Foreign Zionist occupation and Palestinian refugee issue is at the heart of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict
Gantz said on Saturday that if the quiet will not be kept on the Gaza border, the Strip will be “severely hit – in its economy, security, and from the civilian perspective.”
On Saturday afternoon, IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Aviv Kohavi held a security assessment meeting with senior officers, as well as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defense Minister Benny Gantz, Public Security Minister Amir Ohana, Mossad Chief Yossi Cohen, National Security Council Chief Meir Ben-Shabbat, and Israel Police Chief Kobi Shabtai, among others, at IDF headquarters in Tel Aviv.
Gantz said on Saturday that if the quiet will not be kept on the Gaza border, the Strip will be “severely hit – in its economy, security, and from the civilian perspective.”
GazaWar may refer to: GazaWar (2008-09) or Operation Cast Lead; GazaWar (2012) or Operation Pillar of Defense; GazaWar (2014) or Operation Protective Edge
War on Gaza
Gaza Genocide Victims in pictures Israeli Air Strikes on Gaza (Dec 27, 2008- Jan 18, 2009): Children, Women, Civilian People, Buildings/Houses, Gaza Under Fire, White Phosphorus, Medical Services, Mosques/Religious, Schools/Education, Animals/Birds, Trees/Farms
Day 23 – Jan 18, 2009 Israeli Air Strikes on Gaza: At least 1310 Palestinians killed and 5600 wounded.Family members die in Israeli house demolition.
Day 22 – Jan 17, 2009 Israeli Air Strikes on Gaza: At least 1100 Palestinians killed and 5100 wounded.Gaza doctor’s (Ezzeldeen Abu al-Aish) tragedy caught on Israeli TV.
Day 21 – Jan 16, 2009 Israeli Air Strikes on Gaza: At least 1100 Palestinians killed and 5100 wounded.Aftermath of attacks on Tal El Hawa district.
Day 20 – Jan 15, 2009 Israeli Air Strikes on Gaza: At least 1100 Palestinians killed and 5100 wounded.Hamas leader Said Siyam was killed today in an Israeli air raid along with one of his sons and a brother.
Day 19 – Jan 14, 2009 Israeli Air Strikes on Gaza: At least 1015 Palestinians killed and 4800 wounded.UN issues warning on Gaza children.
Day 18 – Jan 13, 2009 Israeli Air Strikes on Gaza: At least 980 Palestinians killed and 4400 wounded.The humanitarian crisis continues in Gaza.
“We knew they were different from ‘our Jews,’ I am talking about the Arab Jews. We saw them as foreigners who came from Europe more than as Jews.”
Not biblical Jews.
When you grow up Jewish in the US, you’re called on by Zionism in one way or another.
Until recently, the Jerusalem bureau chief was Ethan Bronner, who had a son in the Israeli army.
He has since been replaced by Jodi Rudoren, who was an education reporter in New York.
The militarization of the education system: at age 17, as Israeli high schoolers are preparing to go off to the army service, they are sent to Auschwitz, on the March of the Living, with their high school classes to be indoctrinated and to be cultivated to view the Holocaust in the light of their army experience.
Polls on adolescent attitudes in Israel on the occupation and the army show that they’re very conflicted about the whole thing before they go on these trips.
But after going through this whole process, which ends with a candlelight ceremony in a gas chamber where they’re asked to take on the personas of Jewish children who were slaughtered in the gas chambers of Auschwitz, they come out with much more strongly nationalistic opinions and much stronger support for the army as an institution.
They can hardly wait to put on the IDF uniform and start “defending” a pretend enemy.
If you listen to the rhetoric of Benjamin Netanyahu, the Holocaust is always present when he’s talking about threats to the state of Israel.
He recently gave an address at Bar-Ilan University, where he spent much of his speech accusing the Palestinians of having a direct role in the Final Solution, which is false.
They weren’t responsible for any Jewish deaths in Europe. You can imagine how Israeli teens who are entering the army are going to play this out.
It’s pure incitement, but it falls on really fertile soil. Many Israeli dissidents I interviewed told me that they, as youth growing up in Israel, lived out the Holocaust every day.
They told me that one of the hardest things to overcome in their process of deprogramming from years of constant indoctrination they received in Israeli schools and all of the key institutions in Israeli life was to accept that the whole world wasn’t against them as Jews, that a second Holocaust was not imminent and that the Nazis did not have heirs in the Palestinian national movement.
When you grow up Jewish in the US, you’re called on by Zionism in one way or another. Until recently, the Jerusalem bureau chief was Ethan Bronner, who had a son in the Israeli army. He has since been replaced by Jodi Rudoren, who was an education reporter in New York.
When you walk down the streets of Haifa, a lot of Jews carry guns and wear uniforms and this symbolizes to Palestinians their destruction and dispossession. Welcome to Israel. .
[Over 80 percent of the population in Gaza relies on international assistance to survive, and cases of disease and malnutrition are on the rise. More than 50 percent of the population is unemployed, and 90 percent of businesses closed as a result of the blockade. Hospitals are out of up to 40 percent of needed supplies and medicine. Approximately 96 percent of water is undrinkable. And electricity is only available for approximately four hours per day. Gaza contains the refugees from the 1948 Zionist terrorism and expulsion and the 1967 terrorism and expulsion. The Zionists kill and harass fisherman, farmers and children.
Prevailing systems of inequality, oppression and other forms of domination exasperated the situation and, in many cases, rendered them systems of co-morbidity. The rest of the Palestinians live in villages under menacing occupation.]
In Palestine, the lockdowns, curfews and inability to travel were not new.
But Covid-19 was not the only thing that happened this year in Palestine.
Rather, it became the backdrop for Israel’s accelerated territorial expansion and the political normalisation of its settler colonial project.
“We are still suffering because of one political declaration from a Western Empire, based on a twisted theological premise. Even some churches and few Christian leaders supported the establishment of the colonial state in our land, and totally ignored – even dehumanized – the nation, our people that had already existed here for centuries and paid the price for atrocities committed in Europe.”
A few months later the deal seemed to dissipate, not because of a lack of support from the international community but rather (as many Palestinians pointed out) because it presented nothing new – already reflecting the de facto reality on the ground.
Later in the summer, Israel threatened to pass legislation that would enable the de jure annexation of large swathes of Palestinian land in the occupied West Bank on 1 July.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu shrewdly created a huge crescendo leading up to the date and many in the international community, particularly EU states, rushed to provide statements of “concern” and “condemnation,” whilst simultaneously offering no consequences should the annexation go ahead.
The 1st of July came and went without annexation and the international community breathed a sigh of relief, declaring it a win for the international legal regime and for Palestinian rights.
Yet the reality of both the de jure and de facto annexation of Palestinian land, from East Jerusalem to Israeli settlements, were ignored.
“Look! Shoot faster! I am in a rush to move in.”
Since then, Netanyahu has continuously reiterated his intentions to annex more and more of the West Bank.
All the while Israeli policies of disOne day after the UN vote to partition Palestine, Menachem Begin, the commander of the Irgun and Israel’s future Prime Minister between 1977-1983, proclaimed: “The Partition of Palestine is illegal. It will never be recognized …. Jerusalem was and will for ever be our capital.
Eretz Israel will be restored to the people of Israel. All of it. And for Ever.” (Iron Wall p. 25)possession and territorial expansion continued apace.
We will establish ourselves in Palestine whether you like it or not…You can hasten our arrival or you can equally retard it. It is however better for you to help us so as to avoid our constructive powers being turned into a destructive power which will overthrow the world. -Chaim Weizmann
2020 saw the highest number of home demolitions in more than four years, with nearly 900 Palestinians displaced.
The early political theatrics of the ‘Deal of the Century’ continued into the year when a series of normalisation agreements with various Arab states, including the UAE, Bahrain, Sudan and Morocco, were announced.
These agreements by the signatory regimes were dubbed as historic.
Yet, official and unofficial Arab normalisation with Israel, and the undermining of the Palestinian cause, has been ongoing for decades.
Egypt was the first Arab country to normalise in 1979 in return for the Sinai Peninsula, which Israel had captured in 1967.
Jordan followed suit in 1995 and in return got substantial economic aid and diplomatic support from the West.
The UAE and Saudi Arabia have held increasingly frequent meetings with Israeli officials and experts over the last decade regarding security technology, most of which has been used to spy on political opposition and activists.
Similarly, Morocco has had relations with Israel dating back to the 1950s, including arms deals and Israeli training for Moroccan security forces and intelligence agents.
It is therefore unsurprising that these countries should officialise long standing relations. What is worrying is that the agreements include weapons deals and security collaboration, a boon for authoritarianism.
Whilst a renewed era of human rights abuses looms across the region, the internal situation is equally challenging for Palestinians, who are increasingly fragmented socially, geographically, and politically.
Such divides were acutely accentuated under Covid-19, with increased restrictions on movement for different categories of Identity Card holders and an increasing gap between the wealthy and the poor.
Official and unofficial Arab normalisation with Israel, and the undermining of the Palestinian cause, has been ongoing for decades
The Palestinian leadership has proved impotent amidst the external political manoeuvres of this year, with a strategy limited to rhetorical outrage and holding out for a Joe Biden victory in US presidential elections.
The Palestinian leadership’s impotence has also been coupled with increasing authoritarianism, as was demonstrated with the arrest and interrogation of an activist who criticized the resumption of Palestinian Authority (PA) security coordination with Israel.
The election of Biden to the White House presents the prospect of returning to “normal” and “business as usual” in terms of US foreign policy, and his team have already expressed the desire to return to the prior framework of peace process negotiations.
Meanwhile, they have also stated that they will not be reversing several landmark policy changes under the Trump administration, including moving the US embassy to Jerusalem, recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the occupied Golan Heights, and US-backed normalisation deals with Arab states.
Biden, who has described himself as a Zionist, has a mainstream establishment US foreign policy perspective on the Middle East, which includes a pro-Israel stance.
