Talk:Walter Guinness, 1st Baron Moyne

offer to exchange Jewish prisoners

Removed here for now:

One act that most enraged those who would later plan his death was his alleged role in an obscure negotiation with German diplomats during the war to trade non-armament military supplies to the Nazis in exchange for ten thousand Jewish refugees. The Baron ridiculed the offer, and reportedly was quoted as asking his counterparts: "But what would I do with 10 thousand Jews?"

This story (usually told about "one million Jews") is probably apocryphal. Supposedly this was said to Joel Brand, with no other witnesses, but there is an article of Yehuda Bauer where he shows that Brand changed the story over time and once even told it of someone other than Moyne. There's also the question of whether this story was known at all before the Moyne assassination. --Zero 15:23, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

It was a million Jews ,not ten thousand. Regardless of whether or not you believe that Moyne said it, it did not bring about his assassination. It was simply not known to those who killed him and was made public years later. F1list 12:25, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

the statements at the time do confirm that the main reason for the assassination was Moyne's persistent refusal to help Jews fleeing from Europe. Amoruso 01:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Source request

Can we have a source, please, for "Brand's associations both with Eichmann and the Lehi raise some doubts about his credibility"? Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

added sources

I expanded on the allegations of his anti-zionism and brought the citation from the book of Bell. I asked for tags on the other side allegations. Amoruso 02:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Category:Anti-Semitic people

Can we source that this guy belongs in this category? I removed it until we get sources calling/listing him as belonging. Thanks --Tom 18:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi. the reason for his assassination was that he was an alleged anti semite. I think the whole article suggests this theory very very strongly. Amoruso 20:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Ok, alleged. OK, theory. Ok, suggests. Again, sources? The article says he was anti-Zionist. Anyways, until we can properly source this....--Tom 21:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Lehi, including the assassins themselves, said that Lord Moyne is responsible for the killing of thousands of Jews. He was accused for having anti jewish sentiments, for them being jews - that's also the only interpretation one can make of the alleged line by moyne - "what should I do with a million jews".... if there ever was an anti semite remark it will be this, and this was also said by Brand as for the anti jewish sentiments. Few people would call themselves anti-semites and this is probably true for any "deragatory" category. Perhaps these categories shouldn't exist but as for alleged people fitting in that category, none fit better than Lord Moyne, and the readers can read the article for themselves and decide. Amoruso 16:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, thats my point above. Nobody should be deciding anything, thats original research. Just provide sources that label/call him an anti-semite. Its not up to editors to read an article and then say yeah that guy belongs in this or that category. Look at Mel Gibson and Richard Nixon. Should they be added to that category? Their comments would sure seem like they belong?..Anyways...--Tom 18:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It should definitely apply to Mel Gibson. In fact, I would add it, but the topic seems very controversial at the moment and we should wait for developments. As for sources, claiming Lord Moyne was an anti-semite, I really don't know what else you're looking for. If somebody murders/kills someone, do you need someone to call him a "killer/murderer" or is he a killer/murderer by what he did ? Moyne is quoted as saying the above and that the Jews are a mixture of races and not pure race like the arabs [1] and that his anti jewish sentiments were the reason for assassination like quoted above. anti jewish = anti semite... Amoruso 18:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

(moved back to right side) Hi Amoruso, funny you mention the killer/murderer reference. To answer your question, YES, we do need him to be labeled as such. Look at Baruch Goldstein Should he be labeled a murder victim? What I am looking for is reliable sources that LABEL/CALL this guy an anti-semite, period. Not what he said, not what he did, not what is obvious to everybody. I don't know if this guy is a scumbag or not. If he said the things he has supposidely said, sure, scumbag. I'm not here to figure that out. I'm here to make sure that people added to lists or categories belong there based on reliable sources saying so and not original research. I am not saying he shouldn't be added, just that it should be sourced...--Tom 19:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

As of matter of historical fact, Baruch Goldstein should probably also be named as a murder victim, yes. It's controversial because of the circumstances, but you can see that in the article that that's how it's reported and verified, that he was killed afterwards... it's simply very sensitive in the context. But that's not the case here. Reliable sources said that he said those things, is that not enough ? Do they need to actually use the word "anti semite" ? they did use the word anti jewish. Amoruso 20:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I would say yes, reliable sources should say he is an anti-semite. I looked over the article and saw that he was said to be anti-Zionist. Was he also said to be anti-Jewish? Anyways...I'm pooped, can we continue this tomorrow? :) Have a good evening! --Tom 23:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I've decided that you are correct. Most observers will name him as "anti zionist" and not "anti semite". I guess that in some perverted sense of the term he might not have been an anti semite. Leave the category out. good night and thanks for the discussion. Amoruso 01:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

This sort of labelling is pathetic. Actually he was no worse than the average British politician of the time, take that however you like. --Zero^talk 00:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually even the "anti-Zionist" label needs qualification. Contrary to his image, Moyne supported the creation of a Jewish state after the war. I'll bring a source for this. I'll also bring an academic source that discounts (or considers unlikely) the claimed "million Jews" quip. --Zero^talk 12:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC) It turns out that the British government had just secretly decided to partition Palestine after the war between Jewish and Arab states, with Moyne's active support. The Moyne assassination caused them to drop the plan, according to quite a few historians (I'll bring cites). So the possibility exists that Lehi actually delayed the creation of Israel for a few years. --Zero^talk 16:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, Ben Hecht is on the borderline as far as reliable sources go. He writes very much from the Revisionist point of view. --Zero^talk 16:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

that's a ridicilous accusation. Moyne was self declared anti zionist, if it was up to him Jews would have gone to Madagascar. And he was justly held responsible for the outcome of the struma and the patria and other ships. His refusal to help the Hungarian Jews is the peak of all this. There are hundreds of historians who back this up (any new citations brought will be refuted). Amoruso 16:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Those who consider Moyne to be an anti-Semite should remember that in 1940 he was instrumental in arranging for Churchill's government to imprison his former daughter-in-law (née Diana Mitford), who had remarried to Sir Oswald Mosley. When in Cairo as resident minister he had to deal with the imam of Jersusalem who supported Hitler at a distance. It is fairer to say that he was pig-in-the-middle between the Arabs and Jews in Palestine. Moderate Jews thought highly of him. He was also threatened by Arabs. Has anyone considered how, in practical terms, 1 million Jews were going to be moved during a war across the front lines? The trucks offer was a wind-up on the part of the Germans, and was not sanctioned by their leadership. Those who describe him as 'anti-semitic' cannot have read his book 'Atlantic Circle' (1932) with its sensitive descriptions of many cultures. Likewise his report on the West Indies (1938-39) was sensitive compared to most. PDG

If Moyne was an anti-semite, and was in charge of the whole Middle East when he was killed, why did he assent to the increase of the Notrim, a police force that developed into the Haganah? It seems that the embarrassment of his assassination can only be dealt with by some people calling him anti-semitic; which Weizmann himself never did. Anti-zionist is quite different from anti-semitic. If he suggested that Madagascar was the ideal Jewish home, it may have been crazy and unworkable but that does not make him an anti-semite; the heading here is 'anti-semitic people'. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notrim

Thank you, but whoever you are, I'm afraid you're too late. The anti-semite category was dropped. What's embarassing, if we're getting into it, is Weizmann's statements of him, and the collboration of the yishuv with the atrocious acts made by the British and Moyne in regard to the Hungarian Jews. But this is not a discussion board. Amoruso

I see a lot of 'discussion' above that is based on hearsay. 'alleged role...obscure negotiations' is not good enough for me. My grandfather died at Auschwitz in late 1944 after 5 years at Terezin, and I am interested in Moyne but I don't hold a grudge. Let's look at the facts. Hearsay that Lehi wanted to believe, plus their need to do something spectacular, caused Moyne's death. He was a figurehead. Let's not be naive, there was no real trucks deal and no offer to free anyone. Himmler tried an angle as he knew the war was lost. Hitler would never have agreed to it.

I have introduced some new points above that are not on Moyne's pages. I also mind when people use other peoples' miseries in the Holocaust to try to score points without examining the whole picture. Moyne supported Churchill's anti-Nazi position before the 1939 war. Moyne didn't take part in the Holocaust and didn't kill anyone except Germans in the First World War. My grandfather who died in 1944 was a native Berliner who won an iron cross in that same war. In Egypt when Moyne started there, the main threat was from Rommel. He seems more interesting than the caricature English colonial ruler. We would love that raids on the camps on Poland could have been made by the allies, but it didn't happen. Are we saying that all anti-semites deserve to die? I have Hasidic friends who are anti-Zionist. Or that Chaim Weizmann was not a good judge of humanity? In the 1940s he was a hero to most Jews; fact. CW may be 'embarrassing' to you, fine, you have a view, this is a page about Moyne and not CW, but many of us think CW was a good man. Enough.

