So, I will write what I remember, but if you want the correct accurate story you gotta read the book I linked.
Hitler came up with a plan to allow Jews to leave Germany. They would leave with a certain percent of their assets, and the rest will be deposited with the bank in some scheme. For the next 2 or 3 years, they would be able to get a portion of the remaining assets every year, until they get the whole assets. Germany gets to keep the interest. Something like that. Its possible they would get back 90% instead of the whole 100%, but it was a very fair deal given the circumstances.
He proposes it to the president of the Reichsbank, his central banker, the author of the book. What does Schaacht do? He says he needs to get it approved by the president of the Central Bank of London.
This is where the redpill starts. He is able to get an immediate audience with the and flys out to meet him. Listening to the proposal the London bank president thinks this is pretty good deal, but he has to get it approved by the head Rabbi (I forget his name). Either one of them, or both of them meet with the Rabbi and ask for his approval. They are pretty flabbergasted when the Rabbi says that he cannot allow this as they don't want the jews immigrating to whereever they want. They are only allowed to leave to Israel.
That still doesn’t make any logical sense as to why the Bank of England (which I assume you mean) would need to approve anything and why Hitler wouldn’t do it anyway, just my opinion.
Jews needed an immigration visa into Palestine. Palestine was under League of Nations Mandate by the British. Hence, the need for a British issued immigration visum. And the Brits ended issuing immigration visa's to emigrating Jews in 1938, I belief.
And just as much there is AIPAC in America, there is a huge Jew-lobby in the UK. Hence the weight of the words of a London Rabbi.
But that doesn’t explain why Jews, facing a non-friendly (to say the least) government in Germany wouldn’t have happily migrated to a dozen other countries. Palestine/israel would have been far down the list. The idea that “a Rabbi” in London (especially considering that Judaism doesn’t have a central religious leader like the pope) seems to stretch credulity.
I am not so sure it was unfriendly. After the first window breaking called Crystal Nacht, which was a response to the Judean Boycott , emergency legislation was passed to stop it, otherwise the Haavara contract would not have been made.
There was even talk about using Madagascar as a Jewish Homeland as the previous deal with a Jewish Homeland in Palestine and TransJordan within the Arab League turned to nothing due to weak British action regarding the emergence of the Kingdom of Jordan.
So, I don't know. It may be considered hostile. On the other hand, having your own land and being boss there without Jew supremacy (Banking, News, Theater, Law, sciences, etc) is, based on the idea within that time frame of "every people have the right to choose their own destiny, not totally unreasonable.
And the Haavara deal was a deal that benefited both parties to the contract.
Of Kissinger it is said he fled Germany in 1938. The funny part is, emigration was positively viewed. And the details of the story show Kissinger went away with the blessing of the German Government. And they even worked with the Mossad precursor to achieve what was necessary.
The peace treaty of Versailles simply drew arbitrary lines on a map, in service of Empire building. And here we also find the root causes of dissension in many areas currently having to deal with political instability. It seems to me the IDEA, flowing from the sovereignty of every man and woman, that a people contain the highest form of sovereignty, and thus are perfectly set to choose their own destiny was not a bad idea.
Today this is replaced by a Rules based international order. The rules are made by the power structures behind this idea, running roughshod over the question of sovereignty of the people.
How would a rabbi in London have the ability to “veto” an act by the nation of Germany?
So, I will write what I remember, but if you want the correct accurate story you gotta read the book I linked.
Hitler came up with a plan to allow Jews to leave Germany. They would leave with a certain percent of their assets, and the rest will be deposited with the bank in some scheme. For the next 2 or 3 years, they would be able to get a portion of the remaining assets every year, until they get the whole assets. Germany gets to keep the interest. Something like that. Its possible they would get back 90% instead of the whole 100%, but it was a very fair deal given the circumstances.
He proposes it to the president of the Reichsbank, his central banker, the author of the book. What does Schaacht do? He says he needs to get it approved by the president of the Central Bank of London.
This is where the redpill starts. He is able to get an immediate audience with the and flys out to meet him. Listening to the proposal the London bank president thinks this is pretty good deal, but he has to get it approved by the head Rabbi (I forget his name). Either one of them, or both of them meet with the Rabbi and ask for his approval. They are pretty flabbergasted when the Rabbi says that he cannot allow this as they don't want the jews immigrating to whereever they want. They are only allowed to leave to Israel.
That still doesn’t make any logical sense as to why the Bank of England (which I assume you mean) would need to approve anything and why Hitler wouldn’t do it anyway, just my opinion.
Jews needed an immigration visa into Palestine. Palestine was under League of Nations Mandate by the British. Hence, the need for a British issued immigration visum. And the Brits ended issuing immigration visa's to emigrating Jews in 1938, I belief.
And just as much there is AIPAC in America, there is a huge Jew-lobby in the UK. Hence the weight of the words of a London Rabbi.
But that doesn’t explain why Jews, facing a non-friendly (to say the least) government in Germany wouldn’t have happily migrated to a dozen other countries. Palestine/israel would have been far down the list. The idea that “a Rabbi” in London (especially considering that Judaism doesn’t have a central religious leader like the pope) seems to stretch credulity.
I am not so sure it was unfriendly. After the first window breaking called Crystal Nacht, which was a response to the Judean Boycott , emergency legislation was passed to stop it, otherwise the Haavara contract would not have been made.
There was even talk about using Madagascar as a Jewish Homeland as the previous deal with a Jewish Homeland in Palestine and TransJordan within the Arab League turned to nothing due to weak British action regarding the emergence of the Kingdom of Jordan.
So, I don't know. It may be considered hostile. On the other hand, having your own land and being boss there without Jew supremacy (Banking, News, Theater, Law, sciences, etc) is, based on the idea within that time frame of "every people have the right to choose their own destiny, not totally unreasonable.
And the Haavara deal was a deal that benefited both parties to the contract.
Of Kissinger it is said he fled Germany in 1938. The funny part is, emigration was positively viewed. And the details of the story show Kissinger went away with the blessing of the German Government. And they even worked with the Mossad precursor to achieve what was necessary.
The peace treaty of Versailles simply drew arbitrary lines on a map, in service of Empire building. And here we also find the root causes of dissension in many areas currently having to deal with political instability. It seems to me the IDEA, flowing from the sovereignty of every man and woman, that a people contain the highest form of sovereignty, and thus are perfectly set to choose their own destiny was not a bad idea.
Today this is replaced by a Rules based international order. The rules are made by the power structures behind this idea, running roughshod over the question of sovereignty of the people.