Indeed, as vice-president in the Obama administration he oversaw the largest military aid package in US history – $38 billion – to Israel.
This does not bode well for Palestinian rights. Biden has promised to reverse Trump’s huge aid cuts to Palestinians, meaning US money will flow back into the coffers of the Palestinian Authority.
But this model of an “economic peace” is antithetical to Palestinian liberation, coercing the Palestinian leadership into political surrender via economic incentives.
The reality of 2020 and its challenges, from global and regional political shifts to internal stagnation, have rendered it even more difficult to imagine Palestinian liberation.
Yet the pandemic also presents us with a “portal” and an opportunity to be hopeful, as Arundhati Roy wrote earlier this year: “We can choose to walk through [the portal], dragging the carcasses of our prejudice and hatred, our avarice, our data banks and dead ideas, our dead rivers and smoky skies behind us.
Or, we can walk through lightly, with little luggage, ready to imagine another world. And ready to fight for it.”
This will necessitate conversations on radical change, and Palestinians have no choice but to abandon the “dead ideas” that have long been a smoke screen for the continued colonization of Palestine.
1948: The British commander of Transjordan’s Arab Legion, had toured Palestinian Arab towns, including Lydda and Ramle, urging them to prepare to defend themselves against the Zionist horde.
The PLUNDER and LOOTING of Palestinian homes, farms, plantations, banks, cars, ports, railroads, schools, hospitals, trucks, tractors, etc. in the course of the 1948 war were a crime on a massive scale. For example, the looting of Lydda City was described by the Israeli Ministerial Committee for Abandoned Property in mid-July, 1948:
It should be noted that the great majority of the Palestinian people have been dispossessed for the past five decades, meanwhile, their properties are being used by mostly European Jews (who were victims of similar war crimes committed by anti-Semitic Europeans). Prior to being ethnically cleansed in 1948, the Palestinian people owned and operated 93% of Palestine’s lands, and contributed up to 55-60% of its national Gross Domestic Product (GDP).
Zionists capture Lydda: Palestine’s main railway junction and its airport (now Ben Gurion International Airport) were in Lydda, and the main source of Jerusalem’s water supply was 15 kilometers away.
American President Bill Clinton and wife Hillary are welcomed at the Gaza airport by President of the Palestinian National Authority Yasser Arafat and wife Soha. (Photo by Ira Wyman/Sygma via Getty Images)
“The airport used to be packed with thousands of travelers and we received presidents and world leaders,” he said, pointing to parts of the site in various stages of decay. “Now it’s turned into a ruin, a waste dump. It’s a tragedy.”
Daifallah Al-Akhras, the chief engineer of the airport, admitted he wept on a recent visit to the terminal.
“We built the airport to be the first symbol of sovereignty,” he said. “Now you don’t see anything but destruction and ruin.”
When the airport opened in late 1998 it was one of the most tangible symbols of the Oslo accords.
Many saw the deals as paving the way to the creation of an independent Palestinian state, but their five-year transitional period expired without a resolution to the conflict.
The airport was opened despite the assassination of the most senior Israeli signatory to Oslo, prime minister Yitzhak Rabin, by a Jewish ‘radical’ opposed to the agreements.
By 1998 the accords were fraying, but Clinton, along with his wife Hillary, still attended the ceremony to inaugurate the Yasser Arafat International Airport.
Built with funding from countries across the globe, it hosted the newly formed Palestinian Airlines and was able to handle hundreds of thousands of passengers a year, with many airlines opening up routes there.
Once a commercial airport was established, the Palestinian Authority moved forward with a plan to establish a flag carrier for the embattled country.
The airline was officially announced in 1995 with financial backing coming from the Netherlands and Saudi Arabia, who donated two Fokker 50s and a Boeing 727 to help start operations.
The newly-formed Palestinian Airlines would also join the Arab Air Carriers Organization, with its introduction to the alliance coming in 1999.
While the airline officially started operations in 1997, limits were quickly established on where it could fly.
The Yasser Arafat International Airport was still under construction in Gaza, leaving the airline to commence service in the Egyptian towns of Port Said and Arish to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia and Amman, Jordan.
Once the airline’s home in the Gaza Strip was completed, all operations were transferred to the new airport.
Palestinian Airlines quickly expanded to include service to additional countries including Turkey, Bahrain, Qatar, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates.
The airline would also come to take hold of an Ilyushin Il-62 to help with their expansion plans.
While the airline was expanding, it was not completely free of Israeli restrictions.
Under the Oslo II Accord, Israel had the right to restrict the airport’s schedule, which frequently saw the airport shuttered during the nighttime hours.
The airport’s security was also administered by the Israeli government due to fears that the Palestinians would lapse on security due to the economic instability of Gaza.
Unfortunately, the Oslo II Accord soured over time and increased tensions between the Israelis and Palestinians led to the breakout of the Second Intifada in the early 2000s.
Palestinian Airlines was forced to suspend operations while Israel and Palestine escalated their conflict.
Fearing that the Palestinians would use Yasser Arafat Airport for weapons smuggling into the Gaza Strip, Israel made the airport a primary target, destroying both the radar and control towers in 2001 before carving up the runway using bulldozers in 2002.
In addition to its smuggling fears, Israel also claimed that the dismantling was in response to a Palestinian raid that killed four Israeli soldiers.
The destruction of Yasser Arafat International Airport did not sit well with Palestinians or the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO).
For Palestinians, the ruins of the airport were a symbol of a potential nation now reeling from the Second Intifada and a sign that Israel and Palestine may never trust each other.
Meanwhile, the ICAO saw Israel’s destruction of the airport as a violation of Palestine’s right to operate a commercial airport and strongly condemned the Israelis for their actions.
The ICAO called for Israel to pay for any repairs from the damages caused to the airfield, which Israel ignored.
With no home airport inside Palestine, the flag carrier fled back across the border and restarted operations at El Arish International Airport in Egypt.
However, getting Palestinians to Arish was a struggle, as Egyptian security could take up to a day processing those traveling into and out of the country.
To attempt to ease the issue, the airline still manned the ticket counters at Yasser Arafat Airport, hoping to sell tickets to passengers inside Gaza and simplify their flying experience.
With this restriction, and the flag carrier operating 30 miles from its home opposite a major international border, the consumer base for Palestinian Airlines slowly dried up. The airline removed the Boeing 727 and Ilyushin Il-62 from its fleet before suspending operations outright in 2005.
The Palestinian Authority would hold on to the two Fokker 50s and lease them to other airlines while they waited for a chance to restart operations.
That chance would finally come in 2012, when the airline announced it would restart service using its Fokker 50s and a route map that would, yet again, be based in Arish, Egypt with flights to Cairo, Amman and Jeddah.
But much like their previous experience at Arish, Palestine was at too much of a disadvantage to make use of their airline.
The airline would last less than two years before re-suspending operations.
The Palestinian Authority returned to leasing their Fokker 50s, with Niger Airlines currently being the home for the two aircraft.
Despite having no current operations, the airline is still an active member in the ICAO, IATA and Arab Air Carriers Organization.
While Palestine hopes to have the airline flying again, the prospect of coming home to Gaza grows bleaker and bleaker.
The airport sustained more damage in recent years, with the terminal and ramps areas taking heavy bombings by Israeli forces in 2014.
Given that the Egyptian rehabilitation attempts have proven too costly for the airline, Palestinian Airlines is currently a flag carrier with no home, no service and no clear future.
All Ursula Haverbeck youtube videos are deleted, I could not find any of her videos except through the internet archive and only a few provide translation. Thank goodness for the archives! So much is lost from YouTube and all the other platforms. Ursala’s arguments are so informative and thought provoking but the videos are disappeared for the most part.
Just weeks after finishing a two and a half year prison sentence for “Holocaust denial,” 92-year-old Ursula Haverbeck has been convicted again by German courts, this time for an interview she gave in 2018 that affirmed her view that Jews were not systematically killed during World War II and that the gas chambers at Auschwitz are a politically motivated lie.
If the federal court’s sentence of one year in Haverbeck’s newest case holds up, Germany will have the dubious distinction of imprisoning the oldest female inmate in the world, a title previously held by American Lucille Keppen, who was incarcerated for shooting her neighbor and was released at age 93.
The German government has been dragging Haverbeck to court for decades for disputing Jewish claims of gas chambers and systematic murder. Haverbeck has famously protested the kangaroo courts that humiliate and defame elderly war veterans using bogus testimony from “survivors.”
Numerous high-ranking Third Reich officials, soldiers and concentration camp workers have disputed the Holocaust narrative since 1945, including Wehrmacht officer Otto Ernst Remer, Auschwitz employee Thies Christophersen, Erich Priebke, Leon Degrelle, and SS soldier Karl Muenter, the latter who died before his “Holocaust denial” trial began at the age of 96.
Haverbeck’s late husband, Werner Georg Haverbeck, was an influential NSDAP member who himself objected to the blood libel against the German people known as dieAuschwitz luge (the Auschwitz lie).
The BRD’s legal system has been ruthless with Haverbeck. The nonagenarian, who is a prisoner of conscience, was denied release after serving 2/3 of her prison sentence as is customary in Germany. While the state freed 1,000 offenders early due to COVID last March, Haverbeck was only let out in mid-November.
There is no sign of shame or human rights concerns in the country, with the judge in the latest case stressing that Haverbeck will continue to be punished until she learns to keep her mouth shut. One can only imagine the outcry from liberal NGOs if Iran, China or Russia imprisoned an elderly woman just for questioning the government’s line.
Haverbeck’s powerful spirit has become an inspiration for patriots in Germany and around the world. In 2019, she ran as a European parliamentary candidate from behind bars and received 25,000 votes, which was highly upsetting to the European media establishment. Every year on her birthday, hundreds of Germans rallied outside her detention center demanding her release.
Intellectuals and activists across Europe, the Americas and Japan have expressed dismay over her mistreatment and the lack of freedom in the land that claims to be a “democracy.” At JVA Bielefeld, where Haverbeck was housed, prison officials struggled to process the avalanche of letters and flowers their famous prisoner received throughout her sentence.
