Livingstone vindicated: There WAS a Nazi-Zionist agreement and Hitler DID support it

Ken Livingstone.

Ken Livingstone.

It turns out all those who clamoured for Ken Livingstone to be suspended from the Labour Party – on the basis that Nazi Germany and Zionist Jews never had an agreement – were completely wrong.

Perhaps John Mann needs to reconsider his actions of earlier today (April 28) – along with all those who accused Livingstone of “rewriting history” when he really was simply quoting it.

Vox Political is grateful to the reader who sent us to the Wikipedia page stating the following:

The Haavara Agreement was an agreement between Nazi Germany and Zionist German Jews signed on 25 August 1933.

The agreement was finalized after three months of talks by the Zionist Federation of Germany, the Anglo-Palestine Bank (under the directive of the Jewish Agency) and the economic authorities of Nazi Germany.

The agreement was designed to help facilitate the emigration of German Jews to Palestine.

While it helped Jews emigrate, it forced them to temporarily give up possessions to Germany before departing. Those possessions could later be re-obtained by transferring them to Palestine as German export goods.

The agreement was controversial at the time, and was criticised by many Jewish leaders both within the Zionist movement and outside it.

Hitler’s own support of the Haavara Agreement was unclear and varied throughout the 1930s.
Initially, Hitler criticized the agreement, but reversed his opinion and supported it in the period 1937-1939.

Source: Haavara Agreement – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:


170 thoughts on “Livingstone vindicated: There WAS a Nazi-Zionist agreement and Hitler DID support it

  1. Sam Wallander

    I know of the agreement but thought it injudicious of Livingston to mention it at this time.

    I still do.

    Corbyn is under siege right now by a far right extremist cabal [within and exterior to the PLP] & the Anti_Semitism card is so toxic right now Politicians should stay clear of it till in power.

    1. Phil Smith

      Why injudicious? Apart from the fact that any socialist commentator will be attacked from all sides, Tory, Libdem, Murdoch controlled Media, no matter what they say. No matter how long they say it the right wing of this country will continue to ignore discourse.

      1. martindowland

        Exactly what I find of the biggotted left. Consider themselves beyond criticism because they are what they are. A very good to not vote Labour again.

      2. Mike Sivier Post author

        I find your comment lacks reasoned argument (along with good spelling and grammar). If you have an argument against left-wingers, state it. “They are what they are” won’t do. To put your words in context, consider the subject under discussion. The Nazis killed Jews because “they are what they are”. Do you think they were right to do so?

    2. michael merrifield

      Sam “Political correctness” must end …It strangles the truth…He spoke facts and has been attacked for doing so, the TRUTH must always be at the heart of everything…Hopefully this will be more positive than negative for the Labour Party…

      1. John

        This has got to be one of THE best comments on Vox Political so far, and hats off to you Michael for saying it! Political correctness has gone well and truly MAD in this country, and it’ll get to a point where you’ll have to end up visiting a solicitor, before your allowed to have an opinion. It’s ridiculous, and people are far too quick to react to what others say in this country, I saw the ‘confrontation’ on C4 News tonight, and it was a bit of a laugh really. No surprises from John Mann at all. They’re not exactly drinking buddies lol. Mann completely despises Ken. Far as I’m concerned, Mann just played up to the cameras, and now he looks stupid. If it was me, I’d have suspended Mann too, just for his behaviour!

      2. Geoff Short

        It’s absurd to say that Livingstone spoke the truth. Hitler signed the Ha’avara agreement because he wanted the Jews out of Germany not because he had the slightest sympathy for Zionism. If the Nazis supported Zionism why on earth did they propose the Madagascar Plan after the fall of France? And why did they prevent the German Zionists from attending the Zionist Congress in 1933?

      3. Mike Sivier Post author

        Those other things existed alongside Haavara and have no bearing on what has been said.
        The fact remains that the Nazis did sign an agreement for Jews to be transported to Palestine, and it was, as Encyclopedia Judaica states, because their interests coincided with those of the Zionists.
        It isn’t anti-Semitic to say so, either.

      4. Steve

        so Sam… because of the toxicity formed by a Far Right Extremist Cabal (AKA the normal population of this country), politicians shouldn’t make any anti-Semitic comments until they are in power? Anti-Semitism is a totally unacceptable form of racism, pure and simple. For the record, it wasn’t just Ken Livingstone’s ill conceived comments regarding Hitler and Zionism that required his suspension – it was the comments made in defence of Naz Shah, another MP with vile anti-Semitic views. Corbyn had no choice in suspending both politicians – or run the very dangerous risk of Labour being viewed as a party riddled with anti-Semitics (making them morally no better than the BNP)

      5. Mike Sivier Post author

        Except, of course, neither Naz Shah’s comments nor Ken Livingstone’s were anti-Semitic.
        She made hers in opposition to the activities of the Israeli government and he quoted historical fact in support of her.
        You don’t have a leg to stand on.

      6. J

        “It’s absurd to say that Livingstone spoke the truth”

        It’s absurd to say he didn’t before researching the facts. You have endless information at your fingertips, research!

        Search for ‘Ein Nazi Fahrt Nach Palastina’ It refers to what was written on a medal/coin to commemorate the Zionist-Nazi cooperation with regard to Palestine. Translates as “A Nazi Travels to Palestine,”

    3. David Longhorn

      It was dog-whistle anti-semitism to link Nazism with Zionism. A right winger is dog-whistling when he says ‘It doesn’t seem like my country anymore when I walk down the street’, because he clearly means ‘There are too many brown faces’ (and not, say, ‘There are no Morris Minors on the roads’). A left-winger is dog-whistling when he uses ‘Zionist’ to criticize Israel, as opposed to simply saying ‘It’s bad that Israel dropped a bomb on civilians’. After all, only bigots said ‘Look what the Muslims have done now!’ after 7/7.

      1. Mike Sivier Post author

        What a good thing that neither Naz Shah nor Ken Livingstone used “Zionist” to criticise Israel, then.

  2. Roland Laycock

    Why should all this about jews be so called toxic if its the truth then it should be said I think this as gone on for far to long jews where well down the list of peoole that died in camps etc in the war but you never hear of the others, we gave away land that did not belong the us these people have been as bad if not worse with the palestinian but we arn’t allowed to say anything about it Ken was right and that should be the end of it or is the real reason that there are that many jews in our parliment and they don’t like it

      1. Gee

        Really. How about uou count the no of Jews re the no of muslims. The Simple fact is WHY unless intending to engraciate yourself to jew haters would anyone in 2016 chose to mention Hitler and Zionism in the same sentence????? Yet alone a politition?? The accuracy or other of the statement is Entirely Irrelevent

        Why remind people that Hitler hated the Jews So Much, initially he thought Any way to remove them frim his beloved Germany could be considered. Trust me – if he ‘suppported’ Zionists, it was clearly because due to his personal history ( including some Jewish blood from his hated relative!!) Hitler wanted ti be rid of those innocent Jews Any which way

      2. Mike Sivier Post author

        He mentioned Hitler and Zionism in the same sentence because he was mentioning an agreement between the Nazis and Zionists. Maybe it was ill-advised of him, but it wasn’t anti-Semitic. Last I checked, it wasn’t anti-Semitic to quote historical fact.
        Hitler certainly wanted to be rid of Jewish people, but you forget that the Zionists wanted out of Germany and into what was then Palestine. Their purposes coincided and they made an agreement. Some people deal with the devil to get what they want. Some people simply retweet a bad-taste joke. Perhaps that’s the difference that Livingstone was trying to flag up.

      3. jinjin

        Livingstone said that Hitler was a ZIONIST – equating Nazism with Zionism (No suprise from him.) You can try to wriggle out of this hate speech as much as you like. Hitler loathed Jews and Zionism. His only intention at that time was rid Germany of the Jews, a tactic which he later reaplced with the final solution. It doesn’t change the fact that Livingstone, like Hitler and a bunch of people on this thread. loathe Jews and the Zionist ideology. The devil appears in many forms.

      4. Mike Sivier Post author

        Livingstone did not say that Hitler was a Zionist.
        Who told you that?
        He said Hitler supported Zionism in the Haavara agreement, which is factually accurate.
        In the stairwell argument with John Mann, he said very clearly that Hitler was an anti-Zionist in his personal views.
        Now that we’ve established the inaccuracy of your opening statement, please explain why you think stating a historical fact is “hate speech”.

