Lost home movies of the Nazi era

Just watched these 2 episodes and it was absolutely gruesome. People being beaten to death in the street and shootings of Jewish people being photographed and photos developed in the country, shows that it was known what was happening to many.

Having grown up in Germany, being born in 1952 I grew up with very little information. My parents never talked about the war. My father being drawn in, just before it ended and being deployed to Norway and my mother being a nurse, that is all I ever found out.

I don’t think I could ever connect to my home country Germany because I missed so much of its history in the sense that if people never talk about it, you cannot understand what went on in people’s minds and how they want to get over the horrors.

Not even in school, in history lessons did the teachers talk much about the World War II period. It was always conveniently not mentioned.

Heinz-family

Family member of Heinz Kaschke, presumably from the Berlin area.

My family from my mother’s side having been farmers in the most remote corner of Germany were not very connected to the events in the country. My father was from Berlin and I never met any of his family. I have a picture and if anyone recognise the people on it, please contact me. My father left me a Jewish book after his death and it is called a Jewish book in his possessions and I have been informed it is a Yeshayahu Vinograds. I am not aware that he had any religion and do not know how it came into his possession. If anybody has any information about this please let me know. The book is very old.

Heinz-soldier

Heinz Kaschke (1945?)

I have been told that the Jewish Museum of Berlin is interested in the book but would first like to know how it came into my father’s possession. I show a pic of my father here as he looked during the war: He was stationed in Norway, with the heavy water production.

The silence at home was always deafening. It is not normal that people just do not speak about an era in their lives. It must have been very important for my parents that they met and married during the war. But all my mother ever said is that she had to marry in black silk as this was all she could find.

I only wondered, when I got housed in London’s East End why neighbours’s children mocked us with ‘Heil Hitler’ calls out in the street and my kids got beaten up regularly outside.

I was born in 1952 and had no idea what even went on, and the films I saw today are unforgiveable in content because they show that killings took place in the streets in mass-lynchings of Jewish people. That it was just not concealed killings in Concentration Camps.

From what I knew before I found it amazing that a Jewish lady I had a converstaion with told me that her parents sent her back to Germany after the war and I thought that must have been very difficult to live in a country were friends and family had been killed by mobs.

I am really surprised that Germany was even allowed to continue to exist as a nation after that war, they should have lost the right to be a nation. 

I could never really connect to the nation, even though I grew up there and when I went to visit a few years ago, it felt like a strange place, even my home-town Wuerzburg just looked like a living musuem because I never gotten to get to know people from the bottom of their hearts. I just felt miss-treated there as a young person and left.

I had worked in a book-shop and was one of two people with physical ‘irregularities’ and we both got dismissed from the role in our apprenticeships. Probably the pure race requirements weren’t met by me and my colleague, we were both seen as not fit to work in a bookshop. Obviously they wanted the perfect people and have not learned much from their past.

Yes, but how?

View of Earth, taken in 1972 by the Apollo 17 crew. This image is the only photograph of its kind to date, showing a fully sunlit hemisphere of the Earth. The planet cannot expand to accommodate growing populations endlessly.

Just had a conversation with someone today who is voting Green. I remembered having read somewhere about that green thinking helped Hitler a lot along the way but could not proof it. So I put a search into the search engine and found this article called “Green Nazis”.
It sums it up very good and explains the basis of Hitler’s mass popularity who rose up on scientific facts.

I ask myself can we avoid something similar today and I think it is going to be difficult.

The basis of Hitler’s rise is based on poverty and a combination of space paranoia. Yet it is only white people who are subjected to that type of thinking. Looking at the overcrowded trains etc in Asian countries, there is no chance of them turning on each other because they have a fear of natural death, something that is not the case in civilised western countries.

For poor people the need to breed over the odds is essential because hunger, disease and natural catastrophe like draught, floods, volcano explosions and earthquake can diminish human populations dramatically. Even in the western world child rich families used to be the norm because there were no medications to stems bubonic plague (black death) for example.

Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini during Hitler's visit to Venice from 14–16 June 1934. Hitler got the crowd into order with military alignment and uniformity

With the invention of medications came the de-naturalisation of humanity. The natural instincts got suppressed and replaced by the everlasting human kindness syndrome that predominates human thinking still today.

Many people adore animals at the expense of fellow human beings, maybe also because animals don’t live that long and one can look down onto something whilst all other humans live longer than other humans.