For Germany’s oldest prisoner, it’s clear that she will not cower before the wrath of the Jewish groups directing careerist bureaucrats. It’s in the German state’s reputational interest to stop tormenting Haverbeck, yet the West’s religious fear of debate over what occurred during the Second World War continues to take precedent over all other concerns.
Despite the fact that Jewish ‘scholars’ themselves have thoroughly discredited the long-held “historical fact” that “Nazis” burned the entire yeshiva Library in Lublin, Poland, in 1939, many Jewish “historians” still insist that it happened — and then they wonder how any “sane” and “honest” person could question any aspect of their sacred so-called “Holocaust.”
As the Jews have told it, the “Nazis” lit a bonfire and burned 55,000 books in the courtyard of the yeshiva — and the cries of the onlooking distraught Jews were so loud that the “Nazis” ordered a brass band — that just happened to be on hand — to drown out them out.
In reality, books with the Lublin Library imprint have shown up for sale at Jewish auction houses over the years — and many libraries have books from that collection in their inventories — according to Jews who have tracked them down.
But for the Jews, it isn’t important what the “Nazis” actually did or did not do — what’s of prime importance is how the “Nazis” made the Jews feel — and Jews are master alchemists at morphing their feelings into reality — and then using their terrible power of the purse to make sure we all accept that reality.
And when we agree to their version of reality, it appears to have a counter-intuitive salubrious effect on their well-being.
Four witnesses testified that they had seen Koch selecting prisoners specifically for their tattoos, or that they had seen or been involved in the manufacturing of the human-skin lampshades.
As had happened due to lack of evidence before, this charge was eventually dropped.
On January 15, 1951, the Court gave its verdict in a 111-page decision. Koch was not present.
She was convicted of “charges of incitement to murder, incitement to attempted murder, and incitement to the crime of committing grievous bodily harm,” and again sentenced to life imprisonment with permanent forfeiture of any civil rights.
During her time in prison, she petitioned for appeals several times but was always dismissed.
She even protested to the International Human Rights Commission, but was rejected.
While in prison, her son Uwe, who had been conceived during her imprisonment at Dachau, discovered that she was his mother.
He came to visit her in prison often over the next several years at Aichach, the prison where she was serving her life sentence.
On September 1, 1967, Ilse Koch committed suicide in prison.
The next day, Uwe arrived for their visit and was shocked to find that she had died.
She was buried in an unmarked, untended grave at the prison’s cemetery.
Wikimedia Commons Human remains and images of tattoos from Buchenwald.
The lampshades have never been recovered, and many historians seem to doubt their existence. However, a writer — also Jewish — named Mark Jacobson has made it his mission to authenticate their existence.
His grim quest began when a man named Skip Hendersen purchased a lampshade touted as a Nazi relic at a post-Hurricane Katrina garage sale.
Hendersen sent it to Jacobson, who even traveled with it to Buchenwald, but has been unable to definitively determine its origin.
DNA testing conducted initially revealed that the lampshade was likely made of human skin, but later testing revealed that the shade is more likely made of cowskin.
It seems, in the end, that this was one secret the Bitch of Buchenwalk took with her to the grave.
Without outside assistance, the state of Israel would never survive for as much a single day.
Without the Holocaust, the world would never have permitted the founding of the state of Israel in 1948.
The colonial era was coming to an end at that time. The British had already decided to give India its independence, while dozens of Asian and African territories were at that point striving to shake off European rule.
While other powers were rushing to grant independence to their colonies, the jews in Palestine were permitted to embark upon a colonial adventure par excellence, with the blessings of both the West and the USSR. In so doing, they proceeded with ruthless brutality; whole Arab villages were leveled.
A great proportion of the Palestinians were driven from their homeland.
In 1967, Israel conquered additional Arab territories, the inhabitants of which remain subject to all possible kinds of repression: deportations, arrests — in 1992, there were 15,000 Palestinians behind bars for political reasons!
(1) — liquidation of political opposition by killer commandos, dynamiting of houses, confiscations, endless repression .
In addition, there is the systematic use of torture, quite unashamedly declared legal by the Israeli Supreme Court on 15 November 1996. In so doing, the jewish state adopted a legal position which remains unique in the world.
Israel is, of course, not the only state in the world to practice torture; but it is the only nation which openly claims the right to do so.
The right of Israeli military personnel and policemen to torture Palestinian political detainees was justified by the Supreme Court on security considerations: the need to gain “vitally important information on planned attacks”.
So why did the Gestapo officer Klaus Barbie in Paris have French resistance fighters tortured, if not on security grounds, and for the purpose of gaining vital information on planned attacks on German soldiers?
Not only may Arabs be tortured and murdered in Israel with impunity — they may even be mocked posthumously.
In 1993, two Israeli soldiers shot an unarmed Palestinian during a street confrontation.
At first, they were sentenced to one hour’s imprisonment each; this inhumanly heavy sentence was later commuted into a fine of exactly one penny each (3).
Jewish terror rule in Palestine is not actually encouraged by world public opinion, but it is tolerated.
After all, the jewish people, after suffering the Holocaust, needed a homeland to protect them from a new genocide; what are the sufferings of the Palestinians compared to those of the jews under Hitler?
Without outside assistance, the state of Israel would never survive for as much a single day.
Its chief source of revenue continues to consist of financial injections from the Americans, support from international jewry, and German “reparations”.
According to official sources, the BRD had already paid 85.4 billion marks to Israel (and jewish organizations) by 1992 (3); the actual figure must be considerably higher.
In addition there have been German deliveries in the form of commodities. Nahum Goldmann, long-time Chairman of the Jewish World Congress, wrote in his book The Jewish Paradox (4):
“Without the German reparations payments that started coming during its first ten years as a state, Israel would not have half of its present infrastructure: all the trains in Israel are German, the ships are German, and the same goes for electrical installations and a great deal of Israel’s industry…”
Immunity of jews from criticism
Before 1945, criticism of jews was allowed. Today, that is no longer the case.
Any criticism of jewry and Zionism, no matter how faint-hearted — for example, relating to the relatively heavy influence of jews on the mass media of the Western world, or the arrogance of the Central Jewish Council in Germany — is immediately shouted down with screams about Auschwitz and the Holocaust, with approximately the following logic: anyone who criticizes jews is anti-Semitic; Hitler was anti-Semitic; Hitler killed Six million jews; therefore, anyone who criticizes jews wants to kill another Six Million jews!
No matter how stupid and primitive this argument may be, it has proven itself effective right down until the present day.
The effectiveness of the above is demonstrated by a single remarkable example:
The most dangerous criminal organization in the world is regularly called the “Russian mafia” by the mass media.
This is a slander on the Russian people, because the mob bosses are not Russian. In a book which the author was forced to call The Russian Mafia — if he had called it The jewish Mafia he would have thrown in jail — the German author Juergen Roth (5) says:
“The cocaine is owned by a drug ring made up overwhelmingly of Israeli nationals — some of them with Russian ancestry — with support points in Colombia, Antwerp, Amsterdam, Tel Aviv, Moskow and St. Petersburg… Mosche Ben-Ari, Ricardo Fanchini, and Rachmiel Brandwain are considered the most powerful bosses of the exile Russian mafia in Europe and the USA.”
Although Roth had to censor many names in his book, it is clear from the context that the bosses of the “Russian Mafia” are almost exclusively jewish.
The gangster bosses Rachmiel Brandwain and Mosche Ben-Ari live in Antwerp or Munich. No Belgian or German state prosecutor would ever dare have them arrested, since he would be attacked by the media as a “neo-Nazi”, a pitiless persecutor of “Holocaust survivors”.
Covering up Allied atrocities in WW II
As we have seen, very little is ever said about the horrendous Allied atrocities during WWII. Terror bombings, starvation camps, and expulsions, may, of course, be inhumane, people will say; but the Holocaust was an incomparably greater crime! Anyone guilty of such a crime — i.e., the Germans — has no right to complain of harsh treatment by the Allied victors.
Creating contempt for the German people
Left: Nazi… Right: Zionist
Since 1945, the German people have been branded with a mark of shame for an unspeakable crime which makes healthy self-respect impossible for Germans, and prevents any German government from representing German interests in any way.
A truly independent German government committed to defending the interests of the German people has not existed since 1945.
The DDR was ruled by the satraps of the Eastern occupying powers for decades, while the BRD continues to be ruled by vassals of the Western occupying powers.
Self-respect and patriotism are held in contempt in Germany today; self-criticism and self-hatred are the prevailing trend. Leading intellectuals, the most well-known of whom is Guenter Grass, have expressly opposed the reunification with reference to Auschwitz (6).
Germany’s entry into the Europe of Maastricht, i.e., into a supranational government ruled by an anonymous bureaucracy, is advocated tooth and nail by all the parties represented in the German Bundestag. After the destruction of Germany as a state, the next objective of the ruling classes is the destruction of the German people itself.
This is to be achieved through artificially lowering the domestic birth rate by means of laws hostile to the family, by facilitating abortion, as well as by encouraging the mass immigration of people from foreign cultures, most recently from Black Africa.
Rendering impossible any objective discussion of National Socialism
An objective discussion of National Socialism, with its strengths and weaknesses, is simply impossible today. Any mention of the achievements and positive aspects of the National Socialist system — for example, the elimination of unemployment and the economic upswing which set in soon after Hitler’s rise to power — is immediately howled down with screams about Auschwitz.
Creating contempt for all forms of nationalism except jewish nationalism
While the Auschwitz truncheon was first used only on the Germans, it is now directed, to an increasingly greater extent, against all other white nationalities. The argument in this regard runs approximately as follows:
– the world sat by and did nothing while Hitler slaughtered the jews by millions. Neither the Western powers nor the Soviets nor the International Red Cross nor the Vatican denounced the genocide nor attempted to rescue the jews, although they knew just what the “Nazis” were doing. Therefore, the white race as a whole is jointly guilty for the Holocaust;
– since the extermination of the jews was permitted without resistance AT THAT TIME, we must repent for our sins and grant residence to all asylum seekers from foreign cultures TODAY. If we were to send them back to their own countries, they might suffer persecution, torture, and death; we would therefore be guilty again!
