From [email protected] Thu Oct 15 19:40:06 EDT 1998
Article: 123158 of soc.culture.polish
Path: hub.org!hub.org!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cyclone.news.idirect.com!island.idirect.com!nntp.cadvision.com!news.agtac.net!news.telusplanet.net!news
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: soc.culture.polish,soc.culture.russian,soc.culture.ukrainian,soc.culture.usa,usa.general,soc.culture.swiss,soc.culture.australian,soc.culture.europe
Subject: MORE- JEW RABBIS LAUNDER DRUG MONEY IN NY!!!!
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 14:39:30 GMT
Organization: TELUS Communications Inc.
Lines: 159
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: edtnpx08-port-25.agt.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451
Xref: hub.org soc.culture.polish:123158 soc.culture.russian:95089 soc.culture.ukrainian:42085 soc.culture.usa:265279 soc.culture.swiss:27279 soc.culture.australian:78552 soc.culture.europe:131344
Another JEW Rabbi in NY state has been caught dealing drugs – this
time inside a prison!!!
Rabbi Eli Gottesman,a chaplain at a federal medium security prison at
Ray Brook, NY got caught with a large bottle filled with sealed
balloons of cocaine and marijuana.
He is a former head of the “who’s Who in canadian Jewry”, and has been
a chaplain of the year named by the NY Board of rabbis.
On Tue, 29 Sep 1998 13:52:54 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
>It seems that JEWS are not satisfied with having murdered Jesus
>Christ.
>Now some of them are involved, even from synagogues, in the DRUGS
>business.
>On Tue, 17 Jun 1997 07:10:26 -0800, in alt.revisionism
>[email protected] (Michael A. Hoffman II) wrote:
>>Michael A. Hoffman II comments: Why didn’t these two Orthodox Hasidic
>>(Bobover sect) rabbis enjoy the usual rabbinic immunity from arrest for
>>their crimes? Could it be that their mantle of protection was removed by
>>the more powerful Reform and Conservative Jews in America with whom they
>>are at war in occupied Palestine over issues pertaining to modernity and
>>conversion? Is this a warning to the Orthodox to back off from their
>>assaults on Reform and Orthodox Jews? For more go to:
>>http://www.hoffman-info.com
——————————————————————————
2 Rabbis Charged With Money Laundering
By ROBERT D. McFADDEN NY Times June 17, 1997
NEW YORK — A dozen men, including two identified as Orthodox Jewish
rabbis, were charged by federal authorities Monday with conspiring to
launder and hide $1.75 million in drug profits for Colombian
narcotics dealers by routing the cash through the bank accounts of a
synagogue and a yeshiva in Brooklyn.
The bizarre case, federal prosecutors in Brooklyn said, brought
together a collection of strange bedfellows — five New York
representatives of Colombian drug traffickers, three go-betweens who
purportedly transported cash in suitcase quantities, and four men with
ties to a close-knit Jewish community.
At one point, the officials charged, the rabbis ran tens of millions
of dollars in drug profits through the bank accounts of a relatively
modest Borough Park synagogue and provided nearly $3.5 million from
American and Swiss accounts for the purchase of an aircraft for the
Colombian drug lords.
“Money launderers are the indispensable partners of major drug
traffickers, and the cynical act of using religious institutions to
conceal drug proceeds is particularly reprehensible,” said Zachary
Carter, the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York, in
announcing the charges.
Seven defendants, including Rabbi Mahir Reiss, 47, of 3543 Bedford
Ave., and Rabbi Bernard Grunfeld, 64, of 1417 46th St., both in
Brooklyn, were arrested Monday and were arraigned late in the day
before U.S. Magistrate Judge Roanne L. Mann, charged with conspiracy
to launder money. Two suspects, Grunfeld and Israel Knobloch, 24, of
5200 15th Ave., Brooklyn, also were charged with conspiring to avoid
federal cash-transaction reporting requirements.
Six defendants were held without bail, and one, Abraham Reiss, 48, of
320 Riverside Drive in Manhattan, a brother of Mahir Reiss, was
released on $750,000 bail. Three other men named in the federal
complaint were listed as fugitives, and two more were being held in
custody elsewhere in New York in other cases, according to Lee Dunst,
the assistant federal attorney prosecuting the case.
Unveiling a three-year undercover investigation that used
court-authorize wiretaps and other surveillance, the federal complaint
charged that the two rabbis and Abraham Reiss laundered $750,000 by
taking cash from go-betweens, depositing it in the bank accounts of a
synagogue-based organization and, after subtracting commissions,
writing checks to drug traffickers.
Investigators said the bank accounts used in the scheme, held in the
name of Chaim Shel Shulem, which shares quarters with Congregation
Eitz Chaim at 1577 48th St. in Borough Park, held deposits of more
than $19 million during the 10-month period when the laundering
transactions occurred, between August 1995 and May 1996.
Grunfeld, listed as the president of Chaim Shel Shulem, was said to
have written all the checks that went to the drug traffickers. He and
Knobloch were also accused of concealing the movement of $1 million in
drug money by making 95 deposits and withdrawals of just under $10,000
— the amount that triggers a government cash-transaction reporting
requirement — through the bank accounts of Congregation Eitz Chaim
and Bobover Yeshiva, at the same location.
The defendants made no statements in court Monday. While Grunfeld was
listed by prosecutors as the head of Chaim Shel Shulem, dozens of
people at Congregation Eitz Chaim late Monday declined to say anything
about him or the case. Some seemed not to recognize the name Chaim
Shel Shulem.
The synagogue and yeshiva are in a five-story building with a brick
front and a small awning imprinted with the institution’s name in
Hebrew. The only words in English on the facade call it “the Katz
Family of Mexico Building.”
In a ground-floor, two-room school lined with books, about 100 people
were studying at tables. A man who appeared to be in charge, but who
would not give his name, said he knew nothing about the two rabbis
named in the federal complaint.
The federal investigation — an undertaking of the U.S. Attorney’s
Office, the Drug Enforcement Agency and the Internal Revenue Service
— began in 1994, when agents detected a pattern of cash deposits and
withdrawals intended to circumvent the government’s reporting rules in
various bank accounts held in the name of the synagogue and yeshiva,
officials said.
With court-authorized telephone wiretaps, surveillance and other
techniques, the investigators said they uncovered a conspiracy in
which Grunfeld and Knobloch eventually made more than $1 million in
deposits and withdrawals — transactions, they said, that let the
conspirators move large sums of illicit drug profits.
Later, in 1995 and 1996, investigators said, the 12 men named in
Monday’s complaint conducted a full money-laundering operation. Five
of them — Lisandro Montes De Oca, 29; Francisco Gil, 30; Estenio
Rodriguez, 30; Juan Suarez, 39, and Alvaro Duque, 36 –were said to
have brought in large sums that Colombian drug dealers wanted to
launder.
The money was given to three men described as intermediaries — Jack
Pinski, 35, a Colombian who is a fugitive, and Roberto Buendia, 40,
and Fabio Arana, both of Medford, N.Y. They were said to have counted
and stashed the money at an apartment at 243 West 75th St.
There, prosecutors said, Abraham Reiss picked up the money. It was
later deposited in various accounts held in the name of Chaim Shel
Shulem.
Grunfeld, the organization’s president, signed checks that were made
out to “entities in accordance with drug traffickers’ instructions,”
the federal complaint said.
Those instructions were communicated through Rabbi Reiss, who had no
formal connections to Chaim Shel Shulem, investigators said.
Commissions of 13 percent to 15 percent were deducted from the
laundered money and divided among the intermediaries.
Prosecutors said they did not know how members of a deeply religious
community came into contact with professional money launderers and
drug traffickers. But they charged that in 1994, Rabbis Reiss and
Grunfeld, and Abraham Reiss arranged $3.4 million in financing to buy
a Beech Super King aircraft, a type commonly used by drug smugglers.
================================================================================
The Campaign for Radical Truth in History: http://www.hoffman-info.com
——————————————————————————–
News Bureau and Archives Online
From [email protected] Thu Oct 15 19:40:06 EDT 1998
Article: 123171 of soc.culture.polish
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: soc.culture.palestine,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.revisionism,soc.culture.islam,soc.culture.malaysia,soc.culture.australian,soc.culture.polish
Subject: Re: Nazi — Jewish Zionist Collaboration
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 15:14:47 GMT
Organization: TELUS Communications Inc.
Lines: 638
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: edtntnt4-port-108.agt.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451
Path: hub.org!hub.org!darla.visi.com!chippy.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!newshub.northeast.verio.net!cyclone.news.idirect.com!island.idirect.com!news.oanet.com!news.agtac.net!news.telusplanet.net!news
Xref: hub.org soc.culture.palestine:53077 alt.politics.nationalism.white:175196 alt.revisionism:269915 soc.culture.islam:4186 soc.culture.malaysia:196090 soc.culture.australian:78556 soc.culture.polish:123171
On Wed, 14 Oct 1998 16:31:36, [email protected] wrote:
On Tue, 13 Oct 1998 11:38:31, [email protected] wrote:
>On 28 Sep 1998 01:44:48 -0000, Anonymous
>>Death to each and every kike in the JDL only after hours of torture.
On Thu, 10 Sep 1998 22:56:46 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
trying to stimulate more interest in this topic,
On Sat, 15 Aug 1998 18:45:47 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
>On Fri, 03 Jul 1998 15:00:35 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
>>On 3 Jul 1998 06:38:05 GMT,
Orest Slepokura
…fully documented *Perfidy* blatantly exposes the degree to which
Zionists cooperated in the persecution of their fellow Jews…
Here is more evidence of NAZI-ZIONIST JEW COLLABORATION.
The Kastner Case
The most notorious case of Nazi-Zionist collaboration is that
involving a Jew – Rudolf Kastner.
Most Jewish people have never heard of Rudolf Kastner. Those who have,
are generally under the impression that there is some ‘controversy’
about negotiations he undertook for ‘the purchase of Jewish lives for
money and military equipment’, but that he was ‘fully rehabilitated’
by the Supreme Court of Israel.
The Accusations
Briefly, the accusations against Kastner are as follows:
Dr. Rudolf Verba, a Doctor of Science now serving at the British
Medical Research Council, was one of the few escapees from Auschwitz.
In his memoirs published in February, 1961, in the London Daily
Herald, he wrote:
I am a Jew. In spite of that – indeed because of that – I accuse
certain Jewish leaders of one of the most ghastly deeds of the war.
This group of quislings knew what was happening to their brethren in
Hitler’s gas chambers and bought their own lives with the price of
silence.
Among them was Dr. Kastner, leader of the council which spoke for all
Jews in Hungary. While I was prisoner number 44070 at Auschwitz – the
number is still on my arm – I compiled careful statistics of the
exterminations.
I took these terrible statistics with me when I escaped in 1944 and I
was able to give Hungarian Zionist leaders three weeks notice that
Eichmann planned to send a million of their Jews to his gas
chambers…Kastner went to Eichmann and told him, ‘I know of your
plans; spare some Jews of my choice and I shall keep quiet.’
Eichmann not only agreed, but dressed Kastner up in S.S. uniform and
took him to Belsen to trace some of his friends. Nor did the sordid
bargaining end there. Kastner paid Eichmann several thousand dollars.
With this little fortune, Eichmann was able to buy his way to freedom
when Germany collapsed, to set himself up in the Argentine…(Ben
Hecht, Perfidy, pp261-2)
These accusations are confirmed by the ‘Eichmann Confessions’
published in Life magazine, 28 November and 5 December 1960:
I resolved to show how well a job could be done when the commander
stands 100% behind it. By shipping the Jews off in a lightning
operation, I wanted to set an example for future campaigns
elsewhere…In obedience to Himmler’s directive I now concentrated on
negotiations with the Jewish political officials in Budapest…Among
them Dr. Rudolph Kastner, authorized representative of the Zionist
Movement. This Dr. Kastner was a young man about my age, an ice-cold
lawyer and a fanatical Zionist. He agreed to help keep the Jews from
resisting deportation – and even keep order in the collection camps –
if I could close my eyes and let a few hundred or a few thousand young
Jews emigrate illegally to Palestine.
It was a good bargain. For keeping order in the camps, the price was
not too high for me.
We trusted each other perfectly. When he was with me, Kastner smoke
cigarets as though he was in a coffeehouse. While we talked he would
smoke one aromatic cigaret after another, taking them from a silver
case and lighting them with a silver lighter. With his great polish
and reserve he would have made an ideal Gestapo officer himself.
Dr. Kastner’s main concern was to make it possible for a select group
of Hungarian Jews to emigrate to Israel…
As a matter of fact, there was a very strong similarity between our
attitudes in the S.S. and the viewpoint of these immensely idealistic
Zionist leaders. I believe that Kastner would have sacrificed a
thousand or a hundred thousand of his blood to achieve his political
goal ‘You can have the others’, he would say, ‘but let me have this
group here’. And because Kastner rendered us a great service by
helping keep the deportation camps peaceful, I would let his groups
escape. After all, I was not concerned with small groups of a thousand
or so Jews…That was the ‘gentleman’s agreement’ I had with Kastner
(Hecht, ibid., p.260-61)
Quite clearly these accusations, do not relate merely to ‘the purchase
of Jewish lives for money and military equipment’.
Are the accusations against Kastner true?
According to the Government of Israel, they are a lie. When Malchiel
Greenwald, a strongly pro-Zionist Israeli citizen published these
accusations against Kastner, the Israeli Government did rather more
than demand that his views should not be broadcast. Because a
prominent Zionist official (Dr. Kastner was a spokesman for the
Ministry of Trade and Industry) was involved, the Attorney General of
the State of Israel prosecuted Greenwald for criminal libel.
The Verdict
Let the verdict of Judge Benjamin Halevi (who later became one of the
panel of three judges that tried Eichmann) in Israel’s District Court
of Jerusalem speak for itself, given in criminal case No. 124 of 1953.
The Attorney General v. Malchiel Greenwald. This material should be
studied carefully.
The masses of Jews from Hungary’s ghettos obediently boarded the
deportation trains without knowing their fate. They were full of
confidence in the false information that they were being transferred
to Kenyermeze.
The Nazis could not have misled the masses of Jews so conclusively had
they not spread their false information through Jewish channels.
The Jews of the ghettos would not have trusted the Nazi or Hungarian
rulers. But they had trust in their Jewish leaders. Eichmann and
others used this known fact as part of their calculated plan to
mislead the Jews.
They were able to deport the Jews to their extermination by the help
of Jewish leaders.
The false information was spread by the Jewish leaders. The local
leaders of the Jews of Kluj and Nodvarod knew that other leaders were
spreading such false information and did not protest.
Those of the Jews who tried to warn their friends of the truth were
persecuted by the Jewish leaders in charge of the local ‘rescue work’.
The trust of the Jews in the misleading information and their lack of
knowledge that their wives, children and themselves were about to be
deported to the gas chambers of Auschwitz led the victims to remain
quiescent in their ghettos. It seduced them into not resisting or
hampering the deportation orders.
Dozens of thousands of Jews were guarded in their ghettos by a few
dozen police. Yet even vigorous young Jews made no attempt to
overpower these few guards and escape to nearby Rumania. No resistance
activities to the deportations were organized in these ghettos.
And the Jewish leaders did everything in their power to soothe the
Jews in the ghettos and to prevent such resistance activities.
The same Jews who spread in Kluj and Nodvarod the false rumor of
Kenyermeze, or confirmed it, the same public leaders who did not warn
their own people against the misleading statements, the same Jewish
leaders who did not organize any resistance or any sabotage of
deportations…these same leaders did not join the people of their
community in their ride to Auschwitz, but were all included in the
Rescue train.
The Nazi organizers of extermination and the perpetrators of
extermination permitted Rudolf Kastner and the members of the Jewish
Council in Budapest to save themselves, their relatives, and friends.
The Nazis did this as a means of making the local Jewish leaders, whom
they favoured, dependent on the Nazi regime, dependent on its good
will during the time of its fatal deportation schedule. In short, the
Nazis succeeded in bringing the Jewish leaders into collaboration with
the Nazis at the time of the catastrophe.
The Nazi chiefs knew that the Zionists were a most vital element in
Jewry and the most trusted by the Jews.
The personality of Rudolph Kastner made him a convenient catspaw for
Eichmann and his clique, to draw into collaboration and make their
task easier.
The question here is not, as stated by the Attorney General in his
summation, whether members of the Jewish Rescue Committee were or were
not capable of fulfilling their duty without the patronage of the S.S.
chiefs
.
It is obvious that without such S.S. Nazi patronage the Jewish Rescue
Committee could not have existed, and could have acted only as an
underground.
The question is, as put by the lawyer for the defense, why were the
Nazis interested in the existence of the Rescue Committee? Why did the
S.S. chiefs make every effort to encourage the existence of the Jewish
Rescue Committee? Did the exterminators turn into rescuers?
The same question rises concerning the rescue of prominent Jews by
these German killers of Jews. Was the rescue of such Jews a part of
the extermination plan of the killers ?
The support given by the extermination leaders to Kastner’s Rescue
Committee proves that indeed there was a place for Kastner and his
friends in their Final Solution for the Jews of Hungary – their total
annihilation.
The Nazi’s patronage of Kastner, and their agreement to let him save
six hundred prominent Jews, were part of the plan to exterminate the
Jews.
Kastner was given a chance to add a few more to that number. The bait
attracted him. The opportunity of rescuing prominent people appealed
to him greatly. He considered the rescue of the most important Jews as
a great personal success and a success for Zionism. It was a success
that would also justify his conduct – his political negotiation with
Nazis and the Nazi patronage of his committee.
When Kastner received this present from the Nazis, Kastner sold his
soul to the German Satan.
The sacrifice of the vital interests of the majority of the Jews, in
order to rescue the prominents, was the basic element in the agreement
between Kastner and the Nazis. This agreement fixed the division of
the nation into two unequal camps: a small fragment of prominents,
whom the Nazis promised Kastner to save, on the one hand, and the
great majority or Hungarian Jews whom the Nazis designated for death,
on the other hand.
An imperative condition for the rescue of the first camp by the Nazis
was that Kastner will not interfere in the action of the Nazis against
the other camp and will not hamper them in its extermination. Kastner
fulfilled this condition. He concentrated his efforts in the rescue of
the prominents and treated the camp of the doomed as if they had
already been wiped out from the book of the living.
One cannot estimate the damage caused by Kastner’s collaboration and
put down the number of victims which it cost Hungarian Jews. These are
not only the thousands of Jews in Nodvarod or any other community in
the border area, Jews who could escape through the border, had the
chief of their rescue committee fulfilled his duty toward them.
All of Kastner’s answers in his final testimony were a constant effort
to evade this truth.
Kastner has tried to escape through every crack he could find in the
wall of evidence. When one crack was sealed in his face, he darted
quickly to another. (Judgement of Judge Benjamin Halevi, Criminal Case
124/53; Attorney General v. Malchiel Greenwald, District Court,
Jerusalem, June 22,1955).
Judge Halevi reverts to the meeting of Kastner with the S.S. officers
Becher and Rudolf Hoess, commandant of Auschwitz at the time when the
‘new line’ of rescuing Jews was revealed by Hoess. He says:
>From this gathering in Budapest, it is obvious that the ‘new line’
stretched from Himmler to Hoess, from Jutner to Becher and Krumey.
According to Kastner, however, these Nazis were all active in rescuing
Jews.
This meeting of these important German guests in Budapest exposes the
‘rescue’ work of Becher in its true light. It reveals also the extent
of Kastner’s involvement in the inner circle of the chief German war
criminals.
Just as the Nazi war criminals knew they needed an alibi and hoped to
achieve it by the rescue of a few Jews at the eleventh hour, so
Kastner also needed an alibi for himself.
Collaboration between the Jewish Agency Rescue Committee and the
Exterminators of the Jews was solidified in Budapest and Vienna.
Kastner’s duties were part and parcel of the general duties of the
S.S.
In addition to its Extermination Department and Looting Department,
the Nazi S.S. opened a Rescue Department headed by Kastner.
All these extermination, robbery and rescue activities of the S.S.
were coordinated under the management of Heinrich Himmler”.
Judge Halevi continues:
Kastner perjured himself knowingly in his testimony before this court
when he denied he had interceded in Becher’s behalf. Moreover, he
concealed the important fact that he interceded for Becher in the name
of the Jewish Agency and the Jewish World Congress.
As to the contents of Kastner’s affidavit, it was enough for the
defense to provide Becher was a war criminal. It was up to the
prosecution to remove Becher from this status, if they wished to
negate the affidavit.
The Attorney General admitted in his summation that Becher was a war
criminal.
The lies in the contents of Kastner’s affidavit, the lies in his
testimony concerning the document, and Kastner’s knowing participation
in the activities of Nazi war criminals, and his participation in the
last minute fake rescue activities – all these combine to show one
overwhelming truth – that this affidavit was not given in good faith.
Kastner knew well, as he himself testified, that Becher had never
stood up against the stream of Jewish extermination, as Kastner has
declared in the affidavit.
The aims of Becher and his superior, Himmler, were not to save Jews
but to serve the Nazi regime with full compliance. These is not truth
and no good faith in Kastner’s testimony, ‘I never doubted for one
moment the good intention of good Becher’.
It is clear that the positive recommendation by Kastner, not only in
his own name but also in the name of the Jewish Agency and the Jewish
World Congress was of decisive importance for Becher. Kastner did not
exaggerate when he said that Becher was released by the Allies because
of his personal intervention. The lies in the affidavit of Kastner and
the contradictions and various pretexts, which were proven to be lies,
were sufficient to annul the value of his statements and to prove that
there was no good faith in his testimony in favor of this German war
criminal. Kastner’s affidavit in favor of Becher was a wilfully false
affidavit given in favor of a war
criminal to save him from trial and punishment in Nuremberg.
Therefore, the defendant, Malchiel Greenwald, was correct in his
accusations against Rudolf Kastner in the first, second and fourth of
his statements.”
