The Myth of The Jewish Nazi Soldiers

The Myth of The Jewish Nazi Soldiers

***Note, I rarely do this, but because of the importance of the conclusion in this blog post, I have decided to print the conclusion first and then proceed to the the rest of the article.

Only people who were Mischling or of mixed blood possibly served in Hitler’s Army, although they were just as likely to be sent to a concentration camp. No person that was considered a Jew served in the army, thus rendering the statement that “150,000 Jews served in Hitler’s Army” as 100% false. The majority of Mischling who supposedly served in Hitler’s Army were practicing Roman Catholics or Lutherans.

In 2002, Bryan Mark Rigg wrote a book with the unfortunate title Hitler’s Jewish Soldiers. He and the book instantly became the darlings of white supremacists, Neo-Nazis, Holocaust deniers, and anti-Zionists. The problem is, there were ZERO openly Jewish soldiers in the Wehrmacht (the Nazi Army), in the SS, Gestapo, or even the Nazi party. Of the 150,000 that Rigg theorizes were in Hitler’s army, maybe a handful were Jews who, practicing self preservation, were hiding as “Aryans” in the Wehrmacht. The rest of them were what the Nazis classified as Mischling, which translates to mixed blood, half breeds or mongrels. The designation of Mischling was not randomly or haphazardly determined. The Nazis has a very strict classification system of determining who was a Mischling. In fact, they had a legal test to determine if a person was Mischling or Volljuden- half breeds or full Jews. This test was part of the infamous Nuremberg Laws – antisemitic, racial laws passed in 1935 that among other thing stripped Jews of German citizenship, banned intermarriage and sexual relations between Jews and Non-Jews (Germans and other “related blood”), and defined who was a Jew not by religious belief but by background. Even if you were born and raised a Christian or converted to Christianity, by Nazi law you were still a Jew, and a German who converted to Judaism was considered an Aryan.

The first decree defining who is a Jew for civil service reasons was the Law of Restoration of the Civil Service which define a Jew as anyone having at least one Jewish grandparent. These laws were used to remove Jews from any civil service jobs for the Reich government, except for a few exclusions.

“A person is … non-Aryan [if] … descended from non-Aryan, especially Jewish, parents or grandparents. This holds true even if only one parent or grandparent is … non-Aryan … [and] especially obtains if one parent or grandparent was of the Jewish faith.”

The Nuremberg Laws of 1935, further refined who was considered a Jew and for the first time applied a special test to determine if a person was a full Jew (Volljuden) or a half breed (Mischling). The Nuremberg Laws were used not only to exclude Jews from most aspects of German society, but would also be instrumental in determining who would be rounded up for transfer to a concentration camp. A debate erupted inside the Nazi party between those that wanted to classify anyone with even a quarter of Jewish blood as a full Jew, and those that were more concerned with foreign affairs and push back from Aryans, as some of these “partial Jews” were related to them. From that debate came the classifications of 1st Degree Mischling and 2nd Degree Mischling. The Nuremberg Laws were at first only applicable to Jews, but eventually supplemented to include Gypsies, Blacks, and other racial minorities. These classifications of Volljuden and Mischling played an important role in the Final Solution conference at Wannsee. At one point during the Final Solution they decided to sterilize 1st degree Mischling and deport 2nd degree Mischling that “looked Jewish” but it was never carried out because of fear of backlash from Aryan relatives.

After 1935 the Nazis had three basic categories for its citizens

  1. Full Aryan
  2. Volljuden or Full Jew
  3. Mischling or Mixed Blood

Let’s be clear about one thing. People classified as full Jews had no rights in the Nazi Germany. They could not hold civil service jobs or most any other jobs inside or outside the government, including owning a business, practicing law, or medically treating a non-Jew. After the Wannsee Conference, the only solution for these Jews was extermination. No Volljuden would have ever been trusted to serve in the Nazi army. A handful of Volljuden, in an act of self preservation hid inside of German society as non-Jews and served in the Army. They were neither open about their background, nor was it knows.

Having established that no “Full Jew” served in Hitler’s army, we will dedicate the rest of this article to the Mischlings or half breeds. The test to determine if a person as a Volljuden or Mischling has two parts.