      1. Paul Besterman

        Hitler did NOT support Zionism simply because he agreed to let 60000 go. One could say Enoch Powell supported Pakistan because he wanted those natives of it to return. Facts are constantly derided Netanyahus factual assertion that the Mufti was in alliance with Hitler was barraged. Why ?

      2. Mike Sivier Post author

        Because he was asserting that Hitler didn’t want to kill Jews until the Mufti urged him to. Hitler always wanted to kill Jews.
        But that doesn’t change the fact that he did support German Zionism in the plan to move Jews to Palestine – because it suited his purpose at the time, which was to get Jews out of Germany and build up public feeling against them.
        Remember, Zionism was originally a movement for the re-establishment of a Jewish nation in what was then Palestine.

  3. James Durman

    You could argue it was poor judgement, but we cannot let the Right(both within the Labour Party and those outside it) determine the political landscape on which we fight. I know of many LP members researching the history of Zionism for the first time. I do not think there will ever be a good time to point out some truths about Zionisn, whether in power or not. The first anti-Zionists were members of the Jewish Bund, that is, an organisation of trade unionists and socialists spread across Poland, Russia and Lithuania; they came to oppose Zionism back in the early 20th century because Zionism accepts that Jews and non-Jews cannot live together. I don’t mean to be condescending, but I wish people would look back at history and try to work out out how we got from then to now. 🙂

  4. Jane.

    If you have to refer to Hitler to help your argument, then you have already lost it. Bad argument Ken, appalling text by MP. No antisemitism.

      1. Jane.

        Livingston also denied that Shah had done anything which could be construed as anti Semitic, after she had apologised for her tweet being just that.

        He talked of her tweet as just being a bit over the top. To justify this by using Hitler’s thinking which resulted in the Nazi’s and 6 million dead Jews is crass.

        This document exists, but it can never be used as Livingstone used it. If he does it is anti Semitism, because you cannot separate Hitler and the Nazis, killer of 6 million Jews from this historical document.
        John Mann was a complete idiot.
        Pinaar on the BBC news also
        JC wasn’t.

      2. Mike Sivier Post author

        Oh dear, you have jumped to conclusions, haven’t you?
        I hope you have read and digested some of the arguments that have been posted here explaining why and where you are mistaken.

      3. Imogen Rex

        I just don’t get this – Ken knows his history – how could her get that over to Mann in a sentence? He did well to keep his cool. Mann is the one with egg on his face! But only those who know the facts will appreciate this – a tough one for Corbyn to steer through! Ken has been scapegoated!

    1. fathomie

      Please don’t use that tired old line that was written originally by a right winger. As I have said when this pointless argument has been used before, does it apply to Stalin too? To Lenin? To Marx? Because our right wing friends are forever trotting out those three every time they argue with anyone about the Labour party and it’s actions, Socialism in general, or any time someone on the left does something controversial.

    2. duncan farquhar

      Hitler and the Nazis were one of the first countries to bring in animal welfare laws and we still lag behind with some of them. Have I lost the argument regarding animal rights?

  5. nuggy

    great work mike just we need.

    if only there were more people in labour with the guts to say this.

  6. Dave

    Look, a deal out of common self-interest is rather difficult from support. In 1939, Germany and the USSR signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. That didn’t make Hitler a Stalinist, or Stalin a Nazi.

    1. Mike Sivier Post author

      Are you suggesting that the Haavara agreement did not help the Zionist project? Why did the Zionists sign up to it, then?
      I think what you’re really saying is that Livingstone’s choice of words was poor. He was trying to communicate the Haavara agreement in a simple way, within a particular context.

  7. Joan Edington

    “While it helped Jews emigrate, it forced them to temporarily give up possessions to Germany before departing. Those possessions could later be re-obtained by transferring them to Palestine as German export goods”.

    Aye right.

    1. Guy Wigmore

      Yep, I’ve been to Auschwitz and I’ve seen how those possessions got “re-obtained”. The teeth , the hair, the shoes, the suitcases. This argument is just ridiculous.

    2. eightyape

      it was exactly that, the nazis were opportunists, the sw an opportunity to set up trade and tax the goods, the israeli fruit company hapotea would be a logistical strategic econmoinc deal. get fruit and money , get rid of the jew at the same time. really shouldnt be shouting about the purity of hitlers message.

  8. John

    LOL, I’ve just seen the confrontation between Mann and Livingston. That was good. C4News interviewed a supposed historian who, I understand, has claimed that to suggest that there was any link between Hitler and Zionism is ‘preposterous’? Have I got that right? Anyone see C4 news tonight?

  9. stevecheneysindieopinions4u

    Livingstone is still a massive liability and a bit of a dong.

    This doesn’t change the fact that John Mann is also a minor liability and a total dong.

    1. Terry Davies

      Mann is a massive liability because he’s been disloyal misrepresented the truth, misled the public about Zionists and antisemitism.
      why did he do this ? for personal gain.
      it backfired due to people looking into Zionism and the links with hitler.
      This can be seen as positive however deselection of mann is clearly the way forward Signed a petition asking for this circulating on social media.
      Read sign and share.
      if you want to be fair,
      and show that you care.

      1. eightyape

        sont forget the egg plastered quite squarely by himslef on the saddiq khans shifty little treachourous face,,,,he stuck the boot in when ken was still in the toilet,….how you catch a shark?
        you chuck ken is as bait and watch who circles at the semll of blood and takes a bite.
        labour will not get my vote so long as mann and khan have anything to do with them,,, blair clones….nasty little manouvering aggressive psychopathic littlre divisive snakes…

    1. Mike Sivier Post author

      This seems only tangential to the issue here. I find little connection between the headline and the text. It seems to be about Zionism v Judaism in general.

    1. Mike Sivier Post author

      Encyclopaedia Judaica phrases it that the purposes of Nazim and Zionism coincided for a brief period. It could be argued that this is what Ken was saying – Hitler certainly allowed the Zionist plan for Jews to travel to what was then Palestine.
      So now you’re arguing over Livingstone’s choice of words and I would certainly agree that he could have phrased it better.

    2. fathomie

      He wasn’t, how could he be? Like many of Hitlers agreements it was simply to gain time and allow him to work on other plans. However, in a sense he did support ‘Zionism’, because the core ideal of Zionism is to establish a Jewish Homeland. Hitler, in principle had no qualms with this. If if rid Germany, and what he saw as ‘Greater Germany’ of Jews, why not?

      What is far worse than the agreement, was the foolish, and self serving compliance of the rabbis and senior Jews with the NAZI’s during the ‘re-settlement’ and even more horrific, during the extermination process. There is a heart breaking record of a school teacher who tried to protect his children from the NAZI’s during the clearance of Warsaw, while, as the (Jewish) author of the record put it, ‘the Jewish leaders stood by and did nothing’.

      Of course, despite having taken all the above from actual documents of the period, I will be accused by someone of being anti Semitic. If this was the BBC website I would be within seconds of posting it, and two seconds later it would be removed..

      The BBC and truth. Uneasy bed fellows these days.

  10. andr3wt

    It’s a shame Wikipedia was the source quote because it’s slightly wrong. It also involved talks between Zionists in Palestine but we’re splitting hairs here. This whole thing was a deliberate attempt to sabotage Corbyn one week before the elections. Mann’s punishment should have been greater than Livingstone’s because if anyone brought the party into disrepute it was him. I hope what comes out over the following week is Mann’s ignorance of history. It really is rather embarrassing.

    1. Nancy Haven

      It seems the only person sabotaging Corbyn is Livingstone. Nobody forced the words into his mouth. He seems to bring up the word “Hitler” in too many conversations for my liking.

      1. Mike Sivier Post author

        Are you not aware that Vanessa Feltz had directly challenged Livingstone with the reference to Hitler in the quotation that Naz Shah had retweeted?
        If not, you should also be aware of something that Ms Feltz clearly didn’t know – that Ms Shah’s retweet was of a quotation by Martin Luther King. That fact puts a different perspective on everything that followed.

  11. BJ Krell

    If this was anti semitism I would be fighting it tooth and nail but this is the Blairites playing Brutus to Corbyn’s Caesar. The issue here is a concerted attack to undermine Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership from all organs of society, and particularly from within his own Party.
    Since when has denunciation of Zionist Israel become anti semitism. Judaism is a religion while Zionism is an ideology subscribed to by Jews and Christian evangelicals.
    When Israel stops breaking international law, expanding settlements and constant land grabs, the criticism might wane. What Ken Livingstone was referring to is the Transfer Agreement.

