Talk:Haavara Agreement

I'd like to put forward a movement to silence the goyim from discussing such things. Whoever's in charge on this website better delete this! Delete the sources too! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:2D8:6BA5:A496:B013:45B9:1A4C:DA1C (talk) 10:19, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Were any assets actually transferred, and more on boycott

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)

I think you yourself are already demonstrating an expertise on the subject that the writers of this page up until now haven't had. This article has been mostly a quick summary of some of the descriptions present in the online sources (listed at the bottom of the article). No writer yet has actually made an exhaustive, in-depth study, or looked at original sources, as you have. So please add them, if you can. After all, it wouldn't hurt the article, and later, if a better scholar comes along, they can just improve your work.Jimhoward72 (talk) 16:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Transfer Agreement source

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)

The original edition of the book was published by Macmillan Publishing Company, New York (1984). Not self-published. Zero^talk 09:59, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

New link

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)

The Institute for Historical Review? Really? That's your source? Not a chance. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 12:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the source was the specific article I was referring to, which you apparently did not look at, and which appeared relevant to this article, in and of itself. This article doesn't have many references online that a reader can go to for further details and references.Jimhoward72 (talk) 12:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

"Source" in Wikipedia refers to not just the individual item, but to the publication from which it comes. IHR qualifies as a poor source. The individual article does not have to be reviewed. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)

Deletion of Reference

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)

Black's book appears to be a self-published source, and thus discouraged as a source by WP:SPS. If you have a case for removal of the Brenner - which, I should note, is not listed as a source for the article, but rather on the "further reading" list - then I encourage you to make it. I claim no knowledge on that material. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I think Brenner's essay should stay, as it offers easily accessible detailed notes and sources to the reader, and is written as an objective historically accurate description. Unfortunately, the Institute for Historical Review's, Mark Weber's article, : Zionism and the Third Reich, also was extremely well written and referenced, and provided a completely objective and succinct vantage point on the subject. Is there any way to link to it, with some kind of disclaimer or something?Jimhoward72 (talk) 20:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks like you just did. If Weber is interested in having his work taken seriously, he'd be wise to find a reliable outfit to publish it, not the IHR. Also, since according to the Institute for Historical Review, Weber is the director of the IHR and used to work with the white supremacist National Alliance he's no more a reliable source than the IHR is. As far as being "extremely well written and referenced" and "a completely objective and succinct vantage point" is concerned, I find that, well, doubtful. The more sophisticated sort of Holocaust denier is extremely skilled at manipulating, misrepresenting and falsifying sources whilst adopting an objective-sounding tone that appears oh so scholarly and impressive. Unfortunately, nothing they say can be taken on trust. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 07:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've been reading the articles I'm trying to reference, and they are all using the same sources and coming to similar conclusions. If someone wants to read about it currently, they are able to read Brenner's (a Trotskyite, apparently), and Weber's (a historical revisionist, white supremist, or whatever the case is) detailed and thoroughly footnoted essays completely online, or else they are going to have to go to a library or buy a book from Amazon, which is not such a happy solution in Internet age. The fact is, you could take Weber's footnotes and write a wikipedia article very similar to Webers, and it would essentially agree with Brenner and the rest of the books on the subject. Perhaps Weber, in this case, believed that writing the historical details was good enough, since the picture appears that Zionist and Nazis were working in collaboration on common projects, at least when it came to transferring German Jews and funds to Palestine (I have no idea how this would support any particular "cause", except to clarify details of the State of Israel coming into being, which is important).Jimhoward72 (talk) 08:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The source may well be correct. However, while obviously for Wikipedia we want correct, there is a strong standard here for using reliable sources. This isn't just to make editors' lives easier - when readers see us using an unreliable source as a reference or directing people to same for further information, it casts doubt on the reliability of the article and on the 'pedia as a whole. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:31, 30 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)

What a sad, sick and fearful person you must be. --Edelseider (talk) 18:45, 30 April 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)

dead link (footnote [1])

At least in this version: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haavara_Agreement&oldid=504258295 of the article, the footnote number "[1]" is labeled as a "[dead link]"(that is, "").

