Hitler and the Nazi were against the Khazar Ashkenazi Jews in Germany and in the Slavic Eastern Europe who claimed late conversion to Judaism.
It is impossible to tell if Hitler knew that they are not Semites or Israelite, but only new Asian Jews. The original Semitic Israeli nation was shocked and was terrified and the Turkish Khazar Jews knew and manipulated this situation for their interests.
Calling Hitler’s and Nazi’s actions against Turkic Khazar Jews as Anti-Antisemitism is ironic since the Khazar Ashkenazi Jews are not Semites at all.
The Ashkenazi Jews are systematically trying to deny that their true origin and the origin of their Yiddish Language are Turkic Khazar. They claim that their Zionist ambitions and businesses are legitimate, nationalistic and religiously related to Judaism.
Yiddish was the everyday language of most Jews in Eastern Europe (Poland, Russia, Lithuania, Latvia, Romania, and parts of Hungary and Czechoslovakia) for 1,000 years.
The term “Yiddish” is derived from the German word for “Jewish.” The most accepted (but not the only) theory of the origin of Yiddish is that it began to take shape by the 10th century as Jews from France and Italy migrated to the Rhine Valley. They developed a language that included elements of Hebrew, and French, Italian, and German dialects. In the late middle Ages, when Jews settled in Eastern Europe, Slavic elements were incorporated into Yiddish.
In linguistics, mutual intelligibility is a relationship between languages or dialects in which speakers of different but related varieties can readily understand each other without intentional study or special effort.
As for: Azerbaijani, Crimean Tatar, Gagauz, Turkish and Urum (partially and asymmetrically
And also for: German and Yiddish
Yiddish language is clearly was made by the Khazar Ashkenazi Jews in Germany in the same way which they produced the Ladino language in Spain.
Judeo-Spanish is commonly referred to as Ladino. Ladino is a language derived from medieval Spanish, with influences from other languages such as Aragonese, Astur-Leonese, Catalan, Galician-Portuguese, and Mozarabic. Ladino also has vocabulary from Ottoman Turkish, Hebrew, Aramaic and Arabic, French, Italian, Greek, Bulgarian and Serbo-Croatian.
”Turkey: A Ladino newspaper”, Tracing the Tribe: The Jewish Genealogy Blog posted:
The new [Turkish] government promoted Turkish [language] and suppressed [the] Kurdish [language]. Ladino was not suppressed, but according to scholars, the community itself helped to suppress it.
Turkic History in 6-minute video
“The Thirteenth Tribe” by Arthur Koestler
The Thirteenth Tribe is a book that attempts to explain the origins of Eastern Europe’s Jewish population, largely decimated by the Nazi onslaught during the Second World War. Koestler shows through extensive research, how a trading empire was set up by a tribe we know as the Khazars between the expanding power blocs of Christianity and Islam; how the people were converted to Judaism by their king as a way of standing apart from both, and how the people and their wealth were dispersed through the countries of Eastern Europe after the collapse of the Khazar Empire.
It is a controversial history; because it challenges both the assumptions of Nazi philosophy and Zionism that the European Jews were racially different from the populations of the countries in which they later settled.
Koestler, as a Hungarian Jew himself, was particularly interested in the major part the Khazars played in the founding of the Hungarian nation; a fact which later led to the tragedy of 1944, when the Nazis exterminated over half-a -million Hungarian Jews, who were virtually indistinguishable from their Christian neighbours.
ARTHUR KOESTLER was born in 1905 in Budapest. Though he studied science and psychology in Vienna, at the age of twenty he became a foreign correspondent and worked for various European newspapers in the Middle East, Paris, Berlin, Russia and Spain. During the Spanish Civil War, which he covered from the Republican side, he was captured and imprisoned for several months by the Nationalists, but was exchanged after international protest. In 1939-40 he was interned in a French detention camp. After his release, due to British government intervention, he joined the French Foreign Legion, subsequently escaped to England, and joined the British Army.
Like many other intellectuals in the thirties, Koestler saw in the Soviet experiment the only hope and alternative to fascism. He became a member of the Communist Party in 1931, but left it in disillusionment during the Moscow purges in 1938. His earlier books were mainly concerned with these experiences, either in autobiographical form or in essays or political novels. Among the latter, Darkness At Noon has been translated into thirty-three languages.