I think the less we admit the true basis of our human fears the less will we be able to combat Nazism self-destruction of our human societies. Because in the end Hitler ideology led to the self-destruction not only of Hitler’s men, who even poisoned their own children, when they realised they could not win the war, but also almost to the whole Arian race, Hitler so much admired.

In the end people like imperfections because they can look down on something, someone who is not so perfect and needs help. Humans cannot exist if they were all perfect, as it is not in the nature of the species to be like this, there are always weaker and stronger humans, the act of caring is a major stimulant in human development and social structure.

An American soldier stands near a wagon piled high with corpses outside the crematorium in the newly liberated Buchenwald concentration camp. Hitler created an undergroup of those he did not want to bring into the same order and killed them off as surplus to his sense of order.

Hitler himself must have had a major genetic fault to have developed the way he was. He had no children, he had a weird sex live, e.g. is stipulated to have liked urinating on others, or have others urinate on him and so had no urge to reproduce and his own inability to feel broody may have led him to lead Germany into a downfall. 

to the other comparisons in the “Green Nazi article. I am scared about that too because I often speak fondly of my relatives organic farming and how German ideology used this ideal of natural health to help Hitler’s rise and so wonder how we can avoid to fall into the same trap once again.

In a way, when we watch animals, we see the strong kill the weak whilst we humans want to help the weak but in Hitler’s world humans acted like animals and the natural way of live was admired by Nazis.

We would not see it in the animal world that one animal would admire another species and become destructive against themselves but we see this happen in human society. We see people admire the cute cat, the lovely puppy, but hate other humans.

 

Much attention has been given to preserving the natural characteristics of Hopetoun Falls, Australia, while allowing ample access for visitors. Organising parts of humanity whilst destroying some humans allows preservation of wild nature in Hitler's view.

What really led us humans into the ways of beating nature and healing illnesses with the help of medications is that some privileged members of human society wanted to allow their loved ones to live longer than nature intended and that model catched on widely and now we all use it and must use it because either we combat some illness collectively or we all are in danger of succumbing to it.

Collective solutions are enforced upon us the more crowded we live. We collectively endanger all of us because we are now all dependant on modern technology and modern medicine and we need to find a solution collectively as we are in danger to eradicate ourselves because once human civilisation breaks down it leads to the downfall of it all and will probably lead to only a small minority of humans to survive a global onslaught of hate that would follow a widespread breakdown of today’s civilisation.

This would most likely lead to a worldwide self-extinction by using nuclear weapons.

Chain reactions would set in and become unstoppable by normal methods. One could see how attempts to rid Germany of Hitler failed miserably because each human group makes it its utmost priority to protect the leader, just as ants protect their queen. Strangely enough this type of human dictatorship, the fascist model does not require from the leader to have physical strength but only requires an eradication of individualism.

We are on the way there, that today there is hardly any individuality left anywhere, we all have to fit in somewhere and follow the leader or we are automatically a security risk for those protecting the leader of any sort. This protective mechanism changes from national group to national group, whereby sometimes national group amalgamate into bigger associations.

This gets worst the bigger our population numbers become and there is no way out unless we eradicate large numbers of people to make space to enable individual development of independent smaller groups, which would be going backwards in time.

Hence humans try to break out of the mould and seek other planets to escape to.

Failing to find an escape route to other planets, we should try and reduce population numbers in a civilised fashion and keep them at a steady rate to avoid human catastrophes and turning of one population group against another to resolve the crises humanity is steering towards.

Organic cultivation of mixed vegetables in Capay, California. Note the hedgerow in the background. Organic farming is the return to natural farming methods used in the 19th and 20 century before the population explosion.

Humanity has to make do with the space available to us and that would need careful family planning.

Would it be good to solve a collective problem with a collective solution, the author of the Green Nazi article doesn’t think so.  I don’t think one can dismiss a collective solution as long as it is not one collective against another collective, which would lead to a war.

We cannot turn back the clock and suddenly snap out of our civilised society and suddenly return to organic living to include basic instinct killing of one another. Neither should we seek collective solutions that eradicate individualism and entrepreneurship. Unfortunately for us, humans usually only realise their errors when it is almost too late. that is because we are a follow the leader type of species. We cannot agree to allow views that contradict current leadership thinking and that is a phenomenon we should look into and urgently please. Hitler rose with National Socialism, the word says it all, a nationwide follow the leader ideology that all shared.