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)

Haavara doc from Hebrew wiki

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)

You can't do it. That only works with files on en.wiki and commons (and maybe a small number of other sites, such as meta), but not other language Wikipedias. In any event, the file is used on he.wiki under a claim of fair use, and you would need to upload it to en.wiki and add a fair use rationale for its use on en.wiki. 63.116.31.198 (talk) 22:39, 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)

Warning

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)

@E.M.Gregory: Unfortunately there is a tendency in articles relating to Nazi Germany to adopt what is, consciously or not, a borderline pro-Nazi POV. That has been a periodic problem in articles such as Ideology of the SS. However such POV issues do not appear to result in massive wiki-battles as far as I know. Coretheapple (talk) 15:11, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Poor quality of this article

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)

I agree with the two comments above and have tagged for lack of context. I think the lead is good, but I would suggest adding a "background" section. I would myself but I am not the world's greatest expert on this field. Coretheapple (talk) 01:10, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree, a background section is needed. I don't know much about this field either, but I will try and gather some information into my sandbox and we can agree on it on this talk page. Any thoughts or information welcome. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:51, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I have added some information into my sandbox. Any thoughts? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

That's very good text but I was thinking more in terms of focusing on the specific background concerning the escalating anti-Semitism within Germany, the desperation of the persons who engaged in this agreement, and the absence of viable alternates due to immigration quotas in the US and so on. Essentially the areas covered by EM Gregory and Zero above. I imagine much of that would be in the book that this is primarily sourced to, but unfortunately the book is rather expensive. Oh, and I remember that there is an editor who seems to be acquainted with the topic who might have that stuff at their fingerips. Coretheapple (talk) 14:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Coretheapple. It's good text and helpful, but the more specific context Zero mentions above is exactly what is needed. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:40, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I wish I had more spare time to devote to this article. Look at the page view stats. It has been getting a lot of eyeballs. Important subject matter. Coretheapple (talk) 15:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, are you happy for me to add this while someone finds the more specific background information? I imagine it will take a while as I don't think there will be anything on Wiki about it. And yes gone from a couple of hundred a day to tens of thousands over the past couple of days! Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 16:51, 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)

Sources

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)

Nicosia's book is the primary source for the article. Do you mean references to it in the text? I'd have to look at Black's book. Coretheapple (talk) 18:28, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Black's book is indeed self-published and WP:SPS discourages use of such sources when there are others, which in this case there are. Coretheapple (talk) 18:31, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

• The most reliable source may still be David Yisraeli's “The Third Reich and the Transfer Agreement,” in the Journal of Contemporary History, 1971. I'll try to find time to look at it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:20, 3 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

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)

So are you going to tell us what it is or not? Zero^talk 11:20, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Antisemitism Category

VQuakr please add Antisemitism Category to the article based per our discussion on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)

As discussed on that talk page, it already is in Category:Antisemitism via Category:International response during the Holocaust which further down the subcategorization chain. VQuakr (talk) 06:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

it needs an Antisemitism or an Antisemitism sub category tag on the article page itself. if you do not see this, you are not a neutral editor! Igor Berger (talk) 06:45, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

VQuakr it also seems that you are acting as an Owner of the article page. there is no Ownership of Wikipedia articles as per Wikipedia rules. I do not see other editors commenting on this. this makes me very worried about the integrity of neutrality of Wikipedia! Igor Berger (talk) 06:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@Igorberger:I'm not owning, I'm explaining categorization, as I understand it, to you. I am by no means an expert, though, so I'll drop at note over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories to ask for additional opinions. VQuakr (talk) 06:58, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

VQuakr thank you! and it is not just about this article. There is wide spread Bias on Wikipedia! Igor Berger (talk) 07:02, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

VQuakr i will tag you on other article talk pages that do not have an Antisemitism category or sub category tag Igor Berger (talk) 07:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Can you explain why do you say above, "it needs... an Antisemitism sub category tag" when the article already has an Antisemitism sub category tag? VQuakr (talk) 07:05, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:International_response_during_the_Holocaust is not even included in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Antisemitism and even if it is included, which it should, it does not state Antisemitism in the title. Igor Berger (talk) 07:13, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Category:International response during the Holocaust --> Category:The Holocaust --> Category:Racial antisemitism --> Category:Antisemitism. VQuakr (talk) 07:54, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

your logic is like saying there is "Palestinian" because the Romans named Israel "Palestine" 2000 years ago. why does someone interested to learn about Antisemitism has to use inductive reasoning to deduce if an article has Antisemitism attribute to it? why not start with the Antisemitism category and work down to subcategories? Igor Berger (talk) 08:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

It's not "my" logic. If you want to change the guideline, propose doing so at WT:CAT. VQuakr (talk) 08:29, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

looks like our discussion is not going anywhere here. if you wish to comment more, please do it here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism#WikiProject_Antisemitism thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 10:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

i have added a {{POV}} to the article, please do not remove it. Igor Berger (talk) 15:44, 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)

i did not say all categorization tags have a problem. this particular article does. there are some other articles that have POV problem with regards to not using Antisemitism category tag! a reliable source that an article is dealing with Antisemitism, i posted above. we cannot generalize and will need to examine each article on its own weight as to what Antisemitism category or sub category tag to use. as a neutral editor, would you not say that the Father of Nazism Adolf Hitler article requires Antisemitism category tag? thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