Judge Halevi’s verdict found Malchiel Greenwald generally innocent of
libel against Kastner, but fined him one Israeli pound for the one
unproved accusation – that Kastner had actually collected money from
his Nazi
partners for his aide to their slaughter program. The judge also
ordered the Government of Israel to pay Greenwald two hundred Israeli
pounds as court costs.
If the story ended there, it would only prove conclusively that the
individual Kastner was a collaborator and the Israeli Government had
attempted to defend him, although facts brought out in the trial
pointed to much more than that.
But the story does not end there.
The Reaction
The Communist Party newspaper Kol Ha’am (Voice of the People) wrote:
All those whose relatives were butchered by the Germans in Hungary
know now clearly that Jewish hands helped the mass murder” (23 June
1955)
But public opinion was not quite unanimous. The problem with bringing
Kastner and his associates to trial was that his associates were the
Government of Israel.
As the evening paper *Yedi’ot Aharonot* said:
If Kastner is brought to trial the entire government faces a total
political and national collapse – as a result of what such a trial may
disclose.” (23 June 1955)
Accordingly, the Government of Israel did not put Kastner on trial,
instead it filed an appeal against the acquittal of Greenwald for
criminal libel.
At 11 P.M. the verdict was given. At 11 A.M. next morning the
government announces the defense of Kastner will be renewed – an
appeal filed.
What exemplary expediency! Since when does this government possess
such lawyer-genius who can weigh in one night the legal chances of an
appeal on a detailed, complex verdict of three hundred pages?
At the appeal hearings before the Supreme Court, the Attorney General
of Israel, Chaim Cohen, explained clearly why the Government of Israel
was defending Kastner so strongly:
The man Kastner does not stand here as a private individual. He was a
recognized representative, official or non-official of the Jewish
National Institutes in Palestine and of the Zionist Executive; and I
come here in this court to defend the representative of our national
institutions.”(Hecht, p. 268)
The truth of this statement cannot be denied. Kastner’s collaboration
was not that of an individual. It was the collaboration of the Zionist
leadership.
So far, it has only been established that the Government of Israel
continued to support a Nazi collaborator after the facts about his
collaboration had been conclusively established in an Israeli court.
But the story gets worse.
The Supreme Court of Israel unanimously found that Becher was indeed a
Nazi war criminal and that Kastner had without justification, and in
the name of the Jewish Agency, helped Becher to escape justice. On
this point Greenwald was acquitted of libel and Kastner was not
‘fully rehabilitated’.
The Supreme Court also accepted the facts established in the lower
court – that Kastner deliberately concealed the truth about Auschwitz
>from the majority of Hungarian Jews in exchange for Nazi permission to
take a thousand or so to Palestine. Again, Kastner was far from being
‘fully rehabilitated’.
But now comes the really nasty bit. After unanimously acknowledging
these facts, the Supreme Court of Israel, by a majority of three to
two, found that Kastner’s actions were morally justifiable and
convicted Greenwald of criminal libel for calling this
‘collaboration’.
Kastner’s actions only proved that he was a Nazi collaborator. It is
the defense of these actions by the Government and Courts of Israel
that prove conclusively that Zionism approves of Nazi collaboration.
The majority of the Supreme Court of Israel did not rehabilitate
Kastner. They joined him.
Let us read from the majority judgement of Supreme Court Judge Shlomo
Chesin:
….What point was there in telling the people boarding the trains in
Kluj, people struck by fate and persecuted, as to what awaits them at
the end of their journey…Kastner spoke in detail of the situation,
saying, ‘The Hungarian Jew was a branch which long ago dried up on the
tree’. This vivid description coincides with the testimony of another
witness about the Hungarian Jews, ‘This was a big Jewish community in
Hungary, without any ideological Jewish backbone’ (Moshe Shweiger, a
Kastner aide in Budapest, protocol 465).
I fully agree with my friend, Judge Agranot, when he states that, ‘The
Jews of Hungary, including those in the countryside, were not capable,
neither physically nor mentally, to carry out resistance operations
with force against the deportation scheme’…From this point of view
no rescue achievement could have resulted by disclosing the Auschwitz
news to the Jewish leaders there, and this is a consideration which on
can properly conclude that Kastner had in front of his eyes.
….And I take one more step. I am certain that the silence of Kastner
when he arrived in Kluj was premeditated and calculated and did not
result from his great despair because of the helplessness of the
Jewish community.
Even then, I say, this is still not considered wilful collaboration
and assistance in the extermination, because all the signs indicate
that Kastner’s efforts were aimed at rescue and rescue on a big
scale…And towards the end I take one last step. In doing so I go
very far and say that even if Kastner ordered himself to keep silent
knowingly, in submission to the strong will of the Nazis, in order to
save a few Jews from Hell – this is still no proof that he stained his
hands by collaborating with the enemies of his people and carrying out
their plan to exterminate most of the Jewish community in Hungary.
Even if, through these activities of his – or rather, his omission –
the extermination became easier. And as to the moral issue, the
question is not whether a man is allowed to kill many in order to save
a few, or vice-versa. The question is altogether in another sphere and
should be defined as follows: A man is aware that a whole community is
awaiting its doom. He is allowed to make efforts to save a few,
although part of his efforts involve concealment of truth from the
many or should he disclose
the truth to many though it is his best opinion that this way
everybody will perish. I think that the answer is clear. What good
will the blood of the few bring if everybody is to perish?…As I
said, I am not arguing with the basic factual findings of the learned
President of the Jewish District Court (Judge Halevi) but it seems to
me, with all due respect, that his findings do not, as of necessity,
demand the conclusion he has arrived at.
That is to say, collaboration on the part of Kastner in the
extermination of the Jews. And that they better coincide with bad
leadership both from a moral and public point of view…
In my opinion, one can say outright that if you find out that Kastner
collaborated with the enemy because he did not disclose to the people
who boarded the trains in Kluj that they were being led to
extermination, one has to put on trial today Danzig, Herman, Hanzi,
Brand, Revis and Marton, and many more leaders and half-leaders who
gagged themselves in an hour of crisis and did not inform others of
what was known to them and did not warn
and did not cry out of the coming danger….
Because of all this I cannot confirm the conclusion of the District
Court with regard to the accusation that Greenwald has thrown on
Kastner of collaboration with the Nazis in exterminating the Jewish
people in Hungary during the last war.” (Hecht, ibid., pp.270-2)
In other words, the Court approved of Kastner’s contempt for the
Hungarian Jews and could not allow him to be condemned for doing
exactly what many other Zionist leaders and half-leaders did –
concealing their knowledge of the Nazi extermination plans so that
Jews would board the trains to Auschwitz peacefully while their
Zionist ‘leaders’ boarded a different train for Palestine.
The most precise answer to this sickening judgement of Judge Chesin is
provided in the minority judgement of Supreme Court Judge Moshe
Silberg:
I do not say that he was the only man who possessed information among
the leaders. It is quite possible that somebody else as well does not
have a clear conscience with regards to this concealment. But we are
dealing here with the guilt of Kastner and we do not have to make
judgements on the guilt of others….
The declaration of the learned Attorney General therefore shrinks into
an opinion….’Kastner was convinced and believed that there was no
ray of hope for the Jews of Hungary, almost for none of them, and as
he, as a result of his personal despair, did not disclose the secret
of the extermination in order not to endanger or frustrate the rescue
of the few – therefore he acted in good faith and should not be
accused of collaborating with the Nazis in expediting the
extermination of the Jews, even though, in fact, he brought about its
result.’
I am compelled to state that it is very difficult for me to conceive
such an intention. Is this good faith? Can a single man, even in
cooperation with some of his friends, yield to despair on behalf and
without the knowledge of 800,000 other people? This is, in my opinion,
the decisive consideration in the problem facing us. The charge
emanating from the testimony of the witnesses against Kastner is that
had they known of the Auschwitz secret, then thousands or tens of
thousands would have been able
to save their lives by local, partial, specific or indirect rescue
operations like local revolts, resistance, escapes, hidings,
concealment of children with Gentiles, forging of documents, ransom
money, bribery,etc. – and when this is the case and when one deals
with many hundreds of thousands, how does a human being, a mortal,
reject with complete certainty and with an extreme ‘no’ the efficiency
of all the many and varied rescue ways? How can he examine the tens of
thousands of possibilities? Does he decide instead of God?
Indeed, he who can act with such a usurpation of the
last hope of hundreds of thousands is not entitled to claim good faith
as his defense. The penetrating question quo warrento is a good answer
to a claim of such good faith…
If the superintendent of a big hospital lets thousands of sick people
die so that he may devote himself to the sure rescue of one soul, he
will come out guilty, at least morally, even if it is proven that he
as an individual erroneously thought that there was no hope of saving
the other patients. He is a collaborator with the angel of death.
Either a complete atrophy of the soul or a blind involvement with
complete loss of senses and proportion in his small but personal
rescue operation could bring a man to such a gigantic, hazardous play.
And if all this is not enough to annul the claim of good faith which
was put before us on behalf of Kastner by the Attorney General, then
Kastner himself comes and annuls it altogether. Not only did he never
make this claim, but his own words prove the contrary. He writes in
his report to the Jewish Agency that the Committee sent emissaries to
many ghettos in the countryside and pleaded with them to organize
escapes and to refuse to board the trains. And though the story of
these pleadings is untrue, and the silence of Kastner in Kluj is
proven, the very uttering of these statements entirely contradicts the
claim that Kastner had concealed the
news about the fate of the ghetto inmates in good faith and only as a
result of his complete despairing of the chances of escaping or
resisting the Germans. You can not claim at the same time helplessness
and activity. Anyway, such a claim is not convincing…
We can sum up with three facts:
A. That the Nazis didn’t want to have a great revolt – nor small
revolts, and their passion was to have the extermination machine
working smoothly without resistance. This fact was known to Kastner
>from the best source – from Eichmann himself – And he had additional
proofs of that when he witnessed all the illusionary and misleading
tactics which were being taken by the Nazis from the first moment of
occupation.
B. That the most efficient means to paralyze the resistance with – or
the escape of a victim is to conceal from him the plot of the coming
murder. This fact is known to every man and one does not need any
proof of evidence for this.
C. That he, Kastner, in order to carry out the rescue plan for the few
prominents, fulfilled knowingly and without good faith the said desire
of the Nazis, thus expediting the work of exterminating the masses.
And also the rescue of Becher by Kastner…He who is capable of
rescuing this Becher from hanging proves that the atrocities of this
great war criminal were not so horrifying or despicable in his
eyes…I couldn’t base the main guilt of Kastner on this fact had it
been alone, but when it is attached even from afar to the whole scene
of events it throws retroactive
light on the whole affair and serves as a dozen proofs of our
conclusion.”(Supreme Court Judge, Moshe Silberg, 1957)
If that had been the majority judgement, one could say that whatever
their attitudes to the Arabs, and whatever their past behaviour might
have been under pressure, the Zionist leadership today did not
advocate collaboration with the Nazis.
But Judge Silberg’s judgement was that of a minority.
The Kastner case is therefore not an alleged episode in past history.
It is a continuing controversy in which the top Zionist leadership of
Israel stand indicted of continuing to publicly defend collaboration
with the Nazis in the extermination of Jews.
Despite the unanimous finding of the Supreme Court of Israel that Kurt
Becher was a major war criminal, the Jewish Agency (World Zionist
Organization) refused to withdraw the fraudulent certificate Kastner
gave on their behalf, which saved Becher from hanging, and allowed him
to remain a free man in West Germany, the head of several corporations
and with an estimated personal worth of $30 million.
Becher has even used his certification as a ‘good’ SS officer to give
evidence in support of his associates at other war crimes trials in
West Germany.
Since the prosecution, representing the Israeli Government agreed with
the Supreme Court that Becher was a major war criminal, one can only
pressure that the Israeli Government did not want him put on trial for
fear of what might come out.
Likewise, none of Kastner’s associates on the Zionist Relief and
Rescue Committee or his bosses in the Jewish Agency have ever been put
on trial .
Let alone the hundreds of ‘prominents’ who helped Kastner to reassure
the Hungarian Jews that they were going to Kenyermeze and not
Auschwitz, in exchange for tickets on the one train that took them
eventually to Palestine.
As for Kastner himself, he will cause no further embarrassment to the
Zionist leadership with his undisputed claims that everything he did
was approved by the Jewish Agency (World Zionist Organization)
leadership in Palestine. He is ‘now dead’. Or putting it less
delicately, on 3 March 1957 he was shot by Zeev Eckstein – immediately
after the appeal hearings were concluded, and before the judgement
‘rehabilitating’ him was delivered.
Eckstein was not a Hungarian avenger. He was a paid undercover agent
of the Israeli secret service. (Hecht, ibid., p.208). Another
‘fantastic allegation’ no doubt; but admitted in court during the
murder trial).
sven88
From [email protected] Thu Oct 15 19:40:09 EDT 1998
Article: 123175 of soc.culture.polish
Path: hub.org!hub.org!darla.visi.com!chippy.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!news-nyc.telia.net!newsfeed.cwix.com!206.172.150.11!news1.bellglobal.com!news.agtac.net!news.telusplanet.net!news
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: soc.culture.palestine,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.revisionism,soc.culture.islam,soc.culture.malaysia,soc.culture.australian,soc.culture.polish
Subject: Re: Nazi — Jewish Zionist Collaboration
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 15:20:13 GMT
Organization: TELUS Communications Inc.
Lines: 661
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: edtntnt4-port-108.agt.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451
Xref: hub.org soc.culture.palestine:53078 alt.politics.nationalism.white:175197 alt.revisionism:269916 soc.culture.islam:4187 soc.culture.malaysia:196096 soc.culture.australian:78557 soc.culture.polish:123175
On Tue, 13 Oct 1998 11:38:31, [email protected] wrote:
On Thu, 10 Sep 1998 22:56:46 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
trying to stimulate more interest in this topic,
On Sat, 15 Aug 1998 18:45:47 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
>On Fri, 03 Jul 1998 15:00:35 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
>>On 3 Jul 1998 06:38:05 GMT,
Orest Slepokura
…fully documented *Perfidy* blatantly exposes the degree to which
Zionists cooperated in the persecution of their fellow Jews…
Here is more evidence of NAZI-ZIONIST JEW COLLABORATION.
The Kastner Case
The most notorious case of Nazi-Zionist collaboration is that
involving a Jew – Rudolf Kastner.
Most Jewish people have never heard of Rudolf Kastner. Those who have,
are generally under the impression that there is some ‘controversy’
about negotiations he undertook for ‘the purchase of Jewish lives for
money and military equipment’, but that he was ‘fully rehabilitated’
by the Supreme Court of Israel.
The Accusations
Briefly, the accusations against Kastner are as follows:
Dr. Rudolf Verba, a Doctor of Science now serving at the British
Medical Research Council, was one of the few escapees from Auschwitz.
In his memoirs published in February, 1961, in the London Daily
Herald, he wrote:
I am a Jew. In spite of that – indeed because of that – I accuse
certain Jewish leaders of one of the most ghastly deeds of the war.
This group of quislings knew what was happening to their brethren in
Hitler’s gas chambers and bought their own lives with the price of
silence.
Among them was Dr. Kastner, leader of the council which spoke for all
Jews in Hungary. While I was prisoner number 44070 at Auschwitz – the
number is still on my arm – I compiled careful statistics of the
exterminations.
I took these terrible statistics with me when I escaped in 1944 and I
was able to give Hungarian Zionist leaders three weeks notice that
Eichmann planned to send a million of their Jews to his gas
chambers…Kastner went to Eichmann and told him, ‘I know of your
plans; spare some Jews of my choice and I shall keep quiet.’
Eichmann not only agreed, but dressed Kastner up in S.S. uniform and
took him to Belsen to trace some of his friends. Nor did the sordid
bargaining end there. Kastner paid Eichmann several thousand dollars.
With this little fortune, Eichmann was able to buy his way to freedom
when Germany collapsed, to set himself up in the Argentine…(Ben
Hecht, Perfidy, pp261-2)
These accusations are confirmed by the ‘Eichmann Confessions’
published in Life magazine, 28 November and 5 December 1960:
I resolved to show how well a job could be done when the commander
stands 100% behind it. By shipping the Jews off in a lightning
operation, I wanted to set an example for future campaigns
elsewhere…In obedience to Himmler’s directive I now concentrated on
negotiations with the Jewish political officials in Budapest…Among
them Dr. Rudolph Kastner, authorized representative of the Zionist
Movement. This Dr. Kastner was a young man about my age, an ice-cold
lawyer and a fanatical Zionist. He agreed to help keep the Jews from
resisting deportation – and even keep order in the collection camps –
if I could close my eyes and let a few hundred or a few thousand young
Jews emigrate illegally to Palestine.
It was a good bargain. For keeping order in the camps, the price was
not too high for me.
We trusted each other perfectly. When he was with me, Kastner smoke
cigarets as though he was in a coffeehouse. While we talked he would
smoke one aromatic cigaret after another, taking them from a silver
case and lighting them with a silver lighter. With his great polish
and reserve he would have made an ideal Gestapo officer himself.
Dr. Kastner’s main concern was to make it possible for a select group
of Hungarian Jews to emigrate to Israel…
As a matter of fact, there was a very strong similarity between our
attitudes in the S.S. and the viewpoint of these immensely idealistic
Zionist leaders. I believe that Kastner would have sacrificed a
thousand or a hundred thousand of his blood to achieve his political
goal ‘You can have the others’, he would say, ‘but let me have this
group here’. And because Kastner rendered us a great service by
helping keep the deportation camps peaceful, I would let his groups
escape. After all, I was not concerned with small groups of a thousand
or so Jews…That was the ‘gentleman’s agreement’ I had with Kastner
(Hecht, ibid., p.260-61)
Quite clearly these accusations, do not relate merely to ‘the purchase
of Jewish lives for money and military equipment’.
Are the accusations against Kastner true?
According to the Government of Israel, they are a lie. When Malchiel
Greenwald, a strongly pro-Zionist Israeli citizen published these
accusations against Kastner, the Israeli Government did rather more
than demand that his views should not be broadcast. Because a
prominent Zionist official (Dr. Kastner was a spokesman for the
Ministry of Trade and Industry) was involved, the Attorney General of
the State of Israel prosecuted Greenwald for criminal libel.
The Verdict
Let the verdict of Judge Benjamin Halevi (who later became one of the
panel of three judges that tried Eichmann) in Israel’s District Court
of Jerusalem speak for itself, given in criminal case No. 124 of 1953.
The Attorney General v. Malchiel Greenwald. This material should be
studied carefully.
The masses of Jews from Hungary’s ghettos obediently boarded the
deportation trains without knowing their fate. They were full of
confidence in the false information that they were being transferred
to Kenyermeze.
The Nazis could not have misled the masses of Jews so conclusively had
they not spread their false information through Jewish channels.
The Jews of the ghettos would not have trusted the Nazi or Hungarian
rulers. But they had trust in their Jewish leaders. Eichmann and
others used this known fact as part of their calculated plan to
mislead the Jews.
They were able to deport the Jews to their extermination by the help
of Jewish leaders.
The false information was spread by the Jewish leaders. The local
leaders of the Jews of Kluj and Nodvarod knew that other leaders were
spreading such false information and did not protest.
Those of the Jews who tried to warn their friends of the truth were
persecuted by the Jewish leaders in charge of the local ‘rescue work’.
The trust of the Jews in the misleading information and their lack of
knowledge that their wives, children and themselves were about to be
deported to the gas chambers of Auschwitz led the victims to remain
quiescent in their ghettos. It seduced them into not resisting or
hampering the deportation orders.
Dozens of thousands of Jews were guarded in their ghettos by a few
dozen police. Yet even vigorous young Jews made no attempt to
overpower these few guards and escape to nearby Rumania. No resistance
activities to the deportations were organized in these ghettos.
And the Jewish leaders did everything in their power to soothe the
Jews in the ghettos and to prevent such resistance activities.
The same Jews who spread in Kluj and Nodvarod the false rumor of
Kenyermeze, or confirmed it, the same public leaders who did not warn
their own people against the misleading statements, the same Jewish
leaders who did not organize any resistance or any sabotage of
deportations…these same leaders did not join the people of their
community in their ride to Auschwitz, but were all included in the
Rescue train.
The Nazi organizers of extermination and the perpetrators of
extermination permitted Rudolf Kastner and the members of the Jewish
Council in Budapest to save themselves, their relatives, and friends.
The Nazis did this as a means of making the local Jewish leaders, whom
they favoured, dependent on the Nazi regime, dependent on its good
will during the time of its fatal deportation schedule. In short, the
Nazis succeeded in bringing the Jewish leaders into collaboration with
the Nazis at the time of the catastrophe.
The Nazi chiefs knew that the Zionists were a most vital element in
Jewry and the most trusted by the Jews.
The personality of Rudolph Kastner made him a convenient catspaw for
Eichmann and his clique, to draw into collaboration and make their
task easier.
The question here is not, as stated by the Attorney General in his
summation, whether members of the Jewish Rescue Committee were or were
not capable of fulfilling their duty without the patronage of the S.S.
chiefs
.
It is obvious that without such S.S. Nazi patronage the Jewish Rescue
Committee could not have existed, and could have acted only as an
underground.
The question is, as put by the lawyer for the defense, why were the
Nazis interested in the existence of the Rescue Committee? Why did the
S.S. chiefs make every effort to encourage the existence of the Jewish
Rescue Committee? Did the exterminators turn into rescuers?
The same question rises concerning the rescue of prominent Jews by
these German killers of Jews. Was the rescue of such Jews a part of
the extermination plan of the killers ?
The support given by the extermination leaders to Kastner’s Rescue
Committee proves that indeed there was a place for Kastner and his
friends in their Final Solution for the Jews of Hungary – their total
annihilation.
The Nazi’s patronage of Kastner, and their agreement to let him save
six hundred prominent Jews, were part of the plan to exterminate the
Jews.