After World War 11, Mr. Koestler became a British citizen, and all his books since 1940 have been written in English, He now lives in London. but he frequently lectures at American universities, and was a Fellow at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences at Stanford in 1964-65.
In 1968 Mr. Koestler received the Sonning Prize at the University of Copenhagen for his contributions to European culture. He is also a Commander of the Order of the British Empire, as well as one of the ten Companions of Literature, elected by the Royal Society of Literature. His works are now being republished in a collected edition of twenty volumes.
He died in 1981, in a ‘suicide pact’ with his wife – a tragedy that has aroused some suspicion since, in conspiracy circles.
First published in Britain in 1976, this classic book by Arthur Koestler in now largely unavailable.
“The Ashkenazic Jews: A Slavo-Turkic People in Search of a Jewish Identity” by Paul Wexler
This book, a linguist’s reassessment of early European Jewish history, will be of interest to anyone who has ever wondered how the Jewish people, lacking their own territorial base and living as a minority among often hostile non-Jewish peoples over the four corners of the globe, succeeded in preserving a separate identity for close to two thousand years.
The book makes a number of innovative and controversial claims about the relationship of the contemporary Jews to the Old Palestinian Jews. Recognizing the limitations of historical documentation, this book shows how facts about Yiddish and Modern Israeli Hebrew (presented in four recent books) can assist historians and archeologists in evaluating known data and artifacts as well as generate a new hypothesis about the origins of the Ashkenazic Jews, the north European Jews who have consituted the majority of the Jews in the world for the last several centuries.
In Wexler’s view, the Ashkenazic Jews most likely descend from a minority ethnic Palestinian Jewish emigre population that intermarried with a much larger heterogeneous population of converts to Judaism from Asia Minor, the Balkans and the Germano-Sorb lands (the Sorbs are a West Slavic population that still numbers about 70,000 in the former German Democratic Republic). Widespread conversions to Judaism that began in Asia Minor in the Christian era and ended with the institutionalization of Christianity among the Western Slavs in the beginning of the second millennium saved the tiny ethnic Palestinian Jewish population in the diaspora from total extinction. The major non-Jewish contributors to the ethnogenesis of the Ashkenazic Jews were Slavs, though there was probably also a minor Turkic strain — both in the Caspian-Black Sea area (the descendants of the Khazars, a mainly Turkic group that converted to Judaism in the eighth century) and in the Balkans and Hungary. In all of these areas, the Turkic population early became submerged with the coterritorial Slavs.
In addition to Yiddish terms of Slavic, Greek, Romance and German origin which express aspects of the Jewish religion and folk culture, the book shows that many elements of Ashkenazic folklore and religion themselves were of Slavic origin — either West (Sorbian and Polabian) or Balkan Slavic. There is a lengthy discussion of the evidence for widespread conversion to Judaism in Asia Minor, southern Europe and the Germano-Sorbian lands up to the twelfth century and the reasons why pagan and Christian Slavs converted to Judaism. While historians have been disputing the extent of conversion to Judaism, Wexler thinks the linguistic and ethnographic evidence make the conversion evidence highly plausible.
In addition, Jewish linguistic evidence refutes the traditional claims that Yiddish is a variant of High German and that Modern Hebrew is a “revived” form of Old Hebrew; new hypotheses are proposed: that Yiddish began as a Slavic language (specifically a Judaized form of Sorbian) that was re-lexified to High German at an early date, and that Modern Hebrew is, in turn, Yiddish that became re-lexified to Hebrew, and thus is also a form of Sorbian. These facts support the author’s hypothesis of the Slavic origins of the Ashkenazic Jews, and the bulk of their religion and folk culture.