– all forms of nationalism (except, of course, jewish nationalism) is therefore highly dangerous, since it all too easily leads to racism, and therefore involves the danger of a new Holocaust. A “nationalist”, of course, is anyone who resists the mass immigration of coloureds and Moslems to Europe and North America.
In practice, the Holocaust means that White nations no longer have the right to their own identity. They have a moral duty to allow themselves to be overrun and displaced. “What, you’re not against immigration, are you? You must be a ‘NAZI!’”
During the Holocaust, Nazis referred to Jews as rats. Hutus involved in the Rwanda genocide called Tutsis cockroaches. Slave owners throughout history considered slaves subhuman animals.
In Less Than Human, David Livingstone Smith argues that it’s important to define and describe dehumanization, because it’s what opens the door for cruelty and genocide.
“We all know, despite what we see in the movies,” Smith tells NPR’s Neal Conan, “that it’s very difficult, psychologically, to kill another human being up close and in cold blood, or to inflict atrocities on them.”
So, when it does happen, it can be helpful to understand what it is that allows human beings “to overcome the very deep and natural inhibitions they have against treating other people like game animals or vermin or dangerous predators.”
In addition to posing with the corpses, “these soldiers — called the ‘kill team’ — also took body parts as trophies,” Smith alleges, “which is very often a phenomenon that accompanies the form of dehumanization in which the enemy is seen as game.”
But this is just the latest iteration in a pattern that has unfolded time and again over the course of history. In ancient Chinese, Egyptian and Mesopotamian literature, Smith found repeated references to enemies as subhuman creatures. But it’s not as simple as a comparison.
“When people dehumanize others, they actually conceive of them as subhuman creatures,” says Smith. Only then can the process “liberate aggression and exclude the target of aggression from the moral community.”
When the Nazis described Jews as Untermenschen, or subhumans, they didn’t mean it metaphorically, says Smith. “They didn’t mean they were like subhumans.
They meant they were literally subhuman.”
Human beings have long conceived of the universe as a hierarchy of value, says Smith, with God at the top and inert matter at the bottom, and everything else in between.
That model of the universe “doesn’t make scientific sense,” says Smith, but “nonetheless, for some reason, we continue to conceive of the universe in that fashion, and we relegate nonhuman creatures to a lower position” on the scale.
Then, within the human category, there has historically been a hierarchy. In the 18th century, white Europeans — the architects of the theory — “modestly placed themselves at the very pinnacle.”
The lower edges of the category merged with the apes, according to their thinking.
So “sub-Saharan Africans and Native Americans were denizens of the bottom of the human category,” when they were even granted human status. Mostly, they were seen as “soulless animals.” And that dramatic dehumanization made it possible for great atrocities to take place.
Before I get to work explaining how dehumanization works, I want to make a preliminary case for its importance.
So, to get the ball rolling, I’ll briefly discuss the role that dehumanization played in what is rightfully considered the single most destructive event in human history: the Second World War.
More than seventy million people died in the war, most of them civilians. Millions died in combat.
Many were burned alive by incendiary bombs and, in the end, nuclear weapons. Millions more were victims of systematic genocide. Dehumanization made much of this carnage possible.
Let’s begin at the end. The 1946 Nuremberg doctors’ trial was the first of twelve military tribunals held in Germany after the defeat of Germany and Japan.
Twenty doctors and three administrators — twenty-two men and a single woman — stood accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity.
They had participated in Hitler’s euthanasia program, in which around 200,000 mentally and physically handicapped people deemed unfit to live were gassed to death, and they performed fiendish medical experiments on thousands of Jewish, Russian, Roma and Polish prisoners.
Principal prosecutor Telford Taylor began his opening statement with these somber words:
The defendants in this case are charged with murders, tortures and other atrocities committed in the name of medical science.
The victims of these crimes are numbered in the hundreds of thousands. A handful only are still alive; a few of the survivors will appear in this courtroom.
But most of these miserable victims were slaughtered outright or died in the course of the tortures to which they were subjected … To their murderers, these wretched people were not individuals at all. They came in wholesale lots and were treated worse than animals.
He went on to describe the experiments in detail. Some of these human guinea pigs were deprived of oxygen to simulate high altitude parachute jumps.
Others were frozen, infested with malaria, or exposed to mustard gas. Doctors made incisions in their flesh to simulate wounds, inserted pieces of broken glass or wood shavings into them, and then, tying off the blood vessels, introduced bacteria to induce gangrene.
Taylor described how men and women were made to drink seawater, were infected with typhus and other deadly diseases, were poisoned and burned with phosphorus, and how medical personnel
conscientiously recorded their agonized screams and violent convulsions.
Gaza school chemical attack
The descriptions in Taylor’s narrative are so horrifying that it’s easy to overlook what might seem like an insignificant rhetorical flourish: his comment that “these wretched people were … treated worse than animals“. But this comment raises a question of deep and fundamental importance.
What is it that enables one group of human beings to treat another group as though they were subhuman creatures?
A rough answer isn’t hard to come by. Thinking sets the agenda for action, and thinking of humans as less than human paves the way for atrocity.
The Nazis were explicit about the status of their victims. They were Untermenschen — subhumans — and as such were excluded from the system of moral rights and obligations that bind humankind together. It’s wrong to kill a person, but permissible to exterminate a rat.
To the Nazis, all the Jews, Gypsies and others were rats: dangerous, disease-carrying rats.
Jews were the main victims of this genocidal project. From the beginning, Hitler and his followers were convinced that the Jewish people posed a deadly threat to all that was noble in humanity.
In the apocalyptic Nazi vision, these putative enemies of civilization were represented as parasitic organisms — as leeches, lice, bacteria, or vectors of contagion.
“Today,” Hitler proclaimed in 1943, “international Jewry is the ferment of decomposition of peoples and states, just as it was in antiquity. It will remain that way as long as peoples do not find the strength to get rid of the virus.”
Both the death camps (the gas chambers of which were modeled on delousing chambers) and the Einsatzgruppen (paramilitary death squads that roamed across Eastern Europe followed in the wake of the advancing German army) were responses to what the Nazis perceived to be a lethal pestilence.
Sometimes the Nazis thought of their enemies as vicious, bloodthirsty predators rather than parasites.
When partisans in occupied regions of the Soviet Union began to wage a guerilla war against German forces, Walter von Reichenau, the commander-in-chief of the German army, issued an order to inflict a “severe but just retribution upon the Jewish subhuman elements” (the Nazis considered all of their enemies as part of “international Jewry”, and were convinced that Jews controlled the national governments of Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States).
Military historian Mary R. Habeck confirms that, “soldiers and officers thought of the Russians and Jews as ‘animals’ … that had to perish. Dehumanizing the enemy allowed German soldiers and officers to agree with the Nazis’ new vision of warfare, and to fight without granting the Soviets any mercy or quarter.”
Our enemies are dictated to us, we are taught to hate. The war on terror were wars on Israel’s naysayers..nothing to do with United States of America.
The Holocaust is the most thoroughly documented example of the ravages of dehumanization.
Its hideousness strains the limits of imagination. And yet, focusing on it can be strangely comforting.
It’s all too easy to imagine that the Third Reich was a bizarre aberration, a kind of mass insanity instigated by a small group of deranged ideologues who conspired to seize political power and bend a nation to their will.
Alternatively, it’s tempting to imagine that the Germans were (or are) a uniquely cruel and bloodthirsty people.
Palestinians have to run for their lives from the Zionist invading army
But these diagnoses are dangerously wrong. What’s most disturbing about the Nazi phenomenon is not that the Nazis were madmen or monsters. It’s that they were ordinary human beings.
When we think of dehumanization during World War II our minds turn to the Holocaust, but it wasn’t only the Germans who dehumanized their enemies.
While the architects of the Final Solution were busy implementing their lethal program of racial hygiene, the Russian-Jewish poet and novelist Ilya Ehrenburg was churning out propaganda for distribution to Stalin’s Red Army.
These pamphlets seethed with dehumanizing rhetoric: they spoke of “the smell of Germany’s animal breath,” and described Germans as “two-legged animals who have mastered the technique of war” — “ersatz men” who ought to be annihilated.
“The Germans are not human beings,” Ehrenburg wrote, “… If you kill one German, kill another — there is nothing more amusing for us than a heap of German corpses.”
This wasn’t idle talk. The Wehrmacht had taken the lives of 23 million Soviet citizens, roughly half of them civilians.
When the tide of the war finally turned, a torrent of Russian forces poured into Germany from the east, and their inexorable advance became an orgy of rape and murder.
“They were certainly egged on by Ehrenburg and other Soviet propagandists…” writes journalist Giles McDonough:
East Prussia was the first German region visited by the Red Army … In the course of a single night the red army killed seventy-two women and one man.
Most of the women had been raped, of whom the oldest was eighty-four. Some of the victims had been crucified …
A witness who made it to the west talked of a poor village girl who was raped by an entire tank squadron from eight in the evening to nine in the morning. One man was shot and fed to the pigs.
Palestine’s Foreign Ministry has warned against Israel’s use of the Holocaust to cover up its crimes against the Palestinian people and the occupation of Arab lands.
The Foreign Ministry urged in a Wednesday press release the participants in the 5th World Holocaust Forum — which will be held Thursday in Jerusalem — to be careful with “the political contexts Israel is trying to employ and exploit in this occasion.”
“Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the leaders of the [Israeli] occupation are using the forum to conceal the true face of Israel as it occupies the land of another country, settles there and commits the most heinous crimes against the Palestinian people that amounted to the level of war crimes and crimes against humanity,” the statement read.