• 1) Please sign your comments.
• 2) Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. You need to understand the way WP:CITE, WP:RS and WP:V work. The deal of Eichmann with Kastner and Brand is all very fully documented , and there are numerous historians who refer to this at utmost importance. It was a very real and serious deal.
• 3) The fact you're holding a differnet POV is your prerogative on this.
• 4) Remember that this is not a discussion board. We're all good persons, I was just referring to the specific issue at hand. It's not a place to expand on zionist-anti zionist debates and so on. Amoruso 18:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Cool it you two. If the main source is J. Bowyer Bell, he wrote 6 books on the IRA, who would never have liked the idea of an Irishman like Mr. Guinness being a part of the British Establishment. Yes, the same IRA who were armed by the USSR and Libya in the 1970-80s and appreciated Arafat and Castro. They finally disarmed in the last year or so. Small quote from their 2003 obit: 'Bowyer Bell's work on Ireland is head and shoulders above other writers on the conflict here. His scholarly work stands out, especially when compared to the shelves of Irish bookstores filled with the tawdry ramblings of informers, disgruntled British agents and journalistic rush jobs.' Source: http://republican-news.org/archive/2003/August28/28bowy.html wikiman

Bowyer Bell's style was to interview lots of people but to stay away from archives. His personal access to members of the Jewish underground groups, and to British officials, was rather spectacular and this makes his books fascinating to read and full of lively personal anecdotes. However, one should always compare his accounts to that of academic historians who have dug out the original documents, since personal accounts are very often (I'd say "usually") self-serving adjustments of reality. --Zero^talk 02:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

This discussion misses the point. Moyne was the victim, not the aggressor. He was killed by terrorists who wanted to spread discord, encourage repression, and ultimately force the UK to withdraw from Palestine. Essentially the same tactics are being used by ISIS today in Europe, though they prefer to kill random civilians rather than politicians. Moyne was a politician, and thus a target, he was not anti-Semitic. But even if he had been, that wasn't the reason he was killed.Royalcourtier (talk) 02:35, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

ridicilous POV based on a minority of historians, perhaps only one

it now looks like a tribute to Moyne the martyr, even though his personal responsiblity in the fate of the hungarian jews and other european refugees is fully documented. this was the main reason for the assassination. Amoruso 20:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I tried to attempt to bring back the whole sections being deleted for no reasons without reverting to the old version. It may require complete clean up. Amoruso 20:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Many of your additions are destructive. Btw, I looked at Katz's book today for the first time in years and was disgusted. It is just a collection of standard myths listed one after the other. I'll go further: the treatment of Arabs is grotesque and racist. --Zero^talk 22:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

this is not a discussion board and your strange alleged opinion over Katz's history book is irrelevant. I can assure you I have stronger (and obviously more reality based) emotions about Khalidy or Morris fantasy books etc. My additions were severely needed to make the article in high standard again, like it was. The edits made to the previously balanced and perfected article were destructive. Amoruso 00:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with amoruso that some editing has happened, e.g. some Bowyer Bell quotes. I don't agree 100% with Bell, but the references should not have been removed. Also I put in a reference to the Casablanca Conference that was removed. By whom? Why? It was the rules of engagement with the enemy. There was a war on, as far as the top brass in Cairo knew.

I did some (unpublished) work on Moyne in relation to the 'Other Club' in the 1930s. I also divided up his early life but have left the last sections as Israeli historiography is not my area. But consider that his early career went up to age 62. He was an over-achiever, I don't think he was a saint, but it is a bigger story overall than was here last week.

I added in Churchill's and Channon's views at the end to give a British perspective, if that's all right with everyone. They sent one of their best guys to Cairo and he still got it wrong.

I came to this at the weekend and thought that the page would be full of anthropology in Indonesia etc. I brought his three books, which is what wikipedia is all about.

The above comments on antisemitic etc. - everyone will have their view and none should be edited. Moyne was friends with Philip Sassoon and a lover of Ida Rubenstein who were both Jewish. I suspect (my POV) that he liked clever people and if they were Jewish he didn't mind; but he didn't seek out Jewish company. I'm not at all defending him there to do with the Struma and Hungarians, just my POV. So it's not on the article page.

There is one aspect that I would like us all to agree on, that is not mentioned. Just before Moyne was killed, Weizmann and Churchill had some meeting of minds and Weizmann was on his way from England to see Moyne. Some say that Moyne was killed then to stop a deal, others that the deal wasn't great. Moyne had no protection force, perhaps because he was meeting Weizmann and didn't feel threatened. How is that to be presented? Where? Suggestions here please?

A few days before Moyne was killed, Churchill informed Weizmann about the partition plan that had been tabled in the Cabinet. Churchill suggested that Weizmann should go to Cairo to discuss it with Moyne (who was a supporter of the plan). However, nothing I read suggests that this planned meeting had anything to do with the assassination. By the time of the Churchill-Weizmann meeting, the assassination was already scheduled. --Zero^talk 10:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks for that..Wikiman 11:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Brand was clearly a hero (my POV) and Moyne was not a martyr, but there is a lot on him in many areas and it is all verifiable. I'd like to add more on his parliamentary interests in 1910-1930, but not much. I don't seek to annoy anyone. Wikiman 09:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, one more point. Could someone add when Brand was brought to Cairo and when he left? I've found some variety and it's not my area. But a date or month should be in there somewhere. Wikiman 09:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It is a serious error to charge Moyne with blocking the "Jews for Trucks" scheme. In fact there is no cause to discuss that proposal in this article except to introduce the alleged "million jews" remark. Moyne did not have the authority to agree or disagree to Eichmann's scheme. The only thing he could do was to send reports to London, which he did repeatedly. --Zero^talk 10:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Moyne did not suggest in the House of Lords that the Jews should be sent to Madagascar. I have his whole speech right here. Actually he proposed Transjordan, Syria and Lebanon. --Zero^talk 10:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The political decisions about Palestine and what could be done for Holocaust refugees in 1943-44 must also be considered in the light of the doctrine of Cabinet collective responsibility, and so if Moyne is considered by some today to be a type of war criminal, then by the same standard so are Churchill and his other ministers. Moyne was a full member of that cabinet from January to November 1944.Wikiman 13:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

no problem to add more sources, but sources from bell, katz and others should not be deleted by zero's vandalism. Bell talks about the madagascar speech, and tha'ts mentioned. Amoruso 20:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

are we off the NPOV situation, as far as you are concerned, or what?Wikiman 21:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

it's fine like this, as long as it stays this way... Amoruso 21:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

clean up of intro

I let the rest of you fight over the quotes and who is a reliable historian, ect. I am just trying to clean up the intro. Lehi has its own entry so it doesn't seem necessary to define and explain their actions. Also removed long and interesting life fluff. Anyways...--Tom 21:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

looks fine to me , thanks. Amoruso 21:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

who removed this?

I put in the 'blood for trucks' section this referenced item.

Derek Wilson has weighed up the matter from the British side:"They concluded that the offer [by Brand] was genuine and reflected the desperation of Hitler's high command. They recommended that it could be safely ignored on the grounds that all the concentration camps would be liberated within weeks and that, in any case, there could be no negotiations with the Nazis."

What is objectionable about this? Who removed it and why? Lots of attention given to Brand and Moyne 'did he say it or not' - all good stuff - but you need to have another view of the situation. Thinking about it, they had a one month window to save the last Hungarian Jews, if they got onto it straight away, and shipping them perhaps to the frontline in Italy might have helped some. But obviously the nazis weren't waiting around, and had already killed most of the unfortunates. Do we need two articles, 'Moyne's first 62 years before Cairo' and 'Moyne's last two years in Cairo'?Wikiman 22:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

it was removed by accident because of the vandalism made on earlier versions. Amoruso 23:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

this all should be added:

Derek Wilson has weighed up the matter from the British side:"They concluded that the offer [by Brand] was genuine and reflected the desperation of Hitler's high command. They recommended that it could be safely ignored on the grounds that all the concentration camps would be liberated within weeks and that, in any case, there could be no negotiations with the Nazis."

Those weeks proved to be crucial. Between mid-May and early July, about 437,000 Hungarian Jews boarded the "resettlement trains" that carried them to the Auschwitz death camps, where most were immediately gassed. [2] The first transport of Hungarian Jews to the Auschwitz death camp was on April 29,1944 (Yehuda Bauer ,Freikauf von Juden). Mass transports of Hungarian Jews to Auschwitz began on May 14, 1944. The last mass transport of 14,491 Hungarian Jews to Auschwitz was on July 9, 1944 where they were gassed upon arrival (Franciszek Piper, Die Zahl der Opfer von Auschwitz).