The book proceeds to show how, under the conditions of relative separation from the non-Jewish population that developed after the twelfth century, the north European Jews developed elaborate processes of “Judaizing” their pagan and Christian Slavic religion and folk culture — by inserting unusually large amounts of Hebrew elements into colloquial Judeo-Sorbian/Yiddish and by reinterpreting and recalibrating religious and ethnographic practices according to biblical and talmudic precedents; customs known to be obsolete among the Christians were retained by the Jews as “Jewish” practices. For example, the Slavo-Germanic glass-breaking ceremony intended to scare the devil away from the merrymakers at a wedding, was reinterpreted as remembrance of the destructions of the two Temples in Jerusalem. The ethnographic and religious evidence is taken mainly from discussions in the Germano-Slavic Hebrew religious literature of the thirteenth through sixteenth centuries which reveal that many rabbis were quite aware of the non-Jewish origins of Ashkenazic folklore and religious practices. Where the rabbis could not convince the masses to abandon pagan-Christian customs, they were obliged to retain them, but in a “Judaized” form.
The book offers a correction to the unsubstantiated views of the late Arthur Koestler in his The Thirteenth Tribe (London 1976), that the Ashkenazic Jews are largely descended from Turkic Khazars who converted to Judaism in the Caucasus in the eighth century. Wexler believes Koestler was right about a Slavo-Turkic basis for the north European Jews — but that he erred in assuming the preponderence of Turks over other ethnic groups, and in placing the “homeland” of the Ashkenazic Jews in the Caucasus. Where Koestler’s evidence, mainly non-linguistic, was scanty and totally unreliable, Yiddish and Ashkenazic folk culture and religion provide a wealth of varied evidence that support a primarily Slavic ethnic origin for the Ashkenazic Jews. In opposition to the popular view that the Slavic imprint in Ashkenazic Jewish culture is a “late borrowing”, Wexler sees the Slavic elements as an “inheritance” from the pagan Slavic cultures which were to become for the most part submerged and reformed under the impact of Christianity.
Hence, Ashkenazic Judaism is essentially a Judaized form of Slavic pagan and Christian culture and religion (rather than an uninterrupted evolution of Palestinian Judaism) — and the best repository of pagan Slavic folk culture that survives to our days. Wexler also proposes that the other Jewish diasporas — e.g. the Sephardic, the Arab, Iranian, Chinese, Indian, Ethiopian and Yemenite — are also largely of non-Jewish origin. The book compares the notion of Jewish peoplehood with attempts at rewriting the past found in many other societies.
Scholars Debate Roots of Yiddish, Migration of Jews, By GEORGE JOHNSON,
Published: October 29, 1996, The New York Times, U.S. Edition
TRYING to trace the ancient roots of a modern language is always a maddeningly ambiguous and uncertain enterprise. With Yiddish, the language of the Ashkenazic Jews of Central and Eastern Europe, the task is even harder because of the horrifying fact that most of the speakers were exterminated in the Holocaust.
As a result, the study of Yiddish origins — and especially the touchy issue of its relationship to German — has sometimes been criticized as one in which rational analysis has been overwhelmed by emotion. But a number of recent studies are now being welcomed by linguists as evidence that the field is turning into a solid science.
”There are now signs that the history of Yiddish is becoming a scientific enterprise instead of the mythological exercise it used to be,” said Dr. Jerrold Sadock, a linguist at the University of Chicago.
By trying to reconstruct the original Yiddish, linguists hope to explain the origins of this rich language, in which a largely Germanic grammar and vocabulary is mixed with Hebrew and Aramaic, and sprinkled with words from Slavic and ancient Romance languages. The question they hope to answer is whether Yiddish began in Western Europe and spread eastward, as the common wisdom holds — or whether, as an increasing number of scholars now believe, its origins lie farther east. One linguist has recently argued that Yiddish began as a Slavic language that was ”relexified,” with most of its vocabulary replaced with German words.
Arching over these questions is the central mystery of just where the Jews of Eastern Europe came from. Many historians believe that there were not nearly enough Jews in Western Europe to account for the huge population that later flourished in Poland, Lithuania, Ukraine and nearby areas.
By reconstructing the Yiddish mother tongue, linguists hope to plot the migration of the Jews and their language with a precision never possible before. It has even been suggested, on the basis of linguistic evidence, that the Jews of Eastern Europe were not predominantly part of the diaspora from the Middle East, but were members of another ethnic group that adopted Judaism.