  12. lanzalaco

    all comes across like a power grab trying to ensure a pro-israel government for some scheme or new pro-israel legislation we will have thrown upon us in ten years from now. No doubt this scheme will be playing both political sides.
    Remember Lord Levy and mandelson setting up Blairism. Primarily because Blair was open eared to be friendly to the US necons favoring regime change in Iraq and Iran for Israel. There is always some crazy s*** like that going on behind the scenes. Total backward trial religious nonsense, but then the UK still entertains backward religious nonsense and all those peeps in Israel and their mad friends insist on this crazy idea that its important to bring religion into the 21st century.

  13. pvm

    I usually align with Vox Political – and I am highly critical of Israel before any of you start – but I’m surprised you’ve chosen to publish this bilge.

    The Havaara Agreement was signed during a period of extreme duress for Germany’s Jews, at a time when campaigns of murder, humiliation and targeted vandalism were beginning all over Germany. It was designed to further Hitler’s anti-semitic and Aryan supremacy agenda – any benefits to Zionism were incidental. Hitler’s support of this policy, which only resulted in 50,000 Jews leaving Germany with only two suitcases each (never to see any of their confiscated belongings again*), stemmed from the same attitudes that led to six million Jewish deaths little over a decade later. The Germans also considered forcible deportation of Jews to Madagascar, where they’d die of heat and thirst, before settling on the Final Solution in the later stages of the war.

    Hitler did not support the ‘Jewish right to a homeland’ or any other orthodox formulation of what Zionism really means. He did not see Jewish people as having any right to exist whatsoever. For this reason, it’s an insult to call him a supporter of Zionism.

    * the ‘buy-back’ scheme, cynically, was simply for trade vouchers that could be exchanged for German goods

    1. Mike Sivier Post author

      Sorry but it seems to me that you can’t see the wood for the trees.
      Nobody is denying what Hitler did.
      Nobody is denying your explanation of why Hitler went along with the Haavara agreement (he didn’t support it until around halfway through its lifetime).
      But the fact remains that he did allow it to happen because it suited the Nazis as much as it suited the Zionists.
      The contention of people like John Mann and the others quoted in the right-wing press is that it didn’t happen at all and Ken Livingstone made it up.
      So let me ask you this: Who was right? Was there a Nazi-Zionist agreement? Did Hitler support it?
      If your answer to the last two questions is yes, then of course the article isn’t “bilge”.

      1. Greg Kay

        What was the context of Livingstones comment in the first place? He was defending one of his colleagues that the idea of moving the Jews from their homeland to the USA was not an anti-Semitic concept. In this context, Livingstone was in my view justifying / rationalizing anti-semitism which makes him one. One also needs to look at statements he has made in the past about Jews, about Hitler, about Hamas etc to know and understand his character, the character of an anti-Semite.

      2. Mike Sivier Post author

        Okay, let’s have a look at the context. The image that Naz Shah shared in the first place was an attempt at satire, if in extremely poor taste. I don’t see any serious suggestion that relocating the state of Israel to the American Midwest is a reasonable thing to do – do you? Her own comments beneath the picture (in the Guido Fawkes piece) were made in the same vein. It is a reaction to the political acts of the Israeli government; to suggest that this person was attacking Jewish people on the basis of their race and religion is wholly disproportionate. She said herself that she was reacting to the Israel/Palestine conflict of the time. I know she has also said that her actions were anti-Semitic – under duress. Anyone looking at it in an objective way would see it as a response to the Israeli government.
        It isn’t clear exactly what point Livingstone was making when he pointed out that the German Nazis entered into an agreement with Zionists of the day to transport Jews to Palestine – what is now Israel. In my opinion, he was indeed defending one of his colleagues – by saying there was a world of difference between retweeting a bad-taste satirical image and the historical reality of the situation it implied. He was certainly making the point that the current Israeli government’s stance – seen by many as embodying Zionist ideals – puts it uncomfortably close to the Nazi government with whom Zionists signed an agreement. He could have been saying that the lines aren’t as clear-cut as the argument being presented: Hitler was an anti-Semite but he did a deal with Zionists.
        In none of those examples would he have been suggesting that moving Jews from their homeland whether they wanted it or not is not anti-Semitic, nor would he have been rationalising anti-Semitism.
        Critics rushed to accuse Livingstone of re-writing history after he made his comment – only to find that others had already proved him correct. So then they rushed to interpret what happened in a way that also makes him look bad – applying their interpretation to what he said, as you have.
        I suggest you read the statement by the Jewish Socialist Group and look at the company he keeps – Jeremy Corbyn is absolutely not anti-Semitic, according to the Jewish people I’ve already mentioned – and remember that you can criticise the Israeli state without being anti-Semitic.

      3. Mike Sivier Post author

        Actually, what’s the simplest explanation here? Ken Livingstone was being asked to comment about someone who had forwarded an image suggesting that Israel should be relocated. Perhaps he thought, “This happened in Nazi Germany” and mentioned it simply as a fact of history – without considering how others would interpret it. If so, it was a mistake – but not an act of anti-Semitism, as some people seem determined to make us all believe.

      4. Phill Taylor

        From the transcripts of Ken Livingstone’s interview, his exact words were that Hiitler “was supporting Zionism”. This isn’t a poor choice of words – it attributes intent to Hitler and is much more than a statement that Zionist and Nazi interests coincided. As noted above, at no point was Hitler supportting Zionism. As such, what Ken Livingstone said was both incorrect and insulting to Jewish people. It was foolish, if not downright anti-semitic.

      5. Mike Sivier Post author

        Look up Zionism. It was originally a movement for the re-establishment of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel. When the Nazis signed the Haavara agreement, allowing German Jews to move to the Middle East, they were indeed supporting Zionism. Yes, there was intent on Hitler’s part – to move Jews out of Germany and into a land they had chosen for themselves. In that respect, he did indeed support Zionism.
        I think your problem is you can’t get past what you want to believe and look at the facts. You needed to check what Zionism was at the time and consider that Hitler could happily support it while persecuting Jews in Germany at the same time. Livingstone was not wrong about anything he said. The only issue is the suggested ill-advisedness of mentioning Haavara when he did.

    2. Terry Davies

      perhaps a knowledgeable commentator, is able to clarify where rejection of migrant jews by the UK fits into the overall picture.
      seems that such denial by Mann is a crime in germany.
      Anyone know if Mann has any family links with supporters of Hitler.????
      explains why he is guilt- ridden but self gain is his motive for misleading the public and verbally attacking Livingstone.

      1. Mike Sivier Post author

        Unless you have definite evidence of complicity by members of Mr Mann’s family in persecution of Jews, I really don’t think you or anybody else should suggest it.
        Self-interest certainly seems to have been his motivation for attacking Ken Livingstone in such a public manner. As a right-winger, he wanted Livingstone off Labour’s ruling NEC – and he had his wish.

  14. fathomie

    The basic issue here is not what has been said, but the right to say it. Every time someone says anything against Israel the right immediately screams ‘anti-Semitism’.
    It’s nauseating. A friend of mine is a Jew. He supports Israel, because, as he put, ‘we have to’. However, that does not mean he supports what the Israeli govt does, the treatment of the Palestinians, or of the ‘Arabic Jews’, the second class citizens in their own country (I never knew that existed until he told me!). He does not approve of what’s happening in the West Bank and Gaza, and resents the BBC calling the settlers ‘Jews’. As he puts it. ‘that’s like simply calling ISIS ‘muslims’ out of context’. What he means is the settlers are Zionists, and fanatics at that, and not ‘just’ Jews. As far as he is concerned they neither represent him, or the Jewish people. Does that make him, a Jew, anti-Semitic?

    Now we have Cameron declaring ‘Labour has a problem with anti-Semitism running through to it’s core’. Really Cameron? The Labour party who’s last leader was Jewish? The Labour party that therefore nominated not one, but two Jews to be it’s potential leader?

    Because this is what it’s really all about. The Tories, and Labours 5th Column of Tories working hand in glove to get rid of Corbyn, and helping that cause by damaging Labours electoral prospects in May.

  15. Kenneth Billis

    The BBC coverage was something to behold. It consisted mainly of shots of Mann hollering and shouting at Ken Livingstone and then a sequence with John Pienaar pushing Jeremy Corbyn forward as being the one to be held to account. He was in full-on “discredit Jeremy Corbyn” mode.It had all the appearance of the BBC actively participating in an attempt to unseat JC.