The first part of the test defined if a person was either fully Jewish or possibly a Mischling.

  1. If a person had three or four Jewish grandparents – regardless of whether they practiced Judaism, were completely secular, or converted to a Christian faith – they were considered full Jews. These people would never be allowed to service in the Hitler’s Army. They weren’t considered human. They weren’t allowed to own businesses, practice law, or treat non-Jewish patients.
  2. If a person had exactly one Jewish grandparent and three non-Jewish grandparents they were considered Mischling of the 2nd degree. Even if both his/her parents were born Christian, were baptized, and raised as Christians, they were still considered of mixed blood.
  3. If a person had two Jewish grandparents and two non-Jewish grandparents the situation got more complicated. This is when you had to go to the second part of the test to determine if the person qualified as a Mischling of the first degree or a  Jew.

The second part of the test dealt with the issue of first degree Mischling. A person was considered a Jew if they had two Jewish grandparents and fulfilled any one of these criteria:

  1. A member of the Jewish community.
  2. Married to a Jew.
  3. Parents born after 1935 and one parent is Jewish.
  4. Born out of wedlock.

If the individual met any one of these criteria they were considered a Jew even if they themselves were practicing Christians and did not consider themselves Jews. These people would not have been allowed to serve in the Nazi army.

If a person had two Jewish grandparents and two non-Jewish grandparents and did not meet any one the four criteria above, then they would be considered a Mischling of the first degree, or the Mischling with the most Jewish blood.

Even though 1st and 2nd degree Mischling weren’t full Jews, they weren’t Aryan either and had many restrictions, such as not being able to marry Jews or Aryans, just other Mischling.  In 1939, 72,000 1st degree Mischling and 39,000 2nd degree Mischling were living in Germany according to a Reich census. In Bryan Mark Rigg’s book, out of the 150,000 Mischlinge soldiers, 60,000 were had one Jewish parent and one non-Jewish parent (1st degree), and 90,000 has one Jewish grandparent or less (2nd degree).

Here is an image of the Nuremberg Racial Laws that classified Mischling based on then tests defined above.


To repeat the conclusion.

Only people who were Mischling or of mixed blood possibly served in Hitler’s Army, although they were just as likely to be sent to a concentration camp. No person that was considered a Jew served in the army, thus rendering the statement that “150,000 Jews served in Hitler’s Army” as 100% false. The majority of Mischling who supposedly served in Hitler’s Army were practicing Roman Catholics or Lutherans.

To this day, however, Jew haters and anti-Israel propagandists continue to insist, despite it being 100% false, that Jews served in Hitler’s army.


The word Mischling is still used in Germany to this day for mixed breeds. It is particularly common when discussing dog breeds, as in a half Lab, half German Shepherd would be considered a Mischling. Shows you the mentality of Nazis, who equated a person with even one Jewish grandparent with a dog.

Continue reading “The Myth of The Jewish Nazi Soldiers”


Twitter Security

Someone is trying to hack into the Twitter accounts of Jewish and pro-Israel users. The most likely means is through a script that tries to log in with random passwords to gain access to the account and/or to have the user’s account locked out.

It goes without saying that you should have your virus protection up to date and you should not download anything from Twitter. If you want to save an image from twitter, you are better off using a screen capture program. All major operating systems, including mobile and tablet OS’s, have built in applications.

There are two things you can try to do from within Twitter to protect your account. The first is obvious, if you have a weak password, change it. There are websites that will  generate a strong password for you that are nearly impossible to crack. One site is . Select a password length of at least 16 characters.

The second and more important thing you can do is use 2 Factor Verification to log into your account. With 2 Factor Verification, every time you log into your account, Twitter will send you a text message with a code to verify the login. Although this may not (or may) stop your account from getting locked, it will ensure that you will not get hacked.Don’t worry about he hassle, most of the time our account will remain logged in on your device, so you will not need to used 2 Factor Verification very often.

Here are the steps to turn on 2 Factor Verification using the  Twitter website. Mobile and tablet application steps will vary, but should be similar.

 Step1 Step1: in the upper right hand of the screen, click on your avi.
Step2 Step 2: Select settings from the drop down.


 Step3 Step 3: On the left side of the page, select Security and Privacy.