“The international community which was previously unable to prevent the Holocaust from occurring, must pay close attention to the suffering of the Palestinian people under the occupation,” it added.
The Palestinian Foreign Ministry renewed “its strong condemnation of the Holocaust.”
At least 40 leaders will participate in the 5th World Holocaust Forum, scheduled for Thursday in West Jerusalem.
The majority of Jews in Europe were not Zionists and wanted nothing to do with Palestine.
Ben-Gurion had requested an initial analysis on the absorptive potential on Palestine in early 1941, and in late 1942 commissioned a “master plan” for the proposed immigration.
The plan to annex Israeli-controlled parts of the West Bank is just the logical next step in Israel’s historic effort to ghettoize the Palestinians.
George S. Patton, commander of the U.S. Third Army: “I have been at
Frankfurt for a civil government conference. If what we are doing (to
the Germans) is ‘Liberty, then give me death.’ I can’t see how Americans
can sink so low. It’s the Jews, and I am sure of it.”
Dangerous Liaison: The Inside Story of the U.S. – Israeli Covert Relationship
excerpt Magazine article Washington Report on Middle East Affairs
The premise is that there’s a side to the relationship between the U.S. and Israel which goes much beyond just the sentimental links and the links forged by supporters of Israel in this country.
What we say, what we explain is that there has been since almost the earliest days of the Israeli state and the earliest days of the CIA a secret bond, a secret link between them, basically by which the Israelis — the Israeli intelligence — did jobs for the CIA and for the rest of American intelligence.
You can’t understand what’s been going on around the world with American covert operations and the Israeli covert operations until you understand that the two countries have this secret arrangement. Andrew Cockburn
Two hundred pages into this 416-page fact-filled book, I recognized that it is the best compendium of information about the multifaceted secret relationships between Israel and private American citizens, and with the U.S. government itself, ever assembled.
This is reason enough to recommend the book. As I continued reading the second half, however, I found it also contained much information that was new to me, despite 30 years of full-time involvement in U.S.-Middle East affairs.
For a serious student of the history of Israeli dirty tricks, U.S. voluntary and involuntary involvement in them, and their results in making the Middle East into what it is today, there can be no more useful book.
This husband-and-wife journalistic team sketches in seven short sentences the essential fact about the U.S.-Israeli relationship that could give the U.S. the power to control it, instead of being controlled by it. Describing a contemptuous reaction by Israeli journalist Gideon Levi to a live-ammunition performance by Israel Defense Force soldiers on the Golan Heights for the edification of busloads of American Jewish tourists, the authors write:
“What Levi called the `masses of women with blue hair and pseudo-athletic men’ and many others like them back in the U.S. contribute at least $1 billion a year in private donations to Israel.
These donations are tax-deductible. The state raises another $500 million a year through the sale of Israel bonds. U.S. commercial banks lend an additional $1 billion.
Such generosity is dwarfed by the contributions of U.S. taxpayers overall, which amount to almost $4 billion in military and economic aid, at least, even in peacetime. All this adds up to well over $6 billion a year, or $1,300 for each and every Israeli.
Israel’s gross national product amounts to some $24 billion a year, so the country is receiving one quarter of its total income in the form of gifts from U.S. citizens, acting either as philanthropists or taxpayers.”
Closer to the theme of the book, the Cockburns point out that “the weapons trade accounts for almost 40 percent of Israel’s export earnings — S1.5 billion a year.”
How Israel has developed those weapons, with stolen U.S. technology, and markets for them, by selling arms and technology to world pariahs ranging from South Africa to Colombian drug lords while the U.S. looks the other way, is part of what the book is all about.
Ironies of tiny Israel’s gigantic weapons trade are illustrated by the book’s description of Shaul Nehemiah Eisenberg, the richest man in Israel, who, the Cockburns report, “represents the ultimate confluence of arms, intelligence and political power.”
Eisenberg supervised modernization of the Chinese army’s weaponry, an upgrading of the entire Chinese tankforce, and even an improvement of the Chinese “Eastwind” ballistic missiles, which ultimately were purchased by Saudi Arabia, “whose defense purchases from the United States have always met with strenuous Israeli objections.”
The fact that while the Israeli government, through its Washington, DC lobby, blocks the access of major Arab states to U.S. weapons, it actually works with the other arms-producing countries which ultimately get the arms orders of some of the same Arab countries is the kind of thing that is unbelievable to most Americans, but carefully documented in this book.
The Cockburns present seldom-recalled historical facts. Most of the founding fathers of Israel “were born within 500 miles of the city of Minsk.”
The best known among them, Plonsk-born David Gruen, who renamed himself David Ben-Gurion upon arriving in Palestine in 1906, was “an atheist who refused to attend a synagogue; he adopted Zionism as his religion.”
Among those early leaders who became Israeli prime ministers, Ben-Gurion rival Menachem Begin’s Irgun Zvai Leumi had split from its revisionist parent group, Lehi, over the issue of opposing Hitler during World War II. …
Until the present day, wide-spread confusion regarding the meaning of the terms Judaism and Zionism persists both inside and outside Israel. As the popular opinion that the terms are synonyms implies the false assumption that anti-Zionism equals anti-Semitism, the Israeli right-wing regime uses this dangerous shortcut in order to justify its ongoing colonization of Palestine. Based on the work of Israel’s New Historians, this master thesis aims at deconstructing the mainstream mindset concerning Judaism and Zionism by analysing the nature of the principal ideological streams and their complex interconnections before and after 1948; focussing on orthodox Judaism, religious Zionism, Jewish radical messianism, Jewish fundamentalism, the ideological change of traditional Zionism and, last but not least, the role of Christian Zionism in the United States.
The establishment of the State of Israel would have been possible without the Holocaust due to the Zionist movement, however the reparations from the Holocaust given by West Germany gave Israel the resources necessary to survive.
The Holocaust played an important role in the founding and long term visibility of the State of Israel in three respects: The Holocaust motivated large numbers of immigrants to move to the new country, providing the necessary population; secondly, the Holocaust enabled Israel to pressure Germany into supplying the economic base necessary to build infrastructure and support those immigrants; and finally, the Holocaust swayed world opinion so that the United Nations approved the State of Israel in 1948.
“The Zionist movement did not send any assistance, financial or otherwise, for the victims of Nazism and it did not allow any other side to provide any kind of aid.
The Zionist movement concealed the information that came from within the ghetto walls and concentration camps, news that shed light on what was really happening.
If it had to publish anything, it did so by questioning that information and diminishing its importance.”
“Zionism adopted the Nazi selection principle, when it went to save Jews from the slaughter.
It made itself the ultimate arbiter regarding Jewish life, deciding who deserves to live and who deserves to die.”
“The Zionist movement did not make any effort to convince Western countries to take in the Jewish refugees escaping the horrors of the Holocaust.
It even placed obstacles I the way of efforts made by Christian groups or by non-Zionist Jews or a number of countries that saw fit to find a solution to this humanitarian problem.”
“All of this wasn’t enough – the Zionist movement led a broad campaign of incitement against the Jews living under Nazi rule to arouse the government’s hatred of them, to fuel vengeance against them.”
From Mahmoud Abbas’ book “The Other Side: The Secret Relationship Between Nazism and Zionism” (Billsan Publising House, Ramallah, 2011), based on his doctoral dissertation.
Among other things, “How can one believe that the Zionist movement, which set out to protect a nation, would later become the reason for its destruction?
History teaches us about (the Emperor) Nero who torched Rome.
But Nero was mad, and his madness rids him of the responsibility to his actions.
History also teaches us about leaders who betrayed their people and their country and sold them out to their enemies.
But these leaders are isolated. They alone carry the responsibility for their actions.
But when a large national public movement conspires against its ‘people,’ well that is embarrassing…
“An Arab proverb says: ‘If a dispute arises between thieves, the theft is discovered.’
This is what happened with the Zionist movement.
When ‘Labor’ (Mapai) was in power in the State of Israel, it refused to include the revisionists and those started exposing facts and blowing away the smoke screen of lies.
We cannot fail to mention that many of the Zionist movement’s people during the war were amazed of the results of the cooperation between the Zionists and the Nazis, and the massive amount of victims struck them with terror…
To this one must add that many documents from the Third Reich had reached many hands, which allowed us to present these documents that illustrate the nature of the relations and cooperation between the Nazis and the Zionist movement.”
Though the history of war-crime trials in postwar Germany and the representation of the Holocaust in Allied proceedings currently find widespread interest among historians, the roles that Jews played in and around the Nuremberg tribunal have largely been neglected.
Colonel David “Mickey” Marcus, a fervent Zionist, became the “number three man in making American policy” in occupied Germany. As chief of the US government’s War Crimes Branch in 1946 and 1947, he selected almost all of the judges, prosecutors and lawyers for the Nuremberg NMT Trials. He was a United States Armycolonel — later Israel‘s first general — who was a principal architect of the U.S. military’s World War II civil affairs policies, including the organization of the war crimes trials in Germany and in Japan. (He later became a commander of Zionist “Haganah” military forces in Palestine.)
Germany’s wartime treatment of the Jews figured prominently in the Nuremberg trials. In their condemnation of the defendants, the Allies gave special emphasis to the alleged extermination of six million European Jews. [That was the first lie.] [ Sealed and guarded since the end of WWII at Arolsen, Germany: Official IRC records reveal the actual Concentration Camp total death toll was 271,301.]
The Nuremberg enterprise violated ancient and fundamental principles of justice. The victorious Allies acted as prosecutor, judge and executioner of the German leaders.
The charges were created especially for the occasion, and were applied only to the vanquished. Defeated, starving, prostrate Germany was, however, in no position to oppose whatever the Allied occupation powers demanded.
As even some leading Allied figures privately acknowledged at the time, the Nuremberg trials were organized not to dispense impartial justice, but for political purposes.
Sir Norman Birkett, British alternate judge at the Nuremberg Tribunal, explained in a private letter in April 1946 that “the trial is only in form a judicial process and its main importance is political.”