Today’s fashion into organic produce is a dangerous one because we could not possibly produce enough food organically to feed all. Simultaneously we get the drive for crops for fuel that would require space for farming those crops by either deforestation or using food crops fields.

Another danger is oncoming earth warming and a reduction of living space as coastal areas, in which 65% of all humans reside will be gone, that has an impact on farming, housing and forestation.

Next of course comes the uniformity. Uniforms in themselves are seen as a good thing and the common belief is that everyone wearing a uniform is a good person and all others are more or less unreliable. but the selective criteria to get into a uniform is very selective even here in anti-fascist Britain, e.g. no bad eyesight, deformities, despite there being a law against disability discrimination.

The whole flavour of the celebrity culture is one of physical fitness, good looks and perfection, very similar to Nazi ideals. It is very important that you check what this link here says. It is however understandable that we need a good pool of physically fit people to sustain those who are not or even just to sustain themselves.

And of course the fatal attraction that the Labour Party provides who say they are ethnic friendly, attract ethnic minorities into Britain, create an overcrowding that is likely to lead to a right-wing backlash. A self-defeating project really. In the end each and every one of us is really just interested in surviving and living with secondary thoughts of others. Or we can only be as tolerant as we can possibly be without endangering ourselves.

People should carefully choose whom they vote for and the best choice in my view is Conservative with the biggest anti-fascist recommendation because they actually were at the forefront of fighting Hitler.

The only way to avoid a repetition of the Hitler tragedy is to enforce strictly all laws condemning crime and especially murder. The action of the Labour Party that invaded Iraq on the back of a terrorist incident, satisfied many but left the bitter taste of bitter revenge on many people’s conscience. Interestingly most Muslims still vote Labour despite being victim of their invading aggression. And it is very dangerous to belief Labour lies who put BNP and the Conservative Party into the same bracket because it were the Conservatives who fought Hitler whilst the BNP admired Hitler.

We cannot assume that all decisions being taken by individuals or groups who say they do it for the common good really are for the common good. Decisions may be of a nihilistic or self-destructive nature, as the Hitler decisions were. We must avoid falling into the same traps as people did in pre-war and Nazi Germany and that is a complicated undertaking.

Tainted opinions

Electronic media reports terrorist threat in the US

Electronic media reports terrorist threat in the US. the media can have a very beneficial effect when they report about things that are of public interest

An article to highlight the dilemma of British courts is this excellent one from the BBC website. The argument rages, what is private and what is in the interest of the public to know. Is it interesting for the public to see that a leading politician has an unconventional sex life.

Again I have to bring a Hitler comparison because Hitler’s private life is very conspicuous. Had an affair with his niece, sexual relations, niece’s father of expectant child murdered by Hitler’s bullies and the girl shoots itself, so was the press report here in the UK long after World War II. At the time in Germany, when Hitler was just about to rise to power, the press didn’t give the matter a second thought. Now had the press reported how Hitler, took his niece out of university and had a sexual relationship and how weird his sexual habits were, some suspect urinating turned him on. Had the press been able to exploit this, it would have turned the fortune of German politics considerably but the press was already on the side of the German Nazis and so there would not have been any danger there, that Hitler’s private life would have been exposed.

So it has all to do with whom the press sides and there I see a danger. Because the press can pick and choose whom they wish to ridicule and can destroy the careers of some but not of others, who may be equally concerning.

In my case the press has managed to destroy my public profile since 1975 but without any good reason. I have always been a law abiding citizen, never committed a crime, never even thought of committing a crime, yet the press is happy to overindulge in my case in press made alleged  connections, but that is in my view only to serve their own purpose, which is to attract reader numbers and that in the dangerous political context that it suited Labour friendly publishers to run me down for something I never been involved in.

On the other hand a Respect Tower Hamlets Councillor who was stopped by terror police when he arrived at Heathrow, back from an anti-war conference in Cairo Egypt, no one even thought of heading this as ‘terror Councillor stopped at the airport’. That is because he was valuable to Labour when Labour hoped Rahmen changes over to Labour, which he later did. Yet in my case headlines appeared like “…… losing candidate” (now removed, but has been on publication for 2 years), and “Respect member’s …….. link“. Even Private Eye felt tempted to join in, but they printed an apology. But they most likely felt edged on by the blogs up about it.

