern support.”

Steele Redux- Thanks for your feedback

"Hitler was not a socialist. Nazism was not a socialist
project. And saying they were is not just incorrect but
wrong."

Oh Foxy did you reach that conclusion following your extensive research in books like Rosenbaum's 'Explaining Hitler'?

Foxy, its very clear you have no knowledge, let alone special knowledge on this. Please stop making a fool of yourself.

SR,

1. Let's clear this up. I never said the Jews coming in were fictitious. I said that it wasn't a flood. More to the point it wasn't anything that had the slightest impact on the rise of the Nazis. That you need to distort this demonstrates how out of your depth you are.

You have no evidence that this made-up flood had any effect. No evidence. I've given a small sample of the ample evidence to the contrary. If this fictitious flood was so important how do you explain that the Nazis got a mere 1.4% of the Berlin vote immediately after this fictitious flood occurred? I'm guessing you'll continue to pretend to not notice that evidence.

The issue of this supposed flood revolves around the mid 1920s when you say this flood occurred. But to try to hide your errors on this, you talk about the 1880s, 1900 and 1933. Nothing about the 1920s. Why? Because your claims are ignorant rubbish.

"This clearly illustrates the primacy of anti-Semitic over socialist notions within the party."

This after a quote that mentions neither Jews or socialism. Sheeeesh.

Like Foxy, SR just wants the Nazis to be not socialist. He can't argue that from the facts, so he goes off on this rant about some Jews coming in that changed everything, and when its shown that that is rubbish,he just ignores it.