    I suspect the truth of much Ken Livingstone said will ever be acknowledged on the BBC or anywhere else.

    Here is George Galloway’s take on it:

      1. Jennifer Long

        Absolutely agree the BBC do seem to be wading in against Jeremy Corbyn.

        Whilst not known for his tact, Ken L. has served the Labour Party for a long time and I think had he been a closet anti-semite (which is unthinkable) it would have shown itself long before now.

        Mann on the other hand, is a Blairite. He, like the rest of the gang think they can discredit Jeremy Corbyn and persuade the many thousands of voters who want Jeremy to become PM to change their minds and vote for them (the has-beens of the Blair era, that is). No chance. Mann has done himself no favours and has shown himself to be without knowledge or integrity. He should be disciplined at the very least.

  16. Peter McGregor

    See the 1983 book, ‘Zionism In The Age Of The Dictators;, the author of which was Jewish, fr detailed confirmation of Livingstone’s claims. You can even Google and read it on-line! You can’t re-write history!

  17. Kevin Crawley

    Putting aside the wisdom or otherwise of relying on Wikipedia as a legitimate source of support for any argument, take a nanosecond to look at the detail. The not-so-well hidden rationale behind the ‘accord’ was that the Nazi’s were supporting (imposing) an ‘agreement’ (threat) to encourage a race they hated to leave Germany. It’s the sort of ‘entente cordiale’ that many racists in Britain First and UKIP would be pleased to promote today.

    1. Mike Sivier Post author

      You’ll know by now that Wikipedia was merely the first information source that was brought to This Blog. There are many others.
      The Nazis didn’t impose a threat, and you’re barking up the wrong tree if that’s what you think.
      The Zionists approached them with a proposal and they came to an agreement that achieved the ends of both sides.

  18. Peter McGregor

    “Zionists Offer a Military Alliance With Hitler
    In early January 1941 a small but important Zionist organization submitted a formal proposal to German diplomats in Beirut for a military-political alliance with wartime Germany. The offer was made by the radical underground “Fighters for the Freedom of Israel,” better known as the Lehi or Stern Gang. Its leader, Avraham Stern, had recently broken with the radical nationalist “National Military Organization” (Irgun Zvai Leumi) over the group’s attitude toward Britain, which had effectively banned further Jewish settlement of Palestine. Stern regarded Britain as the main enemy of Zionism.” For full details on this Zionist offer and proposal of military support for Hitler, see ‘Zionism And The Third Reich’ at

  19. Bethan Thomas

    So if being Pro Palestine makes you ‘Anti Isreal’ which in turn makes you antisemitic then what does being Pro Isreal make you? Should MPs who’ve previously expressed sympathy or support of Isreal also be suspended seeing as, using their logic, their views could be considered ‘anti- Palestine’ and, therefore, anti Muslim?

    The way Naz and Kens words are being purposely taken out of context and misconstrued by the Right wing is not only appalling but conveniently timed. What better way to distract from the current situation with Junior Doctors then to accuse the far Left of ‘Nazism’ or ‘Antisemitism’. What better way to alter the way somebody votes in the polls.

    The fact that Ken was historically accurate is irrelevant to the right wing. It’s not surprising that a zionistic agreement made by Hitler would have been dropped from our history books. Kens studied history in much more depth than I have.

    When you break down the bones of many of these ‘isms’, Racism, Facism, Sexism, Zionism. What you’ll find is a group of people who hold the belief that they are better or different than other groups of people. Beliefs that one group should dictate what happens over other groups. Beliefs that gender, religion or race some how make us better or worse than others are all the same when you get to the bare bones of the matter.

    Ken isn’t pro Palestine, he’s pro human life. He holds the belief that the death of thousands is wrong regardless of their race, religion, age or gender.

  20. Robert Hunter

    Right. Time to call out the idiots who post this disingenuous claptrap. What is Livingstone up to in seeking to elucidate Hitler’s supposed collaboration with German Zionists? To show Hitler acting in the best interests of German Jewry to resettle them until, as Livingstone said, he “went a bit mad” and decided to exterminate them instead? And just pause, comrades, and seriously consider whether such a resettlement proposal would not have been anti-Semitic. Well, Livingstone is not giving us a lesson in the history of the Third Reich in the manner of David Irving. No, he’s seeking to defend the indefensible: the “Madagascar” solution that was reproduced – however parodied – in the post that Naz Shah shared. To her credit, Ms Shah has apologised. But Livingstone is shameless. He has no difficulty with a post about Israel that draws on historical Nazism with its talk of “problem” and “solution”. And he has past form on this: his likening a Jewish journalist to a concentration camp guard simply because he was on the payroll of the Rothermere Press along with, it might be said (but Ken didn’t), printers, secretaries and despatch workers. You’ll wait till Doomsday for an apology from Livingstone. So, good night and good riddance.

    1. Mike Sivier Post author

      Livingstone wasn’t defending anything at all; he was making a serious point using historical fact to support him.

  21. Yoni

    If you want an academic discussion on the interactions between the Zionist movement and the early Nazi regime (1932 – 1939) then go for it. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with understanding historical facts within their proper contexts.

    Here’s the thing – Nazi ideology was very much based on a hatred of Jews. A desire to rid Germany of Jews. To blame Jews for everything wrong in Germany. They actively sought to oppress, hurt and eventually slaughter Jews in the genocide known as the holocaust.

    There are reasons why the early Nazi regime agreed somewhat with the plan to transfer Jews. It’s because they wanted a Jewish free Germany. It wasn’t because they supported Jewish liberation or self-determination.

    The Zionist movement on the other hand was in response to European anti-Semitism. Their motivation was to save Jewish lives from pogroms and other instances of hatred & oppression. To liberate Jews and ensure their safety in a homeland away from anti-Semitism. After centuries of anti-semitism the Zionist movement eventually sprang up after Theodora Herzl published his pamphlet. Whilst Zionism accepted the notion that there wasn’t really a place for Jews in Europe, it did so, not in agreement with anti-semitism, but in acceptance of the reality that Jews were being ostracised & marginalised.

    Just some thoughts on what I’ve managed to read from the history books and my understanding of the context.

  22. Joe Roberts.

    Another source of history, Lehi (Group) Wikipedia, but please don’t weaponize history, and use as confirmation bias, Julius Cesar, ” men believe what they WANT to believe” that’s our fickle human nature.

  23. Joan Edington

    Sorry, no actual evidence. Maybe you are not familiar with the usage of “aye right” as meaning “I doubt that very much” rather than “I know that”. My doubts being based on the fact that if the Nazis plucked the gold from Jews’ teeth before incinerating them, they were unlikely to take the trouble of sending on worldly goods to another country.

    1. Mike Sivier Post author

      Ah! It certainly seems that some scam was taking place. Part of it was to free up trade with nations that wouldn’t deal with Germany because of its attitude to Jewish people, and then there was an issue about what people could claim back, once they arrived in the Middle East – not their actual belongings but some kind of credit note.

  24. Jay Chan

    `Regardless of whether Hitler supported Zionism or not, he wanted to expel all Jews (and he succeeded appallingly) As to whether their belongings would be returned is open to debate but the fact is that no-one in a political party who is supposed to believe in ‘Equality’ should have mentioned this in this day and age. Once again it seems the Jews are being made scapegoats (can someone sensibly tell me why) especially before Israel was founded, because that seems to be an excuse. Very offensive – and I am not Jewish. Sick of these childish and dangerous political games.

    1. Mike Sivier Post author

      The question Ken Livingstone was asked by Vanessa Feltz related to a quotation used by Naz Shah: “Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal”. It followed on from mention of the image she had retweeted, showing Israel relocated to the American Midwest.
      So Ken Livingstone reminded her that Hitler’s Nazis had quite legally helped German Zionist Jews with a plan to move Jewish people from Nazi Germany to British Mandate Palestine.
      The Jewish Virtual Library can help you with what happened to the belongings of the Jews who moved to Palestine, and can also provide you with the total value of assets that were transferred there along with c.60,000 Jewish people: $40,419,000 US, including $13,774,000 provided by the German Reichsbank in co-ordination with Haavara. That’s around $444 each – a not-inconsiderable sum in those days.
      So there wasn’t any scapegoating of Jews; all you had were facts from a man who had been challenged to produce them.

