So SR,

Re-writing the history of the thread now?

Here's how it went:

* you stumbled across some minor data showing some Jews from Eastern Europe ended up around Berlin in the mid-1920s.
*From this you decided that these refugees explained the rise of the Nazis because they created 'fertile soil' for the Nazis to use their antisemitism to garner support.
* To reach this conclusion you had to ignore most of the available data about antisemitism in Germany in the period - eg there was little antisemitism in the north at that time; the whole north-south divide. When I say ignore, for you it was more a case of not actually knowing it.
* You claimed the Nazis got electoral support due to their antisemitism which was fueled by the refugees. But things like the fact that the Nazis only got 1.4% of the Berlin vote only, and that the other main racist party saw their vote fall by 1/3rd in that same election destroyed that claim. You ignored that.
* When I pointed out that the Nazis antisemitism was so unpopular that they started to downplayed it in the German north,you ignored that.

Basically, SR, you have this unresearched opinion that the Nazis were all about antisemetism and that explains their rise.

But the histories and the evidence shows that the Nazis gained power because of their economic policies - their socialist policies - not their racial policies. Indeed I'd argue that they gained power despite their antisemitism not bcause of it. While the antisemetism was popular in the south, it was less so in the populace north and the Nazis dealt with that by ceasing to emphasis it.

This is partly why the Jews were initially blaise about the Nazi take-over. Most Jews were in the north and they hadn't seen the most virulent aspects of the Nazi creed. It was only later that they realised their mistake.

At that point they started getting out of Dodge. About 5% of Jews left when Hitler came to power. 85% did so following the Nuremberg Race Laws (1935).

Canem Malum,

If you're going to have a go at Solzhenitsyn then might I suggest:

1. One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich. A nice short novel to get you started. It was released during Khrushchev's reign but later banned in Russia.

2. The Gulag Archipelago 1918–1956. But make sure you read the single volume version which is weighty enough. The full multi-volume version will have you wishing to be sent to a gulag. :)

3. Warning to the West - a compendium of speeches which seem even more relevant today than they were in the 1970s.

Thanks mhaze- I'll have a skim of the reading material that you've kindly provided. It'll probably never have a good understanding- but at least I'll be able to ask intelligent questions.

Dear Canem Malum,

You write: “Are you accusing him Steele Redux of being a Nazi? Scandalous.”

What an idiotic thing to say.

I'm referring to the kind of base right wing ideology which says 'Hitler was a socialist therefore socialism is bad'.

It is very hard, as I have illustrated, to make the case that Hitler was a dedicated socialist. Goebbels didn't think he was, nor did the membership in the party reflect it either, both of which I have furnished evidence for.

Their antisemitism was their main brand and they used it well.

As to reading Dostoevsky perhaps not. I think it is almost churlish for Australians to be partaking of his works when we live in such a lucky country. He obviously speaks to Peterson's many demons but not a lot of people are that impacted. However another favourite of his is Nietzsche who is well worth the effort. Enjoy.

Dear mhaze,

You write: “One can only hope that this has been a lesson to you and that the next time you make claims about special knowledge or special research, you're prepared to demonstrate it.”

Well that really is the pot calling the kettle black.

Dear Steele,

My mum bought me the booklet - "One Day in the Life of
Ivan Denisovich" decades ago. She found it moving.
For me - it was a simple - yet a powerful
read. For mum it brought back so many memories of
what her family and country had suffered. There were so
many other accounts available - "The Frozen Inferno,"
comes to mind. That I could not finish and had to put down
for a while. There's an old Russian proverb - "No - don't
dwell on the past. If you dwell on the past you shall lose
an eye." But the proverb goes on to say - "Forget the past
and you'll lose both eyes."

That's why it is important for researchers not to distort
the evidence about established historical events. They
need to go where the evidence, not ideology leads them.

Just talking about history books I'd just like to note the passing overnight of Donald Kagan who, among other things, wrote the definitive book on the Peloponnesian War. Well four volumes really.

I have the hardcover versions - probably the most expensive books I ever bought.

Its an astonishing work and all histories on the war are indebted to and compared with Kagan's work.