No problem there. If someone turns up in a war on foot, with a message from the 'other side', it always has to be checked out, which takes time. The Venlo incident early in WW2 caused the British to be cautious. Supposing Moyne and his officials had said yes-OK in mid-June, and somehow Brand was able to get that back to the SS, how many might actually have been saved thru Italy? Not the whole 437,000 obviously? 20,000? Let us all know what you think.Wikiman 07:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Eichmann was ready not to send any Hungarian jews to the death camps. Personally I'd think that when someone knows that his lack of action will result in the horrible death of thousands of people including small children, he would send the goods ASAP with no delay and without arresting the guy which was sent to save them. Amoruso 08:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree entirely, and in hindsight it is very obvious to us today, but there was a war on. The 'Venlo incident' in 1940 occurred on the Dutch border, where some British agents were kidnapped and tortured by the Germans, following just such a lead. Very unsporting of the Germans, to say the least, and it affected all such contacts later in the war. Most were disbelieved. That's why the first mentions of the Holocaust in 1942 from Poles were not believed. It was a war to the death. Because we know that Brand was genuine, we can say now that he should have been believed at once, but in 1944 it wasn't so obvious. He had to be 'processed' through lesser officials, and if his story stayed the same they might think he was genuine. By the time he was allowed into Moyne's presence it was too late for most of the victims; Eichmann didn't wait.

Let me suppose - hypothetically - that today a man comes off the street, perhaps an Iranian saying he has nuclear secrets, and wants to see PM Olmert or Pres. Bush at once without being searched or interrogated, would he be allowed to see him just like that? I don't think so. To the British officials in 1944 Brand was an enemy alien, given that Hungary was at war with Britain. It took a month of processing, and that is terrible, but the British could never take the word of an emissary from the SS on day one. That is why Brand says he was questioned repeatedly.

When they did meet, naturally Brand was hugely upset at the delays, but he also said in one account that in a group of 15-20 people around a table, Moyne came and sat beside him. That does not indicate support, but it does indicate that Moyne wanted to hear directly from the man himself once he had passed thru the wartime 'system'. Crossed wires all round?Wikiman 09:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It could be that the British intentions and interests were geniune. Many of the books on this issue put a lot of blame on them and in the historical context they assume that really they didn't care much of the Hungarian Jews. And I think you'd agree that they really didn't. It's not because they were evil, but consider this an equation. If there's 100% chance that Brand's mission was fraud then of course they'd refuse right ? Though this assertion also needs work... a humnatirian approach would still argue to try to save Jews - even one soul. But the basic accusation against the british from the holocaust scholars is that even if the british had 1% belief that this was a fraudelent deal, then they'd still ignore Brand and imprison him, because saving Jews was really not a priority. On the contrary, saving Jews was a burden. This falls in line with the reasons for not bombing concentration camps, train roads and other targets which could have helped the Jews. As for the British specifically, this falls in line with closing down the gates of Israel for ships, ships which would have to return to the carnage in Europe, because they won't have the cetificate and the ridicilous quotas enforced by the White paper were filled.... if you really look at it at that context, then that Iranian (someone who announced something about Iranians perhaps as a better example as Brand was not a nazi was he) would come and say that hundred of thousands of people are walking into gas chambers, then one would believe that the person in question is talking about a serious enough issue that prompts immediate investigation and relief. He won't sit in prison for weeks while his people are being genocided in the final days of the war for no reason. You'd think that if there was no anti-semitism and a general humanitarian care, something would have been done regardless of a cold calculation of what's the best tactic currently in the war, it would have been an issue which transcends those considerations. Regardless, I think it's clear that the ALLEGATIONS and ACCUSATIONS were based enough which motivated the assassination. The RESULT is what mattered to the Jewish who wished to avenge the Hungarian Jews Genocide... the result clearly put much of the culprit at the British (and also at the Haganah as Brand would testify) who could have saved the Jews had they really put their efforts into it, and even if it was an error of judgement - well, it was a GROSS and one would say CRIMINAL error of judgement. Amoruso 13:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not defending any errors of judgement by Britain or Moyne. My Iranian analogy was imperfect; there is no comparison for someone in Brand's shoes, but in wartime a stranger is not believed at once. The ship numbers were very small and would not have made a difference. How long would it take to deliver 10,000 trucks? I can't say. How long to entrain the Hungarian Jews to the Italian front (at least the Italians were not in a position to object). The overall policy was a cause for the assassination, and Moyne was following orders. He was also targeted by extreme Arabs. I understand both Lehi's view and the British view, I don't agree with either 100%, but wikipedia should have a place for both. But we should guard against repetition?Wikiman 14:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed both sides should be brought, it's just the background as seen by lehi should be detailed. "Following orders" is also what Eichmann claimed and in both cases from their positions I wouldn't accept this definition. You're talking about the plausibility of the trucks deal, a deal Brand himself was skeptical of the success. But the offer was real since Eichmann halted transfers for two weeks. Eichmann then promised to release 100,000 Jews for a principled acceptment of the deal. Why couldn't the British just say they agree and release atleast those 100,000 ? It's because they didn't want them jewish refugees, especially not in Palestine... this is why Moyne's remark also makes so much sense. He had nowhere to put the Jews since he didn't want them in Palestine according to the White Paper and no european country (nor the U.S) wanted such influx of Jews either. By the way, Ehud Avriel was a very dubious person who promised Brand that he won't be arrested, and then abandoned him... I also think that this proposal in its totality wasn't feasible, but it's the moral issue that hurt so much - it's that indifference and the total subordination to the White Paper which outlawed further jewish immigration. Blood for goods proposal also contradicted the allies laws, but the "justification" for keeping a strict policy when 12,000 people are being gassed every day can blow your mind. Moyne's assassination was a symbolic romantic revenge for the genocide of the Jewish people... Lehi said it explicitly. Amoruso 16:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Moyne was in reach and the Germans were not.Wikiman 17:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I mostly agree with you. We have to remember that Brand was brought to Cairo only one week after D-Day. I certainly think that Brand was an honest guy and his reports on Eichmann's offer were accurate to his ability. However, it wasn't just a matter of the British believing Brand; more importantly they had to believe Eichmann. Why should they? Did Eichmann have a reputation for integrity? The stuff I've read about the British reaction did not focus only on whether Brand was telling the truth, but also whether Eichmann's offer could be taken seriously. Actually they were certain that it must be some sort of trick, either aimed at disrupting the Allied war effort, or aimed at a settlement with the West that excluded the Russians (which was certainly the mission of Grosz). Nobody believed that the offer was as straightforward as it looked, and that question remains open today. I've been reading the journal literature on this and I don't think I have found any argument that the plan was plausible. Most writers consider it to have been completely impossible. Incidentally, there was also a plan hatched to convince the Nazis to accept cash instead of trucks. This originated with the Jewish Agency but was supported by the US rep in Turkey and also by Moyne (Friling, Holocaust and Genocide Studies, V13 N3, Winter 1999, pp. 405-436). --Zero^talk 12:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Details

• Moyne's speech in Lords in 1942 does not say that the Jews should go to Madagascar. It doesn't matter who later claimed that it did when the Hansard verbatim transcript is available in hundreds of libraries. --Zero^talk 07:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

he probably mentioned it in that speech, before or after the transcript. but it's no longer there for a long time now. Amoruso 08:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

'Probably?' There is no evidence for said comments. Amoruso, on this page you have been swift to attack others for the verifiability of their source material, yet your using the idea that Moyne 'probably' said it - even thought the evidence is to the contrary? Fascinating. Indisciplined 14:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• I have not found a single mainstream historian who denies that Churchill was the Zionists' main supporter in the UK government in 1944. I cited a ridiculous number of academic historians who state this quite explicitly. The mainstream Zionists of the time had the same opinion. Of course the Revisionists disagreed, as they considered as an enemy anyone who supported less than a vast Jewish state on both sides of the Jordan River. We don't use fringe opinions in our main narrative. We can add a sentence like "(Lehi and the Zionist right-wing did not regard Churchill as a supporter anyway.)" but we can't suppress the consensus view. --Zero^talk 07:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Whether Churchill was a Zionist or not is not related to this article. Most sources agree that Chrurcill vastly changed his views over time. The article says that the incident subdued his support further, which is what sources say. His general opinion is irrelevant. It's a stretch to say that the person who decided unialtrely to cut Transjordan from the Jewish national home is a great zionist supporter anyway. Amoruso 08:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• Brand did not positively identify Moyne in his testimony in the Eichmann trial. What he did was repeat his earlier story that someone he could not identify said something to him and later someone else told him it was Moyne. We should give a precise report, as my text does, and not color it with our own wishes. --Zero^talk 07:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

wrong, he was asked about Moyne specifically. You can read it, and he said he was sure of him. That's why he was questioned in the stand. In fact, he never said it wasn't Moyne, despite your wishes. Amoruso 08:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

He said "as I was leaving, I was told that the person I had spoken to was Lord Moyne", just like I reported. That was his explanation for why he believed it was Moyne. He gave no other explanation. And, yes, his autobiography DOES say that he had learned that he was wrong. Didn't you read it? --Zero^talk 10:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm the one who linked to the trial's transcript. He confirmed that it was Moyne. His autobiography doesn't say that, I don't know why you're lying since it's in the article. Someone told him it might have been someone else and apparently that someone was wrong. Amoruso 11:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Exact quotation from Brand's autobiography: "I afterwards heard that the man with whom I spoke was not, in fact, Lord Moyne, but another British statesman. Unfortunately I have no means of verifying this." I had it beside me, sorry you don't like it. --Zero^talk 13:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