 Step4 Step 4: on the main body of the page, look for a checkbox that says “Verify login request”. Twitter will then take you through a series of steps to verify your account, including sending you a text message. Make sure your mobile information is up to date.


 Step5 Step 5: save the changes at the bottom of the screen







Is a Flat Earth Antisemitic?

Is a Flat Earth Antisemitic?

Often, when someone attacks me on Twitter I like to look through their timelines to understand who I am dealing with. While looking through timelines, I noticed that a certain antisemitic group of people also happen to believe the Earth is flat. My first thought was, “Do people still believe the Earth is flat?” Sadly, the answer is yes. Most of them also believe other ridiculous conspiracy theories, such as gravity is fake or 9/11 was an inside job. The most logical explanation was they were mentally unstable. What I didn’t understand was why did they seem to also be extremely antisemitic. Is it true? Are most flat Earth believers also anti-Semites?

I decided to test my hypothesis. I first did a twitter search for the term “flat Earth.” That returned more results than it should have. I then started going down the line and searched those individuals for antisemitic tweets. It couldn’t be just anti-Israel, it had to be antisemitic or both anti-Israel and anti-Semitic. If there was a question whether they actually believed in a flat Earth or the tweet was borderline antisemitic I didn’t count it. What I found was about half of the people I searched twitter for flat Earth also had made antisemitic statements or retweeted antisemitic statements. That is a remarkable number. Keep in mind, this is not a scientific study, just my observation. After a couple of hours I had to stop searching. I could have gone on for days.

Here are some of the tweets from people that believe in a flat Earth, who also happen to be anti-Semites.
















The Smoking Gun?

Many people on both sides of the Israeli/Palestinian divide display maps that either shows Palestine or doesn’t show Palestine on the map. It is mostly an exercise in futility. There is no doubt that the area at different times in history has been called Palestine. In fact, Palestine was one of the names considered for the new Jewish state, since Jews were referred to as Palestinians at the time, before settling on Israel. The most germane question to ask is has Palestine ever been used by Arabs before 1948 to refer to the Area. We know that the areas was not called Palestine by the Ottomans who ruled it for 500 years. The Ottomans called the area Syria and what is now Israel was the southern part of Syria. The Ottomans divided their empire into provinces, or eyalets. Syria was knows as  Eyalet-i Şam (Damascus). The eyalets were further divided into administrative districts called Sanjaks. Here are the Sanjaks in the southern part of Şam:

  1. Sanjak of Jerusalem
  2. Sanjak of Gaza
  3. Sanjak of Karak
  4. Sanjak of Safet
  5. Sanjak of Nablus
  6. Sanjak of Ajloun
  7. Sanjak of Lejun
  8. Sanjak of Bokoa

Notice that neither the eyalet or the sanjaks used the name Palestine. But these are Ottoman Turks. What about the Arabs? Did they use the term Palestine? This is a hotly debated topic. One that I have researched. I think I may have found the smoking gun.

Here is the Arabic word for Palestine (Filastin actually since Arabic doesn’t have an alphabetic equivalent for the letter P).


I have found a map of the Ottoman Empire from 1893. What is unique about this map, versus other maps you see which may or may not list Palestine, is that this map is in Arab from the Near East, and not from Europe in western language. These are the names Arabs used for the areas during the Ottoman Empire. After looking at the map carefully, I was not able to match the word above with any word on the map. That would suggest that the area that is now Israel and once part of the British Mandate of Palestine (after the fall of the Ottoman Empire) was not referred to as Palestine by Arabs during Ottoman rule.

I do not speak Arabic, so there is a chance I am mistaken. If that is the case, please leave a comment and I will try and research.


Here is a link to the map that you can enlarge if you want to try and match the word yourself.


The Absurdity of Proportionality

The Absurdity of Proportionality

One of the main charges against Israel during the last war in Gaza with Hamas was that Israel’s response to indiscriminate rocket fire was disproportionate. It is an argument that is hard for me to understand. If Hamas launches over 11,000 rockets indiscriminately at Israeli population centers, I would think as a sovereign nation they would have the right and duty to do what was necessary to stop the attacks. But many, especially on the left and in the Arab press, felt that a ground incursion and air strikes were not a proportional response to the attacks by Hamas.