I am not in any way wanting to imply that councillor Oliur Rahman has any connection to Al-Qaeda but this is an example to show how the press can lead public opinion in some cases, where it suits a political purpose but does not do so in others.
The press is making public opinion and can steer it in a certain direction and pick and choose on whom they direct their wrath. This includes all publishers like Bloggers.

We need some criteria that oozes fairness because if one can be treated in this way then why not treat others in this way. So one politician is reported as having an affair with a male prostitute, so all politicians, if any, who have affairs with male prostitutes should equally be reported about.

I think that the press freedom has dangerous implications as it is used to allocate power to some lucky people the press chooses not to report about in some weird way. We all have something that could be portrait as questionable and the press freedom is not fair as it is not used equally strong on all of us.

In my case I suspect simple sex discrimination. I am a single woman now, have not got a boyfriend and I am an easy victim, having had care responsibilities, a small child to look after and not much money, its simple exploitation of the weak.

Privacy is easier to prosecute in a civil case than libel and even high court judges allow injunctions in privacy not to disclose private sex life and they never allow an injunction in libel if the defendant pleads fair comment or justification. Why should a libelled person have to proof the libel is wrong and why doesn’t a privacy suite not require the same.

Why indeed does the victim of the press have to bring the proof and not the reporter? The burden of proof is not with the one that makes the unsubstantiated allegation, the burden of proof is with the one written about and the threshold of proofing publication is put very, very high indeed to the point where publishers don’t even have to disclose their publication platforms any longer.

That is very dangerous indeed, whereby publishers can now run away with their unfounded opinions. As I said before I think I have been reported about because I refused sex to certain people in the past and have no inclination to give in to demands now and think that in my case Der Spiegel got away with not even having to declare their methods of publications and there the courts are simply too liberal to the press as the press can make or break a politician today.

There is no set standard in how cases are even heard, where is the relativity of public interest? There are no set standards of what should be interesting for the public and way.

A reporter can report that Mr X has weird sex but not also that Mr Y has weird sex when they are both public figures.

The McBride scandal has fully explained how powerful the press can be and how it can misuse powers to steer public opinion in the court of one party and not another. We now even get to the point where the press demand from the police not to search them because they think of themselves as some kind of holy cows, e.g. complaints being made that police have stopped and searched people with cameras.

Lets face the fact that the press needs to sell papers and first and foremost they want to make money out of publications and it is not their job to disclose scandals because it is in the public interest to do so but because they want to sell papers, hence the equally important issue of reporting about all in the same way doesn’t even come into it. The press stand on a high pedestal at the moment and in my view they cannot even claim to work for the common good as they work merely to make money, they are not charities, they have no set standards to adhere to and simply rip into some but not into others and that is where the point is.

I even go as far as to say that the press in any particular country depends on the government of that country to even function or why do not all papers in Iran report that they want an American style western government? Or put it another way, why doesn’t the New York Times set up office in Iran? Because they are either not allowed to by the government there and/or there is no profit in doing so.

The press is very powerful and shapes the thoughts of readers

Because if the press were so pure as they make out to be Hitler would never even have been in a position to get his propaganda machine going and he relied  on the press to do so. Lets just think where this leads if the press picks and reports only on some and not on others. When I was a candidate for selection in Bethnal Green and Bow for the Labour Party, the press only picked on me to see what they could report on but they did not do so equally for the other 63 and it is hardly plausible that all those never even had a traffic ticket. It is a fact that I have not had any type of conviction or police warning ever in the past and that I think is hard to beat.

Yet the press finds it good to rubbish me, that just says all about the press to me. The press side with political parties and they did so during Hitler times and they still do so now. What is equally or even more disturbing is the fact that I am not even being given legal aid to defend myself against the press smears.

If the press were so neutral and act in the interest of the readers they would not pick on innocent persons like myself who are not given legal aid. The press are just like howling wolves who look for easy victims like myself. If they were so concerned about public opinion and fairness, they would volunteer to apologise to me but they don’t. It’s cheap sensationalism and they report what they can get away with and that’s all there is too it. Tainted opinions in my view. The press is always on the side of the money(wo)men and the sooner the law recognises that, the quicker we get fair justice.

See also my post about Labour Party double standards

Blog Stats

  • 53,390 hits