This is what I said. But you lied by saying : "his autobiography DOES say that he had learned that he was wrong". You're actually refuting yourself. Amoruso 13:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• Why not tell us where you got the Reitlinger and Poliakov citations from? This is a serious matter. I accuse you of copying these citations from "The Myth of the Extermination of the Jews" published by the Institute for Historical Review, available several places such as here. Proof: (1) Both your citations are there using the same editions, though both books were published in many editions. (2) Even stranger that you should both choose the Italian edition of Reitlinger's German book. (3) Your Reitlinger citation has the same two typos in the name: "it tentativo" instead of "il tentativo" and "1939- 1945" with a spurious space. (4) Your English translation of Poliakov's French text is word for word the same. (5) You make the same choices in giving the English translation of the title: ( ) in one case and [ ] in the other. Why should we take you seriously when you copy stuff from Holocaust deniers? --Zero^talk 07:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

do you dispute the quotes or not ? If not, it really doesn't matter who used them for what purpose as long as they're accurate. It has nothing to do with holocaust denial. They were used in numerous place. I took them from my own material. IHR must have copy pasted from that. But I fail to see why it matters or what you accuse. You're being ridicilous. They're historians who wrote somethings in relevant in their history books, your original research in trying to find out who got what information is bordering on insanity. Amoruso 08:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion on Reitinger or Poliakov because I only give opinions on sources I have checked. You never checked them either and you got caught. I'm disappointed that you couldn't think of a better alibi. While you are copy-pasting from Neo-Nazi web sites, I am in the library. You should try it. --Zero^talk 10:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't caught at anything, and you further embarrass yourself by talking about irrelevant issues. Obviously IHR quoted Reitinger and Poliakov too, and that has nothing to do with anything. Amoruso 11:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• Your claim about what Reitlinger said is from the text of the Holcaust denier, not from the quotation they give. I have not checked what Reitlinger really wrote about Brand, but since his book came out in the same year as Brand published his retraction (source: Library of Congress), it doesn't add anything. --Zero^talk 07:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

That's even more ludricous. Reitlinger is a WP:RS source and it's pertinent to the article. We can also take out the whole Wasserstein quotations out and say they don't add anyhting. You have a peculiar habit of deeming WP:RS which you don't like for your political reasons as either unreliable, irrelevant or adding nothing. Please take your WP:POV wars out of wikipedia. Amoruso 08:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

This is why I suggest two pages / articles on Moyne. Before 1942-1944 he had no overt views on Jews or Arabs, yet the bulk of this debate is about Jewish politics and identity. I don't mind that - it should be be set down somewhere - that is why he died. Why not link the Holocaust angle to Churchill's article as well? But considering pre-1940 British political studies and Moyne's part in that era, there is no record that he had strong views either way. If there was any proof, I would be the first to add it in. I hope nobody minds a focus also on his life before Cairo; I am a British historian. Clearly Britain did not belong in Palestine and should have pulled out in about 1930, IMHO.Wikiman 08:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you expanded nicely about his general biography before, but since he's known for his assassination, like you mention, obviously large part of the article should be connected to the reason he was killed - which by the accounts relate to his role in not saving the hungarian jews and by obstructing refugee ships (and his other comments). also his specifc role was based as a target of course. Amoruso 08:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The story around assassination is his most famous 'contribution' to Israeli history, but if he had never been sent to Cairo the first 62 years of his life was of interest to us British. Personally, I very much wish that his death was the last in the conflict over (what was then) mandated Palestine. Of itself it didn't solve the whole problem in one stroke.Wikiman 09:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

you're right... I don't object the creation of two articles of course though I believe it's not customary. The conflict will probably never be solved, much due to blatant lies by obssesed propogandists like Zero. Not everybody acts on good faith alas... Amoruso 11:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikiman, your work is excellent. Sorry that it is hard to work amidst this conflict. Unfortunately we have here a representative of the extreeeeeme Israeli right wing who has never read a book more serious than Battleground by Shmuel Katz, who was the Irgun's main propagandist and a Greater Israel proponent. To illustrate Katz's place in the political spectrum, he had a big fight with Menachem Begin when the latter agreed to use the phrase "Palestine Arab" in English communications with the Americans. --Zero^talk 10:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Zero, your trying to suck up here is truly awful. You are in constant violation of Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks so there you have it... you only show your ignorance all the time... honestly I don't know what you're doing in wikipedia except pushing your WP:POV. You're a notrious Arab propogandist who only read sources that are confirmed with the Hamas Charter, and then blame others for POV , LOL. Don't pretend as if you actually read books. Amoruso 11:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Brand's last word on Blood for Trucks

New York Times, May 21, 1964. [shortly before Brand's death]
Allied Rift Called Aim of '44 Nazi Ransom Plan
FRANKFURT, Germany, May 20 - Joel Brand, whom the Nazis used as an envoy in their unsuccessful plan to trade the lives of a million Jews for 10,000 trucks, said today that the plan was actually aimed at splitting the Soviet-Western Alliance. Mr. Brand, a former Budapest resident and now an Israeli citizen, gave a detailed account of the origin and failure of the plan at the trial here of Hermann Krumey and Otto Hunsche, two of Adolf Eichmann's closest collaborators in the extermination of Hungarian Jews, in 1944. He testified "that though the deal was suggested by Eichmann" it must have originated in the mind of Himmler as one of his desperate attempts at driving a wedge between the Allies." ... "I made a terrible mistake in passing this on to the British," Mr. Brand said. "It is now clear to me that Himmler sought to sow suspicion among the Allies as a preparation for his much desired Nazi-Western coalition against Moscow," he said.

do we need 2 pages?

You see why I suggested 2 pages? If mandated Palestine had been empty in the 1920s I don't think the British would have objected in the least bit to any number of Jewish immigrants, and setting up a state, but there were some people living there already and there had been some riots etc. by 1939. The wartime policy was designed to stop further killings in mandated Palestine, and was unpopular with both the more extreme Arabs and Jews. It may not have been flexible or imaginative, but it was designed to preserve the lives of all or most Jews and Arabs living there.

Clearly by 1944 Jews-in-Palestine and Jews-in-Axis-countries had a unique bond with all other Jews. But from Cairo's point of view, only the Jews-in-Palestine were their subjects (horrible word, but that was the word) and responsibility, and they wanted to avoid provoking the Arabs. These 'subjects' had to be protected, as it were, from themselves. A parent-child relationship that we can say was silly, but typical of all empires. 'Mandated' meant impermanent. Iraq had been turned over to a friendly king; Palestine would be turned over when a solution acceptable to most Jews and Arabs had been worked out. You've gathered by now that my POV is anti-empire and Moyne was very much pro-empire; but that was usual for his background and time.

At least the extra detail I've put in can allow Israeli and Jewish-interest researchers to understand more about Lord M, as up to now he might as well have been a wooden gatepost. When I said (somewhere above) that London had sent out one of the best guys for the job, of course I meant 'best' in Churchill's mind; in light of their 20-year friendship, which became very personal from 1934. When Britain linked its pound to gold again in 1925, Churchill was Chancellor and Moyne was his Secretary at the Treasury. They had been political enemies in 1907-1921. I know that this earlier stuff is of no interest to Holocaust studies, but it is to the country that these men came from (and which wikipedia came from), and so I ask from a practical aspect, with no disrespect to any of your views: what about 2 pages, linked of course but separate? I don't want to post Moyne's views on Turkey in 1913, or about the Irish situation in 1916-21, or his comment on Indonesia in the 1930s, or his view of Australians at Gallipoli, if someone with a 1940s focus is going to edit the whole lot out.Wikiman 13:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm about to post the early political stuff and am done. Nothing unusual except that he said in 1918 “Since the days of Mahomet no prophet has been listened to with more superstitious respect than has President Wilson” - which would be odd if he were an Arabist? It seems he was pro-Ataturk in the 1920s, and by 1922 the Turks and Arabs had split. He went from Beirut to (Trans)Jordan with Churchill in 1934, but to classical Petra, not to Amman.Wikiman 18:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Charges against Moyne

We have this sentence, which I will assume is an accurate report of what Bell writes:

"Bell writes that, according to Gurion, a former Irgunist, Moyne had also opposed the formation of a Jewish Army, refused to allow the Struma to land in Palestine, sent another ship (the Atlantic) to Mauritius, and had ordered the Patria there as well before it was blown up.[44]"

• "opposed the formation of a Jewish Army" - in Cohen, Retreat from the Mandate, we can find a detailed description of the argument within the British government about a Jewish Army, and we can see that in fact Moyne had a moderate position, neither a strong supporter like Churchill (who nearly always supported Weizmann's proposals) nor a strong opponent like Eden.
• "refused to allow the Struma to land in Palestine" - the Struma was incapable of landing in Palestine so this makes no literal sense. However Moyne was certainly involved in the decision making about the passengers on the Struma and some historians assign him a big share of the blame for the disaster.
• "sent another ship (the Atlantic) to Mauritius" - makes no sense since the Atlantic never went to Mauritius. More importantly for this article, the Atlantic affair occurred late in 1940 when Moyne was Joint Secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture and had nothing to do with the Middle East.
• "had ordered the Patria there as well before it was blown up" - this was also before Moyne had any Middle East responsibilities so he had nothing to do with it.