Kastner was given a chance to add a few more to that number. The bait
attracted him. The opportunity of rescuing prominent people appealed
to him greatly. He considered the rescue of the most important Jews as
a great personal success and a success for Zionism. It was a success
that would also justify his conduct – his political negotiation with
Nazis and the Nazi patronage of his committee.
When Kastner received this present from the Nazis, Kastner sold his
soul to the German Satan.
The sacrifice of the vital interests of the majority of the Jews, in
order to rescue the prominents, was the basic element in the agreement
between Kastner and the Nazis. This agreement fixed the division of
the nation into two unequal camps: a small fragment of prominents,
whom the Nazis promised Kastner to save, on the one hand, and the
great majority or Hungarian Jews whom the Nazis designated for death,
on the other hand.
An imperative condition for the rescue of the first camp by the Nazis
was that Kastner will not interfere in the action of the Nazis against
the other camp and will not hamper them in its extermination. Kastner
fulfilled this condition. He concentrated his efforts in the rescue of
the prominents and treated the camp of the doomed as if they had
already been wiped out from the book of the living.
One cannot estimate the damage caused by Kastner’s collaboration and
put down the number of victims which it cost Hungarian Jews. These are
not only the thousands of Jews in Nodvarod or any other community in
the border area, Jews who could escape through the border, had the
chief of their rescue committee fulfilled his duty toward them.
All of Kastner’s answers in his final testimony were a constant effort
to evade this truth.
Kastner has tried to escape through every crack he could find in the
wall of evidence. When one crack was sealed in his face, he darted
quickly to another. (Judgement of Judge Benjamin Halevi, Criminal Case
124/53; Attorney General v. Malchiel Greenwald, District Court,
Jerusalem, June 22,1955).
Judge Halevi reverts to the meeting of Kastner with the S.S. officers
Becher and Rudolf Hoess, commandant of Auschwitz at the time when the
‘new line’ of rescuing Jews was revealed by Hoess. He says:
>From this gathering in Budapest, it is obvious that the ‘new line’
stretched from Himmler to Hoess, from Jutner to Becher and Krumey.
According to Kastner, however, these Nazis were all active in rescuing
Jews.
This meeting of these important German guests in Budapest exposes the
‘rescue’ work of Becher in its true light. It reveals also the extent
of Kastner’s involvement in the inner circle of the chief German war
criminals.
Just as the Nazi war criminals knew they needed an alibi and hoped to
achieve it by the rescue of a few Jews at the eleventh hour, so
Kastner also needed an alibi for himself.
Collaboration between the Jewish Agency Rescue Committee and the
Exterminators of the Jews was solidified in Budapest and Vienna.
Kastner’s duties were part and parcel of the general duties of the
S.S.
In addition to its Extermination Department and Looting Department,
the Nazi S.S. opened a Rescue Department headed by Kastner.
All these extermination, robbery and rescue activities of the S.S.
were coordinated under the management of Heinrich Himmler”.
Judge Halevi continues:
Kastner perjured himself knowingly in his testimony before this court
when he denied he had interceded in Becher’s behalf. Moreover, he
concealed the important fact that he interceded for Becher in the name
of the Jewish Agency and the Jewish World Congress.
As to the contents of Kastner’s affidavit, it was enough for the
defense to provide Becher was a war criminal. It was up to the
prosecution to remove Becher from this status, if they wished to
negate the affidavit.
The Attorney General admitted in his summation that Becher was a war
criminal.
The lies in the contents of Kastner’s affidavit, the lies in his
testimony concerning the document, and Kastner’s knowing participation
in the activities of Nazi war criminals, and his participation in the
last minute fake rescue activities – all these combine to show one
overwhelming truth – that this affidavit was not given in good faith.
Kastner knew well, as he himself testified, that Becher had never
stood up against the stream of Jewish extermination, as Kastner has
declared in the affidavit.
The aims of Becher and his superior, Himmler, were not to save Jews
but to serve the Nazi regime with full compliance. These is not truth
and no good faith in Kastner’s testimony, ‘I never doubted for one
moment the good intention of good Becher’.
It is clear that the positive recommendation by Kastner, not only in
his own name but also in the name of the Jewish Agency and the Jewish
World Congress was of decisive importance for Becher. Kastner did not
exaggerate when he said that Becher was released by the Allies because
of his personal intervention. The lies in the affidavit of Kastner and
the contradictions and various pretexts, which were proven to be lies,
were sufficient to annul the value of his statements and to prove that
there was no good faith in his testimony in favor of this German war
criminal. Kastner’s affidavit in favor of Becher was a wilfully false
affidavit given in favor of a war
criminal to save him from trial and punishment in Nuremberg.
Therefore, the defendant, Malchiel Greenwald, was correct in his
accusations against Rudolf Kastner in the first, second and fourth of
his statements.”
Judge Halevi’s verdict found Malchiel Greenwald generally innocent of
libel against Kastner, but fined him one Israeli pound for the one
unproved accusation – that Kastner had actually collected money from
his Nazi
partners for his aide to their slaughter program. The judge also
ordered the Government of Israel to pay Greenwald two hundred Israeli
pounds as court costs.
If the story ended there, it would only prove conclusively that the
individual Kastner was a collaborator and the Israeli Government had
attempted to defend him, although facts brought out in the trial
pointed to much more than that.
But the story does not end there.
The Reaction
The Communist Party newspaper Kol Ha’am (Voice of the People) wrote:
All those whose relatives were butchered by the Germans in Hungary
know now clearly that Jewish hands helped the mass murder” (23 June
1955)
But public opinion was not quite unanimous. The problem with bringing
Kastner and his associates to trial was that his associates were the
Government of Israel.
As the evening paper *Yedi’ot Aharonot* said:
If Kastner is brought to trial the entire government faces a total
political and national collapse – as a result of what such a trial may
disclose.” (23 June 1955)
Accordingly, the Government of Israel did not put Kastner on trial,
instead it filed an appeal against the acquittal of Greenwald for
criminal libel.
At 11 P.M. the verdict was given. At 11 A.M. next morning the
government announces the defense of Kastner will be renewed – an
appeal filed.
What exemplary expediency! Since when does this government possess
such lawyer-genius who can weigh in one night the legal chances of an
appeal on a detailed, complex verdict of three hundred pages?
At the appeal hearings before the Supreme Court, the Attorney General
of Israel, Chaim Cohen, explained clearly why the Government of Israel
was defending Kastner so strongly:
The man Kastner does not stand here as a private individual. He was a
recognized representative, official or non-official of the Jewish
National Institutes in Palestine and of the Zionist Executive; and I
come here in this court to defend the representative of our national
institutions.”(Hecht, p. 268)
The truth of this statement cannot be denied. Kastner’s collaboration
was not that of an individual. It was the collaboration of the Zionist
leadership.
So far, it has only been established that the Government of Israel
continued to support a Nazi collaborator after the facts about his
collaboration had been conclusively established in an Israeli court.
But the story gets worse.
The Supreme Court of Israel unanimously found that Becher was indeed a
Nazi war criminal and that Kastner had without justification, and in
the name of the Jewish Agency, helped Becher to escape justice. On
this point Greenwald was acquitted of libel and Kastner was not
‘fully rehabilitated’.
The Supreme Court also accepted the facts established in the lower
court – that Kastner deliberately concealed the truth about Auschwitz
>from the majority of Hungarian Jews in exchange for Nazi permission to
take a thousand or so to Palestine. Again, Kastner was far from being
‘fully rehabilitated’.
But now comes the really nasty bit. After unanimously acknowledging
these facts, the Supreme Court of Israel, by a majority of three to
two, found that Kastner’s actions were morally justifiable and
convicted Greenwald of criminal libel for calling this
‘collaboration’.
Kastner’s actions only proved that he was a Nazi collaborator. It is
the defense of these actions by the Government and Courts of Israel
that prove conclusively that Zionism approves of Nazi collaboration.
The majority of the Supreme Court of Israel did not rehabilitate
Kastner. They joined him.
Let us read from the majority judgement of Supreme Court Judge Shlomo
Chesin:
….What point was there in telling the people boarding the trains in
Kluj, people struck by fate and persecuted, as to what awaits them at
the end of their journey…Kastner spoke in detail of the situation,
saying, ‘The Hungarian Jew was a branch which long ago dried up on the
tree’. This vivid description coincides with the testimony of another
witness about the Hungarian Jews, ‘This was a big Jewish community in
Hungary, without any ideological Jewish backbone’ (Moshe Shweiger, a
Kastner aide in Budapest, protocol 465).
I fully agree with my friend, Judge Agranot, when he states that, ‘The
Jews of Hungary, including those in the countryside, were not capable,
neither physically nor mentally, to carry out resistance operations
with force against the deportation scheme’…From this point of view
no rescue achievement could have resulted by disclosing the Auschwitz
news to the Jewish leaders there, and this is a consideration which on
can properly conclude that Kastner had in front of his eyes.
….And I take one more step. I am certain that the silence of Kastner
when he arrived in Kluj was premeditated and calculated and did not
result from his great despair because of the helplessness of the
Jewish community.
Even then, I say, this is still not considered wilful collaboration
and assistance in the extermination, because all the signs indicate
that Kastner’s efforts were aimed at rescue and rescue on a big
scale…And towards the end I take one last step. In doing so I go
very far and say that even if Kastner ordered himself to keep silent
knowingly, in submission to the strong will of the Nazis, in order to
save a few Jews from Hell – this is still no proof that he stained his
hands by collaborating with the enemies of his people and carrying out
their plan to exterminate most of the Jewish community in Hungary.
Even if, through these activities of his – or rather, his omission –
the extermination became easier. And as to the moral issue, the
question is not whether a man is allowed to kill many in order to save
a few, or vice-versa. The question is altogether in another sphere and
should be defined as follows: A man is aware that a whole community is
awaiting its doom. He is allowed to make efforts to save a few,
although part of his efforts involve concealment of truth from the
many or should he disclose
the truth to many though it is his best opinion that this way
everybody will perish. I think that the answer is clear. What good
will the blood of the few bring if everybody is to perish?…As I
said, I am not arguing with the basic factual findings of the learned
President of the Jewish District Court (Judge Halevi) but it seems to
me, with all due respect, that his findings do not, as of necessity,
demand the conclusion he has arrived at.
That is to say, collaboration on the part of Kastner in the
extermination of the Jews. And that they better coincide with bad
leadership both from a moral and public point of view…
In my opinion, one can say outright that if you find out that Kastner
collaborated with the enemy because he did not disclose to the people
who boarded the trains in Kluj that they were being led to
extermination, one has to put on trial today Danzig, Herman, Hanzi,
Brand, Revis and Marton, and many more leaders and half-leaders who
gagged themselves in an hour of crisis and did not inform others of
what was known to them and did not warn
and did not cry out of the coming danger….
Because of all this I cannot confirm the conclusion of the District
Court with regard to the accusation that Greenwald has thrown on
Kastner of collaboration with the Nazis in exterminating the Jewish
people in Hungary during the last war.” (Hecht, ibid., pp.270-2)
In other words, the Court approved of Kastner’s contempt for the
Hungarian Jews and could not allow him to be condemned for doing
exactly what many other Zionist leaders and half-leaders did –
concealing their knowledge of the Nazi extermination plans so that
Jews would board the trains to Auschwitz peacefully while their
Zionist ‘leaders’ boarded a different train for Palestine.
The most precise answer to this sickening judgement of Judge Chesin is
provided in the minority judgement of Supreme Court Judge Moshe
Silberg:
I do not say that he was the only man who possessed information among
the leaders. It is quite possible that somebody else as well does not
have a clear conscience with regards to this concealment. But we are
dealing here with the guilt of Kastner and we do not have to make
judgements on the guilt of others….
The declaration of the learned Attorney General therefore shrinks into
an opinion….’Kastner was convinced and believed that there was no
ray of hope for the Jews of Hungary, almost for none of them, and as
he, as a result of his personal despair, did not disclose the secret
of the extermination in order not to endanger or frustrate the rescue
of the few – therefore he acted in good faith and should not be
accused of collaborating with the Nazis in expediting the
extermination of the Jews, even though, in fact, he brought about its
result.’
I am compelled to state that it is very difficult for me to conceive
such an intention. Is this good faith? Can a single man, even in
cooperation with some of his friends, yield to despair on behalf and
without the knowledge of 800,000 other people? This is, in my opinion,
the decisive consideration in the problem facing us. The charge
emanating from the testimony of the witnesses against Kastner is that
had they known of the Auschwitz secret, then thousands or tens of
thousands would have been able
to save their lives by local, partial, specific or indirect rescue
operations like local revolts, resistance, escapes, hidings,
concealment of children with Gentiles, forging of documents, ransom
money, bribery,etc. – and when this is the case and when one deals
with many hundreds of thousands, how does a human being, a mortal,
reject with complete certainty and with an extreme ‘no’ the efficiency
of all the many and varied rescue ways? How can he examine the tens of
thousands of possibilities? Does he decide instead of God?
Indeed, he who can act with such a usurpation of the
last hope of hundreds of thousands is not entitled to claim good faith
as his defense. The penetrating question quo warrento is a good answer
to a claim of such good faith…
If the superintendent of a big hospital lets thousands of sick people
die so that he may devote himself to the sure rescue of one soul, he
will come out guilty, at least morally, even if it is proven that he
as an individual erroneously thought that there was no hope of saving
the other patients. He is a collaborator with the angel of death.
Either a complete atrophy of the soul or a blind involvement with
complete loss of senses and proportion in his small but personal
rescue operation could bring a man to such a gigantic, hazardous play.
And if all this is not enough to annul the claim of good faith which
was put before us on behalf of Kastner by the Attorney General, then
Kastner himself comes and annuls it altogether. Not only did he never
make this claim, but his own words prove the contrary. He writes in
his report to the Jewish Agency that the Committee sent emissaries to
many ghettos in the countryside and pleaded with them to organize
escapes and to refuse to board the trains. And though the story of
these pleadings is untrue, and the silence of Kastner in Kluj is
proven, the very uttering of these statements entirely contradicts the
claim that Kastner had concealed the
news about the fate of the ghetto inmates in good faith and only as a
result of his complete despairing of the chances of escaping or
resisting the Germans. You can not claim at the same time helplessness
and activity. Anyway, such a claim is not convincing…
We can sum up with three facts:
A. That the Nazis didn’t want to have a great revolt – nor small
revolts, and their passion was to have the extermination machine
working smoothly without resistance. This fact was known to Kastner
>from the best source – from Eichmann himself – And he had additional
proofs of that when he witnessed all the illusionary and misleading
tactics which were being taken by the Nazis from the first moment of
occupation.
B. That the most efficient means to paralyze the resistance with – or
the escape of a victim is to conceal from him the plot of the coming
murder. This fact is known to every man and one does not need any
proof of evidence for this.
C. That he, Kastner, in order to carry out the rescue plan for the few
prominents, fulfilled knowingly and without good faith the said desire
of the Nazis, thus expediting the work of exterminating the masses.
And also the rescue of Becher by Kastner…He who is capable of
rescuing this Becher from hanging proves that the atrocities of this
great war criminal were not so horrifying or despicable in his
eyes…I couldn’t base the main guilt of Kastner on this fact had it
been alone, but when it is attached even from afar to the whole scene
of events it throws retroactive
light on the whole affair and serves as a dozen proofs of our
conclusion.”(Supreme Court Judge, Moshe Silberg, 1957)
If that had been the majority judgement, one could say that whatever
their attitudes to the Arabs, and whatever their past behaviour might
have been under pressure, the Zionist leadership today did not
advocate collaboration with the Nazis.
But Judge Silberg’s judgement was that of a minority.
The Kastner case is therefore not an alleged episode in past history.
It is a continuing controversy in which the top Zionist leadership of
Israel stand indicted of continuing to publicly defend collaboration
with the Nazis in the extermination of Jews.
Despite the unanimous finding of the Supreme Court of Israel that Kurt
Becher was a major war criminal, the Jewish Agency (World Zionist
Organization) refused to withdraw the fraudulent certificate Kastner
gave on their behalf, which saved Becher from hanging, and allowed him
to remain a free man in West Germany, the head of several corporations
and with an estimated personal worth of $30 million.
Becher has even used his certification as a ‘good’ SS officer to give
evidence in support of his associates at other war crimes trials in
West Germany.
Since the prosecution, representing the Israeli Government agreed with
the Supreme Court that Becher was a major war criminal, one can only
pressure that the Israeli Government did not want him put on trial for
fear of what might come out.
Likewise, none of Kastner’s associates on the Zionist Relief and
Rescue Committee or his bosses in the Jewish Agency have ever been put
on trial .
Let alone the hundreds of ‘prominents’ who helped Kastner to reassure
the Hungarian Jews that they were going to Kenyermeze and not
Auschwitz, in exchange for tickets on the one train that took them
eventually to Palestine.
As for Kastner himself, he will cause no further embarrassment to the
Zionist leadership with his undisputed claims that everything he did
was approved by the Jewish Agency (World Zionist Organization)
leadership in Palestine. He is ‘now dead’. Or putting it less
delicately, on 3 March 1957 he was shot by Zeev Eckstein – immediately
after the appeal hearings were concluded, and before the judgement
‘rehabilitating’ him was delivered.
Eckstein was not a Hungarian avenger. He was a paid undercover agent
of the Israeli secret service. (Hecht, ibid., p.208). Another
‘fantastic allegation’ no doubt; but admitted in court during the
murder trial).
sven88
On Mon, 12 Oct 1998 15:15:22 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
>Private Dan “BELIEVE ME OR ELSE, SCHWEIN!” Parker burped:
>(From Instauration: April 1996, p 121)
>The argument of Holocaust ‘true believers’ falls into three categories:
>1) Testimonies of ‘survivors’ who obviously did not die in the Holocaust;
> 2) perjured testimony (obtained under torture) and forged affidavits at
>the Nuremberg Trial,;
> 3) the “everybody knows it happened” argument.<<
>1) Testimonies of survivors who witnessed atrocities against countless Nazi
>victims;
>2) Testimony from Nazis who testified under oath, without ever having mentioned
>being coerced or forced in any way, some of whom wrote diaries and memoirs
>before their deaths detailing their crimes (notably Rudolf Hoess, who wrote of
>his kind treatment by the Poles);
>3) The mountains of documentary, material, and photographic/filmic evidence
>left behind by the Nazis: deportation records, blueprints, MANY execution
>orders/slaughter orders and reports, not to mention the remnants of gas
>chambers, human ashes/bone/hair recovered at burning pit sites, loot from
>Jewish private property, shipment records of Zyklon-B, tests of Zyklon-B on
>inmates at Dachau…
From [email protected] Thu Oct 15 19:40:12 EDT 1998
Article: 123234 of soc.culture.polish
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: soc.culture.palestine,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.revisionism,soc.culture.islam,soc.culture.malaysia,soc.culture.australian,soc.culture.polish
Subject: Re: Nazi — Jewish Zionist Collaboration
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 17:46:57 GMT
Organization: TELUS Communications Inc.
Lines: 643
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: edtnpx09-port-52.agt.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451
Path: hub.org!hub.org!newsfeed.axxsys.net!newsfeed.cwix.com!198.138.0.5!newshub.northeast.verio.net!cyclone.news.idirect.com!island.idirect.com!news.en.com!news.oanet.com!news.agtac.net!news.telusplanet.net!news
Xref: hub.org soc.culture.palestine:53080 alt.politics.nationalism.white:175205 alt.revisionism:269926 soc.culture.islam:4188 soc.culture.malaysia:196195 soc.culture.australian:78565 soc.culture.polish:123234
On Tue, 13 Oct 1998 11:38:31, [email protected] wrote:
On Thu, 10 Sep 1998 22:56:46 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
trying to stimulate more interest in this topic,
On Sat, 15 Aug 1998 18:45:47 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
>On Fri, 03 Jul 1998 15:00:35 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
>>On 3 Jul 1998 06:38:05 GMT,
Orest Slepokura
…fully documented *Perfidy* blatantly exposes the degree to which
Zionists cooperated in the persecution of their fellow Jews…
Here is more evidence of NAZI-ZIONIST JEW COLLABORATION.
The Kastner Case
The most notorious case of Nazi-Zionist collaboration is that
involving a Jew – Rudolf Kastner.
Most Jewish people have never heard of Rudolf Kastner. Those who have,
are generally under the impression that there is some ‘controversy’
about negotiations he undertook for ‘the purchase of Jewish lives for
money and military equipment’, but that he was ‘fully rehabilitated’
by the Supreme Court of Israel.
The Accusations
Briefly, the accusations against Kastner are as follows:
Dr. Rudolf Verba, a Doctor of Science now serving at the British
Medical Research Council, was one of the few escapees from Auschwitz.
In his memoirs published in February, 1961, in the London Daily
Herald, he wrote:
I am a Jew. In spite of that – indeed because of that – I accuse
certain Jewish leaders of one of the most ghastly deeds of the war.
This group of quislings knew what was happening to their brethren in
Hitler’s gas chambers and bought their own lives with the price of
silence.
Among them was Dr. Kastner, leader of the council which spoke for all
Jews in Hungary. While I was prisoner number 44070 at Auschwitz – the
number is still on my arm – I compiled careful statistics of the
exterminations.
I took these terrible statistics with me when I escaped in 1944 and I
was able to give Hungarian Zionist leaders three weeks notice that
Eichmann planned to send a million of their Jews to his gas
chambers…Kastner went to Eichmann and told him, ‘I know of your
plans; spare some Jews of my choice and I shall keep quiet.’
Eichmann not only agreed, but dressed Kastner up in S.S. uniform and
took him to Belsen to trace some of his friends. Nor did the sordid
bargaining end there. Kastner paid Eichmann several thousand dollars.
