Ken Livingstone destroyed by Andrew Neil live on air

No what he said was historically correct. Go and check you facts. You have used the word apparently which says you haven't checked. We live in a double speed nation. All facts need to be checked and preferably cross checked.


Posted from TSR Mobile

I don't believe that Mr. Livingston was applauding Hitler. He was simply referring to a historical fact relating to deportations/ incentives/ disincentives whatever you want to call them for Jews to move from Germany to Palestine in the 30s.

What could possibly be wrong with a fact. If there's anything wrong, it's with the people who can't deal with a fact.


Posted from TSR Mobile

No, obviously he was not applauding Hitler. What he did was present something as fact that is clearly in contention. Mann pointed out that to say Hitler supported a Jewish homeland is a misinterpretation. He supported an agreement for Jews to leave Germany, but then took dozens of steps to stop this and also repeatedly dismissed the idea of a Jewish homeland. Livingston's exact comment is bizarre,

"Let’s remember when Hitler won his election in 1932, his policy then was that Jews should be moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism – this before he went mad and ended up killing six million Jews."

This is completely inaccurate and also implies that Hitler treated Jews just fine until he started gassing them.

A major part of the issue here is not even to do with comments he made, it is that he claimed Naz Shah did not make anti-semtic comments, despite the fact that she had already admitted to doing exactly that.



Edit: Although with the comments he's just made about labour MPs not being taught history in "Israeli schools" I am wondering if he is losing his mind.

"Let’s remember when Hitler won his election in 1932, his policy then was that Jews should be moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism – this before he went mad and ended up killing six million Jews."

This is completely inaccurate and also implies that Hitler treated Jews just fine until he started gassing them.

It sort of implys a softer form of anti-Semitism where Hitler just moved Jews out of Germany rather than murder them would have been acceptable or desirable. Which is an anti semitic view.

Genuine question. What has Livingstone said? It's all blowing up on Twitter but I'm not sure what's actually been said? I know he's been suspended.

Weird watching a witch-hunt live against someone you know hasn't done anything remotely wrong. So weird. Mob mentality is funny.

No, obviously he was not applauding Hitler. What he did was present something as fact that is clearly in contention. Mann pointed out that to say Hitler supported a Jewish homeland is a misinterpretation. He supported an agreement for Jews to leave Germany, but then took dozens of steps to stop this and also repeatedly dismissed the idea of a Jewish homeland. Livingston's exact comment is bizarre,

"Let’s remember when Hitler won his election in 1932, his policy then was that Jews should be moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism – this before he went mad and ended up killing six million Jews."

This is completely inaccurate and also implies that Hitler treated Jews just fine until he started gassing them.

A major part of the issue here is not even to do with comments he made, it is that he claimed Naz Shah did not make anti-semtic comments, despite the fact that she had already admitted to doing exactly that.



Edit: Although with the comments he's just made about labour MPs not being taught history in "Israeli schools" I am wondering if he is losing his mind.

The Nazi Haavara agreement is not a cranky construct, it's a matter of historical fact, see link and attachment. If people get triggered by it, that's their own problem.


https://en.w.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haavara_Agreement



Posted from TSR Mobile

I already addressed that point, congrats on your reading skills. The agreement existed yes, was there ever a serious chance of it being carried out? No.

Posted from TSR Mobile

It sort of implys a softer form of anti-Semitism where Hitler just moved Jews out of Germany rather than murder them would have been acceptable or desirable. Which is an anti semitic view.

Just a couple of years after Hitler lost power and fled to Argentina, was the materialisation of this?


Posted from TSR Mobile

I think we're done here.

Posted from TSR Mobile

No body of Hitler was ever found that the skull that the Russians had that was attribute to Hitler turned out to be a woman's skull.

It has come out that an pilot has testified that he flew Hitler to Argentina after the war.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2050137/Did-Hitler-Eva-Braun-flee-Berlin-die-old-age-Argentina.html

Posted from TSR Mobile

Which was pretty much what Netanyahu, the far right prime minister of Israel said a few months ago. That Hitler didn't want to kill the Jews, just deport them but was persuaded to kill them by Mufti.

Yeah I remember that.

I thought it was disgustingn when Netanyahu said it and equally as bad when Ken said it, the problem is quite a few on the political right turned a blind eye to Netanyahu while berating Ken. They pretty much said the same thing.


Either people should berate both or neither, it's not much to ask for consistency.

It does seem that way. It is hard to come to many other conclusions at this point.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Was it just as anti Semitic when the PM of Israel in November pretty much said the same thing as Ken? He said initially Hitler wanted to deport Jews, not kill them.