English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

And then, at some point, the rules were changed, and these people were treated just as poorly as other Jews?

2007-07-10 15:33:03 · 11 answers · asked by Lauren M 3 in Arts & Humanities History

11 answers

Yes, they were treated differently at first.

The Nurenburg laws had elaborate classifications concerning Jews, one of which concerned Jewish war veterans.

This was largely changed after the Wannsee Conference on January 20, 1942.

2007-07-10 15:57:45 · answer #1 · answered by Rillifane 7 · 0 3

No.

I live in Germany and just out of town is a castle that been around for nearly 1000 years, the family of the castle was Jewish and there are a number of uniform, medals including several Iron Crosses, and regimental banners of the Regiments that this family sponsored and served in all were from WW1. During this period it was customary for the nobility to fund a military unit that served the emperor.
None were from WW2 because the family was Jewish. There lands and property were seized but most of the family made it to Switzerland, and survived the war and got they property back after the war.

The only advantage wealthy or influential families had was their wealth. Even through some Nazi's did shelter personnel acquaintances it was for personal reasons and not because of service in WW1.

2007-07-10 20:05:07 · answer #2 · answered by DeSaxe 6 · 0 2

There are some stories where an individual veteran was spared by an individual Nazi, but the policy from start to finish was to spare no one. On the rare instance a jewish veteran was excused the wouldn't be persecutor ran an enormous risk.

2007-07-10 20:23:33 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

No, this is not true. In a recent documentary I saw a man describing some of the earliest internees at concentration camps going through the gates and showing their medals from WWI and asking why they were being treated so, since they were Germans, too.

2007-07-10 16:58:25 · answer #4 · answered by LodiTX 6 · 0 2

For the most part, veterans of WWI, regardless of ethnic background, were held in high regard by the Nazi Party. Hitler could not immediately begin his removal of Jewish people from Germany - such a plan required gradual introductions by means of various laws of increasing intensity against Jews.

There are stories of many Jewish WWI veterans being deported while wearing their Iron Crosses from WWI. I have read accounts of such Iron Crosses being torn off by SS troopers.

2007-07-10 15:38:13 · answer #5 · answered by UncleThadd 3 · 0 3

this would be a best question! the respond is straightforward. it is the region that's complicated. First, enable's define the wisdom TRAITOR: traitor definition n. person who betrays one's united states, a reason, or a believe, notably person who commits treason. the fast answer is "definite, scuffling with against your guy or woman united states makes you a traitor." notice that this does not point out no count if the traitor or the rustic in question is right or no longer. In different words, including your examples, if a Sudanese makes a decision that genocide in Darfur is erroneous, unlawful, immoral, and makes a decision to combat his very own united states, he's a traitor to Sudan, yet in all possibility to no longer others. the u . s .'s first and 2d amendments refers to this very project, as we are a "government of the individuals, via the individuals, for the individuals," meaning if our government steps out of line, and that i mean GROSSLY out of line (no longer purely "I disagree with Liberals", yet truly unlawful utility of the form), we as (lawfully armed and qualified unfastened speech) electorate are empowered to take down this government as a fashion to repair the form. it is continually subjective, or maybe however we would have faith all of us recognize the version between top and incorrect, that doesn't continually mean we are spectacular in this perception. it is the reason freedom is so significant. without freedom, we grow to be a ingredient of the device, no longer able to dislodge ourselves and notice what's physically powerful. Hitler confident Germans to stay together with his will till they have been given to the factor the place they could no longer provide up the device (despite the fact that in the event that they believed what they have been doing replaced into incorrect, as a results of fact the help and enforcement shape replaced into already in place.) it may take exterior forces, unswayed via this fallacious use of ability, to defeat it. it is the reason we would desire to perservere and defeat Islamists for the time of Iraq and Afghanistan, and Africa.

2016-11-08 23:26:26 · answer #6 · answered by dugas 4 · 0 0

An example of this possibility is seen in a recent rendition of the Diary of Anne Frank when the soldiers come in and find her father's war chest. A small dialogue is exchanged in which it is apparent the soldiers respect the father and offer that he could have been better off had he left sooner in the war.

2007-07-10 16:17:56 · answer #7 · answered by Kargin 1 · 0 3

This is indeed True. At the begining Hitler had a revered sense of respect for all WWI veterans, knowing from experience the hell it brought to the German people.

2007-07-10 17:23:35 · answer #8 · answered by The obstacle is the path 2 · 0 3

yes

2007-07-10 17:29:32 · answer #9 · answered by brainstorm 7 · 0 3

Probably.

2007-07-10 15:35:19 · answer #10 · answered by Joseph C 4 · 0 3

fedest.com, questions and answers