With this little fortune, Eichmann was able to buy his way to freedom
when Germany collapsed, to set himself up in the Argentine…(Ben
Hecht, Perfidy, pp261-2)
These accusations are confirmed by the ‘Eichmann Confessions’
published in Life magazine, 28 November and 5 December 1960:
I resolved to show how well a job could be done when the commander
stands 100% behind it. By shipping the Jews off in a lightning
operation, I wanted to set an example for future campaigns
elsewhere…In obedience to Himmler’s directive I now concentrated on
negotiations with the Jewish political officials in Budapest…Among
them Dr. Rudolph Kastner, authorized representative of the Zionist
Movement. This Dr. Kastner was a young man about my age, an ice-cold
lawyer and a fanatical Zionist. He agreed to help keep the Jews from
resisting deportation – and even keep order in the collection camps –
if I could close my eyes and let a few hundred or a few thousand young
Jews emigrate illegally to Palestine.
It was a good bargain. For keeping order in the camps, the price was
not too high for me.
We trusted each other perfectly. When he was with me, Kastner smoke
cigarets as though he was in a coffeehouse. While we talked he would
smoke one aromatic cigaret after another, taking them from a silver
case and lighting them with a silver lighter. With his great polish
and reserve he would have made an ideal Gestapo officer himself.
Dr. Kastner’s main concern was to make it possible for a select group
of Hungarian Jews to emigrate to Israel…
As a matter of fact, there was a very strong similarity between our
attitudes in the S.S. and the viewpoint of these immensely idealistic
Zionist leaders. I believe that Kastner would have sacrificed a
thousand or a hundred thousand of his blood to achieve his political
goal ‘You can have the others’, he would say, ‘but let me have this
group here’. And because Kastner rendered us a great service by
helping keep the deportation camps peaceful, I would let his groups
escape. After all, I was not concerned with small groups of a thousand
or so Jews…That was the ‘gentleman’s agreement’ I had with Kastner
(Hecht, ibid., p.260-61)
Quite clearly these accusations, do not relate merely to ‘the purchase
of Jewish lives for money and military equipment’.
Are the accusations against Kastner true?
According to the Government of Israel, they are a lie. When Malchiel
Greenwald, a strongly pro-Zionist Israeli citizen published these
accusations against Kastner, the Israeli Government did rather more
than demand that his views should not be broadcast. Because a
prominent Zionist official (Dr. Kastner was a spokesman for the
Ministry of Trade and Industry) was involved, the Attorney General of
the State of Israel prosecuted Greenwald for criminal libel.
The Verdict
Let the verdict of Judge Benjamin Halevi (who later became one of the
panel of three judges that tried Eichmann) in Israel’s District Court
of Jerusalem speak for itself, given in criminal case No. 124 of 1953.
The Attorney General v. Malchiel Greenwald. This material should be
studied carefully.
The masses of Jews from Hungary’s ghettos obediently boarded the
deportation trains without knowing their fate. They were full of
confidence in the false information that they were being transferred
to Kenyermeze.
The Nazis could not have misled the masses of Jews so conclusively had
they not spread their false information through Jewish channels.
The Jews of the ghettos would not have trusted the Nazi or Hungarian
rulers. But they had trust in their Jewish leaders. Eichmann and
others used this known fact as part of their calculated plan to
mislead the Jews.
They were able to deport the Jews to their extermination by the help
of Jewish leaders.
The false information was spread by the Jewish leaders. The local
leaders of the Jews of Kluj and Nodvarod knew that other leaders were
spreading such false information and did not protest.
Those of the Jews who tried to warn their friends of the truth were
persecuted by the Jewish leaders in charge of the local ‘rescue work’.
The trust of the Jews in the misleading information and their lack of
knowledge that their wives, children and themselves were about to be
deported to the gas chambers of Auschwitz led the victims to remain
quiescent in their ghettos. It seduced them into not resisting or
hampering the deportation orders.
Dozens of thousands of Jews were guarded in their ghettos by a few
dozen police. Yet even vigorous young Jews made no attempt to
overpower these few guards and escape to nearby Rumania. No resistance
activities to the deportations were organized in these ghettos.
And the Jewish leaders did everything in their power to soothe the
Jews in the ghettos and to prevent such resistance activities.
The same Jews who spread in Kluj and Nodvarod the false rumor of
Kenyermeze, or confirmed it, the same public leaders who did not warn
their own people against the misleading statements, the same Jewish
leaders who did not organize any resistance or any sabotage of
deportations…these same leaders did not join the people of their
community in their ride to Auschwitz, but were all included in the
Rescue train.
The Nazi organizers of extermination and the perpetrators of
extermination permitted Rudolf Kastner and the members of the Jewish
Council in Budapest to save themselves, their relatives, and friends.
The Nazis did this as a means of making the local Jewish leaders, whom
they favoured, dependent on the Nazi regime, dependent on its good
will during the time of its fatal deportation schedule. In short, the
Nazis succeeded in bringing the Jewish leaders into collaboration with
the Nazis at the time of the catastrophe.
The Nazi chiefs knew that the Zionists were a most vital element in
Jewry and the most trusted by the Jews.
The personality of Rudolph Kastner made him a convenient catspaw for
Eichmann and his clique, to draw into collaboration and make their
task easier.
The question here is not, as stated by the Attorney General in his
summation, whether members of the Jewish Rescue Committee were or were
not capable of fulfilling their duty without the patronage of the S.S.
chiefs
.
It is obvious that without such S.S. Nazi patronage the Jewish Rescue
Committee could not have existed, and could have acted only as an
underground.
The question is, as put by the lawyer for the defense, why were the
Nazis interested in the existence of the Rescue Committee? Why did the
S.S. chiefs make every effort to encourage the existence of the Jewish
Rescue Committee? Did the exterminators turn into rescuers?
The same question rises concerning the rescue of prominent Jews by
these German killers of Jews. Was the rescue of such Jews a part of
the extermination plan of the killers ?
The support given by the extermination leaders to Kastner’s Rescue
Committee proves that indeed there was a place for Kastner and his
friends in their Final Solution for the Jews of Hungary – their total
annihilation.
The Nazi’s patronage of Kastner, and their agreement to let him save
six hundred prominent Jews, were part of the plan to exterminate the
Jews.
Kastner was given a chance to add a few more to that number. The bait
attracted him. The opportunity of rescuing prominent people appealed
to him greatly. He considered the rescue of the most important Jews as
a great personal success and a success for Zionism. It was a success
that would also justify his conduct – his political negotiation with
Nazis and the Nazi patronage of his committee.
When Kastner received this present from the Nazis, Kastner sold his
soul to the German Satan.
The sacrifice of the vital interests of the majority of the Jews, in
order to rescue the prominents, was the basic element in the agreement
between Kastner and the Nazis. This agreement fixed the division of
the nation into two unequal camps: a small fragment of prominents,
whom the Nazis promised Kastner to save, on the one hand, and the
great majority or Hungarian Jews whom the Nazis designated for death,
on the other hand.
An imperative condition for the rescue of the first camp by the Nazis
was that Kastner will not interfere in the action of the Nazis against
the other camp and will not hamper them in its extermination. Kastner
fulfilled this condition. He concentrated his efforts in the rescue of
the prominents and treated the camp of the doomed as if they had
already been wiped out from the book of the living.
One cannot estimate the damage caused by Kastner’s collaboration and
put down the number of victims which it cost Hungarian Jews. These are
not only the thousands of Jews in Nodvarod or any other community in
the border area, Jews who could escape through the border, had the
chief of their rescue committee fulfilled his duty toward them.
All of Kastner’s answers in his final testimony were a constant effort
to evade this truth.
Kastner has tried to escape through every crack he could find in the
wall of evidence. When one crack was sealed in his face, he darted
quickly to another. (Judgement of Judge Benjamin Halevi, Criminal Case
124/53; Attorney General v. Malchiel Greenwald, District Court,
Jerusalem, June 22,1955).
Judge Halevi reverts to the meeting of Kastner with the S.S. officers
Becher and Rudolf Hoess, commandant of Auschwitz at the time when the
‘new line’ of rescuing Jews was revealed by Hoess. He says:
>From this gathering in Budapest, it is obvious that the ‘new line’
stretched from Himmler to Hoess, from Jutner to Becher and Krumey.
According to Kastner, however, these Nazis were all active in rescuing
Jews.
This meeting of these important German guests in Budapest exposes the
‘rescue’ work of Becher in its true light. It reveals also the extent
of Kastner’s involvement in the inner circle of the chief German war
criminals.
Just as the Nazi war criminals knew they needed an alibi and hoped to
achieve it by the rescue of a few Jews at the eleventh hour, so
Kastner also needed an alibi for himself.
Collaboration between the Jewish Agency Rescue Committee and the
Exterminators of the Jews was solidified in Budapest and Vienna.
Kastner’s duties were part and parcel of the general duties of the
S.S.
In addition to its Extermination Department and Looting Department,
the Nazi S.S. opened a Rescue Department headed by Kastner.
All these extermination, robbery and rescue activities of the S.S.
were coordinated under the management of Heinrich Himmler”.
Judge Halevi continues:
Kastner perjured himself knowingly in his testimony before this court
when he denied he had interceded in Becher’s behalf. Moreover, he
concealed the important fact that he interceded for Becher in the name
of the Jewish Agency and the Jewish World Congress.
As to the contents of Kastner’s affidavit, it was enough for the
defense to provide Becher was a war criminal. It was up to the
prosecution to remove Becher from this status, if they wished to
negate the affidavit.
The Attorney General admitted in his summation that Becher was a war
criminal.
The lies in the contents of Kastner’s affidavit, the lies in his
testimony concerning the document, and Kastner’s knowing participation
in the activities of Nazi war criminals, and his participation in the
last minute fake rescue activities – all these combine to show one
overwhelming truth – that this affidavit was not given in good faith.
Kastner knew well, as he himself testified, that Becher had never
stood up against the stream of Jewish extermination, as Kastner has
declared in the affidavit.
The aims of Becher and his superior, Himmler, were not to save Jews
but to serve the Nazi regime with full compliance. These is not truth
and no good faith in Kastner’s testimony, ‘I never doubted for one
moment the good intention of good Becher’.
It is clear that the positive recommendation by Kastner, not only in
his own name but also in the name of the Jewish Agency and the Jewish
World Congress was of decisive importance for Becher. Kastner did not
exaggerate when he said that Becher was released by the Allies because
of his personal intervention. The lies in the affidavit of Kastner and
the contradictions and various pretexts, which were proven to be lies,
were sufficient to annul the value of his statements and to prove that
there was no good faith in his testimony in favor of this German war
criminal. Kastner’s affidavit in favor of Becher was a wilfully false
affidavit given in favor of a war
criminal to save him from trial and punishment in Nuremberg.
Therefore, the defendant, Malchiel Greenwald, was correct in his
accusations against Rudolf Kastner in the first, second and fourth of
his statements.”
Judge Halevi’s verdict found Malchiel Greenwald generally innocent of
libel against Kastner, but fined him one Israeli pound for the one
unproved accusation – that Kastner had actually collected money from
his Nazi
partners for his aide to their slaughter program. The judge also
ordered the Government of Israel to pay Greenwald two hundred Israeli
pounds as court costs.
If the story ended there, it would only prove conclusively that the
individual Kastner was a collaborator and the Israeli Government had
attempted to defend him, although facts brought out in the trial
pointed to much more than that.
But the story does not end there.
The Reaction
The Communist Party newspaper Kol Ha’am (Voice of the People) wrote:
All those whose relatives were butchered by the Germans in Hungary
know now clearly that Jewish hands helped the mass murder” (23 June
1955)
But public opinion was not quite unanimous. The problem with bringing
Kastner and his associates to trial was that his associates were the
Government of Israel.
As the evening paper *Yedi’ot Aharonot* said:
If Kastner is brought to trial the entire government faces a total
political and national collapse – as a result of what such a trial may
disclose.” (23 June 1955)
Accordingly, the Government of Israel did not put Kastner on trial,
instead it filed an appeal against the acquittal of Greenwald for
criminal libel.
At 11 P.M. the verdict was given. At 11 A.M. next morning the
government announces the defense of Kastner will be renewed – an
appeal filed.
What exemplary expediency! Since when does this government possess
such lawyer-genius who can weigh in one night the legal chances of an
appeal on a detailed, complex verdict of three hundred pages?
At the appeal hearings before the Supreme Court, the Attorney General
of Israel, Chaim Cohen, explained clearly why the Government of Israel
was defending Kastner so strongly:
The man Kastner does not stand here as a private individual. He was a
recognized representative, official or non-official of the Jewish
National Institutes in Palestine and of the Zionist Executive; and I
come here in this court to defend the representative of our national
institutions.”(Hecht, p. 268)
The truth of this statement cannot be denied. Kastner’s collaboration
was not that of an individual. It was the collaboration of the Zionist
leadership.
So far, it has only been established that the Government of Israel
continued to support a Nazi collaborator after the facts about his
collaboration had been conclusively established in an Israeli court.
But the story gets worse.
The Supreme Court of Israel unanimously found that Becher was indeed a
Nazi war criminal and that Kastner had without justification, and in
the name of the Jewish Agency, helped Becher to escape justice. On
this point Greenwald was acquitted of libel and Kastner was not
‘fully rehabilitated’.
The Supreme Court also accepted the facts established in the lower
court – that Kastner deliberately concealed the truth about Auschwitz
>from the majority of Hungarian Jews in exchange for Nazi permission to
take a thousand or so to Palestine. Again, Kastner was far from being
‘fully rehabilitated’.
But now comes the really nasty bit. After unanimously acknowledging
these facts, the Supreme Court of Israel, by a majority of three to
two, found that Kastner’s actions were morally justifiable and
convicted Greenwald of criminal libel for calling this
‘collaboration’.
Kastner’s actions only proved that he was a Nazi collaborator. It is
the defense of these actions by the Government and Courts of Israel
that prove conclusively that Zionism approves of Nazi collaboration.
The majority of the Supreme Court of Israel did not rehabilitate
Kastner. They joined him.
Let us read from the majority judgement of Supreme Court Judge Shlomo
Chesin:
….What point was there in telling the people boarding the trains in
Kluj, people struck by fate and persecuted, as to what awaits them at
the end of their journey…Kastner spoke in detail of the situation,
saying, ‘The Hungarian Jew was a branch which long ago dried up on the
tree’. This vivid description coincides with the testimony of another
witness about the Hungarian Jews, ‘This was a big Jewish community in
Hungary, without any ideological Jewish backbone’ (Moshe Shweiger, a
Kastner aide in Budapest, protocol 465).
I fully agree with my friend, Judge Agranot, when he states that, ‘The
Jews of Hungary, including those in the countryside, were not capable,
neither physically nor mentally, to carry out resistance operations
with force against the deportation scheme’…From this point of view
no rescue achievement could have resulted by disclosing the Auschwitz
news to the Jewish leaders there, and this is a consideration which on
can properly conclude that Kastner had in front of his eyes.
….And I take one more step. I am certain that the silence of Kastner
when he arrived in Kluj was premeditated and calculated and did not
result from his great despair because of the helplessness of the
Jewish community.
Even then, I say, this is still not considered wilful collaboration
and assistance in the extermination, because all the signs indicate
that Kastner’s efforts were aimed at rescue and rescue on a big
scale…And towards the end I take one last step. In doing so I go
very far and say that even if Kastner ordered himself to keep silent
knowingly, in submission to the strong will of the Nazis, in order to
save a few Jews from Hell – this is still no proof that he stained his
hands by collaborating with the enemies of his people and carrying out
their plan to exterminate most of the Jewish community in Hungary.
Even if, through these activities of his – or rather, his omission –
the extermination became easier. And as to the moral issue, the
question is not whether a man is allowed to kill many in order to save
a few, or vice-versa. The question is altogether in another sphere and
should be defined as follows: A man is aware that a whole community is
awaiting its doom. He is allowed to make efforts to save a few,
although part of his efforts involve concealment of truth from the
many or should he disclose
the truth to many though it is his best opinion that this way
everybody will perish. I think that the answer is clear. What good
will the blood of the few bring if everybody is to perish?…As I
said, I am not arguing with the basic factual findings of the learned
President of the Jewish District Court (Judge Halevi) but it seems to
me, with all due respect, that his findings do not, as of necessity,
demand the conclusion he has arrived at.
That is to say, collaboration on the part of Kastner in the
extermination of the Jews. And that they better coincide with bad
leadership both from a moral and public point of view…
In my opinion, one can say outright that if you find out that Kastner
collaborated with the enemy because he did not disclose to the people
who boarded the trains in Kluj that they were being led to
extermination, one has to put on trial today Danzig, Herman, Hanzi,
Brand, Revis and Marton, and many more leaders and half-leaders who
gagged themselves in an hour of crisis and did not inform others of
what was known to them and did not warn
and did not cry out of the coming danger….
Because of all this I cannot confirm the conclusion of the District
Court with regard to the accusation that Greenwald has thrown on
Kastner of collaboration with the Nazis in exterminating the Jewish
people in Hungary during the last war.” (Hecht, ibid., pp.270-2)
In other words, the Court approved of Kastner’s contempt for the
Hungarian Jews and could not allow him to be condemned for doing
exactly what many other Zionist leaders and half-leaders did –
concealing their knowledge of the Nazi extermination plans so that
Jews would board the trains to Auschwitz peacefully while their
Zionist ‘leaders’ boarded a different train for Palestine.
The most precise answer to this sickening judgement of Judge Chesin is
provided in the minority judgement of Supreme Court Judge Moshe
Silberg:
I do not say that he was the only man who possessed information among
the leaders. It is quite possible that somebody else as well does not
have a clear conscience with regards to this concealment. But we are
dealing here with the guilt of Kastner and we do not have to make
judgements on the guilt of others….
The declaration of the learned Attorney General therefore shrinks into
an opinion….’Kastner was convinced and believed that there was no
ray of hope for the Jews of Hungary, almost for none of them, and as
he, as a result of his personal despair, did not disclose the secret
of the extermination in order not to endanger or frustrate the rescue
of the few – therefore he acted in good faith and should not be
accused of collaborating with the Nazis in expediting the
extermination of the Jews, even though, in fact, he brought about its
result.’
I am compelled to state that it is very difficult for me to conceive
such an intention. Is this good faith? Can a single man, even in
cooperation with some of his friends, yield to despair on behalf and
without the knowledge of 800,000 other people? This is, in my opinion,
the decisive consideration in the problem facing us. The charge
emanating from the testimony of the witnesses against Kastner is that
had they known of the Auschwitz secret, then thousands or tens of
thousands would have been able
to save their lives by local, partial, specific or indirect rescue
operations like local revolts, resistance, escapes, hidings,
concealment of children with Gentiles, forging of documents, ransom
money, bribery,etc. – and when this is the case and when one deals
with many hundreds of thousands, how does a human being, a mortal,
reject with complete certainty and with an extreme ‘no’ the efficiency
of all the many and varied rescue ways? How can he examine the tens of
thousands of possibilities? Does he decide instead of God?
Indeed, he who can act with such a usurpation of the
last hope of hundreds of thousands is not entitled to claim good faith
as his defense. The penetrating question quo warrento is a good answer
to a claim of such good faith…
If the superintendent of a big hospital lets thousands of sick people
die so that he may devote himself to the sure rescue of one soul, he
will come out guilty, at least morally, even if it is proven that he
as an individual erroneously thought that there was no hope of saving
the other patients. He is a collaborator with the angel of death.
Either a complete atrophy of the soul or a blind involvement with
complete loss of senses and proportion in his small but personal
rescue operation could bring a man to such a gigantic, hazardous play.
And if all this is not enough to annul the claim of good faith which
was put before us on behalf of Kastner by the Attorney General, then
Kastner himself comes and annuls it altogether. Not only did he never
make this claim, but his own words prove the contrary. He writes in
his report to the Jewish Agency that the Committee sent emissaries to
many ghettos in the countryside and pleaded with them to organize
escapes and to refuse to board the trains. And though the story of
these pleadings is untrue, and the silence of Kastner in Kluj is
proven, the very uttering of these statements entirely contradicts the
claim that Kastner had concealed the
news about the fate of the ghetto inmates in good faith and only as a
result of his complete despairing of the chances of escaping or
resisting the Germans. You can not claim at the same time helplessness
and activity. Anyway, such a claim is not convincing…
We can sum up with three facts:
A. That the Nazis didn’t want to have a great revolt – nor small
revolts, and their passion was to have the extermination machine
working smoothly without resistance. This fact was known to Kastner
>from the best source – from Eichmann himself – And he had additional
proofs of that when he witnessed all the illusionary and misleading
tactics which were being taken by the Nazis from the first moment of
occupation.
B. That the most efficient means to paralyze the resistance with – or
the escape of a victim is to conceal from him the plot of the coming
murder. This fact is known to every man and one does not need any
proof of evidence for this.
C. That he, Kastner, in order to carry out the rescue plan for the few
prominents, fulfilled knowingly and without good faith the said desire
of the Nazis, thus expediting the work of exterminating the masses.
And also the rescue of Becher by Kastner…He who is capable of
rescuing this Becher from hanging proves that the atrocities of this
great war criminal were not so horrifying or despicable in his
eyes…I couldn’t base the main guilt of Kastner on this fact had it
been alone, but when it is attached even from afar to the whole scene
of events it throws retroactive
light on the whole affair and serves as a dozen proofs of our
conclusion.”(Supreme Court Judge, Moshe Silberg, 1957)
If that had been the majority judgement, one could say that whatever
their attitudes to the Arabs, and whatever their past behaviour might
have been under pressure, the Zionist leadership today did not
advocate collaboration with the Nazis.
But Judge Silberg’s judgement was that of a minority.
The Kastner case is therefore not an alleged episode in past history.
It is a continuing controversy in which the top Zionist leadership of
Israel stand indicted of continuing to publicly defend collaboration
with the Nazis in the extermination of Jews.