”Yiddish is widely perceived as a very special language,” said Dr. Alexis Manaster Ramer, a linguist at Wayne State University in Detroit. ”If this is correct, the explanation might lie precisely in the historical uniqueness of the circumstances which produced Yiddish.”
The revival of the field is due, in part, to a mammoth project at Columbia University to map the dialects of Yiddish, plotting precisely where on the European continent the many variations were once spoken. After decades of preparation, ”The Language and Culture Atlas of Ashkenazic Jewry” began appearing in 1992, with volume one. The third installment was recently sent to the printers and is due out next year from the publisher Max Niemeyer in Tubingen, Germany. At least seven more volumes are planned.
This accumulating evidence is being eagerly seized by linguists intent on tracing the roots of Yiddish. ”The atlas is a fabulous tool for doing this kind of work,” said Dr. Robert D. King, who holds the Audre and Bernard Rapoport Chair of Jewish Studies at the University of Texas at Austin. Work on the project began in the early 1960’s after Dr. Uriel Weinreich of Columbia University and his wife, the folklorist Beatrice Silverman Weinreich, began an effort to interview some 600 Yiddish-speaking immigrants in Israel, the Alsace region of France, the United States, Canada and Mexico. When Dr. Weinreich died in 1967, the project was taken over by Dr. Marvin Herzog.
”The atlas is of monumental importance to the field of Yiddish studies,” said Dr. Neil Jacobs, a linguist at Ohio State University in Columbus. The detailed interviews, each lasting some 15 hours and including more than 3,000 questions, provide an usually exact picture of both Yiddish dialects and culture. The atlas is so precise that it can show the line of demarcation separating Eastern European Jews who sugared their gefilte fish from those who did not, or between those who ate tomatoes and those who considered them ”tref,” or unclean, because of their blood red color. The linguistic information is just as precise — charting, for example, differences in the pronunciation of the word ”flaysh,” or flesh.
The emergence of this rich lode of information is expected to provide the kind of hard evidence that linguists need to separate hypothesis from speculation.
For centuries it was widely assumed that Yiddish was just broken German, more of a linguistic mishmash than a true language. Even the language’s own speakers called it ”Zhargon,” meaning jargon. In the early 20th century, linguists found evidence that Yiddish and modern German were of equal stature — parallel offshoots of the same Germanic mother tongue. The other components of Yiddish were explained as superficial borrowings grafted onto an essentially Germanic language.
After the horrors of World War II, some Jewish scholars set out to distance Yiddish from German and show that it was a unique cultural creation of the Jews. The main champion of this view was Dr. Max Weinreich, the father of Uriel Weinreich and the driving force behind the YIVO Institute for Jewish Research, which began in Vilna, Lithuania, and is now in Manhattan. Noting that Yiddish includes a few words from Old Italian and Old French, Dr. Weinreich argued that it began as a Romance language that was later Germanized. In this view, Yiddish was invented by Jews who had arrived in Europe with the Roman army as traders, later settling in the Rhineland of western Germany and northern France. Mixing Hebrew, Aramaic and Romance with German, they produced a unique language, not just a dialect of German.
Pushed eastward by the religious zealotry arising from the medieval Crusades and the Black Plague, which fanatical Christians blamed on the Jews, the speakers of Yiddish re-established themselves in Poland and surrounding areas, where the language picked up its Slavic content. According to this now dominant theory, there were very few Jews in Eastern Europe before the great immigration from the west. Yiddish is seen as a largely Western European phenomenon.
As appealing as this theory has been to Jews who wish to divorce the language from that of their Nazi persecutors, corroborating linguistic evidence has been sparse. Even more troublesome are demographic studies indicating that during the Middle Ages there were no more than 25,000 to 35,000 Jews in Western Europe. These figures are hard to reconcile with other studies showing that by the 17th century there were hundreds of thousands of Jews in Eastern Europe.
”You just can’t get those numbers by natural population increase,” Dr. King said. In a paper published in 1992, he argued that the origins of Yiddish were not in the Rhineland but eastward along the Danube — in Bavaria and as far east as Hungary and the Czech and Slovak lands. From there, he argues, the language radiated both westward, into the Rhineland, and eastward into Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and other areas.