Then what is a proportional response? You can argue that Israel’s ground incursion and air strikes did little to prevent Hamas rocket fire into Israel, in the present or future. Many of the tunnels destroyed in 2014 are being rebuilt, and Hamas’ acceptance of a cease fire may have more to do with depleting their stock pile of weapons than Israel’s destruction of them by air strikes. Whether or not the response was proportional or not, you can argue the goal of Israel’s response was not achieved.

I think Israel can achieve a response that would be considered “proportional” while maintaining moral superiority. The solution comes from the Arabic concept of an eye for an eye. I call the response “A Rocket for a Rocket.” Even though it may sound shocking at first, bear with me and you will see why it is a solution worth exploring. Hamas fires a rocket indiscriminately at Israel. The rocket may land in a field or someone’s house, or it may be shot out of the sky by the Iron Dome. Imagine a technology where rocket batteries were setup around Israel. When it detects that a rocket was fired from Gaza (or the West Bank) at Israel, it automatically fires a rocket from one of the dozens of batteries into Gaza (or the West Bank). The battery and artillery used will be based on distance. So if a rocket from Gaza based on where it is projected to land is determined to be an M-302, a similar size projectile will be fired back at them. The key is the launch happens automatically and without any human involvement. In other words, when Hamas fires a rocket at Israel they are also firing a rocket at themselves. They become 100% responsible for any damage caused by their firing a rocket, since they will know that somewhere a rocket will be fired back. In this way, Hamas (or the Fatah) will be forced to invest in the same technology as Israel to safeguard their population, such as shelters and gas masks, or better yet realize that firing rockets is futile and stop doing it.

The key is the launch happens automatically and without any human involvement. In other words, when Hamas fires a rocket at Israel they are also firing a rocket at themselves.

This solution not only satiates the west’s irrational sense of “proportionality” but it also conforms to the Arabs sense of Justice, vis-à-vis an eye for an eye. How can they argue that the response was not proportional when one rocket equals one rocket? If the destruction on the side of the Palestinians is greater than on the side of Israel, no one will be able to blame Israel. Not only did Hamas launch a rocket that automatically triggered a response, but they also failed to prepare their people for that event. It takes Israel completely out of the equation.

You can argue that Israel’s current response is based on cause and effect. Hamas launches multiple rockets (cause) and Israel goes after the launchers (effect). But unlike the system that I propose, which is completely automatic and takes humans out of the equation, the current way involves human decisions and actions. In the human involvement lies Palestinian’s strategy to demonize Israel and turn public opinion against her. And that strategy has worked for them until now. My solution can reverse that and turn public opinion against Hamas. After all, No human on Israel’s side had any involvement in the response. It was a human that fired the rocket into Israel, which they knew would automatically fire a rocket back at them. If a human tragedy occurs because of that action, it will be their fault.

Ultimately, the goal is to work towards peace with the other side. As long as they think they can turn world opinion against Israel, they have no incentive to discuss peace. Will this solution decrease the number of rockets? Maybe not. But neither has Israel’s previous strategies. Between Iron Dome and “Rocket for Rocket” Israel can have a completely automated response to rocket fire that does not put the lives of Israeli soldiers at risk. They can then shift resources and focus to other areas of deterrence, such as tunnel collapsing technology. At the same time, they can work the diplomatic angle so that the world understands that a rocket from Hamas to Israel will mean Hamas is also launching a rocket at themselves.

Pretty crazy theory, right? Israel would never allow rockets to be fired indiscriminately at population centers, as Hamas does. Nor should they. This article is meant as an allegory to show the absurdity of those that defend Palestinians who randomly and indiscriminately target civilians while demonizing the Jewish state.

Full disclosure: I read somewhere a similar strategy proposed by someone. I do not recall where I read it or who wrote it. If you know the article I am talking about, please let me know so that I can include a link and give credit. Thanks.

Palestinian + Arabic ≠ Israelite

There is a very popular theory that Palestinians are former Jews that converted to Islam after the Islamic conquest of the Levant, and not ethnic Arabs that emigrated to the area. On first thought this theory seems plausible. DNA studies show Palestinians share genetic similarities with Syrians, Jordanians, Saudi Arabians, and even some Jews. Is it possible they are really Jewish apostates?