And it's been explained to you—both here and at Talk:Antisemitism—that this article is in Category:Antisemitism, because it's in a subcategory of that category. So what's the POV problem? It boils down to your dissatisfaction with Wikipedia's categorization methodology, not anything to do with this article. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:06, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

no need to bang heads here. let's discuss this at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism#WikiProject_Antisemitism and see what other editors have to say. thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 17:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@Igorberger: I agree that we appeared to have reached an impasse, which is why I opened a thread at WT categorization (encouraging participants to come here). A WikiProject is not a good location for extended discussion of changes to this article. That's the purpose of this page. Specifically for the POV template, an alternative would be WP:NPOVN. VQuakr (talk) 18:01, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

can you please provide the link where you posted in WT categorization? thank you Igor Berger (talk) 18:23, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

never mind, found it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Categories#Request_for_additional_opinions_at_Talk:Haavara_Agreement ok, let's see what happens, thanks, Igor Berger (talk) 18:33, 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)

That's still not how categories work. You could wait a week or so to see if anyone else chimes in, but you already have two editors explaining the situation to you. VQuakr (talk) 08:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Deborahjay, would like your input on adding "Antisemitism in Germany" category to Haavara Agreement article, which does not not have a direct mention of "Antisemitism" in the categories, but just faraway subcategory. thanks, Igor Berger (talk) 09:38, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I've revised the categories ([2]) based on page content. For objectivity's sake I did not read previous discussion here, above the preceding comment (directly addressed to me). To that: I don't support using the Category:Antisemitism because it's redundant to the more specific Category:Jewish Nazi German history. Similarly, the use of Category:Zionism in Germany is specious as the issue involved the Zionist leadership at the international level, whereas the page repeatedly describes the target population as Jews fleeing persecution under the Nazi regime. It would be relevant to note what proportion of German Jews were Zionists: the youth movements come to mind, but far more numerous are accounts of Jews assimilated into German society or otherwise uninterested in relocating to Palestine. -- Deborahjay (talk) 12:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Deborahjay i like this much better. looks NPOV. would still like some category with "Antisemitism" word in it, but not going to push it. if we all agree i will take the POV template off, thank you Igor Berger (talk) 13:39, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Responses - meaning unclear

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)

NSDAP???

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)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 April 2018

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."

• This almost intentionally misleading, the Councils of Jewry initiated the Boycott on German goods PRIOR to March 23rd, yet all the examples given are AFTER this date. The impression the wording gives is that the Councils of Jewry proposed the boycott in response to months of persecution - Late April or May, when in reality the boycott on Jewish businesses and restriction of foreign citizens within the civil service came AFTER, and in Response to, the worldwide Jewish boycott on German businesses. The hyperlink https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Nazi_boycott_of_1933 is correct in it's dates.*

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)

I see your point, but my main worry about this re-wording is it gives the impression of a kind of equivalence ("responded in kind") between the two boycotts. Is there a way of avoiding that? BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:03, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done for now: To me it seems like you are trying to downplay the situation. Almost as if it was the Jews' fault that Germans persecuted them and it was simply the Germans responding "in kind" (?). Please expand first on what the widespread civil persecution was so there is clarity as to why Jews outside Germany decided to boycott German goods in the first place. Waddie96 (talk) 09:49, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I think it would be reasonable text if the sentence "In turn, Germany responded in kind." was removed. It violates neutrality and verifiability requirements. Although Germany invoked the boycott to explain their actions, the evidence strongly suggests it was no more a pretext. This could be expanded on with the help of good sources. One of my main complaints with the article is the way it plays down the bitter struggle that took place between the promoters of the boycott and the promoters of the transfer agreement. Practically all of the sources cover it extensively, but not us. Zero^talk 12:55, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{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)

Arlosoroff Assassination

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)

This conflicts with the reference given. If you have sources to support your position, they might be incorporated. --BDD (talk) 17:57, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Categories

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)

Agree, it is not neutral, and also doesn't fit the dictionary definition of collaboration with the enemy. Ignoring this saved Jewish lives, if this article is tagged, Wikipedia will need to tag every pre-war trade agreement as Nazi collaboration. Neville Chamberlain would be tagged as a collaborator. 11Fox11 (talk) 05:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC) Strike sock

The Yishuv were not a "new" community

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)

have edited as per EricSpokane BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:41, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 December 2022

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)

 Done agreed; no reason to not use the commonly recognizable name here. VQuakr (talk) 20:31, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

bad link (cite #14)

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)