Despite the unanimous finding of the Supreme Court of Israel that Kurt
Becher was a major war criminal, the Jewish Agency (World Zionist
Organization) refused to withdraw the fraudulent certificate Kastner
gave on their behalf, which saved Becher from hanging, and allowed him
to remain a free man in West Germany, the head of several corporations
and with an estimated personal worth of $30 million.
Becher has even used his certification as a ‘good’ SS officer to give
evidence in support of his associates at other war crimes trials in
West Germany.
Since the prosecution, representing the Israeli Government agreed with
the Supreme Court that Becher was a major war criminal, one can only
pressure that the Israeli Government did not want him put on trial for
fear of what might come out.
Likewise, none of Kastner’s associates on the Zionist Relief and
Rescue Committee or his bosses in the Jewish Agency have ever been put
on trial .
Let alone the hundreds of ‘prominents’ who helped Kastner to reassure
the Hungarian Jews that they were going to Kenyermeze and not
Auschwitz, in exchange for tickets on the one train that took them
eventually to Palestine.
As for Kastner himself, he will cause no further embarrassment to the
Zionist leadership with his undisputed claims that everything he did
was approved by the Jewish Agency (World Zionist Organization)
leadership in Palestine. He is ‘now dead’. Or putting it less
delicately, on 3 March 1957 he was shot by Zeev Eckstein – immediately
after the appeal hearings were concluded, and before the judgement
‘rehabilitating’ him was delivered.
Eckstein was not a Hungarian avenger. He was a paid undercover agent
of the Israeli secret service. (Hecht, ibid., p.208). Another
‘fantastic allegation’ no doubt; but admitted in court during the
murder trial).
sven88
On Thu, 15 Oct 1998 12:39:09, [email protected] wrote:
>Readers are reminded that there is in fact no such
>organization as the “American Fascist Union”. All
>posts claiming to be from the “American Fascist Union”
>are in fact posted to Usenet by the same individual who
>was for some time using the name “Karl Zimmer”. This
>individual is most likely an operative of Nizkor.
From [email protected] Thu Oct 15 19:44:55 EDT 1998
Article: 269914 of alt.revisionism
Path: hub.org!hub.org!darla.visi.com!chippy.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!feed2.nntp.acc.ca!feed.nntp.acc.ca!cyclone.news.idirect.com!island.idirect.com!news.agtac.net!news.telusplanet.net!news
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: McVay/NIZKOR SWINDLE EVEN JEWS – TAX FRAUD!!!.
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 15:17:47 GMT
Organization: TELUS Communications Inc.
Lines: 263
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: edtntnt4-port-108.agt.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:269914
On Tue, 13 Oct 1998 13:01:05, [email protected] wrote:
On Thu, 17 Sep 1998 18:21:48 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
>On Tue, 18 Aug 1998 13:28:08 -0400, The Truth of HateWatchWatch
>
>>McVay is just trying to make money off his people being killed in the holacaust.
>>I think that is damnable, but jews seems to want to profit from the holacaust.
>It seems that the despicable OyVay, the gas station attendant and Tax
>Fraud, just does not like being exposed and investigated by the Tax
>authorities in both canada and the USA!!!
>On 28 Mar 1998 19:27:41 GMT, [email protected] (Kenneth McVay SOB)
>wrote:
>Feel free to forward your complaints also to Revenue Canada, either by
>phone or E-mail.
>Notice that the gas station employee McVay, his employment exposed in
>an interview a week ago in local papers, refuses to answer the
>questions.
>Even his masters, the JEWS, must be getting annoyed by now, with all
>the tax fraud investigations in Canada and the USA.
>The Victoria synagogue where he used to hide, had to kick him out
>because of the heat from the authorities!!!
>One must wonder whether he is so rejected by the Jews in B.C, that he
>had to go to Edmonton to hold a meeting??
>Or, could it be that in Alberta Canada, there are more thinking
>people, who reject the garbage disseminated by OyVay and his gang??
>Perhaps some of the others in North America intersted in discussing
>the Holohoax will also respond.
>>On Wed, 11 Feb 1998 19:17:57 GMT, [email protected] (Michael )wrote:
>>On Sat, 07 Feb 1998 06:44:38 -0500, Avenger
>> The goyboy token getting paid by the swindlers at NAZIKOR/NIZKOR just
>> will not answer the critical questions.
>>Nothing new here.
>> It seems he and his creatures may in fact have been swindling not only
>> the IRS in the USA, and Revenue canada Taxation, but also swindling
>> the people who made donations, thinking it was a legal charity, which
>> it is NOT!!!
>>Definitely not a charity.
Revenue Canada Taxation – Charities Division Ottawa, again today
confirmed that there is no registration for Nizkor as a charity in
Canada!!!
They can be reached directly, for filing complaints, at:
Telephone to: 1-800-267-2384
Also, you can E-mail complaints about Nizkor, to them, at:
http://www.rc.gc.ca/charities
An alternative telephone number for fraud complaints is Special
Investigations Revenue Canada at:
telephone # 204-983-1829
>> Subject: Re: Questions OyVey Won’t Answer!!!!
>>
>> Where are the answers to all the questions, which Nazikor/NIZKOR refuses to
>> answer??
>> Is it really an international tax fraud?
>> What have the I.R.S. to say??
>> Over the past few months, there have been a set of questions, which
>> OyVey and his minions have refused to answer.
>> Perhaps the officials at the I.R.S. Financial Crimes Enforcement Branch,
>> who can be reached at:
http://www.ustreas.gov/mail/fincen.html
>> will be interested in receiving complaints regarding NIZKOR and OyVey.
>> Also, Revenue Canada Taxation can be reached with similar complaints at:
>> [email protected], or
>> http://www.rc.gc.ca
>> In Message, put first line of message as:
>> ATTENTION SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS
>> or telephone to: 204-983-1829
>> They are waiting for your complaints
> >The text relating to Questions OyVey Won’t Answer is:
> >Date: Thu. 23 Jan 1997 00:14:06 GMT
> >From: Doctor detroit ([email protected])
> >Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
> >Subject: to repeat the questions
> > Since this appears to be a tradition in a.r let us continue it.
> > 1) What exactly is the political origin of the initials OBC?
>>Order of the British Crown. In McGoy’s case it is the Order of British Columbia.
> > 2) What did Ken McVay do to receive the approval to use the letters?
>>Being a politically correct gopher for Bnai Brith and promoting the Holocaust(tm)
>>Terrorist Campaign. Further they maintain spy/smear files on people who question
>>certain myths about the Holocaust(tm) for possible prosecution of citizens who travel
>>to Europe. They undoubtably provide information to Mossad.
> > 3) What is the tax number of Nizkor?
> > 4) What is the physical address of Nizkor?
>>Probably written on McGoy’s forehead. Hard to tell since he has his nose up Bnai Brith’s butt.
>> It seems that temple Emanuel in Victoria, Canada could no longer stand the stench
>> of the shabbas-goy Oyvay
>>McGoy dropped them for greener pastures.
> > 5) What is the phone number of Nizkor?
> > 6) Where can one find the organisational papers for Nizkor?
>>For the US they should be filed in the State of Texas under the San Antonio Area
>>Foundation. This is the front-end shell organization for Nizkookland in the US.
> > 7) What is the evidence offered that Nizkor is authorised to
> > solicit tax free contributions?
>>Unknown. Except they claim that if someone “contributes” more than $10 that Bnai
>>Brith will give them a receipt for tax purposes. They do not specify if this is US or
>>Canadian dollars.
> >In view of the refusal by OyVey and Nizkor to answer the critical
> >questions in #3, #4,#6, and especially #7, one must wonder.
> >Is NIZKOR JUST A HUGE TAX FRAUD, with the proceeds lining the pockets of
> >OyVey???
>>It’s a reasonable assumption.
> >Try to get answers from the tax authorities, both in the USA and Canada.
>> On Sun, 15 Jun 1997 00:41:49 GMT, in alt.revisionism [email protected]
>> (Dan Leonik) wrote:
>>Check this out!
>>Read this. This was after Ken McGoy denied a connection with any other Jewish
>>organization. I know I posted it. Also if you want me to repost Ken’s “Big Lie”
>>letter just ask.
> >Nizkor Funding
> >URL: http://www.almanac.bc.ca/funding.html
> >Summary: Please make your donations payable to League for Human Rights
> >of B’nai Brith Canada …with the cheque’s memo including “Nizkor
> >Project”. ). In the United States, donations in support of the Project
> >should be made payable to San Antonio Area Foundation – Nizkor Fund
> >and should be mailed to San Antonio Area Foundation.
> >Excite Search—Search: “nizkor”
> >”From B’nai Brith’s 1996 ‘Audit of Anti-Semitic Incidents’:
>> The League is working closely
>>with Ken McVay’s Nizkor Project (https://nizkor.org) through the
>>”Holocaust and Hope” program. The League and Nizkor have prepared a
>>workbook entitled Hate and the Internet: Selected Readings to assist
>>in workshops on assist in workshops on this topic. The creation of a
>>B’nai web site (http://www.bnaibrith.ca) facilitates the dissemination
>>of information to counter hate and also provides a means of reporting
>>incidents directly to the National Office.”
>>Interesting. This after the Liar McGoy had denied any connection.
> >There can be no doubt that the Nizkor WHORES are in the business to
> >promote Jewish interests.
>>That is putting it “lightly”.
> >If any of them are White Americans then they
> >are paid agents of a foreign government accepting money to undermine
> >American values of honesty and truth in reporting the facts of WWII.
>>Their MO is described in former Mossad agent Victor Ostrovsky’s book “By Way of
>>Deception”. Read it. It should pretty much remove any doubts you might have of what
>>the Nizkooks are up to.
>>[email protected]
>>”http://www.natall.com”
>>”http://www.natvan.com”
>>National Vanguard Books
>>P.O. Box 330
>>Hillsboro, WV 24946
>>”No man has come to true greatness who has not felt
>>in some degree that his life belongs to his race.”
>> —-Phillips Brooks
>>+++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>Get the text of American Dissident Voices broadcasts by e-mail!
>>Subscribe to our mailing list by sending an e-mail message to:
>>[email protected] which contains the
>>word _subscribe_ as the subject of your message.
>> You may also get them from our FTP site at: ftp://natvan.com
>>Revenue Canada Taxation – Charities Division Ottawa, again today
>>confirmed that there is no registration for Nizkor as a charity in
>>Canada!!!
>show us where Nizkor has ever claimed to have one.
All you need do, is read above, or get your orderly to read for you.
>Please print this form and send to:
>The Nizkor Project
>c/o
>The League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada
>15 Hove Street
>Toronto, Ontario M3H 4Y8
>Name:________________________________________
>Street Address:________________________________________________
>City_________________State/Province__________Postal Code_______
>E-Mail Address:_________________________________
>Amount Enclosed: $___________
>Please make your donations payable to “The League for Human Rights of
>B’nai Brith Canada,” and add the words “Nizkor Trust Fund” to the
>cheque’s memo section.
>Donations over $10.00 will receive a Canadian tax receipt.
>[#0235903-43-13]
>Attention:CHARITIES
>also: SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS
From [email protected] Thu Oct 15 19:44:56 EDT 1998
Article: 269915 of alt.revisionism
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: soc.culture.palestine,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.revisionism,soc.culture.islam,soc.culture.malaysia,soc.culture.australian,soc.culture.polish
Subject: Re: Nazi — Jewish Zionist Collaboration
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 15:14:47 GMT
Organization: TELUS Communications Inc.
Lines: 638
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: edtntnt4-port-108.agt.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451
Path: hub.org!hub.org!darla.visi.com!chippy.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!newshub.northeast.verio.net!cyclone.news.idirect.com!island.idirect.com!news.oanet.com!news.agtac.net!news.telusplanet.net!news
Xref: hub.org soc.culture.palestine:53077 alt.politics.nationalism.white:175196 alt.revisionism:269915 soc.culture.islam:4186 soc.culture.malaysia:196090 soc.culture.australian:78556 soc.culture.polish:123171
On Wed, 14 Oct 1998 16:31:36, [email protected] wrote:
On Tue, 13 Oct 1998 11:38:31, [email protected] wrote:
>On 28 Sep 1998 01:44:48 -0000, Anonymous
>>Death to each and every kike in the JDL only after hours of torture.
On Thu, 10 Sep 1998 22:56:46 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
trying to stimulate more interest in this topic,
On Sat, 15 Aug 1998 18:45:47 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
>On Fri, 03 Jul 1998 15:00:35 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
>>On 3 Jul 1998 06:38:05 GMT,
Orest Slepokura
…fully documented *Perfidy* blatantly exposes the degree to which
Zionists cooperated in the persecution of their fellow Jews…
Here is more evidence of NAZI-ZIONIST JEW COLLABORATION.
The Kastner Case
The most notorious case of Nazi-Zionist collaboration is that
involving a Jew – Rudolf Kastner.
Most Jewish people have never heard of Rudolf Kastner. Those who have,
are generally under the impression that there is some ‘controversy’
about negotiations he undertook for ‘the purchase of Jewish lives for
money and military equipment’, but that he was ‘fully rehabilitated’
by the Supreme Court of Israel.
The Accusations
Briefly, the accusations against Kastner are as follows:
Dr. Rudolf Verba, a Doctor of Science now serving at the British
Medical Research Council, was one of the few escapees from Auschwitz.
In his memoirs published in February, 1961, in the London Daily
Herald, he wrote:
I am a Jew. In spite of that – indeed because of that – I accuse
certain Jewish leaders of one of the most ghastly deeds of the war.
This group of quislings knew what was happening to their brethren in
Hitler’s gas chambers and bought their own lives with the price of
silence.
Among them was Dr. Kastner, leader of the council which spoke for all
Jews in Hungary. While I was prisoner number 44070 at Auschwitz – the
number is still on my arm – I compiled careful statistics of the
exterminations.
I took these terrible statistics with me when I escaped in 1944 and I
was able to give Hungarian Zionist leaders three weeks notice that
Eichmann planned to send a million of their Jews to his gas
chambers…Kastner went to Eichmann and told him, ‘I know of your
plans; spare some Jews of my choice and I shall keep quiet.’
Eichmann not only agreed, but dressed Kastner up in S.S. uniform and
took him to Belsen to trace some of his friends. Nor did the sordid
bargaining end there. Kastner paid Eichmann several thousand dollars.
With this little fortune, Eichmann was able to buy his way to freedom
when Germany collapsed, to set himself up in the Argentine…(Ben
Hecht, Perfidy, pp261-2)
These accusations are confirmed by the ‘Eichmann Confessions’
published in Life magazine, 28 November and 5 December 1960:
I resolved to show how well a job could be done when the commander
stands 100% behind it. By shipping the Jews off in a lightning
operation, I wanted to set an example for future campaigns
elsewhere…In obedience to Himmler’s directive I now concentrated on
negotiations with the Jewish political officials in Budapest…Among
them Dr. Rudolph Kastner, authorized representative of the Zionist
Movement. This Dr. Kastner was a young man about my age, an ice-cold
lawyer and a fanatical Zionist. He agreed to help keep the Jews from
resisting deportation – and even keep order in the collection camps –
if I could close my eyes and let a few hundred or a few thousand young
Jews emigrate illegally to Palestine.
It was a good bargain. For keeping order in the camps, the price was
not too high for me.
We trusted each other perfectly. When he was with me, Kastner smoke
cigarets as though he was in a coffeehouse. While we talked he would
smoke one aromatic cigaret after another, taking them from a silver
case and lighting them with a silver lighter. With his great polish
and reserve he would have made an ideal Gestapo officer himself.
Dr. Kastner’s main concern was to make it possible for a select group
of Hungarian Jews to emigrate to Israel…
As a matter of fact, there was a very strong similarity between our
attitudes in the S.S. and the viewpoint of these immensely idealistic
Zionist leaders. I believe that Kastner would have sacrificed a
thousand or a hundred thousand of his blood to achieve his political
goal ‘You can have the others’, he would say, ‘but let me have this
group here’. And because Kastner rendered us a great service by
helping keep the deportation camps peaceful, I would let his groups
escape. After all, I was not concerned with small groups of a thousand
or so Jews…That was the ‘gentleman’s agreement’ I had with Kastner
(Hecht, ibid., p.260-61)
Quite clearly these accusations, do not relate merely to ‘the purchase
of Jewish lives for money and military equipment’.
Are the accusations against Kastner true?
According to the Government of Israel, they are a lie. When Malchiel
Greenwald, a strongly pro-Zionist Israeli citizen published these
accusations against Kastner, the Israeli Government did rather more
than demand that his views should not be broadcast. Because a
prominent Zionist official (Dr. Kastner was a spokesman for the
Ministry of Trade and Industry) was involved, the Attorney General of
the State of Israel prosecuted Greenwald for criminal libel.
The Verdict
Let the verdict of Judge Benjamin Halevi (who later became one of the
panel of three judges that tried Eichmann) in Israel’s District Court
of Jerusalem speak for itself, given in criminal case No. 124 of 1953.
The Attorney General v. Malchiel Greenwald. This material should be
studied carefully.
The masses of Jews from Hungary’s ghettos obediently boarded the
deportation trains without knowing their fate. They were full of
confidence in the false information that they were being transferred
to Kenyermeze.
The Nazis could not have misled the masses of Jews so conclusively had
they not spread their false information through Jewish channels.
The Jews of the ghettos would not have trusted the Nazi or Hungarian
rulers. But they had trust in their Jewish leaders. Eichmann and
others used this known fact as part of their calculated plan to
mislead the Jews.
They were able to deport the Jews to their extermination by the help
of Jewish leaders.
The false information was spread by the Jewish leaders. The local
leaders of the Jews of Kluj and Nodvarod knew that other leaders were
spreading such false information and did not protest.
Those of the Jews who tried to warn their friends of the truth were
persecuted by the Jewish leaders in charge of the local ‘rescue work’.
The trust of the Jews in the misleading information and their lack of
knowledge that their wives, children and themselves were about to be
deported to the gas chambers of Auschwitz led the victims to remain
quiescent in their ghettos. It seduced them into not resisting or
hampering the deportation orders.
Dozens of thousands of Jews were guarded in their ghettos by a few
dozen police. Yet even vigorous young Jews made no attempt to
overpower these few guards and escape to nearby Rumania. No resistance
activities to the deportations were organized in these ghettos.
And the Jewish leaders did everything in their power to soothe the
Jews in the ghettos and to prevent such resistance activities.
The same Jews who spread in Kluj and Nodvarod the false rumor of
Kenyermeze, or confirmed it, the same public leaders who did not warn
their own people against the misleading statements, the same Jewish
leaders who did not organize any resistance or any sabotage of
deportations…these same leaders did not join the people of their
community in their ride to Auschwitz, but were all included in the
Rescue train.
The Nazi organizers of extermination and the perpetrators of
extermination permitted Rudolf Kastner and the members of the Jewish
Council in Budapest to save themselves, their relatives, and friends.
The Nazis did this as a means of making the local Jewish leaders, whom
they favoured, dependent on the Nazi regime, dependent on its good
will during the time of its fatal deportation schedule. In short, the
Nazis succeeded in bringing the Jewish leaders into collaboration with
the Nazis at the time of the catastrophe.
The Nazi chiefs knew that the Zionists were a most vital element in
Jewry and the most trusted by the Jews.
The personality of Rudolph Kastner made him a convenient catspaw for
Eichmann and his clique, to draw into collaboration and make their
task easier.
The question here is not, as stated by the Attorney General in his
summation, whether members of the Jewish Rescue Committee were or were
not capable of fulfilling their duty without the patronage of the S.S.
chiefs
.
It is obvious that without such S.S. Nazi patronage the Jewish Rescue
Committee could not have existed, and could have acted only as an
underground.
The question is, as put by the lawyer for the defense, why were the
Nazis interested in the existence of the Rescue Committee? Why did the
S.S. chiefs make every effort to encourage the existence of the Jewish
Rescue Committee? Did the exterminators turn into rescuers?
The same question rises concerning the rescue of prominent Jews by
these German killers of Jews. Was the rescue of such Jews a part of
the extermination plan of the killers ?
The support given by the extermination leaders to Kastner’s Rescue
Committee proves that indeed there was a place for Kastner and his
friends in their Final Solution for the Jews of Hungary – their total
annihilation.
The Nazi’s patronage of Kastner, and their agreement to let him save
six hundred prominent Jews, were part of the plan to exterminate the
Jews.
Kastner was given a chance to add a few more to that number. The bait
attracted him. The opportunity of rescuing prominent people appealed
to him greatly. He considered the rescue of the most important Jews as
a great personal success and a success for Zionism. It was a success
that would also justify his conduct – his political negotiation with
Nazis and the Nazi patronage of his committee.
When Kastner received this present from the Nazis, Kastner sold his
soul to the German Satan.
The sacrifice of the vital interests of the majority of the Jews, in
order to rescue the prominents, was the basic element in the agreement
between Kastner and the Nazis. This agreement fixed the division of
the nation into two unequal camps: a small fragment of prominents,
whom the Nazis promised Kastner to save, on the one hand, and the
great majority or Hungarian Jews whom the Nazis designated for death,
on the other hand.
An imperative condition for the rescue of the first camp by the Nazis
was that Kastner will not interfere in the action of the Nazis against
the other camp and will not hamper them in its extermination. Kastner
fulfilled this condition. He concentrated his efforts in the rescue of
the prominents and treated the camp of the doomed as if they had
already been wiped out from the book of the living.
One cannot estimate the damage caused by Kastner’s collaboration and
put down the number of victims which it cost Hungarian Jews. These are
not only the thousands of Jews in Nodvarod or any other community in
the border area, Jews who could escape through the border, had the
chief of their rescue committee fulfilled his duty toward them.
All of Kastner’s answers in his final testimony were a constant effort
to evade this truth.
Kastner has tried to escape through every crack he could find in the
wall of evidence. When one crack was sealed in his face, he darted
quickly to another. (Judgement of Judge Benjamin Halevi, Criminal Case
124/53; Attorney General v. Malchiel Greenwald, District Court,
Jerusalem, June 22,1955).