Of course Bell may be completely correct that "Gurion, a former Irgunist" made these claims, but why is it noteworthy that some non-famous person from an organization that was not involved in the assassination is able to get the dates all wrong? --McKay 02:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

this report of Bell is actually 100% accurate. As to the Atlantic, in Semptember 1940 3 ships went from Romania to Israel - Milos, Pacific and Atlantic. They were all caught by the British. In the end, the Atlantic refugees, around 1750, were boarded on another ship and sent to Mauritius where they spent the next 5 years. What the quote means is that he ordered the transport of the ship there, effectively the ship. Moyne's "responsibilities" had nothing to do with it. According to the reports, he intervened with the Turkish and demanded these ship sending away. If you have other WP:RS about other issues you can add them. Amoruso 12:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Amoruso, I just added a comment about Bell which you seem to have edited out. Wiki is all about differing opinions, fully referenced. I say include Bell, and consider his views with it. Healthy debate is better than editing, no?Wikiman 12:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Certainly Moyne was in the Dept. of Agriculture when the Patria was blown up (by Haganah); Bell didn't look that up. I'm coming to think that Bell's interest in the IRA (6 books) and Israel included an anti-imperial-British POV. I hadn't thought to link Moyne's Irish interest before; he was anti-Sinn Fein, the party of the IRA. Bell was Irish-American, pro-IRA and seemingly of the 'MOPE' persuasion (most oppressed people ever). Struma; the Turks and a Russian torpedo share some of the blame? Brand was genuine; not the whole 437,000 Hungarians could be saved, but was that murder or neglect or harsh policy? That's all still very arguable. At the end of the day, Jews in the Middle East could join the British army to fight nazism any time after 1939 if they wanted to do something about it.Wikiman 12:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Amoruso, please explain how the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries had the power to deport people from Palestine. Alternatively, you can provide a source that explains it. All you gave so far is a report that some former Irgun member claimed it. That's not good enough. The internal records of the British government relating to the Atlantic/Patria affair have been examined at length by several historians who published their findings in easily-accessible places. Did they confirm your claim? --Zero^talk 13:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The background to this is that Lehi did not kill Moyne just for his personal actions. He was killed as a representative of the British government. That's why Lehi cited events like Patria, which Moyne had nothing to do with personally, amongst their reasons. The distinction has been confused. Even Gerold Frank, who later wrote the book "The Deed" about the assassination, made the mistake of writing (first isssue of Commentary magazine in 1945) that Moyne was Colonial Secretary when the Patria was sunk; in fact the Colonial Secretary then was George Lloyd, 1st Baron Lloyd. We should try to use good modern sources and get the facts right. Erroneous claims from older sources are only of interest if the claims themselves were part of the story. --Zero^talk 13:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

the sourced claim is that Moyne approached the Turkish personally on this. Being the anti-Jewish person that he allegdly was this makes sense. His current "job" is irrelevant. Amoruso 15:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

You could well be right but we need more sources. Consider also Ida Rubenstein and tell us how antiJewish he must have felt during their long affair (the source is White Mischief, by Fox, 2nd edition; which was made into a film). Their Ritz Hotel suite floor all covered in lilies...very nice. Why would he spend time over the years with ultra-civilised Philip Sassoon if he had a constant problem with antisemitic urges? They enjoyed his company and neither of them needed to waste one second of their time with an antiJewish bore. Why didn't Weizmann, a leader of Zionism over decades, criticize him for being antizionist? All very peculierr. He had an affinity with the Turks in 1913-22, but lost interest after that. Anyway, I've also learnt a lot and thank you all very much.Wikiman 21:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

What you're doing right now is WP:OR. His relationship with Jews really has very little to it. He was assassinated because he was conceived as anti Jewish from the point of view of people with the ideology with Lehi. Notice that I wrote "allegdly". You fail to notice that Weizmann has very little to do with it, since Weizmann was too perceived in the same way at the 1940's. This is exactly why Brand blames Weizmann as well, and why the Jewish leadership at the time had everything to do with Brand being detained. Brand was betrayed and deceived by the same people who made a pact with the British to begin with and who accepted the whole system beginning with the white paper in the name of helping the struggle against the Nazis. Lehi did not accept this way of thinking and for them this entire scope of thinking was anti Jewish. Moyne obstructed the landing of Struma, Patria and more, but Ben Gurion was guilty of even harsher events like the Altalena affair. They're all in the same "boat" so to speak. So yes, he wasn't anti Jewish to Weizmann but it's not something Weizmann should be proud of. What's important here is why he was assissnated and how he was perceived by those who assassinated him and to what means. We have WP:RS who cited this as reasons, and I think that's what we need. We also don't need to go in a quest for the truth or go in vendetta to vindicate Moyne as an angel - that's not part of what an encyclopedia is, it's about citing sources. Wassertein was quoted extensively and bell has a few relevant quotes too. I think that more sources are always welcome. This way is appropriate and will suffice. Amoruso 21:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Your desire to make Wikipedia into a Revisionist manifesto is rightly seen as an attack on it. On the matters above you are confused between what he did in the Struma affair (which was a lot) and what did in the Patria affair (which was nothing). At the time of the Struma affair he was Colonial Secretary and was involved officially. --Zero^talk 01:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

You were told in the past that your personal attacks are of no interest. Ignored. Amoruso 03:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

In fact, this claim that "Bell writes that, according to Gurion, a former Irgunist..." is illustrative of the real problem here. In fact, no such thing appears in Bell's book at all. Amoruso just copied this from somewhere that has an editing mistake and falsely presented it as something he had verified himself. --Zero^talk 02:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

what on earth are you talking about ? Amoruso 10:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Why Auschwitz was not bombed

The connection is obvious. The same question is raised "Why was Brandt been locked away while Jews were dying"... it's the same connection of allies not helping the Jews in their catastrophe. Amoruso 12:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Warning to Zero0000

Do not delete sourced material again. Use talk if you wish to make drastic changes again. Thank you. Amoruso 15:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

No material sourced to reliable sources was removed. I only removed your personal crusade to prove that Moyne deserved to be murdered. --Zero^talk 02:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

And please stop commenting on person instead of content. Amoruso 02:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

While we are discussing you, did you check those two German sources you copied into the article? --Zero^talk 02:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you questioning the holocaust now ? Amoruso 02:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you avoiding the question now? You know the rules about citing, don't you? --Zero^talk 04:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

LOL are you lecturing me about rules. Amoruso 10:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

support in Egypt?

Concerning the claim that the assassins had support in Egypt: "Until now Arabic commentators have been silent. But now telegrams from Arabic organizations flood the court. They protest that the defense of these two boys in this Cairo courtroom amounts to a sponsorship of the Zionist case, and that it is intolerable that Cairo, the center of pan-Islam and the heart of the Arab league, should become a sounding board for Zionism." (Gerold Frank, The Moyne Case. Commentary, vol 1, p71). Maybe they had supporters as well, but we don't have a good source for that and we can't just give one side of it. It's clear that we don't actually have good evidence either way for this. --Zero^talk 02:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Brenner made this connection, it's widely known. They had an Arab attorney Tewfik Pasha, you can read his speech in January 15 1945 Palestine Post. That speech was essentially that these were Jews fighting for independence of their native Palestine and not Zionists, and those words were very accepted by many Egyptians at the time - it run in the same line of nationalism vs the foreign British. That propaganda piece you mentioned is irrelevant to this case, it's not general comments of Arab league or whatever, it's a response from the actual trial. Amoruso 02:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, a speech made in court by Hakim's defense attorney, who was even an Arab (!), proves that the assassins had wide support in Egypt! Even if the attorney didn't make that claim! This is amazing. I guess we'll also have to add Tewfik's statement that the assassins "had nothing to do with Zionism". --Zero^talk 04:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this what I said ? <sigh> Amoruso 10:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Your claim here about Brenner is yet another deception. Brenner does not ever state that the assassins had support in Egypt. --Zero^talk 10:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

If you can't understand what i'm writing or you're pretending not to understand and throw out childish insults... "The attack also was meant to show the efficacy of armed resistance and to demonstrate that the British were not safe anywhere as long as they remained in Palestine. Brenner believes the assassination did have some impact on the Arabs, particularly in stimulating Egyptian nationalism. He also makes an even more tenuous connection between Moyne’s death and the assassination of a former Prime Minister, Ahmed Mahir, who was pro-British. Apparently, some Lehi members advocated the formation of a “Semitic Bloc” to liberate the Middle East from foreign domination, an idea which made it possible for Palestinian Arabs to join the organization" - this shows the connection was made about liberation of foreign domination. [3] - this was mentioned also by the assassins and was accepted rather well, it's widely known. Amoruso 11:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You inserted "Ben Zuri and Hakim had the support of local Egyptians" into the article and when I questioned that you claimed that "Brenner made this connection". That was a false claim. But thanks for finally identifying your real source, which as usual you did not mention despite WP:CITE. --Zero^talk 13:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You're not making sense even to yourself. Your allegations are as usual false. It's a shame you can't make simple leaps , I tried to show you the basic connection which explains the background of the support, which is widely supported by just about any book which mentions the killing of Lord Moyne. Amoruso 13:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs a list of people who were killed first and then judged...86.42.203.104 17:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Jerusalem Hall of Heroism

Where exactly is this place? Amoruso 17:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Ira Hirschmann

On what evidence was Ira Hirschmann, one of the most effective aid workers of the war, dismissed as "a radical right-wing Zionist"? None is provided, although it is likely to have been added as a sort automatic "first name" to the word epithet "Zionist".