Something didn’t seem right to me about this theory. I couldn’t put my finger on it until I started thinking about language. There are many countries and regions where the local inhabitants abandoned their indigenous religions and adopted Islam. Many of those conversions took place around the same time that Islam took a hold in the Levant, during the early Islamic conquests. Others occurred later. But one thing I noted is although people renounced their faith and adopted Islam, they maintained, to various degrees, their  indigenous language.

Turks adopted Islam in the 7th century, but to this day they speak their indigenous language of Turkish, not Arabic. The same is true in Iran. Even though Iran is one of the most conservative Islamic countries in the world, they speak Persian, not Arabic. Examples of other countries or regions that this applies to are:

Afghanistan Pashto and Dari
Azerbaijan Azerbaijani
Bangladesh Bengali
Comoros Comorian
Gambia Mandingo, Fula, Wolof, Jula
Indonesia Indonesian
Kosovo Albanian, Serbian
Kurdistan Kurdish
Malaysia Malay
Pakistan Urdu
Somalia Somali
Uzbekistan Uzbek

There are Muslim majority countries or regions where the main language is Arabic and the local population is made up of both Arabs and “Arabized” individuals. But even if you look at those countries or regions, you will see the indigenous language is still spoken by some of the population or the indigenous language has heavily influenced the flavor of Arabic spoken there or the indigenous language is in some other ways preserved and studied historically.

In the North African countries of Morocco, Algeria, and to a lesser extent Libya, the indigenous people are the Berber (Amazighs). Although most Berbers are Muslims, they still maintain their language and speak it along side Arabic. It is estimated 30 – 40 million Berbers and “Arabized” Berbers speak Tamazight. In Egypt, the indigenous language Coptic stopped being spoken in the 17th century. however, Coptic is still used in the liturgy of the Coptic Christians, and in fact, Coptic is a major influence on “Egyptian” Arabic. Even in Syria, located in the Levant, the Assyrians minority still speaks the Assyrian language and Aramaic has influenced Levantine Arabic. In Iraq, they speak Mesopotamian Arabic, which is influenced by the indigenous Babylonian Aramaic. In Sudan, the Sudanese Arabic vocabulary is heavily influenced by the local languages (Rotana). About the only Muslim countries where Arabic is the indigenous language are the countries in the Arabian Peninsula and Jordan, where Islam was born and spread out, exporting their language.

That leaves us with the Palestinians. If the Palestinians are former Jewish apostates, you would expect Hebrew to either still be spoken by the population, like Turkey, Iran, and Pakistan, be spoken by some of the population along side Arabic, like the Berber, or at the very least have heavily influenced the local flavor of Arabic, such as with the Egyptians, Iraqis, or Sudanese. But you don’t see any of that with Palestinians. There is no real, historical knowledge of Hebrew, spoken or academic, by Palestinians, except for what they learned from the Jews that revived it and brought it with them. There is nothing to even indicated that Hebrew was a language ever spoken by Palestinian Arabs. The closest association is that Hebrew and Arabic are both Semitic languages. But Arabic comes from the Arabian peninsula, not Judea/Palestine/Israel. After all, French and Italian are both Romance languages, derived from Latin, but the people who speak it remain separate groups. How can a people born out of the indigenous population have zero knowledge of the indigenous language?

All of this points to the likelihood that Palestinians are not former Jewish apostates, but rather immigrants to the region from the Arabian peninsula. It could be why when Dutch Orientalist Adriaan Roland visited Palestine in 1695 he observed almost no places had Arabic names and most of the inhabitants were Jews or Christians.

It also explains why in the seminal genetic study on Jews, The genome-wide structure of the Jewish peoplewhich compared the genetics of Jews to non-Jews, they observed the following:


It was the Jews in exile, either in the Middle East or Europe who kept alive Hebrew, the indigenous language of Judea/Palestine/Israel, in their liturgical and holy books, and in constructed languages, mixing Hebrew and the local language where they lived in exile – Yiddish and Ladino.