Judge Halevi reverts to the meeting of Kastner with the S.S. officers
Becher and Rudolf Hoess, commandant of Auschwitz at the time when the
‘new line’ of rescuing Jews was revealed by Hoess. He says:
>From this gathering in Budapest, it is obvious that the ‘new line’
stretched from Himmler to Hoess, from Jutner to Becher and Krumey.
According to Kastner, however, these Nazis were all active in rescuing
Jews.
This meeting of these important German guests in Budapest exposes the
‘rescue’ work of Becher in its true light. It reveals also the extent
of Kastner’s involvement in the inner circle of the chief German war
criminals.
Just as the Nazi war criminals knew they needed an alibi and hoped to
achieve it by the rescue of a few Jews at the eleventh hour, so
Kastner also needed an alibi for himself.
Collaboration between the Jewish Agency Rescue Committee and the
Exterminators of the Jews was solidified in Budapest and Vienna.
Kastner’s duties were part and parcel of the general duties of the
S.S.
In addition to its Extermination Department and Looting Department,
the Nazi S.S. opened a Rescue Department headed by Kastner.
All these extermination, robbery and rescue activities of the S.S.
were coordinated under the management of Heinrich Himmler”.
Judge Halevi continues:
Kastner perjured himself knowingly in his testimony before this court
when he denied he had interceded in Becher’s behalf. Moreover, he
concealed the important fact that he interceded for Becher in the name
of the Jewish Agency and the Jewish World Congress.
As to the contents of Kastner’s affidavit, it was enough for the
defense to provide Becher was a war criminal. It was up to the
prosecution to remove Becher from this status, if they wished to
negate the affidavit.
The Attorney General admitted in his summation that Becher was a war
criminal.
The lies in the contents of Kastner’s affidavit, the lies in his
testimony concerning the document, and Kastner’s knowing participation
in the activities of Nazi war criminals, and his participation in the
last minute fake rescue activities – all these combine to show one
overwhelming truth – that this affidavit was not given in good faith.
Kastner knew well, as he himself testified, that Becher had never
stood up against the stream of Jewish extermination, as Kastner has
declared in the affidavit.
The aims of Becher and his superior, Himmler, were not to save Jews
but to serve the Nazi regime with full compliance. These is not truth
and no good faith in Kastner’s testimony, ‘I never doubted for one
moment the good intention of good Becher’.
It is clear that the positive recommendation by Kastner, not only in
his own name but also in the name of the Jewish Agency and the Jewish
World Congress was of decisive importance for Becher. Kastner did not
exaggerate when he said that Becher was released by the Allies because
of his personal intervention. The lies in the affidavit of Kastner and
the contradictions and various pretexts, which were proven to be lies,
were sufficient to annul the value of his statements and to prove that
there was no good faith in his testimony in favor of this German war
criminal. Kastner’s affidavit in favor of Becher was a wilfully false
affidavit given in favor of a war
criminal to save him from trial and punishment in Nuremberg.
Therefore, the defendant, Malchiel Greenwald, was correct in his
accusations against Rudolf Kastner in the first, second and fourth of
his statements.”
Judge Halevi’s verdict found Malchiel Greenwald generally innocent of
libel against Kastner, but fined him one Israeli pound for the one
unproved accusation – that Kastner had actually collected money from
his Nazi
partners for his aide to their slaughter program. The judge also
ordered the Government of Israel to pay Greenwald two hundred Israeli
pounds as court costs.
If the story ended there, it would only prove conclusively that the
individual Kastner was a collaborator and the Israeli Government had
attempted to defend him, although facts brought out in the trial
pointed to much more than that.
But the story does not end there.
The Reaction
The Communist Party newspaper Kol Ha’am (Voice of the People) wrote:
All those whose relatives were butchered by the Germans in Hungary
know now clearly that Jewish hands helped the mass murder” (23 June
1955)
But public opinion was not quite unanimous. The problem with bringing
Kastner and his associates to trial was that his associates were the
Government of Israel.
As the evening paper *Yedi’ot Aharonot* said:
If Kastner is brought to trial the entire government faces a total
political and national collapse – as a result of what such a trial may
disclose.” (23 June 1955)
Accordingly, the Government of Israel did not put Kastner on trial,
instead it filed an appeal against the acquittal of Greenwald for
criminal libel.
At 11 P.M. the verdict was given. At 11 A.M. next morning the
government announces the defense of Kastner will be renewed – an
appeal filed.
What exemplary expediency! Since when does this government possess
such lawyer-genius who can weigh in one night the legal chances of an
appeal on a detailed, complex verdict of three hundred pages?
At the appeal hearings before the Supreme Court, the Attorney General
of Israel, Chaim Cohen, explained clearly why the Government of Israel
was defending Kastner so strongly:
The man Kastner does not stand here as a private individual. He was a
recognized representative, official or non-official of the Jewish
National Institutes in Palestine and of the Zionist Executive; and I
come here in this court to defend the representative of our national
institutions.”(Hecht, p. 268)
The truth of this statement cannot be denied. Kastner’s collaboration
was not that of an individual. It was the collaboration of the Zionist
leadership.
So far, it has only been established that the Government of Israel
continued to support a Nazi collaborator after the facts about his
collaboration had been conclusively established in an Israeli court.
But the story gets worse.
The Supreme Court of Israel unanimously found that Becher was indeed a
Nazi war criminal and that Kastner had without justification, and in
the name of the Jewish Agency, helped Becher to escape justice. On
this point Greenwald was acquitted of libel and Kastner was not
‘fully rehabilitated’.
The Supreme Court also accepted the facts established in the lower
court – that Kastner deliberately concealed the truth about Auschwitz
>from the majority of Hungarian Jews in exchange for Nazi permission to
take a thousand or so to Palestine. Again, Kastner was far from being
‘fully rehabilitated’.
But now comes the really nasty bit. After unanimously acknowledging
these facts, the Supreme Court of Israel, by a majority of three to
two, found that Kastner’s actions were morally justifiable and
convicted Greenwald of criminal libel for calling this
‘collaboration’.
Kastner’s actions only proved that he was a Nazi collaborator. It is
the defense of these actions by the Government and Courts of Israel
that prove conclusively that Zionism approves of Nazi collaboration.
The majority of the Supreme Court of Israel did not rehabilitate
Kastner. They joined him.
Let us read from the majority judgement of Supreme Court Judge Shlomo
Chesin:
….What point was there in telling the people boarding the trains in
Kluj, people struck by fate and persecuted, as to what awaits them at
the end of their journey…Kastner spoke in detail of the situation,
saying, ‘The Hungarian Jew was a branch which long ago dried up on the
tree’. This vivid description coincides with the testimony of another
witness about the Hungarian Jews, ‘This was a big Jewish community in
Hungary, without any ideological Jewish backbone’ (Moshe Shweiger, a
Kastner aide in Budapest, protocol 465).
I fully agree with my friend, Judge Agranot, when he states that, ‘The
Jews of Hungary, including those in the countryside, were not capable,
neither physically nor mentally, to carry out resistance operations
with force against the deportation scheme’…From this point of view
no rescue achievement could have resulted by disclosing the Auschwitz
news to the Jewish leaders there, and this is a consideration which on
can properly conclude that Kastner had in front of his eyes.
….And I take one more step. I am certain that the silence of Kastner
when he arrived in Kluj was premeditated and calculated and did not
result from his great despair because of the helplessness of the
Jewish community.
Even then, I say, this is still not considered wilful collaboration
and assistance in the extermination, because all the signs indicate
that Kastner’s efforts were aimed at rescue and rescue on a big
scale…And towards the end I take one last step. In doing so I go
very far and say that even if Kastner ordered himself to keep silent
knowingly, in submission to the strong will of the Nazis, in order to
save a few Jews from Hell – this is still no proof that he stained his
hands by collaborating with the enemies of his people and carrying out
their plan to exterminate most of the Jewish community in Hungary.
Even if, through these activities of his – or rather, his omission –
the extermination became easier. And as to the moral issue, the
question is not whether a man is allowed to kill many in order to save
a few, or vice-versa. The question is altogether in another sphere and
should be defined as follows: A man is aware that a whole community is
awaiting its doom. He is allowed to make efforts to save a few,
although part of his efforts involve concealment of truth from the
many or should he disclose
the truth to many though it is his best opinion that this way
everybody will perish. I think that the answer is clear. What good
will the blood of the few bring if everybody is to perish?…As I
said, I am not arguing with the basic factual findings of the learned
President of the Jewish District Court (Judge Halevi) but it seems to
me, with all due respect, that his findings do not, as of necessity,
demand the conclusion he has arrived at.
That is to say, collaboration on the part of Kastner in the
extermination of the Jews. And that they better coincide with bad
leadership both from a moral and public point of view…
In my opinion, one can say outright that if you find out that Kastner
collaborated with the enemy because he did not disclose to the people
who boarded the trains in Kluj that they were being led to
extermination, one has to put on trial today Danzig, Herman, Hanzi,
Brand, Revis and Marton, and many more leaders and half-leaders who
gagged themselves in an hour of crisis and did not inform others of
what was known to them and did not warn
and did not cry out of the coming danger….
Because of all this I cannot confirm the conclusion of the District
Court with regard to the accusation that Greenwald has thrown on
Kastner of collaboration with the Nazis in exterminating the Jewish
people in Hungary during the last war.” (Hecht, ibid., pp.270-2)
In other words, the Court approved of Kastner’s contempt for the
Hungarian Jews and could not allow him to be condemned for doing
exactly what many other Zionist leaders and half-leaders did –
concealing their knowledge of the Nazi extermination plans so that
Jews would board the trains to Auschwitz peacefully while their
Zionist ‘leaders’ boarded a different train for Palestine.
The most precise answer to this sickening judgement of Judge Chesin is
provided in the minority judgement of Supreme Court Judge Moshe
Silberg:
I do not say that he was the only man who possessed information among
the leaders. It is quite possible that somebody else as well does not
have a clear conscience with regards to this concealment. But we are
dealing here with the guilt of Kastner and we do not have to make
judgements on the guilt of others….
The declaration of the learned Attorney General therefore shrinks into
an opinion….’Kastner was convinced and believed that there was no
ray of hope for the Jews of Hungary, almost for none of them, and as
he, as a result of his personal despair, did not disclose the secret
of the extermination in order not to endanger or frustrate the rescue
of the few – therefore he acted in good faith and should not be
accused of collaborating with the Nazis in expediting the
extermination of the Jews, even though, in fact, he brought about its
result.’
I am compelled to state that it is very difficult for me to conceive
such an intention. Is this good faith? Can a single man, even in
cooperation with some of his friends, yield to despair on behalf and
without the knowledge of 800,000 other people? This is, in my opinion,
the decisive consideration in the problem facing us. The charge
emanating from the testimony of the witnesses against Kastner is that
had they known of the Auschwitz secret, then thousands or tens of
thousands would have been able
to save their lives by local, partial, specific or indirect rescue
operations like local revolts, resistance, escapes, hidings,
concealment of children with Gentiles, forging of documents, ransom
money, bribery,etc. – and when this is the case and when one deals
with many hundreds of thousands, how does a human being, a mortal,
reject with complete certainty and with an extreme ‘no’ the efficiency
of all the many and varied rescue ways? How can he examine the tens of
thousands of possibilities? Does he decide instead of God?
Indeed, he who can act with such a usurpation of the
last hope of hundreds of thousands is not entitled to claim good faith
as his defense. The penetrating question quo warrento is a good answer
to a claim of such good faith…
If the superintendent of a big hospital lets thousands of sick people
die so that he may devote himself to the sure rescue of one soul, he
will come out guilty, at least morally, even if it is proven that he
as an individual erroneously thought that there was no hope of saving
the other patients. He is a collaborator with the angel of death.
Either a complete atrophy of the soul or a blind involvement with
complete loss of senses and proportion in his small but personal
rescue operation could bring a man to such a gigantic, hazardous play.
And if all this is not enough to annul the claim of good faith which
was put before us on behalf of Kastner by the Attorney General, then
Kastner himself comes and annuls it altogether. Not only did he never
make this claim, but his own words prove the contrary. He writes in
his report to the Jewish Agency that the Committee sent emissaries to
many ghettos in the countryside and pleaded with them to organize
escapes and to refuse to board the trains. And though the story of
these pleadings is untrue, and the silence of Kastner in Kluj is
proven, the very uttering of these statements entirely contradicts the
claim that Kastner had concealed the
news about the fate of the ghetto inmates in good faith and only as a
result of his complete despairing of the chances of escaping or
resisting the Germans. You can not claim at the same time helplessness
and activity. Anyway, such a claim is not convincing…
We can sum up with three facts:
A. That the Nazis didn’t want to have a great revolt – nor small
revolts, and their passion was to have the extermination machine
working smoothly without resistance. This fact was known to Kastner
>from the best source – from Eichmann himself – And he had additional
proofs of that when he witnessed all the illusionary and misleading
tactics which were being taken by the Nazis from the first moment of
occupation.
B. That the most efficient means to paralyze the resistance with – or
the escape of a victim is to conceal from him the plot of the coming
murder. This fact is known to every man and one does not need any
proof of evidence for this.
C. That he, Kastner, in order to carry out the rescue plan for the few
prominents, fulfilled knowingly and without good faith the said desire
of the Nazis, thus expediting the work of exterminating the masses.
And also the rescue of Becher by Kastner…He who is capable of
rescuing this Becher from hanging proves that the atrocities of this
great war criminal were not so horrifying or despicable in his
eyes…I couldn’t base the main guilt of Kastner on this fact had it
been alone, but when it is attached even from afar to the whole scene
of events it throws retroactive
light on the whole affair and serves as a dozen proofs of our
conclusion.”(Supreme Court Judge, Moshe Silberg, 1957)
If that had been the majority judgement, one could say that whatever
their attitudes to the Arabs, and whatever their past behaviour might
have been under pressure, the Zionist leadership today did not
advocate collaboration with the Nazis.
But Judge Silberg’s judgement was that of a minority.
The Kastner case is therefore not an alleged episode in past history.
It is a continuing controversy in which the top Zionist leadership of
Israel stand indicted of continuing to publicly defend collaboration
with the Nazis in the extermination of Jews.
Despite the unanimous finding of the Supreme Court of Israel that Kurt
Becher was a major war criminal, the Jewish Agency (World Zionist
Organization) refused to withdraw the fraudulent certificate Kastner
gave on their behalf, which saved Becher from hanging, and allowed him
to remain a free man in West Germany, the head of several corporations
and with an estimated personal worth of $30 million.
Becher has even used his certification as a ‘good’ SS officer to give
evidence in support of his associates at other war crimes trials in
West Germany.
Since the prosecution, representing the Israeli Government agreed with
the Supreme Court that Becher was a major war criminal, one can only
pressure that the Israeli Government did not want him put on trial for
fear of what might come out.
Likewise, none of Kastner’s associates on the Zionist Relief and
Rescue Committee or his bosses in the Jewish Agency have ever been put
on trial .
Let alone the hundreds of ‘prominents’ who helped Kastner to reassure
the Hungarian Jews that they were going to Kenyermeze and not
Auschwitz, in exchange for tickets on the one train that took them
eventually to Palestine.
As for Kastner himself, he will cause no further embarrassment to the
Zionist leadership with his undisputed claims that everything he did
was approved by the Jewish Agency (World Zionist Organization)
leadership in Palestine. He is ‘now dead’. Or putting it less
delicately, on 3 March 1957 he was shot by Zeev Eckstein – immediately
after the appeal hearings were concluded, and before the judgement
‘rehabilitating’ him was delivered.
Eckstein was not a Hungarian avenger. He was a paid undercover agent
of the Israeli secret service. (Hecht, ibid., p.208). Another
‘fantastic allegation’ no doubt; but admitted in court during the
murder trial).
sven88
From [email protected] Thu Oct 15 19:44:57 EDT 1998
Article: 269916 of alt.revisionism
Path: hub.org!hub.org!darla.visi.com!chippy.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!news-nyc.telia.net!newsfeed.cwix.com!206.172.150.11!news1.bellglobal.com!news.agtac.net!news.telusplanet.net!news
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: soc.culture.palestine,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.revisionism,soc.culture.islam,soc.culture.malaysia,soc.culture.australian,soc.culture.polish
Subject: Re: Nazi — Jewish Zionist Collaboration
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 15:20:13 GMT
Organization: TELUS Communications Inc.
Lines: 661
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: edtntnt4-port-108.agt.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451
Xref: hub.org soc.culture.palestine:53078 alt.politics.nationalism.white:175197 alt.revisionism:269916 soc.culture.islam:4187 soc.culture.malaysia:196096 soc.culture.australian:78557 soc.culture.polish:123175
On Tue, 13 Oct 1998 11:38:31, [email protected] wrote:
On Thu, 10 Sep 1998 22:56:46 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
trying to stimulate more interest in this topic,
On Sat, 15 Aug 1998 18:45:47 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
>On Fri, 03 Jul 1998 15:00:35 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
>>On 3 Jul 1998 06:38:05 GMT,
Orest Slepokura
…fully documented *Perfidy* blatantly exposes the degree to which
Zionists cooperated in the persecution of their fellow Jews…
Here is more evidence of NAZI-ZIONIST JEW COLLABORATION.
The Kastner Case
The most notorious case of Nazi-Zionist collaboration is that
involving a Jew – Rudolf Kastner.
Most Jewish people have never heard of Rudolf Kastner. Those who have,
are generally under the impression that there is some ‘controversy’
about negotiations he undertook for ‘the purchase of Jewish lives for
money and military equipment’, but that he was ‘fully rehabilitated’
by the Supreme Court of Israel.
The Accusations
Briefly, the accusations against Kastner are as follows:
Dr. Rudolf Verba, a Doctor of Science now serving at the British
Medical Research Council, was one of the few escapees from Auschwitz.
In his memoirs published in February, 1961, in the London Daily
Herald, he wrote:
I am a Jew. In spite of that – indeed because of that – I accuse
certain Jewish leaders of one of the most ghastly deeds of the war.
This group of quislings knew what was happening to their brethren in
Hitler’s gas chambers and bought their own lives with the price of
silence.
Among them was Dr. Kastner, leader of the council which spoke for all
Jews in Hungary. While I was prisoner number 44070 at Auschwitz – the
number is still on my arm – I compiled careful statistics of the
exterminations.
I took these terrible statistics with me when I escaped in 1944 and I
was able to give Hungarian Zionist leaders three weeks notice that
Eichmann planned to send a million of their Jews to his gas
chambers…Kastner went to Eichmann and told him, ‘I know of your
plans; spare some Jews of my choice and I shall keep quiet.’
Eichmann not only agreed, but dressed Kastner up in S.S. uniform and
took him to Belsen to trace some of his friends. Nor did the sordid
bargaining end there. Kastner paid Eichmann several thousand dollars.
With this little fortune, Eichmann was able to buy his way to freedom
when Germany collapsed, to set himself up in the Argentine…(Ben
Hecht, Perfidy, pp261-2)
These accusations are confirmed by the ‘Eichmann Confessions’
published in Life magazine, 28 November and 5 December 1960:
I resolved to show how well a job could be done when the commander
stands 100% behind it. By shipping the Jews off in a lightning
operation, I wanted to set an example for future campaigns
elsewhere…In obedience to Himmler’s directive I now concentrated on
negotiations with the Jewish political officials in Budapest…Among
them Dr. Rudolph Kastner, authorized representative of the Zionist
Movement. This Dr. Kastner was a young man about my age, an ice-cold
lawyer and a fanatical Zionist. He agreed to help keep the Jews from
resisting deportation – and even keep order in the collection camps –
if I could close my eyes and let a few hundred or a few thousand young
Jews emigrate illegally to Palestine.
It was a good bargain. For keeping order in the camps, the price was
not too high for me.
We trusted each other perfectly. When he was with me, Kastner smoke
cigarets as though he was in a coffeehouse. While we talked he would
smoke one aromatic cigaret after another, taking them from a silver
case and lighting them with a silver lighter. With his great polish
and reserve he would have made an ideal Gestapo officer himself.
Dr. Kastner’s main concern was to make it possible for a select group
of Hungarian Jews to emigrate to Israel…
As a matter of fact, there was a very strong similarity between our
attitudes in the S.S. and the viewpoint of these immensely idealistic
Zionist leaders. I believe that Kastner would have sacrificed a
thousand or a hundred thousand of his blood to achieve his political
goal ‘You can have the others’, he would say, ‘but let me have this
group here’. And because Kastner rendered us a great service by
helping keep the deportation camps peaceful, I would let his groups
escape. After all, I was not concerned with small groups of a thousand
or so Jews…That was the ‘gentleman’s agreement’ I had with Kastner
(Hecht, ibid., p.260-61)
Quite clearly these accusations, do not relate merely to ‘the purchase
of Jewish lives for money and military equipment’.
Are the accusations against Kastner true?
According to the Government of Israel, they are a lie. When Malchiel
Greenwald, a strongly pro-Zionist Israeli citizen published these
accusations against Kastner, the Israeli Government did rather more
than demand that his views should not be broadcast. Because a
prominent Zionist official (Dr. Kastner was a spokesman for the
Ministry of Trade and Industry) was involved, the Attorney General of
the State of Israel prosecuted Greenwald for criminal libel.
The Verdict
Let the verdict of Judge Benjamin Halevi (who later became one of the
panel of three judges that tried Eichmann) in Israel’s District Court
of Jerusalem speak for itself, given in criminal case No. 124 of 1953.
The Attorney General v. Malchiel Greenwald. This material should be
studied carefully.
The masses of Jews from Hungary’s ghettos obediently boarded the
deportation trains without knowing their fate. They were full of
confidence in the false information that they were being transferred
to Kenyermeze.
The Nazis could not have misled the masses of Jews so conclusively had
they not spread their false information through Jewish channels.