  25. mohandeer

    The Zionists in Germany backed by the wealthiest Jews and their “enforcers” cut a deal with Hitler whereby they would support the rise of Hitler and his Third Reich on the proviso that they and their families would be allowed to leave Germany with their families and remainder of their substantial wealth leaving the impoverished, less fortunate Jews of which there were over 2 million in Germany to carry the can. It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with religion and everything to do with the have’s and the have nots. It is a scenario that history is replete with. Why then,do we recoil from such truths which are still evidenced in today’s society, most ably demonstrated by the Tory Government and it’s wealthy donors? What should be remembered is the Jews the Zionists left behind who suffered so cruelly at the hands of Hitler’s sadistic and warped ideology.

    Jim Roberts TEST kennyalligood •
    Zionist-Nazi collusion
    The Jewish Trotskyite Lennie Brenner documented zionist collusion with the Nazis in his book, 51 Documents: Zionist Collaboration with the Nazis, ISBN 9781569802359.
    What Was Hitler’s Mindset Regarding the Nazi-Zionist Connection?
    by Jim Condit, Jr., December 23, 2014
    The Nazi-Zionist Connection – Shocking Hidden History!
    by Jim Condit Jr.

    Israel is not representative of Jews any more than Hitler was representative of Germans.
    It is as true now as it was then.

  26. Greg Kay

    Mike, there was an agreement. The agreement was to allow Jews who were leaving to take two suitcases of possessions with them. What Livingstone did by making the statement he made was as if to say it couldnt have been such a bad idea to move the Jews en mass if the Jews themselves worked with Nazis and agreed to it. The innuendo of working with Nazis as if collaberating with them is slanderous. The additional innuendo of implying some benevolence on the part of the Nazis all the more so. I still dont know what Livingstone was really saying and by your own admission neither do you. Its true you can criticise Israel without being anti-semitic, provided (!) you do not deligitimise the state and provided further that you do not hold Israel to different standards by which you hold others. If you do either of those, you are anti-semitic.

    1. Greg Kay

      Mike, “Anyone looking at it in an objective way would see it as a response to the Israeli government”. Please explain what you mean?

      “He was certainly making the point that the current Israeli government’s stance – seen by many as embodying Zionist ideals – puts it uncomfortably close to the Nazi government with whom Zionists signed an agreement.” Is this your point or his? Either way this is one of the most dangerously anti-semitic claims currently floating around.

      1. Mike Sivier Post author

        An idea isn’t anti-Semitic just because it criticises the Israeli government.
        You are trying to give Netanyahu and his cronies a “get-out-of-jail-free” card. They don’t deserve it.

    2. Mike Sivier Post author

      Hang on – “innuendo”?
      So you’re inferring an interpretation from what Livingstone didn’t say.
      Did he de-legitimise the Israeli state? No.
      Did he hold it to a different standard? No.
      I find your argument lacks substance.

  27. Stanley Whittaker

    Don’t know enough about this history to comment on the ‘anti-semite’ attacks, but John Mann was a complete disgrace in the way he attacked Ken Livingstone so publicly for the benefit of the cameras. He should be disciplined as well by the Party.

  28. madams12

    The details of that ha’avara agreement deserve full public discussion now! consider that although around the globe many Jews opposed the imposition of a ‘Jewish homeland” in Palestine due to the already existent population….the zionists who made the deal with nazis agreed also to Sell German made products (to be stamped with) “Made in Palestine” during the time of the worldwide boycott against German made goods. Lenni Brenner’s book referred to above and even Edwin Black’s Transfer Agreement should be known history. There is NO time like the PRESENT for the world to awaken to REALITY before one more life is sacrificed..

  29. Crafty Brewer

    It says his support for the agreement is unknown and the agreement essentially meant stripping Jews of their assets and they paying 1000 Sterling to go to Israel. So saying selling people their lives is supporting Zionism is just f@cking crazy.

    1. Mike Sivier Post author

      The Zionists agreed to it and the statement is that the purposes of Nazism and Zionism converged at that point in time. So, yes, even with that going on, the Nazis were supporting a Zionist initiative.

      1. BDSguide

        Ah yes… they agreed to it. If I was to pose a choice to you: accept this agreement to leave or I will murder you and your entire family, would you agree to it?

      2. Mike Sivier Post author

        Yes, very plausible – except of course it was the Zionists who made the offer to the Nazis, not the other way around.

  30. Michael Rivero

    Given that whopper we were all told about Saddam’s nuclear weapons, prudence demands that we assume everything we are told by governments, schools, and corporate media is a lot of nonsense, and we should dig deepo and find out for ourselves what really happened.

    1. Peter McGregor

      Not really too hard to do, Michael, in the internet age but far too many people prefer to believe what incessant propaganda and Hollywood movies have shaped as ‘the Truth’ for them. It takes courage, independence and intelligence to venture out of one’s ‘comfort zone’ even when the tools are so readily available to do so. I don’t admire Red Ken’s politics, but I do admire his courage and unrepentant steadfastness in pointing to the historical facts instead of just cravenly caving-in as so many others faced with such an onslaught would do. This is going to end badly for those thus wildly accusing him, in that the number of curious searches for ‘Zionism and the Third Reich’ or ‘Hitler and Zionism’ must be skyrocketing now!

      1. J

        “In that the number of curious searches for ‘Zionism and the Third Reich’ or ‘Hitler and Zionism’ must be skyrocketing now!”

        Correct you are. According to wikipedia page stats, the number of page views for the Haavara Agreement article have had 50,000+ more views than normal in the last two days. Indeed I only came to here about all of this dues to Kens comments and then doing subsequent research. Interesting where things can lead.

      2. Roger Foister

        Well said Peter. It’s both surprising and encouraging to see Ken sticking by his opinions even though they will probably cause him a lot of grief.
        The turning of this issue into a full scale Labour anti Semite purge seems conveniently contrived.

  31. Bill Burroughs

    This historical “Transfer Agreement” between the National Socialist government of Germany and the various European Zionist organizations is quite in line with Theodore Herzl’s original plan in “Der Judenstaat” (“The Jewish State”) to move European Jews out of their comfort zones and “inspire” them to move to Palestine by creating enough anti-Jewish hatred and terror against them. What I believe irks a lot of people about the history of the Ha’avara Agreement is that it empirically defeats the false notion that Hitler had a “Final Solution” to the Jewish problem which involved systematic extermination of all European Jews. If this was the case, he would not have given German Jews multiple free boat rides to Palestine; he would have instead put them on the ships and then blown them up once they were out to sea. Additionally, if Hitler’s labour camps had actually been centres of extermination (as we have been told), there would not have been four or more millions of “survivors” – there would have been ZERO survivors. The Germans are not that incompetent. The “Final Solution” narrative is nothing but pure Jewish mythology, which is also debunked by the total number of Nazi labour camp deaths recorded by the International Red Cross (around 300,000 total).

    As far as Zionists cooperating in concert with the German government, there is also the well-documented (in Hebrew, German, and English) history of the Lohamei Herut Israel (LeHI), an underground Jewish terrorist group in Palestine led by future PM Yitzhak Shamir and also known as the “Stern Gang,” who offered their military services to Nazi Germany during the war as a means of driving the British out of Palestine. They believed Germany would win the war and wanted to be on the winning side that would subsequently give them Palestine in return for their military support of Hitler during the war. Hitler, of course, blew them off, not wanting to be involved with some Jewish terrorist group in British Mandate Palestine.

    Folks, if you don’t like real history, better go back to your TeeVees and turn on the Cartoon Network for the rest of your lives.

    1. Mike Sivier Post author

      Okay, a few factual points:
      Jews paid huge amounts of money to get on those boats to Palestine.
      The agreement that allowed them to go meant a trade embargo on Nazi Germany was lifted.
      The Jews in the concentration camps were made to work for the Nazis and were treated brutally. Those who survived did so because the Nazis simply hadn’t got around to killing them by the time the camps were liberated.
      Taking all that into account, I disagree with your claim that their was no ‘Final Solution’.
      Your comment about the Stern Gang suggests a Jewish organisation willing to co-operate with the Nazis to achieve their own ends – just as the Nazis co-operated with a Jewish organisation in signing the Haavara Agreement.
      You make some good points but please don’t deny the Shoah.