Comparison of Nazi Policies and BDS

A series of tweets by Shanmukh (@maidros78) comparing Nazi policies of the 1930s and the BDS movement are reprinted below, with permission from the author. They are presented as originally published without editing. The only change made was in structure. I converted the tweets to a side-by-side comparison. The views and opinions expressed in this post are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of


With the antisemitic propaganda machine running non-stop against Jews & Israel, it seems appropriate to post Nazi parallels to them.        

  Nazi Policy 

Hilberg points out Hitler’s rise didn’t create machinery for destruction of Jews. It already existed. Hitler’s rise just revitalised it.


Today, BDS campaigners don’t have to create machinery for exclusion & expulsion of Jews; it already exists. They merely need to rise.

Crude antisemitism was already distasteful to European elites. Anti Jewish measures would have to be rewritten in polished language.

Today, just pry under the BDS surface & you will see old antisemitism in full glory. But they are careful just to mouth curses at Israel.

Most Nazi officials after the war would claim that they never hated the Jews, despite horrid atrocities – they always used polished lang.

Similarly, most BDS groups claim that they never hate Jews. They are merely using the old habit of speaking smoothly & acting brutally.

Of course, when there was street thuggery, it fell to Nazi apologists & allies to soothe things. Vice Chancellor von Papen wrote to the Board of German US trade after riot in 1933 how 100s of Jewish businesses still functioned smoothly, how limited casualties were, etc

Today, we have BDS spokespeople telling us how Israel keeps functioning smoothly despite knife attacks, rocket attacks & bombings.

Schacht (German finance minister) was worried about repercussions to German industry & trade, since losses had accrued due to revulsion. Schacht was not worried about what happaned to Jews. Only the effects due to revulsion at riots. He wanted legal anti-Jewish measures.

This is precisely the attitude of the BDS campaigners. They are horrified by riots at home, but want to legally institute antisemitism.

Hence, after 1933 riots, there was a Nazi resolution that anyone engaging in unsanctioned activity against Jews was `enemy of state’, `provocateur’ & even a Jew (oder gar ein Jude). So actions against Jews were blamed on Jews themselves by Nazi propagandists.

Note today, too, how actions against Jews are quickly blamed on Jews, claimed false flag incidents, etc. When terrorists hijacked El Al to Entebbe, German intel declared it `brilliant tactic of Shin Bet to discredit Palestinians’ (William Stevenson, 90 mins at Entebbe)

After Kristallnacht, Nazis came to terms with widespread destruction of their own country. Much of material in Jewish shops & warehouses had been insured & German insurance had to pay out the claims. So, Nazis decided to impose fine of 1bn marks on Jews to recoup losses.

We are already in this stage. Israel is routinely asked to compensate terrorists who have who have been `wrongfully harmed’ etc.

In Kristallnacht, goods burnt in Jewish warehouses often belonged to German traders. Even rented warehouses belonged to German landlords 100s of synagogues were burnt & the rubble littered streets & blocked them. Consequently, Jews were required to pay for clearing them. Out of 30 Nazis tried for murder of Jews in Kristallnacht, 26 were acquitted because they were only guilty of murder. It wasn’t a crime. Other 4 convicted, because, murder apart, they `molested Jewish women’. Polluting Aryan race unforgivable. They were expelled from Party

This is one change from Nazi times. Islamists celebrate both rape&murder & their BDS allies will exonerate them of it. Change with times

How did Jews react to this growing hostility in Germany in 1930s? Many refused to ally themselves with forces hostile to Hitler, often. Assimilationist Jews declared, `No one can rob us of our German fatherland. We carry out a German, not a selfish Jewish,fight. ‘. They also declared, `One can live under any law.’. Except there was no law, except theri destruction, that was being contemplated.

Today, many people declare that Jews can live under any compromise because they’re strong. But no bargain except extinction contemplated

In 1939, German Jewish leaders asked Jews `to fulfill all orders&directives with the greatest exactitude’. Fate of Jews had been sealed.

The above highlights the fate that awaits every opponent of Islamists & their western allies. One can live with compromise, but not when the only end result sought is destruction. One cannot reason with an executioner offering `right hand’ or `left leg’. Eventually it will come to the neck, because that is the whole purpose of the process. One that disarms oneself & can only passively await the axe