The Jews of the ghettos would not have trusted the Nazi or Hungarian
rulers. But they had trust in their Jewish leaders. Eichmann and
others used this known fact as part of their calculated plan to
mislead the Jews.
They were able to deport the Jews to their extermination by the help
of Jewish leaders.
The false information was spread by the Jewish leaders. The local
leaders of the Jews of Kluj and Nodvarod knew that other leaders were
spreading such false information and did not protest.
Those of the Jews who tried to warn their friends of the truth were
persecuted by the Jewish leaders in charge of the local ‘rescue work’.
The trust of the Jews in the misleading information and their lack of
knowledge that their wives, children and themselves were about to be
deported to the gas chambers of Auschwitz led the victims to remain
quiescent in their ghettos. It seduced them into not resisting or
hampering the deportation orders.
Dozens of thousands of Jews were guarded in their ghettos by a few
dozen police. Yet even vigorous young Jews made no attempt to
overpower these few guards and escape to nearby Rumania. No resistance
activities to the deportations were organized in these ghettos.
And the Jewish leaders did everything in their power to soothe the
Jews in the ghettos and to prevent such resistance activities.
The same Jews who spread in Kluj and Nodvarod the false rumor of
Kenyermeze, or confirmed it, the same public leaders who did not warn
their own people against the misleading statements, the same Jewish
leaders who did not organize any resistance or any sabotage of
deportations…these same leaders did not join the people of their
community in their ride to Auschwitz, but were all included in the
Rescue train.
The Nazi organizers of extermination and the perpetrators of
extermination permitted Rudolf Kastner and the members of the Jewish
Council in Budapest to save themselves, their relatives, and friends.
The Nazis did this as a means of making the local Jewish leaders, whom
they favoured, dependent on the Nazi regime, dependent on its good
will during the time of its fatal deportation schedule. In short, the
Nazis succeeded in bringing the Jewish leaders into collaboration with
the Nazis at the time of the catastrophe.
The Nazi chiefs knew that the Zionists were a most vital element in
Jewry and the most trusted by the Jews.
The personality of Rudolph Kastner made him a convenient catspaw for
Eichmann and his clique, to draw into collaboration and make their
task easier.
The question here is not, as stated by the Attorney General in his
summation, whether members of the Jewish Rescue Committee were or were
not capable of fulfilling their duty without the patronage of the S.S.
chiefs
.
It is obvious that without such S.S. Nazi patronage the Jewish Rescue
Committee could not have existed, and could have acted only as an
underground.
The question is, as put by the lawyer for the defense, why were the
Nazis interested in the existence of the Rescue Committee? Why did the
S.S. chiefs make every effort to encourage the existence of the Jewish
Rescue Committee? Did the exterminators turn into rescuers?
The same question rises concerning the rescue of prominent Jews by
these German killers of Jews. Was the rescue of such Jews a part of
the extermination plan of the killers ?
The support given by the extermination leaders to Kastner’s Rescue
Committee proves that indeed there was a place for Kastner and his
friends in their Final Solution for the Jews of Hungary – their total
annihilation.
The Nazi’s patronage of Kastner, and their agreement to let him save
six hundred prominent Jews, were part of the plan to exterminate the
Jews.
Kastner was given a chance to add a few more to that number. The bait
attracted him. The opportunity of rescuing prominent people appealed
to him greatly. He considered the rescue of the most important Jews as
a great personal success and a success for Zionism. It was a success
that would also justify his conduct – his political negotiation with
Nazis and the Nazi patronage of his committee.
When Kastner received this present from the Nazis, Kastner sold his
soul to the German Satan.
The sacrifice of the vital interests of the majority of the Jews, in
order to rescue the prominents, was the basic element in the agreement
between Kastner and the Nazis. This agreement fixed the division of
the nation into two unequal camps: a small fragment of prominents,
whom the Nazis promised Kastner to save, on the one hand, and the
great majority or Hungarian Jews whom the Nazis designated for death,
on the other hand.
An imperative condition for the rescue of the first camp by the Nazis
was that Kastner will not interfere in the action of the Nazis against
the other camp and will not hamper them in its extermination. Kastner
fulfilled this condition. He concentrated his efforts in the rescue of
the prominents and treated the camp of the doomed as if they had
already been wiped out from the book of the living.
One cannot estimate the damage caused by Kastner’s collaboration and
put down the number of victims which it cost Hungarian Jews. These are
not only the thousands of Jews in Nodvarod or any other community in
the border area, Jews who could escape through the border, had the
chief of their rescue committee fulfilled his duty toward them.
All of Kastner’s answers in his final testimony were a constant effort
to evade this truth.
Kastner has tried to escape through every crack he could find in the
wall of evidence. When one crack was sealed in his face, he darted
quickly to another. (Judgement of Judge Benjamin Halevi, Criminal Case
124/53; Attorney General v. Malchiel Greenwald, District Court,
Jerusalem, June 22,1955).
Judge Halevi reverts to the meeting of Kastner with the S.S. officers
Becher and Rudolf Hoess, commandant of Auschwitz at the time when the
‘new line’ of rescuing Jews was revealed by Hoess. He says:
>From this gathering in Budapest, it is obvious that the ‘new line’
stretched from Himmler to Hoess, from Jutner to Becher and Krumey.
According to Kastner, however, these Nazis were all active in rescuing
Jews.
This meeting of these important German guests in Budapest exposes the
‘rescue’ work of Becher in its true light. It reveals also the extent
of Kastner’s involvement in the inner circle of the chief German war
criminals.
Just as the Nazi war criminals knew they needed an alibi and hoped to
achieve it by the rescue of a few Jews at the eleventh hour, so
Kastner also needed an alibi for himself.
Collaboration between the Jewish Agency Rescue Committee and the
Exterminators of the Jews was solidified in Budapest and Vienna.
Kastner’s duties were part and parcel of the general duties of the
S.S.
In addition to its Extermination Department and Looting Department,
the Nazi S.S. opened a Rescue Department headed by Kastner.
All these extermination, robbery and rescue activities of the S.S.
were coordinated under the management of Heinrich Himmler”.
Judge Halevi continues:
Kastner perjured himself knowingly in his testimony before this court
when he denied he had interceded in Becher’s behalf. Moreover, he
concealed the important fact that he interceded for Becher in the name
of the Jewish Agency and the Jewish World Congress.
As to the contents of Kastner’s affidavit, it was enough for the
defense to provide Becher was a war criminal. It was up to the
prosecution to remove Becher from this status, if they wished to
negate the affidavit.
The Attorney General admitted in his summation that Becher was a war
criminal.
The lies in the contents of Kastner’s affidavit, the lies in his
testimony concerning the document, and Kastner’s knowing participation
in the activities of Nazi war criminals, and his participation in the
last minute fake rescue activities – all these combine to show one
overwhelming truth – that this affidavit was not given in good faith.
Kastner knew well, as he himself testified, that Becher had never
stood up against the stream of Jewish extermination, as Kastner has
declared in the affidavit.
The aims of Becher and his superior, Himmler, were not to save Jews
but to serve the Nazi regime with full compliance. These is not truth
and no good faith in Kastner’s testimony, ‘I never doubted for one
moment the good intention of good Becher’.
It is clear that the positive recommendation by Kastner, not only in
his own name but also in the name of the Jewish Agency and the Jewish
World Congress was of decisive importance for Becher. Kastner did not
exaggerate when he said that Becher was released by the Allies because
of his personal intervention. The lies in the affidavit of Kastner and
the contradictions and various pretexts, which were proven to be lies,
were sufficient to annul the value of his statements and to prove that
there was no good faith in his testimony in favor of this German war
criminal. Kastner’s affidavit in favor of Becher was a wilfully false
affidavit given in favor of a war
criminal to save him from trial and punishment in Nuremberg.
Therefore, the defendant, Malchiel Greenwald, was correct in his
accusations against Rudolf Kastner in the first, second and fourth of
his statements.”
Judge Halevi’s verdict found Malchiel Greenwald generally innocent of
libel against Kastner, but fined him one Israeli pound for the one
unproved accusation – that Kastner had actually collected money from
his Nazi
partners for his aide to their slaughter program. The judge also
ordered the Government of Israel to pay Greenwald two hundred Israeli
pounds as court costs.
If the story ended there, it would only prove conclusively that the
individual Kastner was a collaborator and the Israeli Government had
attempted to defend him, although facts brought out in the trial
pointed to much more than that.
But the story does not end there.
The Reaction
The Communist Party newspaper Kol Ha’am (Voice of the People) wrote:
All those whose relatives were butchered by the Germans in Hungary
know now clearly that Jewish hands helped the mass murder” (23 June
1955)
But public opinion was not quite unanimous. The problem with bringing
Kastner and his associates to trial was that his associates were the
Government of Israel.
As the evening paper *Yedi’ot Aharonot* said:
If Kastner is brought to trial the entire government faces a total
political and national collapse – as a result of what such a trial may
disclose.” (23 June 1955)
Accordingly, the Government of Israel did not put Kastner on trial,
instead it filed an appeal against the acquittal of Greenwald for
criminal libel.
At 11 P.M. the verdict was given. At 11 A.M. next morning the
government announces the defense of Kastner will be renewed – an
appeal filed.
What exemplary expediency! Since when does this government possess
such lawyer-genius who can weigh in one night the legal chances of an
appeal on a detailed, complex verdict of three hundred pages?
At the appeal hearings before the Supreme Court, the Attorney General
of Israel, Chaim Cohen, explained clearly why the Government of Israel
was defending Kastner so strongly:
The man Kastner does not stand here as a private individual. He was a
recognized representative, official or non-official of the Jewish
National Institutes in Palestine and of the Zionist Executive; and I
come here in this court to defend the representative of our national
institutions.”(Hecht, p. 268)
The truth of this statement cannot be denied. Kastner’s collaboration
was not that of an individual. It was the collaboration of the Zionist
leadership.
So far, it has only been established that the Government of Israel
continued to support a Nazi collaborator after the facts about his
collaboration had been conclusively established in an Israeli court.
But the story gets worse.
The Supreme Court of Israel unanimously found that Becher was indeed a
Nazi war criminal and that Kastner had without justification, and in
the name of the Jewish Agency, helped Becher to escape justice. On
this point Greenwald was acquitted of libel and Kastner was not
‘fully rehabilitated’.
The Supreme Court also accepted the facts established in the lower
court – that Kastner deliberately concealed the truth about Auschwitz
>from the majority of Hungarian Jews in exchange for Nazi permission to
take a thousand or so to Palestine. Again, Kastner was far from being
‘fully rehabilitated’.
But now comes the really nasty bit. After unanimously acknowledging
these facts, the Supreme Court of Israel, by a majority of three to
two, found that Kastner’s actions were morally justifiable and
convicted Greenwald of criminal libel for calling this
‘collaboration’.
Kastner’s actions only proved that he was a Nazi collaborator. It is
the defense of these actions by the Government and Courts of Israel
that prove conclusively that Zionism approves of Nazi collaboration.
The majority of the Supreme Court of Israel did not rehabilitate
Kastner. They joined him.
Let us read from the majority judgement of Supreme Court Judge Shlomo
Chesin:
….What point was there in telling the people boarding the trains in
Kluj, people struck by fate and persecuted, as to what awaits them at
the end of their journey…Kastner spoke in detail of the situation,
saying, ‘The Hungarian Jew was a branch which long ago dried up on the
tree’. This vivid description coincides with the testimony of another
witness about the Hungarian Jews, ‘This was a big Jewish community in
Hungary, without any ideological Jewish backbone’ (Moshe Shweiger, a
Kastner aide in Budapest, protocol 465).
I fully agree with my friend, Judge Agranot, when he states that, ‘The
Jews of Hungary, including those in the countryside, were not capable,
neither physically nor mentally, to carry out resistance operations
with force against the deportation scheme’…From this point of view
no rescue achievement could have resulted by disclosing the Auschwitz
news to the Jewish leaders there, and this is a consideration which on
can properly conclude that Kastner had in front of his eyes.
….And I take one more step. I am certain that the silence of Kastner
when he arrived in Kluj was premeditated and calculated and did not
result from his great despair because of the helplessness of the
Jewish community.
Even then, I say, this is still not considered wilful collaboration
and assistance in the extermination, because all the signs indicate
that Kastner’s efforts were aimed at rescue and rescue on a big
scale…And towards the end I take one last step. In doing so I go
very far and say that even if Kastner ordered himself to keep silent
knowingly, in submission to the strong will of the Nazis, in order to
save a few Jews from Hell – this is still no proof that he stained his
hands by collaborating with the enemies of his people and carrying out
their plan to exterminate most of the Jewish community in Hungary.
Even if, through these activities of his – or rather, his omission –
the extermination became easier. And as to the moral issue, the
question is not whether a man is allowed to kill many in order to save
a few, or vice-versa. The question is altogether in another sphere and
should be defined as follows: A man is aware that a whole community is
awaiting its doom. He is allowed to make efforts to save a few,
although part of his efforts involve concealment of truth from the
many or should he disclose
the truth to many though it is his best opinion that this way
everybody will perish. I think that the answer is clear. What good
will the blood of the few bring if everybody is to perish?…As I
said, I am not arguing with the basic factual findings of the learned
President of the Jewish District Court (Judge Halevi) but it seems to
me, with all due respect, that his findings do not, as of necessity,
demand the conclusion he has arrived at.
That is to say, collaboration on the part of Kastner in the
extermination of the Jews. And that they better coincide with bad
leadership both from a moral and public point of view…
In my opinion, one can say outright that if you find out that Kastner
collaborated with the enemy because he did not disclose to the people
who boarded the trains in Kluj that they were being led to
extermination, one has to put on trial today Danzig, Herman, Hanzi,
Brand, Revis and Marton, and many more leaders and half-leaders who
gagged themselves in an hour of crisis and did not inform others of
what was known to them and did not warn
and did not cry out of the coming danger….
Because of all this I cannot confirm the conclusion of the District
Court with regard to the accusation that Greenwald has thrown on
Kastner of collaboration with the Nazis in exterminating the Jewish
people in Hungary during the last war.” (Hecht, ibid., pp.270-2)
In other words, the Court approved of Kastner’s contempt for the
Hungarian Jews and could not allow him to be condemned for doing
exactly what many other Zionist leaders and half-leaders did –
concealing their knowledge of the Nazi extermination plans so that
Jews would board the trains to Auschwitz peacefully while their
Zionist ‘leaders’ boarded a different train for Palestine.
The most precise answer to this sickening judgement of Judge Chesin is
provided in the minority judgement of Supreme Court Judge Moshe
Silberg:
I do not say that he was the only man who possessed information among
the leaders. It is quite possible that somebody else as well does not
have a clear conscience with regards to this concealment. But we are
dealing here with the guilt of Kastner and we do not have to make
judgements on the guilt of others….
The declaration of the learned Attorney General therefore shrinks into
an opinion….’Kastner was convinced and believed that there was no
ray of hope for the Jews of Hungary, almost for none of them, and as
he, as a result of his personal despair, did not disclose the secret
of the extermination in order not to endanger or frustrate the rescue
of the few – therefore he acted in good faith and should not be
accused of collaborating with the Nazis in expediting the
extermination of the Jews, even though, in fact, he brought about its
result.’
I am compelled to state that it is very difficult for me to conceive
such an intention. Is this good faith? Can a single man, even in
cooperation with some of his friends, yield to despair on behalf and
without the knowledge of 800,000 other people? This is, in my opinion,
the decisive consideration in the problem facing us. The charge
emanating from the testimony of the witnesses against Kastner is that
had they known of the Auschwitz secret, then thousands or tens of
thousands would have been able
to save their lives by local, partial, specific or indirect rescue
operations like local revolts, resistance, escapes, hidings,
concealment of children with Gentiles, forging of documents, ransom
money, bribery,etc. – and when this is the case and when one deals
with many hundreds of thousands, how does a human being, a mortal,
reject with complete certainty and with an extreme ‘no’ the efficiency
of all the many and varied rescue ways? How can he examine the tens of
thousands of possibilities? Does he decide instead of God?
Indeed, he who can act with such a usurpation of the
last hope of hundreds of thousands is not entitled to claim good faith
as his defense. The penetrating question quo warrento is a good answer
to a claim of such good faith…
If the superintendent of a big hospital lets thousands of sick people
die so that he may devote himself to the sure rescue of one soul, he
will come out guilty, at least morally, even if it is proven that he
as an individual erroneously thought that there was no hope of saving
the other patients. He is a collaborator with the angel of death.
Either a complete atrophy of the soul or a blind involvement with
complete loss of senses and proportion in his small but personal
rescue operation could bring a man to such a gigantic, hazardous play.
And if all this is not enough to annul the claim of good faith which
was put before us on behalf of Kastner by the Attorney General, then
Kastner himself comes and annuls it altogether. Not only did he never
make this claim, but his own words prove the contrary. He writes in
his report to the Jewish Agency that the Committee sent emissaries to
many ghettos in the countryside and pleaded with them to organize
escapes and to refuse to board the trains. And though the story of
these pleadings is untrue, and the silence of Kastner in Kluj is
proven, the very uttering of these statements entirely contradicts the
claim that Kastner had concealed the
news about the fate of the ghetto inmates in good faith and only as a
result of his complete despairing of the chances of escaping or
resisting the Germans. You can not claim at the same time helplessness
and activity. Anyway, such a claim is not convincing…
We can sum up with three facts:
A. That the Nazis didn’t want to have a great revolt – nor small
revolts, and their passion was to have the extermination machine
working smoothly without resistance. This fact was known to Kastner
>from the best source – from Eichmann himself – And he had additional
proofs of that when he witnessed all the illusionary and misleading
tactics which were being taken by the Nazis from the first moment of
occupation.
B. That the most efficient means to paralyze the resistance with – or
the escape of a victim is to conceal from him the plot of the coming
murder. This fact is known to every man and one does not need any
proof of evidence for this.
C. That he, Kastner, in order to carry out the rescue plan for the few
prominents, fulfilled knowingly and without good faith the said desire
of the Nazis, thus expediting the work of exterminating the masses.
And also the rescue of Becher by Kastner…He who is capable of
rescuing this Becher from hanging proves that the atrocities of this
great war criminal were not so horrifying or despicable in his
eyes…I couldn’t base the main guilt of Kastner on this fact had it
been alone, but when it is attached even from afar to the whole scene
of events it throws retroactive
light on the whole affair and serves as a dozen proofs of our
conclusion.”(Supreme Court Judge, Moshe Silberg, 1957)
If that had been the majority judgement, one could say that whatever
their attitudes to the Arabs, and whatever their past behaviour might
have been under pressure, the Zionist leadership today did not
advocate collaboration with the Nazis.
But Judge Silberg’s judgement was that of a minority.
The Kastner case is therefore not an alleged episode in past history.
It is a continuing controversy in which the top Zionist leadership of
Israel stand indicted of continuing to publicly defend collaboration
with the Nazis in the extermination of Jews.
Despite the unanimous finding of the Supreme Court of Israel that Kurt
Becher was a major war criminal, the Jewish Agency (World Zionist
Organization) refused to withdraw the fraudulent certificate Kastner
gave on their behalf, which saved Becher from hanging, and allowed him
to remain a free man in West Germany, the head of several corporations
and with an estimated personal worth of $30 million.
Becher has even used his certification as a ‘good’ SS officer to give
evidence in support of his associates at other war crimes trials in
West Germany.
Since the prosecution, representing the Israeli Government agreed with
the Supreme Court that Becher was a major war criminal, one can only
pressure that the Israeli Government did not want him put on trial for
fear of what might come out.
Likewise, none of Kastner’s associates on the Zionist Relief and
Rescue Committee or his bosses in the Jewish Agency have ever been put
on trial .
Let alone the hundreds of ‘prominents’ who helped Kastner to reassure
the Hungarian Jews that they were going to Kenyermeze and not
Auschwitz, in exchange for tickets on the one train that took them
eventually to Palestine.
As for Kastner himself, he will cause no further embarrassment to the
Zionist leadership with his undisputed claims that everything he did
was approved by the Jewish Agency (World Zionist Organization)
leadership in Palestine. He is ‘now dead’. Or putting it less
delicately, on 3 March 1957 he was shot by Zeev Eckstein – immediately
after the appeal hearings were concluded, and before the judgement
‘rehabilitating’ him was delivered.
Eckstein was not a Hungarian avenger. He was a paid undercover agent
of the Israeli secret service. (Hecht, ibid., p.208). Another
‘fantastic allegation’ no doubt; but admitted in court during the
murder trial).
sven88
On Mon, 12 Oct 1998 15:15:22 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
>Private Dan “BELIEVE ME OR ELSE, SCHWEIN!” Parker burped:
>(From Instauration: April 1996, p 121)
>The argument of Holocaust ‘true believers’ falls into three categories:
>1) Testimonies of ‘survivors’ who obviously did not die in the Holocaust;
> 2) perjured testimony (obtained under torture) and forged affidavits at
>the Nuremberg Trial,;
> 3) the “everybody knows it happened” argument.<<
>1) Testimonies of survivors who witnessed atrocities against countless Nazi
>victims;
>2) Testimony from Nazis who testified under oath, without ever having mentioned
>being coerced or forced in any way, some of whom wrote diaries and memoirs
>before their deaths detailing their crimes (notably Rudolf Hoess, who wrote of
>his kind treatment by the Poles);
>3) The mountains of documentary, material, and photographic/filmic evidence
>left behind by the Nazis: deportation records, blueprints, MANY execution
>orders/slaughter orders and reports, not to mention the remnants of gas
>chambers, human ashes/bone/hair recovered at burning pit sites, loot from
>Jewish private property, shipment records of Zyklon-B, tests of Zyklon-B on
>inmates at Dachau…
From [email protected] Thu Oct 15 19:44:58 EDT 1998
Article: 269926 of alt.revisionism
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: soc.culture.palestine,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.revisionism,soc.culture.islam,soc.culture.malaysia,soc.culture.australian,soc.culture.polish
Subject: Re: Nazi — Jewish Zionist Collaboration
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 17:46:57 GMT
Organization: TELUS Communications Inc.