  32. Parakletos

    “The SS was particularly enthusiastic in its support for Zionism. An internal June 1934 SS position paper urged active and wide-ranging support for Zionism by the government and the Party as the best way to encourage emigration of Germany’s Jews to Palestine. This would require increased Jewish self-awareness. Jewish schools, Jewish sports leagues, Jewish cultural organizations — in short, everything that would encourage this new consciousness and self-awareness – should be promoted, the paper recommended. /8

    SS officer Leopold von Mildenstein and Zionist Federation official Kurt Tuchler toured Palestine together for six months to assess Zionist development there. Based on his firsthand observations, von Mildenstein wrote a series of twelve illustrated articles for the important Berlin daily Der Angriff that appeared in late 1934 under the heading “A Nazi Travels to Palestine.” The series expressed great admiration for the pioneering spirit and achievements of the Jewish settlers. Zionist self-development, von Mildenstein wrote, had produced a new kind of Jew. He praised Zionism as a great benefit for both the Jewish people and the entire world. A Jewish homeland in Palestine, he wrote in his concluding article, “pointed the way to curing a centuries-long wound on the body of the world: the Jewish question.” Der Angriff issued a special medal, with a Swastika on one side and a Star of David on the other, to commemorate the joint SS-Zionist visit. A few months after the articles appeared, von Mildenstein was promoted to head the Jewish affairs department of the SS security service in order to support Zionist migration and development more effectively. /9

    The official SS newspaper, Das Schwarze Korps, proclaimed its support for Zionism in a May 1935 front-page editorial: “The time may not be too far off when Palestine will again be able to receive its sons who have been lost to it for more than a thousand years. Our good wishes, together with official goodwill, go with them.”/10 Four months later, a similar article appeared in the SS paper: /11

    The recognition of Jewry as a racial community based on blood and not on religion leads the German government to guarantee without reservation the racial separateness of this community. The government finds itself in complete agreement with the great spiritual movement within Jewry, the so-called Zionism, with its recognition of the solidarity of Jewry around the world and its rejection of all assimilationist notions. On this basis, Germany undertakes measures that will surely play a significant role in the future in the handling of the Jewish problem around the world.

    A leading German shipping line began direct passenger liner service from Hamburg to Haifa, Palestine, in October 1933 providing “strictly kosher food on its ships, under the supervision of the Hamburg rabbinate.” /12

    With official backing, Zionists worked tirelessly to “reeducate” Germany’s Jews. As American historian Francis Nicosia put it in his 1985 survey, The Third Reich and the Palestine Question: “Zionists were encouraged to take their message to the Jewish community, to collect money, to show films on Palestine and generally to educate German Jews about Palestine. There was considerable pressure to teach Jews in Germany to cease identifying themselves as Germans and to awaken a new Jewish national identity in them.” /13“

  33. alan cannell

    Red Ken has got his views in a bit of a wringer.

    In the 30’s, jews were ‘encouraged’ to leave Germany and any occupied lands (Rheinland) as well as leave all assets behind. Few countries accepted them as they were penniless (Brazil did).

    Hjalmar Horace Greely Schacht, head of the Reichsbank, then put together a deal in which a sum would be raised based on the assets taken ‘under temporary control’ by the German State – essentially a mortgage- and underwritten by the international jewish community with funding from the US and the Bank of England (whose Gov. was a friend and admirer of Schacht.). Hitler gave his permission. Thus each emigrating family would have had a working capital of then 4kUS.

    The plan was rejected by the chief Rabbi in the UK, Chaim Hertzmann (Zionist) – nobody knows why….. We must assume that he wished all migration to be to Israel and not to the US, UK, Argentina, Oz, etc.

    (see: The Magic of Money, Schact)

    I very much doubt that this history will find a space to be told amid all the Histeria.

  34. enigmatic

    Ken said that “Hitler supported Zionism before he went mad” (and repeatedly cited 1932 as the relevant date, and clarified that he hadn’t just misspoken)

    To demonstrate the Nazi Party had a 1933 agreement which Hitler criticised – probably because he’d written and spoken at great length before them about how the Zionist project to create a homeland was actually just a base for their conspiracy to control the world – barely even begins to make that statement make sense.

    It makes even less sense in the context of defending someone for responding to an ironic meme about deportations and making a “everything Hitler did was legal statement” (which presumably Naz originally meant in the sense that legality wasn’t the same as morality, and not in the sense that Hitler had a good phase “before he went mad”). I mean, the only possible interpretation of his motivations for making that statement apart from it being a total brainfarting non-sequitur are that he was either trying to argue that approving of Nazis and deportations wasn’t necessarily that anti-Semitic, or trying to deflect away from anti-Semitism charges by saying “look these Zionists though, they were even worse than Naz”.

    Even if his statement was historical fact, which is far from convincingly demonstrated here even in the most trivial sense, that doesn’t mean it wasn’t bringing the party into disrepute to irrelevantly bring it up on a discussion on the subject of anti-Semitism

    I mean, if Farage being grilled on the subject of Islamophobia went off on a tangent about how “Hitler was very supportive of Islam”, would you
    (i) find some incidences of Hitler talking to Muslim groups and saying approving things of them (there are a few) and insist that everybody complaining about his impressive grasp of history was totally out of order?
    (ii) condemn him for what is difficult to interpret as anything other than a weirdly irrelevant dogwhistling slur on a group he appeared to be exploiting hatred for, in a discussion about NOT being racist of all contexts?

    Hitler rather more substantively colluded with the USSR with the Molotov Ribbentrob pact, but I’d still call anyone that used “Hitler supported Communism” as a line of argument an utter moron. Wouldn’t you?

    1. Mike Sivier Post author

      You’re taking issue because Livingstone got the DATE wrong?
      Give me strength…
      It isn’t irrelevant to discuss the Haavara agreement, in the context. How about you consider whether Livingstone was asking people to compare retweeting a bad-taste joke with the reality of moving Jews and the kind of people who really did think it was a good idea?

  35. Rich London

    It’s funny that there is a wide held belief that that the conents of a Wikipedia page (freely editable by anyone) can be taken as fact! Historian Anthony Beevor on C4 News said there were discussions between Nazis and Zionists. But Hitler vetoed idea as he did not want there to be a Jewish state.

    Channel 4 News (@Channel4News) tweeted at 4:35 pm on Thu, Apr 28, 2016:
    After Ken Livingstone insists Hitler supported Zionism, historian says to call Nazi leader a Zionist is “grotesque”:

    1. Mike Sivier Post author

      There are many sources other than the Wikipedia page. Just open up your favourate search engine and have a look.
      As for the historian on Channel 4 News, I haven’t watched the link yet but from the words you’ve quoted, he’d be right. It would be grotesque to call Hitler a Zionist.
      Ken Livingstone said Hitler supported Zionism, which isn’t quite the same – and he did, with the resources of the Nazi German government, in actioning its side of the Haavara agreement.

  36. Mike Gibson

    I commend Mike Sivier for his consistent and accurate comments…I generally do not support Ken Politically…but I admire his bravery, although he has been politically naïve to connect Zionism and Nazism again as it did at that dreadful time in Germany, when those two factions had a common interest. .I am currently reading Michael Smith’s book about Captain Frank Foley who thankfully saved thousands of Jewish
    People in the thirties..I do so agree that it is not anti-Semitic to criticise the action’s
    of the Israeli government.

    1. Mike Sivier Post author

      I’d agree with that. He wasn’t. Nobody said he was.
      Ken Livingstone said Hitler supported Zionism, referring to the Haavara agreement. He did.
      If your head is exploding, trying to reconcile those two statements, here’s help:
      Zionists came to the Nazis with a plan to move as many Jewish people as possible from Germany to Palestine. The Nazis agreed, most probably because an international agreement like this was likely to grant them legitimacy on the world stage, and also because there were economic benefits to be had. They then devoted resources to the project, which lasted six years until the outbreak of World War II.
      So they were supporting Zionism, in that way.
      Hitler himself was anti-Semitic to the core, and had been at least since World War I. He wanted the Jews out of Germany, one way or the other, and my opinion – based on what I’ve seen in the last couple of days – is that he had no problem running his genocidal policies against the Jews (and many other people) alongside this one.
      But it isn’t anti-Semitic to point out that he did have this policy, especially after having been asking a question referring to Hitler, as Vanessa Feltz had in her interview.

  37. Aviva Doll

    Seeing as Wkipedia can be manipulated in any way a person wants, it is hardly the bastion of truth. No true scholar ever uses Wiki as a source on which to base their writing. Ken Livingstone is an anti-semite, as is Naz Shah. They both deserved to be suspended/

    1. Mike Sivier Post author

      Then, as a true scholar yourself, you’ll have opened up your search engine and looked up Haavara yourself, at the very least.
      If you did, you’ll have known the facts are accurate and your comment is redundant.
      I don’t think you did.
      What does that make you, then?