Without support, I have removed it.Scott Adler 07:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Jewish Zionism

I am adding the word "Jewish" to discern the fact that Lehi was a Jewish Zionist organization. Since there are also non-Jewish Zionist organizations, I think the clarity is needed.

Marcadams99 15:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC) Marcus, Aug. 16th, 2007

Can you provide sources for this claim? --Tom 17:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Brand's evidence on numbers in 1961

Brand never expected to evacuate a "million Jews" to the British in 1944, so it follows that Moyne (if it was Moyne) could not have said: "...what can I do with a million Jews?".

Brand's (enormous) problem was that he knew that he had to start with a lower amount, and hope that after the first exodus the British would take more. Also, Eichmann (on whom the whole deal rested) had said specifically that no refugees should go to Palestine. This doesn't come across in the article. It's worth examining the relevant part of the Q & A from the Eichmann trial:

(Q= the court, A = Joel Brand):

Q. Yesterday you explained that you did not want to refer to the large figure of one hundred thousand Jews in the presence of English officers.

A. I assume - I forget - that the reason was - yes, I was afraid of the English. In Budapest we had decided to say as little as possible to the English, not to give them any information, but to the Americans, and I knew what their position was, the White Paper, the certificates every month - I was afraid, I wanted to say as little as possible.

Q. Eichmann's proposal was not to send these Jews to Palestine, but to a neutral country, and he said explicitly to you "not to Palestine," did he not?

A. Yes, that was one of the dilemmas.

Q. I am not asking about the dilemma. Why were you afraid to reveal the proposal to the English? After all, it had nothing to do with the White Paper.

A. The Zionist organization to which I belonged had only one interest - emigration to Palestine; the Germans were interested in extermination. The world was interested in not letting the Jews in. I was stuck in the middle. I turned and twisted, in order not to step on either side's corns.

Q. Mr. Brand, if you were not afraid to reveal to Mr. Sharett, then Shertok, in the presence of English officers, the proposal to release a million Jews, why were you afraid to reveal the detail that, if a positive reply were given, they would start with one hundred thousand?

A. I am convinced that I said that the Germans would take the first step and release Jews. Today I have already said once that in the first months, and to this day...

Q. Mr. Brand, it seems to me that that is not an answer to the question.

A. Your Honour, I must reply. I bargained with myself, as I said today: They will give five thousand, they will give ten thousand, a hundred and twenty-thousand, they will give a hundred thousand; I bargained with myself.

Anyone interested in the rest of the Q & A should look at and around: [4]86.42.222.44 09:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Rosaura

I've created an article on this ship at SS Dieppe (1905). There is plenty said about Rosaura in this article but the sources are offline and I don't have them. Assistance in expanding the article about the ship from these sources is welcome. Mjroots (talk) 09:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Zero edit warring over speech content

Zero has re-inserted the weasel-words "amplified by his assassins Lehi" and a lengthy apologia from one author (without volunteering the source). It is not debatable that Moyne made these remarks. If one wants to make excuses for his remarks, it should be a part of a balanced discussion, drawing on a number of sources - not cherry-picking from one source, not available to us. I have asked that he show a copy of the source, but he has ignored my request and chosen to edit war instead.

For the record, his recent contributions show a continuing pattern of deleting any information that reflects negatively on the Palestinians, including impeccable sources such as Benny Morris, and amplifying anything that reflects negatively on the Zionists. Pilusi3 (talk) 22:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

In fact nobody ever quoted Moyne about the purity of the Arab race because Moyne never said anything like that, not in his 1942 speech or anywhere else. The verbatim text of the speech is cited in the article, so checking is easy. Meanwhile, Pilusi3 deleted the contrary opinion while leaving its sources as if they supported the false version. Such editing is not tolerated around here. Zero^talk 23:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

"In fact", Moyne is quoted by numerous sources as making the remarks. Other sources may disagree, but if you're going to give the full spectrum of opinion, you can't just cherry-pick your sources and statements. Your opinion on what is true and false is not relevant. If "checking is easy", then, for the third time, PLEASE PROVIDE THE SOURCE! Pilusi3 (talk) 00:00, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I told you it is in the article already. Zero^talk 03:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Question about Portuguese Wikipedia article

The Portuguese Wikipedia article for Walter Guinness is at pt:Walter Guiness. Should this be moved to pt:Walter Guinness (with two n's?) Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 01:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Zero^talk 01:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't read Portuguese, so I don't see a "Move" button on the Portuguese Wikipedia. Anyone here know how to move it? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 02:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

FYI - the move was completed in June 2013. GoingBatty (talk) 02:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Queen's South Africa Medal

This campaign medal which Moyne received for his Boer War services never entitled recipients to be called "QSAM" as a postnominal abbreviation. I will therefore delete the letters used as postnominals in this article's infobox.Cloptonson (talk) 21:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Improvements suggested to World War II material

We appear to see nothing of his interest in Jewish and Palestine matters until the section headed Blood For Trucks Proposal, about an affair of early 1944, yet Moyne was publicly expressing interest in them before then, notably his 1942 speech on Jews in the British Army which appears in the middle of the narrative about his murderers' trial. I suggest the material be looked at to see if there are details that could be moved to earlier in the page than they appear now.Cloptonson (talk) 20:58, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Having seen no comment raised, I have moved the subsection Moyne's 1942 Speech to a point after Later Political Career and before Blood For Trucks Proposal, redesignated section heading Moyne's 1942 Speech as Views, and grouped the two subsections under a main heading Moyne, Jews and Palestine. Thus the reader is introduced to his interest in the topic ahead of his murder.Cloptonson (talk) 21:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I have also partitioned the paragraph about the Palestine partition proposals in the Aftermath section by moving details pre-assassination to be a distinct subsection under Moyne, Jews and Palestine, while retaining details on effects of the assassination within the Aftermath section.Cloptonson (talk) 21:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

stunning work on the article, my compliments. I have replaced the edited text because although I agree that it is wordy and needs editing it still pertains to the facts and places him and others in context. I will try to look at it this weekend, but please edit away. Thanks Edmund Patrick – confer 06:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I have added further detail obtained from his article in the ODNB (which appears to give his views a more pro-Arab slant); ironically he would be cremated in a Jewish quarter of London.Cloptonson (talk) 12:50, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me for intruding as I'm a great-grandson of Walter. The problem with the WW2 info is that he is notable from one aspect of Zionist history; but he was also notable from other perspectives.

• 1 He had Jewish friends in England and France, ranging from Frank Goldsmith to Sir Philip Sassoon, 3rd Baronet to the scientist Martin Neumann to his long term lover Ida Rubinstein, whose escape he arranged in 1940. He had no Arab friends but must have met quite a few in Egypt in 1942-44. To say he was 100% pro-Jewish or pro-Arab is dishonest. More to the point, Lehi was anti-British.
• 2 His view on a future Zionist state and the partition of Palestine was dictated by British policy based on the White Paper of 1939 that he could not vote for or against. Whatever was to be agreed after WW2 would be a compromise between the Jewish settlers and Arabs - Palestine was just a mandate.
• 3 In terms of Brand's "blood for trucks" proposal, the refugees were to exit Axis Europe via Spain to the USA, and not towards Italy or the Middle East. Whether the proposal was real or not, Walter did not have the authority to approve it, only Churchill's cabinet could do that.
• 4 By far the most likely reason for the assassination was the controversial killing of Stern by Morton in 1942.
• 5 Within Zionism, divisions existed between Weizmann in the centre, Ben-Gurion on the left and the Stern gang on the right, and Walter and Churchill's closest point of reference was Weizmann, whose influence was declining.
• 6 Quite a lot of the post-1944 Zionist rhetoric was designed to make the assassination seem necessary or acceptable, but it should be considered as propaganda and not history.PatrickGuinness (talk) 13:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Good evening, Patrick. Interesting to know (I did not previously) the extent of his range of Jewish friends, which was possibly not known to his assassins. Is it in any published biographical work? I would be happy to see it brought in, with citations.Cloptonson (talk) 20:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I hadn't read this page for some time. You'll find many references to Frank Goldsmith in Walter's WW1 diary, a fellow Suffolk MP and fellow officer in the Boer War as well as at Gallipoli in 2015. Then their brigade was also a part of the Egyptian garrison in the Senussi Campaign. It seems a lot of editors can't understand that one can have a cosmopolitan acceptance of Jews as members of the human race alongside a dislike of the harder formulas of zionism. But, whatever his personal views, Walter's hands were tied in 1944. He had an input to policy, but could not dictate it from on high. For me much the worst Lehi crime was Folke Bernadotte, who had saved thousands of Jews and others from the Nazis, and was then murdered by Lehi in 1948 by way of gratitude.PatrickGuinness (talk) 10:17, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Lehi