Robert Jackson, the chief US prosecutor and a former US Attorney General, declared that the Nuremberg Tribunal “is a continuation of the war effort of the Allied nations” against Germany. He added that the Tribunal “is not bound by the procedural and substantive refinements of our respective judicial or constitutional system …”
Judge Iola T. Nikitchenko, who presided at the Tribunal’s solemn opening session, was a vice-chairman of the supreme court of the USSR before and after his service at Nuremberg.
In August 1936 he had been a judge at the infamous Moscow show trial of Zinoviev and Kamenev. At a joint planning conference shortly before the Nuremberg Tribunal convened, Nikitchenko bluntly explained the Soviet view of the enterprise:
We are dealing here with the chief war criminals who have already been convicted and whose conviction has been already announced by both the Moscow and Crimea [Yalta] declarations by the heads of the [Allied] governments… The whole idea is to secure quick and just punishment for the crime…
The fact that the Nazi leaders are criminals has already been established. The task of the Tribunal is only to determine the measure of guilt of each particular person and mete out the necessary punishment — the sentences.
Indicative of the largely political nature of the Nuremberg process was the important Jewish role in organizing these trials.
Nahum Goldmann signing the Reparations Treaty with Germany, 1952
Nahum Goldmann, one-time president of both the World Jewish Congress and the World Zionist Organization, reported in his memoir that the Nuremberg Tribunal was the brain-child of World Jewish Congress officials.
Only after persistent effort were WJC officials able to persuade Allied leaders to accept the idea, he added.
The World Jewish Congress also played an important but less obvious role in the day to day proceedings.
Above all, the powerful but secretive organization made sure that Germany’s persecution of the Jews was a primary focus of the trials, and that the defendants were punished for their involvement in that process.
Two Jewish officers in the US Army — Lieutenant Colonel Murray Bernays and Colonel David “Mickey” Marcus — played key roles in the Nuremberg enterprise.
In the words of historian Robert Conot, Bernays was “the guiding spirit leading the way to Nuremberg.” Bernays, a successful New York attorney, persuaded US War Secretary Henry Stimson and others to accept the idea of putting the defeated German leaders on trial.
Marcus, a fervent Zionist, became the “number three man in making American policy” in occupied Germany. As chief of the US government’s War Crimes Branch in 1946 and 1947, he selected almost all of the judges, prosecutors and lawyers for the Nuremberg NMT Trials.
(He later became a commander of Zionist “Haganah” military forces in Palestine.)
Some of the Americans who participated in the Nuremberg trials became disillusioned with the entire business.
One of the few to make public his feelings was Charles F. Wennerstrum, an Iowa Supreme Court justice who served as presiding judge in the Nuremberg trial of German generals.
“If I had known seven months ago what I know today, I would never have come here,” he declared immediately after sentences were pronounced.
“The high ideals announced as the motives for creating these tribunals have not been evident,” he added.
Wennerstrum cautiously referred to the extensive Jewish involvement in the Nuremberg process.
“The entire atmosphere here is unwholesome … Lawyers, clerks, interpreters and researchers were employed who became Americans only in recent years, whose backgrounds were imbedded in Europe’s hatreds and prejudices.”
He criticized the one-sided handling of evidence. “Most of the evidence in the trials was documentary, selected from the large tonnage of captured records.
The selection was made by the prosecution. The defense had access only to those documents which the prosecution considered material to the case.”
He concluded that “the trials were to have convinced the Germans of the guilt of their leaders. They convinced the Germans merely that their leaders lost the war to tough conquerors.” Wennerstrum left Nuremberg “with a feeling that justice has been denied.”
America’s leading jurist was dismayed by the Nuremberg process. US Supreme Court Chief Justice Harlan Fiske Stone remarked with irritation: “[Chief US prosecutor] Jackson is away conducting his high-grade lynching party in Nuremberg.
[Many people were and are still convinced that these trials were purely a creation of the victors to exercise vengeance on the Germans. The term victor’s justice is strongly connected with the concept of vengeance.]
I don’t mind what he does to the Nazis, but I hate to see the pretense that he is running a court and proceeding according to common law.
This is a little too sanctimonious a fraud to meet my old-fashioned ideas.” In a private letter he wrote: “… I wonder how some of those who preside at the trials would justify some of the acts of their own governments if they were placed in the status of the accused.”
On another occasion Stone specifically wondered “whether, under this new [Nuremberg] doctrine of international law, if we had been defeated, the victors could plausibly assert that our supplying Britain with fifty destroyers [in 1940] was an act of aggression …”
In Congress, US Representative Lawrence H. Smith of Wisconsin declared: “The Nuremberg trials are so repugnant to the Anglo-Saxon principles of justice that we must forever be ashamed of that page in our history … The Nuremberg farce represents a revenge policy at its worst.”
“israel” Now that the victors have taken over beautiful historic Palestine which is what world wars 1-2 led up to: “If the Jews were alone in this world, they would stifle in filth and offal; they would try to get ahead of one another in hate-filled struggle and exterminate one another, in so far as the absolute absence of all sense of self-sacrifice, expressing itself in their cowardice, did not turn battle into comedy here too.”-Mein Kemf
Average Israeli family chucks away thousands of shekels a year in food that is still edible, non-profit says
Another Congressman, John Rankin of Mississippi, stated: “As a representative of the American people I desire to say that what is taking place in Nuremberg, Germany, is a disgrace to the United States… A racial minority, two and a half years after the war closed, are in Nuremberg not only hanging German soldiers but trying German businessmen in the name of the United States.”
Probably the most courageous condemnation was by US Senator Robert A. Taft, widely regarded as the “conscience of the Republican party.” At considerable risk to his political career, he denounced the Nuremberg enterprise in an October 1946 speech.
He also emerged as a prominent non-interventionist and opposed U.S. involvement into World War II prior to the 1941 Japanese Attack on Pearl Harbor. Taft’s non-interventionist stances damaged his 1940 candidacy, and the 1940 Republican National Convention nominated Wendell Willkie. Taft sought the presidency again in 1948, but he lost to Dewey at the 1948 Republican National Convention. He opposed the creation of NATO and criticized President Harry Truman’s handling of the Korean War.
“The trial of the vanquished by the victors cannot be impartial no matter how it is hedged about with the forms of justice,” he said. Taft went on:
About this whole judgment there is the spirit of vengeance, and vengeance is seldom justice.
The hanging of the eleven men convicted will be a blot on the American record which we will long regret. In these trials we have accepted the Russian idea of the purpose of trials — government policy and not justice — with little relation to Anglo-Saxon heritage.
By clothing policy in the forms of legal procedure, we many discredit the whole idea of justice in Europe for years to come.
Milton R. Konvitz, a Jewish specialist of law and public administration who taught at New York University, warned at the time that the Nuremberg Tribunal “defies many of the most basic assumptions of the judicial process.”
He went on: “Our policy with respect to the Nazis is consistent with neither international law nor our own State Department’s policy… The Nuremberg trial constitutes a real threat to the basic conceptions of justice which it has taken mankind thousands of years to establish.”
In the years since, distinguished figures in both the United States and other countries have expressed similar views. US Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas wrote: “I thought at the time and still think that the Nuremberg trials were unprincipled.
Law was created ex post facto to suit the passion and clamor of the time.”
US Rear Admiral H. Lamont Pugh, former Navy Surgeon General and Commanding Officer of the National Naval Medical Center, wrote: “I thought the trials in general bordered upon international lunacy.
I thought it particularly unfortunate, inappropriate, ill-conceived and dupably injudicious that the United States should have been cast in the leading role as prosecutors and implementators of the trials of German participants or principals.”
Another indictment of the Nuremberg trial appeared more recently in the pages of the liberal New Republic:
The whole majesty of the Western heritage of the law was used to subvert that heritage in the Nuremberg Tribunal.
Weighty jurists in every Western country (but not Russia) protested against this travesty of the Western legal system. So did historians.
So did merely cultured and moral men and women. If the victors were to “try” the vanquished for war crimes, then they should try themselves for often committing the same crimes.
Who would try [British] Air Chief Marshal Sir Arthur Travers “Bomber” Harris, the architect of the policy of saturation bombing of German cities? But it was not only a matter of our own “war crimes.”
If it was right to use the apparatus of the law to punish those responsible for exceptional crimes like the Holocaust, it was wrong to use it to punish errors of judgment and statecraft such as every defeated regime seems to have committed.
“We used the methods of the enemy” — and used them in peace at Nuremberg.
While the Nuremberg trials were underway, and for some time afterwards, there was quite a lot of talk about the universal validity of the new legal code established there. A new age of international justice had begun, it was claimed. Many sincerely believed that the four Allied powers would themselves abide by the Tribunal’s standards.
As it happened, none of the four powers that participated in the Tribunal ever made the slightest effort to apply the principles so solemnly and self-righteously proclaimed at Nuremberg either to their own leaders or to those of any other country.
No Soviet leader was executed for the Soviet military interventions in Hungary in 1956 or Czechoslovakia in 1968. No British leader was put on trial for the British invasion of Egypt in October 1956. President Eisenhower was not tried for his invasion of Lebanon in 1958.
President Kennedy was not hanged for his ill-fated 1962 “Bay of Pigs” invasion of Cuba.
President Johnson was never called to judicial account for his conduct of the war in Vietnam or his invasion of the Dominican Republic.
President Nixon was not brought before a tribunal for his armed “incursion” into Cambodia.
When (North) Vietnamese officials threatened to put captured US airmen on trial in 1966, US Senator Everett Dirksen was moved to remark that the Nuremberg trials “may have been a ghastly mistake.”
A double standard
In conducting the Nuremberg trials, the Allied governments themselves violated international law. For one thing, their treatment of the German defendants and the military prisoners who testified violated articles 56, 58 and others of the Geneva convention of July 1929.
Justice — as opposed to vengeance — is a standard that is applied impartially. At Nuremberg, though, standards of “justice” applied only to the vanquished.