  38. Joan Edington

    Yes. I’ve been to Auschwitz too. It was a very eerie place even now. It was quite weird to see the paintings on the washroom walls among the displays of belongings.

  39. Mordko Rainer

    The Dutch Resistance fighter Geertruder Wijsmuller-Meijer achieved an agreement with the Nazis to the transfer of 600 Jewish children out of Vienna to Britain.

    Therefore Hitler was not just “pro-zionist”, but also pro-Resistance.

    Who knew?


  40. GARY Vaux

    No-one doubts that there was an agreement between German government and collaborating jews to apply ethnic cleansing. That doesn’t make Hitler a supporter of Zionism any more than it makes the 1970s Apartheid regime of South Africa a supporter of black nationalism when it gave worthless homelands to the black population. Hitler opposed the idea of a Jewish state so for Ken to link him in the way he did was crass insensitivity and deeply insulting.

    1. Mike Sivier Post author

      “Ethnic cleansing” is an extremely emotive term, and I find it curious that you would choose to use it. It doesn’t just mean moving people; it can also mean killing them. Were you hoping to confuse readers?

      1. Nancy Haven

        I think it is fairly safe to describe what Hitler did to the Jews was “ethnic cleansing”. Is there any other way to describe the systematic killing of 6,000,000 people because of their religion?

      2. Mike Sivier Post author

        Of course Hitler killed millions of Jews – along with many more millions of people belonging to other ethnic or religious groups, too.
        That came later.
        His policy in the early 1930s was exactly as Livingstone described. Your attempt to use the latter policy to disprove the existence of the former is a mistake.

  41. Bron Parry

    The level of debate on this is madness, hopefully some will gain some insight into history that they may not have thought to look for previously, however the media storm has nothing to do with what has been said by Ken Livingstone, its purely an opportunity for the establishment and right of centre to have a pop at Corbyn – are we really saying that people should only be mentioning Hitler in hushed whispers when connected to the Jewish population, like a Faulty Towers sketch where we don’t mention the war in front of Germans, seriously …we need to get a grip, I don’t believe for one moment there are practicing anti zionists in the Labour party, although I imagine there are a fair few politicians in all parties that find the on going conflict, land left and lack of compensation for the already stolen land pretty distasteful, but that’s a whole other kettle of fish. What is incredible is that Ken’s words have been completely taken out of context and wild accusations made about him and sweeping accusations levelled at the Labour party in general, however other politicians are able to call African’s, flag waving pikinninies, accuse fleeing refugees as a swarm and Muslim women as submissive but that’s ok apparently no one need be suspended or investigated… we need to treat this for what it is – propaganda by the ruling classes who are not keen on the rise of Corbyn, we can’t have the lower classes getting above themselves now can we…

  42. GARY Vaux

    No. I was applying it to what happened when the Nazis relocated some Jews to Palestine. They were ethnically cleaning Germany just as Hitler demanded in Mein Kampf, to restore Aryan purity. The only confusion comes from those who equate that with active support for Zionism, and who fail to equate it with 1970s apartheid policies.

    1. Mike Sivier Post author

      I think you’ve missed the point about what’s meant by “support for Zionism”. Context is everything here.

  43. GARY Vaux

    Read your OWN comments. You defended Ken by saying that he was right to claim that Hitler was a supporter of Zionism.. This was when a poster said Ken had said that Hitler was a Zionist. The only one who seems confused Mike is you.

    1. Mike Sivier Post author

      Is this a reply to something I’ve said? I can’t find it and can’t recall (it’s been a long day).

  44. Mainbrace

    Anyone who thinks Livingstone is vindicated if what he said is true is deluded. Hitler also made a pact with Stalin; will the Left now accept Hitler as a communist? The real question is why Livingstone said it at all. What point did it address, how did it move the debate on?

    As for undermining Corbyn; without any official request from the Labour Party or from Corbyn himself to comment on the affair, Livingstone was touring the media to argue that Naz Shah should never have been suspended, thus directly contradicting his leader. Who’s doing the real undermining?

    Livingstone is no better than Boris Johnson; an impulsive, crude, attention seeker. In what way would the Labour Party be worse off without him?

    1. Mike Sivier Post author

      If I attend a funeral in a Catholic church and support it by giving a donation, does that make me a Catholic? No. I’m not.

  45. King_Penda

    In regard to Nazi/Zionist connections it may also be worth looking up Zionist terror group the Stern Gang/Lehi’s two attempts at a pact with Nazi Germany in 1941 when they were murdering British squaddies in Palestine. Members of Lehi became prominent Israeli politicians.

  46. Mark Hert

    Divide and rule? Who needs to do this, when we can so fanatically divide ourselves? How about a bit of mutual respect, instead of nit-picking about who is or is not a genuine anti-semite. I think we are all against racism in all its forms. Let’s tackle the real racists.

    1. Mike Sivier Post author

      They’re saying Wikipedia is an unreliable source and ignoring all the other possible sources.

    2. Nancy Haven

      Seems that you have no idea what the Haavara agreement was. And NOTHING on Wikipedia can be taken as “fact”.

      1. Mike Sivier Post author

        I have a very good idea what the Haavara agreement was. And it’s a good thing I’m not relying on Wikipedia alone. It was simply the first reference point suggested to me.
        I hope you are aware of that, having had time to read my other articles since you posted this comment.

    1. Support

      And some of us have debunked The Guardian. Reportage coming out of that paper, on this subject, borders on the perverse.

  47. Bitethehand

    It’s amazing how Livingstone and you Mr Sivier find it easier to call Hitler to your defence than it is to recognise the existence of anti semitism in the Labour Party.

    This is from Mein Kampf, written in 1925. Hitler writing about Zionism:

    “The Jew’s rule in the State now appears secured to such an extent that he may not only again call himself Jew, but ruthlessly admits his final thoughts as regards nationality and politics. A part of his race even admits quite openly that it is a foreign people, however, not without again lying in this respect. For while Zionism tries to make the other part of the world believe that the national self-consciousness of the Jew finds satisfaction in the creation of a Palestinian State, the Jews again most slyly dupe the stupid goyim.

    “They have no thought of building up a Jewish State in Palestine, so that they might perhaps inhabit it, but they only want a central organization of their international world cheating, endowed with prerogatives, withdrawn from the seizure of others: a refuge for convicted rascals and a high school for future rogues.

    “But it is the sign, not only of their rising confidence, but also their feeling of safety, that now, at a time when one part of them still mendaciously plays the German, the Frenchman, or the Englishman, the other part impudently and openly documents itself as the Jewish race.”

    Hitler wasn’t supporting Zionism; he was saying Zionism is a Jewish trick to fool the world that Jews will be happy with a state, when actually what they want is global domination.

    He also mentioned Zionism as a form of terrorism, when arguing for the authenticity of the antisemitic forgery, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion:

    ‘The combination of Zionism and terrorism was effective propaganda. A horrible plot to undermine society, overthrow governments, and destroy Christianity is revealed.”

    So Ken Livingstone needs to go back to his history books and apologise for what he has said about Hitler.

    1. Mike Sivier Post author

      No, Ken Livingstone doesn’t need to go back to his history books; he quoted them accurately.
      I find it hard to believe that you don’t understand this. Hitler could say what he did in Mein Kampf and support a Zionist initiative to get Jews out of Germany perfectly happily.
      And don’t think that my defence of Livingstone is equal to denial of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party. You get extreme opinions in any large organisation.
      I’m just saying there wasn’t any in what Livingstone said.

  48. Bitethehand

    Nick Cohen writing in the Guardian:

    “When historians had to explain last week that if Montgomery had not defeated Rommel at El Alamein in Egypt then the German armies would have killed every Jew they could find in Palestine, they were dealing with the conspiracy theory that Hitler was a Zionist, developed by a half-educated American Trotskyist called Lenni Brenner in the 1980s.”

    1. Mike Sivier Post author

      Of course, that comment by Cohen, regarding Nazi policy in the 1940s, has nothing whatsoever to do with Ken Livingstone’s description of Nazi policy in the 1930s.
      Times change and so do political policies.
      I would be surprised if people were willing to allow commentators like Cohen to lead them by the nose in such a shabby way.