Wikipedia has a clare policy to avoid using the word "terrorist". Ad editor has suggested that we violate this policy, because "that is what they were called at the tome". I wonder of this same editor thinks we could edit all articles about turn-of-the-century african Americans, and describe them a N****s, since that;s what they were called at the time. SInce the answer to that is an obvious no, the same should be done here. Epson Salts (talk) 14:16, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you linked to the policy page, and cited the exact words that oblige editors to avoid using the word 'terrorist'. At Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events) it is generally advised not to use it for article names, not ruled out. For the body of a text, where the majority of historical sources or historical texts, as here, refer to an incident as an act of terrorism, one usually follows that usage. Lehi was designated a terrorist group by two distinct governing entities, the British authorities of Mandatory Palestine, and by the government of nascent Israel. The terminology is in this case, furthermore, not a subjective spinning by adversaries since the technical literature informs us that 'Lehi viewed acts of terrorism as legitimate tools in the realization of the vision of the Jewish nation and a necessary condition for national liberation.' Arie Perliger, ‎William L. Eubank, Middle Eastern Terrorism, 2006 p.37; Jean E. Rosenfeld, Terrorism, Identity, and Legitimacy: The Four Waves Theory and Political Violence, 2010 p.161 n.7 Nishidani (talk) 15:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I was that editor and it is custom and good practice to make use of the {{Template:Reply_to}} facility, that way this conservation is bought to my attention as well. So Epson Salts I agree that there are always choices to be made when it comes to what words to use and the mulitute of meanings! I agree with the excellent answer Nishidani has provided and if one researches elsewhere (quickly at this moment I'm afraid) [the Britannica] uses the words extremist, likewise [the Jewish virtual library] whilst [this website] describes them thus - "LEHI was a self-proclaimed terror group". We all, I am sure appricate, that these websites also have an agenda, be it well meaning or not. In answering the poorly made comparison yes the word nigger would be used - is used - within Wikipedia as this is a encyclopedia which hopes to educate and inform through knowledge, whether that be nice knowledge or not. The opening paragraphs (at least) here are worth a read. So what I believe Lehi were is totally irrelevant, at the time they were perceived as, and promoted themselves as terrorists. Where we go from here I do not know, building an encyclopedia and the words uses within it is always going to be problematic! All ideas appriciated.Edmund Patrick – confer 08:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Told not to move

It is very odd to write that the group were "suddenly told not to move". By whom, and why? It would make more sense to write that the terrorists emerged from hiding (where?) when the vehicle arrived, and (who?) presented weapons and told the passengers not to move, or something of that sort.Royalcourtier (talk) 06:28, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

terrorists / paramilitary?

@VwM.Mwv:@Mean as custard: Thank you for kind reminder of WP:3RR which I was going to remind you of, but as you have deliberately crossed it I have to assume you knew what you were doing. I also asked you to look at the talk page which you either have (and ignored) or have not bothered to, (for what reason I cannot fathom). Anyway to assist the link is here. Wikipedia is a encyclopedia, which as editors we are trying to produce a platform of knowledge, presented in a factual way. As you will see from the link, the group called themselves terrorists, as did and do many others. I await your reply with interest.Edmund Patrick – confer 10:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@Edmund Patrick: No, I hadn't seen that link until now. Anyway, it too is irrelevant for the same reason as your repeated claim that they "referred to themselves as terrorists"; that's simply not how the sentence is phrased. If you wish to write about the nature of the individual assassins, you may do so, but the sources at the Lehi (militant group) page refer to the group as "paramilitary", not "terrorist". VwM.Mwv (talk) 11:30, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I have read the external source. I have edited the article to reflect that source accurately. Now, if you want to fight for censorship know, I searched the term "Lehi terrorists" and got over four hundred hits, with the appearance of wide authoritative coverage. I searched "Lehi were not terrorists" and got one hit from deviantart website. I searched for "are not", "group were not", "group are not" and we've got nothing. Assuming the source to be accurate, the Jewish Agency is the claimant. It's spot on now. I agree, very much, with the principle about individuals. But the articles are being done on reliable sources and what they have to say. If you want to dispute, you will have to dispute that. You will have to dispute the reliability of the agency on the matter, and then you will have to dispute the 400 hits I got. I promise you, I have no interest in persecuting anyone. Follow the source. Search the word terror. Come back and tell me which bit I got wrong based on that. @Edmund Patrick, VwM.Mwv, and Mean as custard: ~ R.T.G 14:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@RTG: Thank you for the clarification and work, and in joining in the conversation. Edmund Patrick – confer 14:36, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@RTG: Now it's even weirder. So it's a "terror organization" according to the highest executive, yet it's "state supported"? And supported by what state? Israel was not proclaimed until 1948. VwM.Mwv (talk) 17:00, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Look, you cannot write this article from your mind alone. Refer to the sources or the discussion is closed. Weirdness is not defined by guidelines on Wikipedia as far as I know, except to say it is not relevant to content. @VwM.Mwv: ~ R.T.G 17:09, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@RTG: Okay, I'll use the sources from the Lehi (militant group) article if that's really necessary. VwM.Mwv (talk) 17:14, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

The source that was being used is directly relevant, specifically is about, the incident in the article. The sources you have provided is specifically provided about writing the article to suit what your mind says, without mentioning the Moyne assassination, using what the minds of the Lehi themselves have said, at a time when it suits your point of view... Now once I revert your edit, I will be bound by other guidelines on the revert limit, to call for help, by people who will just tell you the same things, and block your access to this article. WP:NPOV#Bias_in_sources, WP:3RR, WP:PRIMARY, @VwM.Mwv:, You have to admit, people try to hold articles like this all of the time, VwM, and you believe you are warring against us who have responded, but your battle really is going to have to be with the sources. "Militant" and "paramilitary" from one source, I can tell you, does not forgo "terrorism" in any case, or the statements of the agency in any other case, while the other archival link is doi (404), with a note in the ref for a paygate. "Militant" means army-like, and/or with an attitude of force. "Paramilitary" means armed force not supported by the government. These suggest something other than terrorism, only because you have had no need to question them deeply, I assume. ~ R.T.G 18:40, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

To editor VwM.Mwv: You are not allowed to edit here, see your talk page. To editor RTG: The Lehi was not state-supported and not really a forerunner of the IDF. It is true that some units of the Lehi were disbanded and incorporated into the IDF, but they formed a minute fraction of it. As for "terrorist", we generally avoid the word but in this case we shouldn't ignore the fact that they called themselves terrorists. Nor should we ignore that an Israeli court judged them to be a terrorist group after they killed Bernadotte in 1948. Zero^talk 09:19, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@Zero0000: Okay, what about "self-described terrorists from the Jewish paramilitary group Lehi"? I still haven't seen any evidence that the group was terrorist in nature, either by external or self-description at the time of this assassination. VwM.Mwv (talk)

Doesn't the fact that they assassinated the subject of the article suggest it? . . Mean as custard (talk) 09:32, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't think we should decide this on our own. For self-description we have it from before and after (for before, see the quote from Ha Khazit in the Goals and methods section of Lehi (militant group); it is very clear). For external description, the British authorities never called them anything else through their entire history. The mainstream Jewish organizations did too (even when secretly cooperating with them). Zero^talk 10:13, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, sum up what has been published elsewhere. Apologies about the Lehi, I haven't really heard of them before, so my input was based on that one Jewish Agency source. If this were a featured article, it would include the statements and opinions of the J. Agency, and any other notables, even the terrorists themselves, with balance. ~ R.T.G 12:32, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Conclusion

@Zero0000, RTG, and Mean as custard: According to the Lehi page: Lehi [...] was a Zionist paramilitary organization founded by Avraham ("Yair") Stern in Mandatory Palestine. Its avowed aim was to evict the British authorities from Palestine by resort to force, allowing unrestricted immigration of Jews and the formation of a Jewish state, a "new totalitarian Hebrew republic". All that seems perfectly reasonable to me except the last part; totalitarianism is an immoral & pathetic ideology (so is any ideology advocating the initiation of force, for that matter). I personally consider Lord Moyne a legitimate target because he represented a regime which was actively initiating force against the Jewish community of Palestine. Anyway, my main point is, we can't call the group "terrorist" without any evidence. If the WP:reliable sources (RS) on the Lehi page refer to the group as "paramilitary" (which they do), then so must this page. If anyone wants to include RS that the individual assassins referred to themselves as "terrorists", then I have no objections. VwM.Mwv (talk) 13:29, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm from Ireland. When I was growing up, it was like terrorism was part of our culture. ALL of the terrorist groups are paramilitaries. They organise as armies and batallions. It just means they play soldiers for real. It doesn't mean anything about anything else. Where I am from, calling yourself a paramilitary if you are not yet terrorists, is promising to commit terrorism in the future. And that is not the same everywhere, but paramilitary just means you have guns and dress up and give each other ranks. If you are paramilitaries, and you go off and shoot people you don't like, to frighten people into doing what you want, or because they refuse what you want, you are still paramilitaries, but you are now also terrorists. It's not a secret, but it has been hidden from you by your culture. ~ R.T.G 16:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@RTG: I like you. You're an interesting person. And I'm sure we could go on all night about history, culture, morality, and personal stories (etc). But you still haven't refuted my main point. Sure, all terrorist groups are paramilitaries, but not all paramilitaries are terrorist groups. Again, this particular lede sentence we're discussing is about the group, not the individual assassins. Since the Lehi page describes the group as "paramilitary", why should it be any different here? VwM.Mwv (talk) 17:37, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

