Further comments on "The Jewish Question"

The essay from La Civiltà Cattolica, Series XIV, Vol. VII, Fascicule 961, 23 October 1890 details what they refer to as "The Jewish Question", in three parts. The cause, the effects and the remedy. After laying out ample evidence of Hebrew malfeasance toward the accommodating populations in the countries wherein they reside in part one, demonstrating the pernicious effect upon said population these predations have wrought in part two, the essay turns to remedies for the situation in part three. Under the subheading "A Just War?" we read:

So, in Germany, Austria and France, there is a school of thought which advances a remedy for liberation from the Jewish plague, that, per se, would be the most radical of all, but that wouldn't conform to the Christian spirit and whose realization would be impossible at present.

So, as early as at least 1890 we find that there is discussion of a remedy that the author of this essay in an Italian Catholic Journal feels would be impossible to realize. And what is this proposed solution to "The Jewish Question"?

After proving with hundreds of facts and documents that, in general, the Hebrews are a plague on Christian society, and a scourge on the Church of Jesus Christ, they demonstrate that the right of making war against them, as public enemies, is manifest. But since it doesn't beseem to resort to bloodshed, they restrict things which should be done to two points: That the Jew return what he has stolen; that he be banished from our territory afterwards. Through confiscation of his property and through exile the great evil done by him to the countries that have given him legal equality is to be recompensed and his pernicious ungratefulness towards their culture is to be punished.

Return what he has stolen and be banished! Where have I heard that before?

Hitler's War

Today I downloaded the PDF version of historian David Irving's biography, Hitler's War. As I go through this tome I hope to obtain some insight into the happenings of WWII, to understand the position and relationship of the Jews in Germany at the time, and to hopefully separate fact from fiction.

So far the introduction has already provided ample food for thought and promises to deliver on my stated objectives. For example, on page xxv of the introduction:

In 1948 [Hitler’s predecessor as chancellor, Dr. Heinrich] Brüning would write to the editors of Life forbidding them to publish an August 1937 letter he had written to Winston Churchill revealing that ‘from October 1928 the two largest regular contributors to the Nazi Party were the general managers of two of the largest Berlin banks, both of Jewish faith, and one of them the leader of Zionism in Germany.’*

 Irving goes on to state that:

I had approached the Nazi maltreatment of the Jews from the traditional viewpoint prevailing in the 1960s. Supposing Hitler was a capable statesman and a gifted commander, the argument ran, how does one explain his ‘murder of six million Jews’? 

And then:

For a full length war biography of Hitler, I felt that a more analytical approach to the key questions was necessary. Remarkably, I found that Hitler’s own role in the ‘Final Solution’ had never been examined. German historians, otherwise the epitome of painstaking essaying, had developed monumental blind spots when Hitler himself cropped up: bald statements were made without a shadow of evidence in support. British and American historians willingly conformed. Others quoted them. For thirty years our knowledge of Hitler’s part in the atrocity had rested on inter historian incest. 

Well then, this promises to be interesting.  We shall see.