  49. Jannerbob

    Vanessa Feltz brought Hitler into the conversation by stating that Naz Shah made a Facebook post stating” Remember everything Hitler did in Germany was legal”.If Livingstone was faster on his feet he would have pointed out that the quote was not Naz Shah’s it was first used by Martin Luther King,that well known racist.Now Livingstone countered by saying that Hitler supported Zionism.There was Indeed an agreement between the German administration and the Gernan Zionist Federation.Why did this happen? Because German Jews had declared an economic embargo on Germany,an embargo that was lifted by the agreement.Hitler made the agreement for his own self interest,nobody would claim he was a Zionist,Livingstone never did and nor has anybody else.Hitler got the embargo lifted and got rid of a few Jews and the Zionist’s got what they wanted,transferring as many Jews into Palestine.Now this is historical fact,if any of you have never read the books of Raul Hilberg I suggest you do,he confirms all of this historical fact.
    If there is finally going to be a debate within the Labour Party then “Good” let’s bring it on.I am tired of walking on eggshells because some Zionist prick wants to stifle debate.If things carry on in this way the books of Raul Hilberg will be deemed Antisemetic and pulled from the shelves.Historical fact needs protection for this new form of Macarthyism.

    So to recap; Naz Shah,quoting Martin Luther King is not antisemetic.
    Livingstone saying Hitler supported Zionism is a historical fact and not antisemetic.
    Livingstone never claimed Hitler was a Zionist.
    John Mann is a complete imbecile.
    The British media are not fit for purpose and are a serious part of the problem we face.

  50. Jannerbob

    Vanessa Feltz brought Hitler into the conversation by stating that Naz Shah made a Facebook post stating” Remember everything Hitler did in Germany was legal”.If Livingstone was faster on his feet he would have pointed out that the quote was not Naz Shah’s it was first used by Martin Luther King,that well known racist.
    Now Livingstone countered by saying that Hitler supported Zionism.There was Indeed an agreement between the German administration and the Gernan Zionist Federation.Why did this happen? Because German Jews had declared an economic embargo on Germany,an embargo that was lifted by the agreement.Hitler made the agreement for his own self interest,nobody would claim he was a Zionist,Livingstone never did and nor has anybody else.Hitler got the embargo lifted and got rid of a few Jews and the Zionist’s got what they wanted,transferring as many Jews into Palestine.Now this is historical fact,if any of you have never read the books of Raul Hilberg I suggest you do,he confirms all of this as historical fact.

    So to recap; Naz Shah,quoting Martin Luther King is not antisemetic.
    Livingstone saying Hitler supported Zionism is a historical fact and not antisemetic.
    Livingstone never claimed Hitler was a Zionist.
    John Mann is a complete imbecile.
    The British media are not fit for purpose and are a serious part of the problem we face.

  51. Jonty

    This whole issue is really rather simple. There was an agreement between the upper echelons of the Nazi regime and some Zionists living in Germany. Hitler himself wasn’t really involved – in fact, the historical record shows that he was rather ambivalent about the agreement. Of course, any agreement requires a degree of mutual interest, but let’s be very clear about what that was. The Nazis saw the Jews as a degenerate race, a cancer in society that had to be removed one way or another. In the 1930s they pursued various plans to achieve that, one of which was this ‘haavara’ agreement. Zionists, by contrast, saw the Jewish People as a proud nation that sought to achieve self-determination and fulfilment in its ancestral homeland. They pursued various means of achieving that, and at one point in 1933, some Zionists living in Germany managed to broker a deal with the Nazis to enable German Jews to get out, and go to British Mandatory Palestine. They were eager to do this primarily because the degree to which Jews were being victimised and oppressed in Nazi Germany was becoming increasingly intolerable, and they wanted to help Jews find a way out. Their preference for Palestine as a destination reflected their Zionist goals; but plenty of other initiatives existed to help German Jews to go elsewhere, including most famously, the kindertransporte. But that’s it – ‘haavara’ was an entirely pragmatic agreement brokered during an utterly horrendous period for German Jews, that was designed to get German Jews our, and reveals nothing whatsoever about Hitler’s views on Zionism.

    The reason why Livingstone’s comments are so offensive relates to his claim that Hitler ‘supported’ Zionism. Again: Zionism is simply a political movement aimed at enabling Jews to achieve self-determination and fulfilment in their ancestral homeland. The idea that Hitler supported that in any way, shape or form is completely and utterly ludicrous. Not only does it fly in the face of everything he wrote about Zionism in Mein Kampf (he was completely contemptuous about it), it is totally outrageous once you take into consideration Hitler’s policies towards the Jews through the the 1930s and the Second World War. To express it in the most simple terms, if Hitler supported Zionism, he had a completely bizarre way of showing it: it’s pretty difficult to achieve national self-determination after you’ve been stripped of your rights, ghettoised, gassed and cremated. That’s what Hitler did to the Jews, so the suggestion that he supported their movement for national self-determination is amongst one of the most offensive and hurtful things you can say to most Jews today.

    Ken Livingstone knows that only too well. So his cries of innocence or of speaking the historical truth are beyond contempt. The only possible reason for making his ridiculous claim was to try to create the impression that Zionism and Nazism are bedfellows, a suggestion that is unquestionably and undeniably antisemitic to the vast majority of Jews today, not just in the UK but throughout the world.

    1. Mike Sivier Post author

      You’re right about Hitler being ambivalent about Haavara. It seems he came around to it later. As head of the German state, though, once the agreement was signed, it could be said that he supported it. If he didn’t, it wouldn’t have happened.
      Your comments about that support are covered in other articles on this site – particularly the one in which I tear down Rainer Schulze’s Independent article.
      Needless to say, your comments about Livingstone are made under a false impression. He was NOT suggesting that Zionism and Nazism were “bedfellows”, and is on video stating that Hitler was an anti-Zionist. I suggest you read the other articles and consider how the facts affect what you think at the moment.

    2. Mike Sivier Post author

      Oh, and you can be anti-Zionist but not anti-Semitic. Hitler was both (before you try to accuse me of saying he wasn’t). I’m simply saying that expressing views that oppose Zionism is not the same as hating every Jew, and that is what you appear to be asserting in your last paragraph.

  52. Clive Ojive

    Surely Hitler, like many a modern politician, would collude with ( or ‘support’ ) anyone in order to further his own ends and those of his government. It is obvious that anyone with half a brain, myself included, by ignoring the historical facts, the context of the interviews and the context of Ken’s responses, is not able to put forward a coherent argument. Much of this is remarkably similar to Mann’s outbursts and reminds me of the crowds yelling ‘pervert’ outside a paediatrician’s office after being wound up by the Murdochian NOTW and Sun. If you want to learn, read books, if you just want to rant at a target, then I suggest the moon in its fullness is more appropriate.

    1. Mike Sivier Post author

      Of course Hitler would add his support to initiatives that further his own ends. Doesn’t everybody?
      You’re right that a coherent argument is not possible if the context of what was said is ignored. I’m glad you agree with me on that; as you can see, my own articles have referred to the context heavily.
      Thanks for the support.

  53. Nancy Haven

    What you haven’t mentioned is the fact that for German Jews to take advantage of the Haavara agreement they had to pay the equivalent of £90,000 per person in today’s money. Interesting that you quote Wikipedia – that font of reliable information.

    1. Mike Sivier Post author

      Does the amount of money they paid disprove the existence of the agreement? Of course not.
      In addition, I find it strange that you want to disparage Wikipedia, even though you have admitted it is correct in the information it provides. What exactly is your point?

  54. Adam

    BIGOT. Hitler wanted rid of the Jews. He initially tried to get them to emigrate and that included to Palestine. There was one agreement that allowed some of them to bring assets with them. That is it. This doesn’t mean that he was a Zionist. Hitler didn’t believe that the Jews were capable or willing to work, to build. He believed that the Jews wanted to build some sort of Jewish Vatican in Palestine to rule the world and was VERY MUCH against it.

    1. Mike Sivier Post author

      Okay, you’re a bit behind the times.
      Exactly who do you think has been calling him a Zionist?
      Lots of people have been accusing Ken Livingstone of that, but if you check my articles – and the video evidence – you’ll see he said Hitler was an anti-Zionist.
      … which blows everything you say out of the water.
      Still, you can learn a valuable lesson from this – never to accuse another person falsely, when you have insufficient or inaccurate evidence.

  55. M. Javed Naseem

    Vow! I admire you Mike Sivier. So much patience and cool to handle (and to respond to) all that trash being thrown upon some good people, from left, right and center. God bless!

Comments are closed.