But what if they described themselves as a Sunday school/scripture class? What if they said they were a new kind of terrorist, the "lovable terrorists"? The guideline is WP:PRIMARY I believe, or it was. You write what someone else has published about them first if you can. Sometimes you use primary sources, when it proves what they say about themselves, but not to prove what they are, not on Wikpedia. Moyne was playing the major role of peace activist and paramilitaries assassinated him. That's pretty terrifying. When everything was fixed, it would not say that they were simply paramilitaries, but that similar actions are also terrorism, without requiring, or even accepting, sources beyond a dictionary to explain it. ~ R.T.G 19:00, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

It's at WP:PSTS ~ R.T.G 19:02, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@RTG: Well, the sources used at the Lehi page describing it as "paramilitary" are not primary. They are from the Washington Post and Oxford Dictionaries. Btw, neither is the source currently used at this page (Etzel is synonymous with Irgun, not Lehi). Terrorism is defined on Wikipedia as the use of intentionally indiscriminate violence as a means to create terror among masses of people; or fear to achieve a religious or political aim. Do you have any evidence that their primary motivation for the assassination was to "create fear"? Moyne, I presume, may have done some very good things. However, that does not excuse the fact that he represented a regime which immorally initiated force against Jews (both residents and migrants), and illegally prevented Jews from immigrating to Palestine in violation of the 1922 League of Nations Mandate for Palestine. VwM.Mwv (talk) 19:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Even the IDF have described the Lehi as terrorists according to Israel National News. Haaretz: the terrorist activities of the Irgun and Lehi claimed 232 victims with another 370 wounded - men, women and children. University of Haifa: a couple of months after the establishment of the State of Israel, an operation which prompted the enactment of the Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance, the declaration of Lehi as a terror organization, the arrest of its leaders and the actual elimination of the organization. Not only is there a load of stuff like Israeli historians saying they regret killing in a terrorist way, the Israelis themselves apparently arrested a portion of them before drafting the rest into the IDF. Before you reply again, read this, Lehi_(militant_group)#Goals_and_methods. ~ R.T.G 20:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

My dictionary says that "paramilitary" means "organized like a military force". It may be possible to apply this to Lehi in its final years, when it took part in some operations of a "military" nature, such as the Deir Yassin massacre, but at the time of the Moyne assassination it was a tiny underground group which carried out politically-motivated assassinations of British personnel and Jewish "traitors" (more of the latter, incidentally). It was definitely not a paramilitary organization then. As to what to call it, "underground" would be true and acceptable, but I think "terrorist" is also true and acceptable. What else would we call a private underground group today which specialises in killing government officials? When Moyne was killed, all the mainstream Jewish leaders called it terrorism. There are tons of modern reliable secondary sources that do too. I can give examples of both of these claims. Zero^talk 02:23, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Certainly one can find sources (particularly English language sources which suffer from Wikipedia:Systemic bias in regards to supporting English nationalism and colonialism) that use the WP:TERRORIST label, while other sources avoid it. There's little reason for us to take a pro-British colonial POV and label the attackers as terrorist. Icewhiz (talk) 15:45, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm just supporting what pro-Israeli sources said, including the Lehi themselves. What the challenging editor is presenting are pro-British-colonialism, if they are biased. You didn't check. If you want to put a nationalist slant on it, he was an important Irish figure who managed a huge influence on British politics. The pro-colonialists, sent him to the middle east, where all his peace talk, would get him killed. And he's dead now. Apologies. ~ R.T.G 23:27, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz, Apparently you didn't read the part "all the mainstream Jewish leaders called it terrorism", nor the earlier part about Lehi even calling themselves terrorist, nor the part about the Israeli government officially declaring them terrorists. Your summary is completely counterfactual. Zero^talk 23:29, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

At various times they were labelled as such - inclusing as part of Mapai's undemocratic crackdown on opposing political movements (of all political stripes) - at other times their labelling haa changed. If we are to take the Israeli government labelling, for instance, since the 70s (at least) they are labelled as freedom fighters and veterans are recognized by the state. We could label all pre-1920 Irish freedom fighters as terrorists - the British labelled them as such.Icewhiz (talk) 04:54, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

You haven't presented anything. This article is not about how you or I feel. It's a summary of available resources. It's an advert for world literature, not the summary of a debate. If you want to debate the finished article, you'll have to agree on the goal first, at length. That is what the debate around here is for. See, your goal is to prove, that if I don't say everything good about your chosen subjects, that it is evidence I can't say anything good about them. But this article is not about what I say, is it? You'll have to agree on the goals if you want to debate the content. We already know what each other are trying to prove. I'm too experienced with Wikipedia to believe it represents an opportunity for my country. Wikipedia has revealed negative things to me about my cultures past which cannot be redeemed. I believe that has set me free without changing my actual biases. It just buries you further to point out that your government has been out in favour of your argument, as described in the sources given above. It's called an argument from ignorance. You'll have to agree on the goals of the site if you want to debate the content. ~ R.T.G 07:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

My government? I do not have a government at my beck and call at present - please retract that personal attack. Multiple sources (English and moreso non-English) refer to Lehi as freedom fighters (recognized as such by law in Israel - e.g. [5] - pre-1948 Lehi service counts as military service) or a paramilitary group. Adopting British gvmt terminology due to systemic bias in some English sources is shameful.Icewhiz (talk) 07:44, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

We have clear policy of WP:TERRORIST should we mention in every article about Hamas attacks that its terrorist organisation? --Shrike (talk) 10:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Personally I think we should call their terrorist attacks just that, when the acts meet objective criteria for that description. I'm all for calling a spade a spade. The problem is that it would be an impossible battle to get the same criteria applied to things done by Jews. Zero^talk 13:18, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

The attack by Jews are described as terrorist, the problem here is we describing not the attack itself but the organisation as terrorist which is discouraged --Shrike (talk) 13:30, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

The saying "one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter" doesn't work for the scholars who study such things. A better version is "every terrorist is someone's freedom fighter", because terrorism is a mode of operating and not a judgement of whether or not we should like it. It is perfectly consistent to call someone a terrorist and also consider them a freedom-fighter. It is true that Israel "rehabilitated" Lehi in the Begin era, for obvious reasons, but there are two problems with that. First, Moyne was assassinated in 1944 and back then almost everyone described Lehi as a terrorist group. It was not just a British-ism then and it isn't now either. Second, the current Israeli description (more correctly, the description used by the Israeli right-wing) is fringe when considered from an international perspective. We don't do fringe (though if an official statement has been made on the Moyne murder it might be admissible for inclusion). It is dirt easy to find lots of modern academic authors who are happy with the word "terrorist" in relation to Lehi and especially in relation to Moyne's murder, among them many Israeli scholars. The case for following the great majority of sources on this is overwhelming. Anyway, they simply were not, objectively not, a "paramilitary" group in 1944. Tracking down Jews they didn't like to kill them (65% of their personal assassinations) is not paramilitary behaviour, nor is extortion of rich Jews and robbing banks, nor is the mass murder by bomb that the same people engaged in a few years earlier. You need to wait for the "United Front" before they did anything paramilitary. Zero^talk 13:18, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Should we go about and label the Irish Republican Army as terrorist throughout the project? Icewhiz (talk) 14:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

That's a good question, and the fact is that I've always argued against such labeling on Wikipedia. The main reason I have for a distinction here is that Lehi was unique in openly advocating terror by that name (טירור) and I don't like rewriting of history for ideological reasons. But I'm wary of opening cans of worms too. Zero^talk 06:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:SOAPBOXING. Here is soapboxing:- Come you all with me to all the articles about government supported acts of terror first, and help me change all those to terrorism, including Israel, Britain, and Ireland, and I'll help you write terrorism on every Hamas article that is about a terrorist act. We will change the world right here on Wikipedia. Suddenly, it's not as important. The state is not your god. God is interested in overall progress, not the power of individuals. Evolution is a random event, not an exercise in power and mismanagement. Hrrm... Do unto others, as you would to yourself, if you can manage it. ~ R.T.G 14:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Supreme War Council 1918

I'd like to addn this with a source; he was accepted onto the SWC staff in October 1918 based on "knowledge of French and the Eatsern Theatre besides staff experience".PatrickGuinness (talk) 13:35, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

The link is Supreme War Council.