Dr. King bases his conclusion on work he began in the 1980’s with Dr. Alice Faber, a linguist now at Haskins Laboratories in New Haven, Conn. Dr. King and Dr. Faber found no significant similarities between the Yiddish of Eastern Europe and the dialects of German spoken in the Rhineland. They uncovered a few similarities between Yiddish and East Central German, spoken as far east as Poland. (For example, German diphthongs like ie and uo were compressed in both languages, so that ”knie” (knee) was rendered ”kni.” But the most striking resemblances were between Yiddish and Bavarian, a dialect of German. ”Yiddish resembles nothing more closely than medieval Bavarian,” Dr. King said.
For example, both Bavarian and Yiddish differ from German in that they have lost a pronunciation rule called final devoicing. Germans pronounce ”Tag” (day) as though it ended in k and ”Rad” (wheel) as though it ended in t. But in Yiddish and Bavarian the two words are pronounced ”tog” and ”rod.” Another example: the words ”Blume” (flower) and ”Gasse” (street) are pronounced with two syllables in German but with one syllable in Bavarian and Yiddish. Bavarian is the only major German dialect that, like Yiddish, has undergone these two kinds of transformations.
Dr. King concedes that a western origin for Yiddish is still possible: Jews migrating from the Rhineland may have lingered in the Danube region long enough for their language to significantly change. But he is skeptical that essentially all traces of Rhineland German could have been so completely erased.
Contrary to the common wisdom, Dr. King believes there must have already been a large population of Jews in Eastern Europe who had lived there since biblical times, coming up from the Middle East as traders speaking Hebrew and Aramaic. The Yiddish language and culture of the Danube region then diffused eastward, he says, influencing this existing population.
Historians scarcely noticed these early pioneers, Dr. King speculates, because they did not have the leisure to develop the strong scholarly tradition that existed farther west. ”The legacy of pre-Crusade Jewish life in Western Europe was a tradition of learning, of the rabbinate, of the community,” Dr. King said. ”The legacy of early Jewish life in the Slavic East was very largely the bones of its dead.”
Some scholars believe the roots of Yiddish, and even the Ashkenazic people themselves, lie much farther east. In his 1976 book, ”The Thirteenth Tribe,” Arthur Koestler made the startling suggestion, never taken seriously by linguists, that the Eastern European Jews were not really Semitic — that they were largely descended from the Turkish Khazars, who converted en masse to Judaism in medieval times.
More recently, Mr. Koestler’s controversial thesis has been revived and expanded in a 1993 book, ”The Ashkenazic Jews : A Slavo-Turkic People in Search of a Jewish Identity” (Slavica Publishers), by Dr. Paul Wexler, a Tel Aviv University linguist. Dr. Wexler uses a reconstruction of Yiddish to argue that it began as a Slavic language whose vocabulary was largely replaced with German words. Going even further, he contends that the Ashkenazic Jews are predominantly converted Slavs and Turks who merged with a tiny population of Palestinian Jews from the Diaspora.
While few linguists are convinced by this radical hypothesis, the notion of a Slavic origin for Yiddish is being taken as a serious challenge to the field. ”Even if he is not absolutely right,” said Dr. Jacobs, ”we are forced into a discussion of the issues he has raised.”
In another reconstruction of proto-Yiddish, Dr. Manaster Ramer at Wayne State has uncovered evidence that some of Yiddish’s Slavic words — like ”nebbish,” referring to a pathetic individual — were part of the original language that grew into modern Yiddish. He has also found traces of western German dialects. But his analysis casts doubt on the hypothesis that Yiddish is an offshoot of Bavarian.
Dr. Manaster Ramer said that while traces of Bavarian were found in the Yiddish spoken in Eastern Europe, they did not show up in Western Yiddish, once spoken in western and southern Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland and Alsace, or in medieval texts. He proposes that the Bavarian influence entered the language after Yiddish speakers had migrated eastward.
Linguists hope that in the next few years data like those gathered for the Columbia University atlas project will help them zero in on the Yiddish homeland.
A Reply is a nice action