Open vile hatred and outright slander and Lies on Quora

 

Once again there is a definite need to reply to the passive reader in response to sick anti-Israel posts.
Durng the past year "Quora" a social question-and-answer (Q&A) platform has been overrun by the least able-minded supporters of falestinian dezinformatsiya™ .

Occupation Resistor wrote; "No one believes those lies, only low IQ zio-nazis."

As to “Low IQ” try reading comprehension! Your reply is an atypical reply of a backer of the "Losers of the self-inflicted Tragedy they call the Nachba. Your image does show an actual article published by The Guardian (specifically their Sunday sister paper, The Observer) on June 29, 2013. We all know how much the staff of The Guardian love the "Balestinians", as it consitantly approves articles to defame the Jewish state much like this article. During the last decade The Guardian’s choice of headlines have favored sensationalism over the nuanced reality found within the article itself, a common issue when complex history is distilled into 'clickbait'." As a historian and educator, I find it necessary to provide the documented facts that these headlines obscure. The 2013 Guardian article refers to a thesis that most mainstream historians, like Thomas Doherty, have largely rejected. To understand the 1930s, one must look at the legal framework, not just the movies.

In 1932, Germany passed Article 15, a law allowing the government to ban every film from any studio that released 'anti-German' content anywhere in the world. This was state-level blackmail. Hollywood’s 'cooperation' was a defensive commercial reaction to protect global revenue—not an ideological pact. As an educator and historian allow me to relay the document historical fact that in 1932, Germany passed a law (Article 15) - (under the Weimar Republic, before Hitler became Chancellor and the rise of Nazism to power) -that allowed them to ban all films from any company that released an "anti-German" film anywhere in the world. This was the primary driver of studio "cooperation"—it was a response to state-level blackmail to protect global revenue. You should also note this documented historical fact that much of the "censorship" was actually carried out by the American Production Code Administration (the Hays Office), which feared that anti-Nazi films would provoke domestic anti-Semitism or isolationist backlash in the U.S. The Guardian article discusses a book by historian Ben Urwand titled, "The Collaboration: Hollywood’s Pact with Hitler" where he relays a story of business survival (seeking to stay in a market) and NOT active facilitation (providing the literal tools for state-sponsored atrocities). This article by The Guardian frames this historical event by using the word "Collaboration" in the headline, it suggests a shared ideology, whereas the evidence (even in Urwand's book) often points toward predatory capitalism—companies putting profit margins above human rights. According to Urwand he argues that during the 1930s, major Hollywood studios—many headed by Jewish executives—actively cooperated with Nazi censors to alter or cancel films to protect their access to the German market. (Note the final words) In his book Urwand cites documents showing studios invited German officials to screenings and edited scenes that "insulted" Germany to ensure their movies could still be sold there. (Note the final words) Those last words in the two previous paragraphs augment what many critics like historian Thomas Doherty who argued that Hollywood's "collaboration" was largely defensive and commercial to prevent the total loss of the German market, which was the second-largest in the world at the time.

That, that they used passive cooperation—editing out "offensive" (anti-Nazi) content or Jewish characters to satisfy censors was meant to allow the marketing to the German market.

By the use of "collaboration" in the headline suggests that the studios were providing ideological support for the Nazi party and not simply motivated by profit and business survival.

There is a massive historical chasm between Hollywood editing scripts to keep theaters open and a corporation like the IBM Germany (Dehomag) custom-designing the punch-card systems used to automate the six phases of the Holocaust—from identification to extermination.

One represents a failure of corporate courage; the other represents a strategic technological alliance.

IBM engineered a strategic business alliance and joint planning program with Nazi Germany from the very first moment in 1933 and extending right through the war that endowed the Nazi regime with the technology and the tools it needed to expedite and, in many ways, automate, all six phases of Hitler's war against the Jews. Those six phases are identification, expulsion, confiscation, ghettoization, deportation and ultimately even extermination.

IBM Germany, known in those days as Deutsche Hollerith Maschinen Gesellschaft, or Dehomag, punch-card system was essentially the precursor to modern data processing did not simply sell the Reich machines and then walk away. Unlike the film studios, which were largely reacting to censorship, IBM’s subsidiary was providing the administrative backbone that allowed the Nazi regime to operate with chilling efficiency. IBM's subsidiary, with the knowledge of its New York headquarters, enthusiastically custom-designed the complex devices and specialized applications as an official corporate undertaking.

Dehomag's top management was comprised of openly rabid Nazis who were arrested after the war for their Party affiliation.

IBM NY always understood-from the outset in 1933-that it was courting and doing business with the upper echelon of the Nazi Party. The company leveraged its Nazi Party connections to continuously enhance its business relationship with Hitler's Reich, in Germany and throughout Nazi-dominated Europe.