The four powers that sat in judgment were themselves guilty of many of the very crimes they accused the German leaders of committing.
Chief US prosecutor Robert Jackson privately acknowledged in a letter to President Truman that the Allies
have done or are doing some of the very things we are prosecuting the Germans for. The French are so violating the Geneva Convention in the treatment of [German] prisoners of war that our command is taking back prisoners sent to them [for forced labor in France]. We are prosecuting plunder and our Allies are practicing it. We say aggressive war is a crime and one of our allies asserts sovereignty over the Baltic States based on no title except conquest.
In violation of the first Nuremberg count of “planning, preparation, initiating or waging a war of aggression,” the Soviet Union attacked Finland in December 1939 (and was expelled from the League of Nations as a result).
A few months later the Red Army invaded Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, and ruthlessly incorporated them into the Soviet Union.
The postwar French government violated international law and the Nuremberg charge of “maltreatment of prisoners of war” by employing large numbers of German prisoners of war as forced laborers in France.
In 1945 the United States, Britain and the Soviet Union jointly agreed to the brutal deportation of more than ten million Germans from their ancient homes in eastern and central Europe, a violation of the Nuremberg count of “deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population.”
While Allied prosecutors charged the defendants with a “crime against peace” in planning the German invasion of Norway in 1940, the British government eventually had to admit that Britain and France were themselves guilty of the same “crime” in preparing a military invasion of Norway, code-named “Stratford,” before the German move.
And in August 1941, Britain and the Soviet Union jointly invaded and occupied Iran, a neutral nation.
Given this record, it is hardly surprising that the four governments that organized the Nuremberg trial of 1945-1946 included no definition of “aggression” in the Tribunal’s Charter.
Mikhail Vozlenski, a Soviet historian who served as a translator at the Nuremberg Tribunal in 1946, later recalled that he and the other Soviet personnel felt out of place there because the alleged crimes of the German leaders were “the norm of our life” in the Soviet Union.
The Soviet role in the proceedings, which the United States fully supported, moved American diplomat and historian George F. Kennan to condemn the entire Nuremberg enterprise as a “horror” and a “mockery.”
Nuremberg’s double standard was condemned at the time by the British weekly The Economist.
It pointed out that whereas both Britain and France had supported the expulsion of the Soviet Union from the League of Nations in 1939 for its unprovoked attack against Finland, just six years later these same two governments were cooperating with the USSR as a respected equal at Nuremberg.
“Nor should the Western world console itself that the Russians alone stand condemned at the bar of the Allies’ own justice,” the Economist editorial went on. It continued: /31
… Among crimes against humanity stands the offence of the indiscriminate bombing of civilian populations. Can the Americans who dropped the atom bomb and the British who destroyed the cities of western Germany plead “not guilty” on this count?
Crimes against humanity also include the mass expulsion of populations. Can the Anglo-Saxon leaders who at Potsdam condoned the expulsion of millions of Germans from their homes hold themselves completely innocent?… The nations sitting in judgment [at Nuremberg] have so clearly proclaimed themselves exempt from the law which they have administered.
An official with the postwar US military occupation administration in Germany commented: “What good are the high-flown morals enunciated at Nuremberg if the Americans have agreed to such things as deportation in documents which bear official signatures, and which, therefore, give the Allies the legal right to do the things which at Nuremberg they described as immoral?”
If the Nuremberg Tribunal’s standards had been applied to the victors of the Second World War, American General and supreme Allied commander in Europe Dwight Eisenhower would have been hanged.
At the end of the war Eisenhower ordered that German prisoners in American military custody were no longer to be treated according to the Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war.
This violation of international law removed masses of Germans from the protection of the International Red Cross (ICRC), and condemned hundreds of thousands of them to slow death by starvation and disease.
Perhaps nothing better illustrates the essentially unfair character of the Nuremberg proceedings than the treatment of Rudolf Hess, Hitler’s deputy.
He was sentenced to life imprisonment even though he alone of leading figures of the countries involved in the Second World War risked his life in a dangerous but fruitless effort to conclude peace between two of the warring nations.
British historian A.J.P. Taylor once succinctly summed up the injustice of the Hess case and, by implication, of the entire Nuremberg enterprise:
Hess came to this country in 1941 as an ambassador of peace. He came with the … intention of restoring peace between Great Britain and Germany.
He acted in good faith. He fell into our hands and was quite unjustly treated as a prisoner of war.
After the war, we should have released him. Instead, the British government of the time delivered him for sentencing to the International Tribunal at Nuremberg … No crime has ever been proved against Hess … As far as the records show, he was never at even one of the secret discussions at which Hitler explained his war plans.
The problem of evidence
The victorious Allies thoroughly scoured Germany for every scrap of paper that might be used to incriminate the defeated regime. Never before or since have a nation’s records been so completely ransacked.
In addition to official government papers, including countless secret documents tracing Germany’s wartime Jewish policy, the Allies confiscated the records of the National Socialist Party and its affiliated organizations, as well as those of numerous private business firms, institutions and individuals.
The sheer quantity of paper seized is staggering. For example, the records of the German Foreign Office confiscated by US officials amounted to some 485 tons of paper.
From this mountain of paper, US military personnel alone selected some two thousand documents considered most incriminating for use in the main Nuremberg trial.
The tons of confiscated records were later shipped to the United States. It is estimated that in the US National Archives alone, more than one million pages of documents on the Third Reich’s Jewish policy are on file.
Many hundreds of these Nuremberg documents have since been published, most notably by the U.S. government in the 42-volume “blue series” record of the main Nuremberg trial, the 15-volume “green series” record of the “second string” Nuremberg trials, and in the 11-volume “red series.”
It is as if governments hostile to the United States were to seize the top secret files of the Pentagon and CIA, and then selectively publish the most embarrassing and incriminating documents from the vast collection.
In the years since the Nuremberg trials, historians of many different countries have carefully sifted through the German records, including countless documents that were not available to the Nuremberg prosecutors.
Historians have been able to compare and cross-check the records of different ministries and agencies, as well as numerous private diaries and papers.
And yet, out of this great mass of paper, not a single document has ever been found that confirms or even refers to an extermination program.
A number of historians have commented on this remarkable “gap” in the evidence. French-Jewish historian Leon Poliakov, for example, noted in his best-known Holocaust work:
The archives of the Third Reich and the depositions and accounts of its leaders make possible a reconstruction, down to the last detail, of the origin and development of the plans for aggression, the military campaigns, and the whole array of procedures by which the Nazis intended to reshape the world to their liking.
Only the campaign to exterminate the Jews, as regards its conception as well as many other essential aspects, remains shrouded in darkness.
No documents of a plan for exterminating the Jews have ever been found, he added, because “perhaps none ever existed.”
At Nuremberg, the German documents were in the custody of the Allied prosecutors, who did not permit defense attorneys to make their own selections of the material.
Historian Werner Maser has pointed out that at Nuremberg “thousands of documents which seemed likely possibly to incriminate the Allies and exonerate the defendants suddenly disappeared… There is much evidence that documents were confiscated, concealed from the defense or even stolen in 1945.”
Other important documents suddenly “disappeared” when specifically requested by defense attorneys.
Officials at the National Archives in Washington have confirmed to this writer on several occasions that the originals of numerous Nuremberg documents remain “lost” to this day.
The Tribunal refused to allow in evidence several collections of German and captured foreign documents published during the war as German Foreign Office “White Books.”
Most of the 1,809 affidavits prepared by the Nuremberg defense have never been made public.
Among the documents that the defense was not permitted to bring to light was the secret supplement to the German-Soviet treaty of August 23, 1939, which divided eastern Europe into German and Soviet spheres of influence.
After the Nuremberg Tribunal pronounced its sentence, Foreign Minister von Ribbentrop pointed out some of the obstacles put up in his particular case:
The defense had no fair chance to defend German foreign policy. Our prepared application for the submission of evidence was not allowed … Without good cause being shown, half of the 300 documents which the defense prepared were not admitted.
Witnesses and affidavits were only admitted after the prosecution had been heard; most of them were rejected… Correspondence between Hitler and Chamberlain, reports by ambassadors and diplomatic minutes, etc., were rejected.
Only the prosecution, not the defense, had access to German and foreign archives. The prosecution only searched for incriminating documents and their use was biased. It knowingly concealed exonerating documents and withheld them from the defense.
The Charter of the International Military Tribunal permitted the use of normally inadmissible “evidence.” Article 19 specified that “The Tribunal shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence… and shall admit any evidence which it deems to have probative value.” Article 21 stipulated:
The Tribunal shall not require proof of facts of common knowledge but shall take judicial notice thereof.
It shall also take judicial notice of official governmental documents and reports of the United [Allied] Nations, including acts and documents of the committees set up in the various allied countries for the investigation of war crimes, and the records and findings of military and other Tribunals of any of the United [Allied] Nations.
On the basis of these articles, the Tribunal accepted as valid the most dubious “evidence,” including hearsay and unsubstantiated reports of Soviet and American “investigative” commissions. For example, the Tribunal accepted an American congressional report that “proved” gas chamber killings at Dachau, and a Polish government report (submitted by the US) that “proved” killings by steam at Treblinka.
(No reputable historian now accepts either of these stories.)
In addition, the Tribunal validated Soviet reports about Auschwitz and Majdanek (documents USSR-8 and USSR-29), which explained in detail how the Germans killed four million at Auschwitz and another one-and-a-half million at Majdanek. (These days, no reputable historian accepts either of these fantastic figures.)
German guilt for the killing of thousands of Polish officers in the Katyn forest near Smolensk was similarly confirmed by Nuremberg document USSR-54.
This detailed report by yet another Soviet “investigative” commission was submitted as proof for the charge made in the joint indictment of the four Allied governments.
As a Soviet prosecutor explained: “We find, in the Indictment, one of the most important criminal acts for which the major war criminals are responsible was the mass execution of Polish prisoners of war shot in the Katyn forest near Smolensk by the German fascist invaders.”
(Interestingly, two of the eight members of the Soviet Katyn Commission were also members of the Soviet Auschwitz commission: Academician N. Burdenko and Metropolitan Nikolai.)
It wasn’t until 1990 that the Soviet government finally acknowledged that the Katyn massacre was carried out, not by a German unit, as “proven” at Nuremberg, but by the Soviet secret police.
It is sometimes claimed that the evidence presented by the prosecution to the Nuremberg Tribunal was so incontrovertible that none of the defense attorneys ever disputed the authenticity or accuracy of even a single prosecution document.
This is not true. Not only did defense lawyers protest against the prosecution use of spurious documents, but some of the most important Nuremberg documents are now generally acknowledged to be fraudulent.
For example, defense attorney Dr. Boehm protested to the Tribunal that Nuremberg document 1721-PS, which purportedly confirms attacks by stormtroopers against Jewish synagogues in November 1938, is a clumsy forgery. He went on to explain his reasons at some length.
Several Nuremberg documents based on the purported “death bed confession” of Mauthausen commandant Franz Ziereis, are demonstrably fraudulent.
(Nuremberg documents 1515-PS, 3870-PS, and NO-1973.) These documents supposedly prove systematic killings of hundreds of thousands of people by gassing and other means at Mauthausen and Hartheim.
Almost forty years after the Tribunal handed down its verdicts, Nuremberg document USSR-378 was definitively exposed as a fraud. It is a purported record of numerous private conversations with Hitler by Hermann Rauschning, a former National Socialist official in Danzig.
In brutal language, the Führer supposedly revealed his most intimate thoughts and secret plans for world conquest. Rauschning’s “memoir” was published in 1939 in Britain under the title Hitler Speaks, and in the United States in 1940 as The Voice of Destruction.
It was this US edition that was accepted in evidence at Nuremberg as proof of the “guiding principles of the Nazi regime.”
Chief British prosecutor Sir Hartley Shawcross and his Soviet colleagues cited numerous quotations from it.
Defendant Baldur von Schirach contested its authenticity, but defense attorney Pelckmann (who did not know any better) accepted this “evidence” as authentic. /50 In 1983 Swiss historian Wolfgang Hänel established that the “memoir” is entirely fraudulent.
Rauschning never had even a single private meeting with Hitler.
Another fraudulent Nuremberg document is the so-called “Hossbach protocol” (document 386-PS), a purported record of a high-level 1937 conference at which Hitler supposedly revealed his secret plans for aggressive conquest.
US Nuremberg prosecutor Sidney Alderman called it “one of the most striking and revealing of all the captured documents,” and told the Tribunal that it removed any remaining doubts about the guilt of the Germans leaders for their crimes against peace. It was largely on the basis of this document that Göring was condemned to death.
Similarly spurious is Nuremberg document L-3 (US-28), supposedly a record of a bellicose speech by Hitler to armed forces commanders on August 22, 1939.
It contains a widely cited quotation attributed to Hitler, “Who talks nowadays of the extermination of the Armenians?”
Jewish historian Lucy Dawidowicz, author of The War Against the Jews, acknowledged that “There are also Holocaust documents that are outright falsification and some that purvey myth rather than historical fact.”
Much of the evidence for the Holocaust story presented at Nuremberg and in subsequent trials has been “survivor testimony.”
As numerous historians have acknowledged, though, such testimony is often defective.
Gerald Reitlinger cautioned readers of his detailed study, The Final Solution, that Holocaust evidence, including Nuremberg documents and testimony, cannot be accepted at face value: “A certain degree of reserve is necessary in handling all this material, and particularly this applies to the last section (survivor narratives) … The Eastern European Jew is a natural rhetorician, speaking in flowery similes.”
French historian Jean-Claude Pressac likewise warned in his detailed book about Auschwitz that “extreme care is required with the testimony of survivors …”
Jewish historian Hannah Arendt observed in her book Eichmann in Jerusalem that the “eyewitnesses” who testified in the 1961 trial in Jerusalem of Adolf Eichmann were only rarely able to distinguish between what actually happened to them years earlier and what they had read, heard or imagined in the meantime.
Holocaust historian Lucy Dawidowicz similarly noted that “the survivor’s memory is often distorted by hate, sentimentality, and the passage of time. His perspective on external events is often skewed by the limits of his personal experience.”
French historian Germain Tillion, a specialist of the Second World War period, has warned that former camp inmates who lie are, in fact,
very much more numerous than people generally suppose, and a subject like that of the concentration camp world — well designed, alas, to stimulate sado-masochistic imaginations — offered them an exceptional field of action.
We have known numerous mentally damaged persons, half-swindlers and half fools, who exploited an imaginary deportation.
We have known others of them — authentic deportees — whose sick minds strove to even go beyond the monstrosities that they had seen or that people said happened to them.
Jewish historian Samuel Gringauz, who was himself interned in the ghetto of Kaunas (Lithuania) during the war, criticized what he called the “hyperhistorical” nature of most Jewish “survivor testimony.”
He wrote that “most of the memoirs and reports are full of preposterous verbosity, graphomanic exaggeration, dramatic effects, overestimated self-inflation, dilettante philosophizing, would-be lyricism, unchecked rumors, bias, partisan attacks and apologies.”
Shmuel Krakowki, archives director of the Israeli government’s Holocaust center, Yad Vashem, confirmed in 1986 that more than 10,000 of the 20,000 “testimonies” of Jewish “survivors” on file there are “unreliable.”
Many survivors, wanting “to be part of history” may have let their imaginations run away with them, Krakowski said.
“Many were never in the places where they claimed to have witnessed atrocities, while others relied on second-hand information given them by friends or passing strangers.”
He confirmed that many of the testimonies on file at Yad Vashem were later proved to be inaccurate when locations and dates could not pass an expert historian’s appraisal.
We now know that witnesses at the main Nuremberg trial gave false testimony. Perhaps the most obvious were the three witnesses who ostensibly confirmed German guilt for the Katyn massacre of Polish officers.
Stephen F. Pinter of St. Louis, Missouri, served as a US Army prosecuting attorney from January 1946 to July 1947 at the American trials of Germans at Dachau. Altogether, some 420 Germans were sentenced to death in these Dachau trials.
In a 1960 affidavit Pinter stated that “notoriously perjured witnesses” were used to charge Germans with “false and unfounded” crimes. “Unfortunately, as a result of these miscarriages of justice, many innocent persons were convicted and some were executed.”
A tragi-comic incident during the Dachau proceedings suggests the general atmosphere. US investigator Joseph Kirschbaum brought a Jewish witness named Einstein into court to testify that the defendant, Menzel, had murdered Einstein’s brother.
But when the accused pointed out that the brother was, in fact, sitting in the courtroom, an embarrassed Kirschbaum scolded the witness: “How can we bring this pig to the gallows if you are so stupid as to bring your brother into court?”
August Gross, a German who worked as a civilian employee for the U.S. Army at the Dachau trials, later declared:
The American prosecutors paid professional incrimination witnesses, mostly former criminal concentration camp inmates, the amount of one dollar per day (at that time worth 280 marks on the black market) as well as food from a witness kitchen and witness lodging.
During the recess periods between trial proceedings the US prosecuting attorneys told these witnesses what they were to say in giving testimony. The US prosecuting attorneys gave the witnesses photos of the defendants and were thereby able to easily incriminate them.
A young US Army court reporter at the Dachau trials in 1947, Joseph Halow, later recalled the unwholesome situation:
The witnesses in the concentration camp cases were virtually all of the sort we court reporters termed “professional witnesses,” those who spent months in Dachau, testifying against one or another of the many accused… It was to their economic advantage to testify, and many of them made a good living doing so.
As one might well imagine, the motive of the professional witnesses was also one of spite and revenge… In many instances their vengeance included relating exaggerated accounts of what they had witnessed. It also included outright lying.
In one case, testimony provided by the prosecution witnesses “appeared to raise more questions then provide answers. Some of it was obviously fabricated, or so grossly exaggerated as to render it unbelievable.
There were repeated instances of mistaken identity of the same accused, and vague, uncertain statements about some of the others.” Moreover, Halow reported, the US courts paid “scant attention to testimony by and for the accused.”
American defense attorney Major Leon B. Poullada
In the 1947 “Nordhausen-Dora” case, American defense attorney Major Leon B. Poullada protested against the general unreliability — and frequent outright lying — of prosecution witnesses in this US military trial of former concentration camp officials.
Use of such unreliable testimony continued in “Holocaust” trials in later years.
Federal district judge Norman C. Roettger, Jr., ruled in 1978 in a Florida case that all six Jewish “eyewitnesses” who had testified to direct atrocities and shootings at Treblinka by Ukrainian-born defendant Feodor Fedorenko had wrongly identified the accused after being misled by Israeli authorities.
New York “Nazi hunter” Charles Kremer visited Israel in 1981 looking for Jews who could confirm atrocities allegedly committed by a former Ukrainian SS man living in New Jersey.
But Kremer cut short his visit, bitterly disappointed by the numerous Jews who offered to provide spurious “testimony” in return for money.
As the Brooklyn Jewish Press reported, “Kremer was stricken with gastronomic pains — a malady he attributes to his difficulties in dealing with hucksters who tried to use his search for their personal gain.”
One of the most blatant examples of perjury by Jewish Holocaust witnesses in recent years was in the case of a retired Chicago factory worker named Frank Walus who was charged with killing Jews in his native Poland during the war.
A December 1974 letter from “Nazi hunter” Simon Wiesenthal that accused Walus of working for the Gestapo prompted the US government’s legal campaign.
During his trial, eleven Jews testified under oath that they personally saw Walus murder Jews, including several children.
After a costly and bitterly contested four-year legal battle, Walus was finally able to prove that he had actually spent the war years as a teenager quietly working on German farms.
A lengthy article copyrighted by the American Bar Association and published in 1981 in the Washington Post concluded that “… in an atmosphere of hatred and loathing verging on hysteria, the government persecuted an innocent man.”