Lines: 643
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: edtnpx09-port-52.agt.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451
Path: hub.org!hub.org!newsfeed.axxsys.net!newsfeed.cwix.com!198.138.0.5!newshub.northeast.verio.net!cyclone.news.idirect.com!island.idirect.com!news.en.com!news.oanet.com!news.agtac.net!news.telusplanet.net!news
Xref: hub.org soc.culture.palestine:53080 alt.politics.nationalism.white:175205 alt.revisionism:269926 soc.culture.islam:4188 soc.culture.malaysia:196195 soc.culture.australian:78565 soc.culture.polish:123234
On Tue, 13 Oct 1998 11:38:31, [email protected] wrote:
On Thu, 10 Sep 1998 22:56:46 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
trying to stimulate more interest in this topic,
On Sat, 15 Aug 1998 18:45:47 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
>On Fri, 03 Jul 1998 15:00:35 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
>>On 3 Jul 1998 06:38:05 GMT,
Orest Slepokura
…fully documented *Perfidy* blatantly exposes the degree to which
Zionists cooperated in the persecution of their fellow Jews…
Here is more evidence of NAZI-ZIONIST JEW COLLABORATION.
The Kastner Case
The most notorious case of Nazi-Zionist collaboration is that
involving a Jew – Rudolf Kastner.
Most Jewish people have never heard of Rudolf Kastner. Those who have,
are generally under the impression that there is some ‘controversy’
about negotiations he undertook for ‘the purchase of Jewish lives for
money and military equipment’, but that he was ‘fully rehabilitated’
by the Supreme Court of Israel.
The Accusations
Briefly, the accusations against Kastner are as follows:
Dr. Rudolf Verba, a Doctor of Science now serving at the British
Medical Research Council, was one of the few escapees from Auschwitz.
In his memoirs published in February, 1961, in the London Daily
Herald, he wrote:
I am a Jew. In spite of that – indeed because of that – I accuse
certain Jewish leaders of one of the most ghastly deeds of the war.
This group of quislings knew what was happening to their brethren in
Hitler’s gas chambers and bought their own lives with the price of
silence.
Among them was Dr. Kastner, leader of the council which spoke for all
Jews in Hungary. While I was prisoner number 44070 at Auschwitz – the
number is still on my arm – I compiled careful statistics of the
exterminations.
I took these terrible statistics with me when I escaped in 1944 and I
was able to give Hungarian Zionist leaders three weeks notice that
Eichmann planned to send a million of their Jews to his gas
chambers…Kastner went to Eichmann and told him, ‘I know of your
plans; spare some Jews of my choice and I shall keep quiet.’
Eichmann not only agreed, but dressed Kastner up in S.S. uniform and
took him to Belsen to trace some of his friends. Nor did the sordid
bargaining end there. Kastner paid Eichmann several thousand dollars.
With this little fortune, Eichmann was able to buy his way to freedom
when Germany collapsed, to set himself up in the Argentine…(Ben
Hecht, Perfidy, pp261-2)
These accusations are confirmed by the ‘Eichmann Confessions’
published in Life magazine, 28 November and 5 December 1960:
I resolved to show how well a job could be done when the commander
stands 100% behind it. By shipping the Jews off in a lightning
operation, I wanted to set an example for future campaigns
elsewhere…In obedience to Himmler’s directive I now concentrated on
negotiations with the Jewish political officials in Budapest…Among
them Dr. Rudolph Kastner, authorized representative of the Zionist
Movement. This Dr. Kastner was a young man about my age, an ice-cold
lawyer and a fanatical Zionist. He agreed to help keep the Jews from
resisting deportation – and even keep order in the collection camps –
if I could close my eyes and let a few hundred or a few thousand young
Jews emigrate illegally to Palestine.
It was a good bargain. For keeping order in the camps, the price was
not too high for me.
We trusted each other perfectly. When he was with me, Kastner smoke
cigarets as though he was in a coffeehouse. While we talked he would
smoke one aromatic cigaret after another, taking them from a silver
case and lighting them with a silver lighter. With his great polish
and reserve he would have made an ideal Gestapo officer himself.
Dr. Kastner’s main concern was to make it possible for a select group
of Hungarian Jews to emigrate to Israel…
As a matter of fact, there was a very strong similarity between our
attitudes in the S.S. and the viewpoint of these immensely idealistic
Zionist leaders. I believe that Kastner would have sacrificed a
thousand or a hundred thousand of his blood to achieve his political
goal ‘You can have the others’, he would say, ‘but let me have this
group here’. And because Kastner rendered us a great service by
helping keep the deportation camps peaceful, I would let his groups
escape. After all, I was not concerned with small groups of a thousand
or so Jews…That was the ‘gentleman’s agreement’ I had with Kastner
(Hecht, ibid., p.260-61)
Quite clearly these accusations, do not relate merely to ‘the purchase
of Jewish lives for money and military equipment’.
Are the accusations against Kastner true?
According to the Government of Israel, they are a lie. When Malchiel
Greenwald, a strongly pro-Zionist Israeli citizen published these
accusations against Kastner, the Israeli Government did rather more
than demand that his views should not be broadcast. Because a
prominent Zionist official (Dr. Kastner was a spokesman for the
Ministry of Trade and Industry) was involved, the Attorney General of
the State of Israel prosecuted Greenwald for criminal libel.
The Verdict
Let the verdict of Judge Benjamin Halevi (who later became one of the
panel of three judges that tried Eichmann) in Israel’s District Court
of Jerusalem speak for itself, given in criminal case No. 124 of 1953.
The Attorney General v. Malchiel Greenwald. This material should be
studied carefully.
The masses of Jews from Hungary’s ghettos obediently boarded the
deportation trains without knowing their fate. They were full of
confidence in the false information that they were being transferred
to Kenyermeze.
The Nazis could not have misled the masses of Jews so conclusively had
they not spread their false information through Jewish channels.
The Jews of the ghettos would not have trusted the Nazi or Hungarian
rulers. But they had trust in their Jewish leaders. Eichmann and
others used this known fact as part of their calculated plan to
mislead the Jews.
They were able to deport the Jews to their extermination by the help
of Jewish leaders.
The false information was spread by the Jewish leaders. The local
leaders of the Jews of Kluj and Nodvarod knew that other leaders were
spreading such false information and did not protest.
Those of the Jews who tried to warn their friends of the truth were
persecuted by the Jewish leaders in charge of the local ‘rescue work’.
The trust of the Jews in the misleading information and their lack of
knowledge that their wives, children and themselves were about to be
deported to the gas chambers of Auschwitz led the victims to remain
quiescent in their ghettos. It seduced them into not resisting or
hampering the deportation orders.
Dozens of thousands of Jews were guarded in their ghettos by a few
dozen police. Yet even vigorous young Jews made no attempt to
overpower these few guards and escape to nearby Rumania. No resistance
activities to the deportations were organized in these ghettos.
And the Jewish leaders did everything in their power to soothe the
Jews in the ghettos and to prevent such resistance activities.
The same Jews who spread in Kluj and Nodvarod the false rumor of
Kenyermeze, or confirmed it, the same public leaders who did not warn
their own people against the misleading statements, the same Jewish
leaders who did not organize any resistance or any sabotage of
deportations…these same leaders did not join the people of their
community in their ride to Auschwitz, but were all included in the
Rescue train.
The Nazi organizers of extermination and the perpetrators of
extermination permitted Rudolf Kastner and the members of the Jewish
Council in Budapest to save themselves, their relatives, and friends.
The Nazis did this as a means of making the local Jewish leaders, whom
they favoured, dependent on the Nazi regime, dependent on its good
will during the time of its fatal deportation schedule. In short, the
Nazis succeeded in bringing the Jewish leaders into collaboration with
the Nazis at the time of the catastrophe.
The Nazi chiefs knew that the Zionists were a most vital element in
Jewry and the most trusted by the Jews.
The personality of Rudolph Kastner made him a convenient catspaw for
Eichmann and his clique, to draw into collaboration and make their
task easier.
The question here is not, as stated by the Attorney General in his
summation, whether members of the Jewish Rescue Committee were or were
not capable of fulfilling their duty without the patronage of the S.S.
chiefs
.
It is obvious that without such S.S. Nazi patronage the Jewish Rescue
Committee could not have existed, and could have acted only as an
underground.
The question is, as put by the lawyer for the defense, why were the
Nazis interested in the existence of the Rescue Committee? Why did the
S.S. chiefs make every effort to encourage the existence of the Jewish
Rescue Committee? Did the exterminators turn into rescuers?
The same question rises concerning the rescue of prominent Jews by
these German killers of Jews. Was the rescue of such Jews a part of
the extermination plan of the killers ?
The support given by the extermination leaders to Kastner’s Rescue
Committee proves that indeed there was a place for Kastner and his
friends in their Final Solution for the Jews of Hungary – their total
annihilation.
The Nazi’s patronage of Kastner, and their agreement to let him save
six hundred prominent Jews, were part of the plan to exterminate the
Jews.
Kastner was given a chance to add a few more to that number. The bait
attracted him. The opportunity of rescuing prominent people appealed
to him greatly. He considered the rescue of the most important Jews as
a great personal success and a success for Zionism. It was a success
that would also justify his conduct – his political negotiation with
Nazis and the Nazi patronage of his committee.
When Kastner received this present from the Nazis, Kastner sold his
soul to the German Satan.
The sacrifice of the vital interests of the majority of the Jews, in
order to rescue the prominents, was the basic element in the agreement
between Kastner and the Nazis. This agreement fixed the division of
the nation into two unequal camps: a small fragment of prominents,
whom the Nazis promised Kastner to save, on the one hand, and the
great majority or Hungarian Jews whom the Nazis designated for death,
on the other hand.
An imperative condition for the rescue of the first camp by the Nazis
was that Kastner will not interfere in the action of the Nazis against
the other camp and will not hamper them in its extermination. Kastner
fulfilled this condition. He concentrated his efforts in the rescue of
the prominents and treated the camp of the doomed as if they had
already been wiped out from the book of the living.
One cannot estimate the damage caused by Kastner’s collaboration and
put down the number of victims which it cost Hungarian Jews. These are
not only the thousands of Jews in Nodvarod or any other community in
the border area, Jews who could escape through the border, had the
chief of their rescue committee fulfilled his duty toward them.
All of Kastner’s answers in his final testimony were a constant effort
to evade this truth.
Kastner has tried to escape through every crack he could find in the
wall of evidence. When one crack was sealed in his face, he darted
quickly to another. (Judgement of Judge Benjamin Halevi, Criminal Case
124/53; Attorney General v. Malchiel Greenwald, District Court,
Jerusalem, June 22,1955).
Judge Halevi reverts to the meeting of Kastner with the S.S. officers
Becher and Rudolf Hoess, commandant of Auschwitz at the time when the
‘new line’ of rescuing Jews was revealed by Hoess. He says:
>From this gathering in Budapest, it is obvious that the ‘new line’
stretched from Himmler to Hoess, from Jutner to Becher and Krumey.
According to Kastner, however, these Nazis were all active in rescuing
Jews.
This meeting of these important German guests in Budapest exposes the
‘rescue’ work of Becher in its true light. It reveals also the extent
of Kastner’s involvement in the inner circle of the chief German war
criminals.
Just as the Nazi war criminals knew they needed an alibi and hoped to
achieve it by the rescue of a few Jews at the eleventh hour, so
Kastner also needed an alibi for himself.
Collaboration between the Jewish Agency Rescue Committee and the
Exterminators of the Jews was solidified in Budapest and Vienna.
Kastner’s duties were part and parcel of the general duties of the
S.S.
In addition to its Extermination Department and Looting Department,
the Nazi S.S. opened a Rescue Department headed by Kastner.
All these extermination, robbery and rescue activities of the S.S.
were coordinated under the management of Heinrich Himmler”.
Judge Halevi continues:
Kastner perjured himself knowingly in his testimony before this court
when he denied he had interceded in Becher’s behalf. Moreover, he
concealed the important fact that he interceded for Becher in the name
of the Jewish Agency and the Jewish World Congress.
As to the contents of Kastner’s affidavit, it was enough for the
defense to provide Becher was a war criminal. It was up to the
prosecution to remove Becher from this status, if they wished to
negate the affidavit.
The Attorney General admitted in his summation that Becher was a war
criminal.
The lies in the contents of Kastner’s affidavit, the lies in his
testimony concerning the document, and Kastner’s knowing participation
in the activities of Nazi war criminals, and his participation in the
last minute fake rescue activities – all these combine to show one
overwhelming truth – that this affidavit was not given in good faith.
Kastner knew well, as he himself testified, that Becher had never
stood up against the stream of Jewish extermination, as Kastner has
declared in the affidavit.
The aims of Becher and his superior, Himmler, were not to save Jews
but to serve the Nazi regime with full compliance. These is not truth
and no good faith in Kastner’s testimony, ‘I never doubted for one
moment the good intention of good Becher’.
It is clear that the positive recommendation by Kastner, not only in
his own name but also in the name of the Jewish Agency and the Jewish
World Congress was of decisive importance for Becher. Kastner did not
exaggerate when he said that Becher was released by the Allies because
of his personal intervention. The lies in the affidavit of Kastner and
the contradictions and various pretexts, which were proven to be lies,
were sufficient to annul the value of his statements and to prove that
there was no good faith in his testimony in favor of this German war
criminal. Kastner’s affidavit in favor of Becher was a wilfully false
affidavit given in favor of a war
criminal to save him from trial and punishment in Nuremberg.
Therefore, the defendant, Malchiel Greenwald, was correct in his
accusations against Rudolf Kastner in the first, second and fourth of
his statements.”
Judge Halevi’s verdict found Malchiel Greenwald generally innocent of
libel against Kastner, but fined him one Israeli pound for the one
unproved accusation – that Kastner had actually collected money from
his Nazi
partners for his aide to their slaughter program. The judge also
ordered the Government of Israel to pay Greenwald two hundred Israeli
pounds as court costs.
If the story ended there, it would only prove conclusively that the
individual Kastner was a collaborator and the Israeli Government had
attempted to defend him, although facts brought out in the trial
pointed to much more than that.
But the story does not end there.
The Reaction
The Communist Party newspaper Kol Ha’am (Voice of the People) wrote:
All those whose relatives were butchered by the Germans in Hungary
know now clearly that Jewish hands helped the mass murder” (23 June
1955)
But public opinion was not quite unanimous. The problem with bringing
Kastner and his associates to trial was that his associates were the
Government of Israel.
As the evening paper *Yedi’ot Aharonot* said:
If Kastner is brought to trial the entire government faces a total
political and national collapse – as a result of what such a trial may
disclose.” (23 June 1955)
Accordingly, the Government of Israel did not put Kastner on trial,
instead it filed an appeal against the acquittal of Greenwald for
criminal libel.
At 11 P.M. the verdict was given. At 11 A.M. next morning the
government announces the defense of Kastner will be renewed – an
appeal filed.
What exemplary expediency! Since when does this government possess
such lawyer-genius who can weigh in one night the legal chances of an
appeal on a detailed, complex verdict of three hundred pages?
At the appeal hearings before the Supreme Court, the Attorney General
of Israel, Chaim Cohen, explained clearly why the Government of Israel
was defending Kastner so strongly:
The man Kastner does not stand here as a private individual. He was a
recognized representative, official or non-official of the Jewish
National Institutes in Palestine and of the Zionist Executive; and I
come here in this court to defend the representative of our national
institutions.”(Hecht, p. 268)
The truth of this statement cannot be denied. Kastner’s collaboration
was not that of an individual. It was the collaboration of the Zionist
leadership.
So far, it has only been established that the Government of Israel
continued to support a Nazi collaborator after the facts about his
collaboration had been conclusively established in an Israeli court.
But the story gets worse.
The Supreme Court of Israel unanimously found that Becher was indeed a
Nazi war criminal and that Kastner had without justification, and in
the name of the Jewish Agency, helped Becher to escape justice. On
this point Greenwald was acquitted of libel and Kastner was not
‘fully rehabilitated’.
The Supreme Court also accepted the facts established in the lower
court – that Kastner deliberately concealed the truth about Auschwitz
>from the majority of Hungarian Jews in exchange for Nazi permission to
take a thousand or so to Palestine. Again, Kastner was far from being
‘fully rehabilitated’.
But now comes the really nasty bit. After unanimously acknowledging
these facts, the Supreme Court of Israel, by a majority of three to
two, found that Kastner’s actions were morally justifiable and
convicted Greenwald of criminal libel for calling this
‘collaboration’.
Kastner’s actions only proved that he was a Nazi collaborator. It is
the defense of these actions by the Government and Courts of Israel
that prove conclusively that Zionism approves of Nazi collaboration.
The majority of the Supreme Court of Israel did not rehabilitate
Kastner. They joined him.
Let us read from the majority judgement of Supreme Court Judge Shlomo
Chesin:
….What point was there in telling the people boarding the trains in
Kluj, people struck by fate and persecuted, as to what awaits them at
the end of their journey…Kastner spoke in detail of the situation,
saying, ‘The Hungarian Jew was a branch which long ago dried up on the
tree’. This vivid description coincides with the testimony of another
witness about the Hungarian Jews, ‘This was a big Jewish community in
Hungary, without any ideological Jewish backbone’ (Moshe Shweiger, a
Kastner aide in Budapest, protocol 465).
I fully agree with my friend, Judge Agranot, when he states that, ‘The
Jews of Hungary, including those in the countryside, were not capable,
neither physically nor mentally, to carry out resistance operations
with force against the deportation scheme’…From this point of view
no rescue achievement could have resulted by disclosing the Auschwitz
news to the Jewish leaders there, and this is a consideration which on
can properly conclude that Kastner had in front of his eyes.
….And I take one more step. I am certain that the silence of Kastner
when he arrived in Kluj was premeditated and calculated and did not
result from his great despair because of the helplessness of the
Jewish community.
Even then, I say, this is still not considered wilful collaboration
and assistance in the extermination, because all the signs indicate
that Kastner’s efforts were aimed at rescue and rescue on a big
scale…And towards the end I take one last step. In doing so I go
very far and say that even if Kastner ordered himself to keep silent
knowingly, in submission to the strong will of the Nazis, in order to
save a few Jews from Hell – this is still no proof that he stained his
hands by collaborating with the enemies of his people and carrying out
their plan to exterminate most of the Jewish community in Hungary.
Even if, through these activities of his – or rather, his omission –
the extermination became easier. And as to the moral issue, the
question is not whether a man is allowed to kill many in order to save
a few, or vice-versa. The question is altogether in another sphere and
should be defined as follows: A man is aware that a whole community is
awaiting its doom. He is allowed to make efforts to save a few,
although part of his efforts involve concealment of truth from the
many or should he disclose
the truth to many though it is his best opinion that this way
everybody will perish. I think that the answer is clear. What good
will the blood of the few bring if everybody is to perish?…As I
said, I am not arguing with the basic factual findings of the learned
President of the Jewish District Court (Judge Halevi) but it seems to
me, with all due respect, that his findings do not, as of necessity,
demand the conclusion he has arrived at.
That is to say, collaboration on the part of Kastner in the
extermination of the Jews. And that they better coincide with bad
leadership both from a moral and public point of view…
In my opinion, one can say outright that if you find out that Kastner
collaborated with the enemy because he did not disclose to the people
who boarded the trains in Kluj that they were being led to
extermination, one has to put on trial today Danzig, Herman, Hanzi,
Brand, Revis and Marton, and many more leaders and half-leaders who
gagged themselves in an hour of crisis and did not inform others of
what was known to them and did not warn
and did not cry out of the coming danger….
Because of all this I cannot confirm the conclusion of the District
Court with regard to the accusation that Greenwald has thrown on
Kastner of collaboration with the Nazis in exterminating the Jewish
people in Hungary during the last war.” (Hecht, ibid., pp.270-2)
In other words, the Court approved of Kastner’s contempt for the
Hungarian Jews and could not allow him to be condemned for doing
exactly what many other Zionist leaders and half-leaders did –
concealing their knowledge of the Nazi extermination plans so that
Jews would board the trains to Auschwitz peacefully while their
Zionist ‘leaders’ boarded a different train for Palestine.
The most precise answer to this sickening judgement of Judge Chesin is
provided in the minority judgement of Supreme Court Judge Moshe
Silberg:
I do not say that he was the only man who possessed information among
the leaders. It is quite possible that somebody else as well does not
have a clear conscience with regards to this concealment. But we are
dealing here with the guilt of Kastner and we do not have to make
judgements on the guilt of others….
The declaration of the learned Attorney General therefore shrinks into
an opinion….’Kastner was convinced and believed that there was no
ray of hope for the Jews of Hungary, almost for none of them, and as
he, as a result of his personal despair, did not disclose the secret
of the extermination in order not to endanger or frustrate the rescue
of the few – therefore he acted in good faith and should not be
accused of collaborating with the Nazis in expediting the
extermination of the Jews, even though, in fact, he brought about its
result.’
I am compelled to state that it is very difficult for me to conceive
such an intention. Is this good faith? Can a single man, even in
cooperation with some of his friends, yield to despair on behalf and
without the knowledge of 800,000 other people? This is, in my opinion,
the decisive consideration in the problem facing us. The charge
emanating from the testimony of the witnesses against Kastner is that
had they known of the Auschwitz secret, then thousands or tens of
thousands would have been able
to save their lives by local, partial, specific or indirect rescue
operations like local revolts, resistance, escapes, hidings,
concealment of children with Gentiles, forging of documents, ransom
money, bribery,etc. – and when this is the case and when one deals
with many hundreds of thousands, how does a human being, a mortal,
reject with complete certainty and with an extreme ‘no’ the efficiency
of all the many and varied rescue ways? How can he examine the tens of
thousands of possibilities? Does he decide instead of God?
Indeed, he who can act with such a usurpation of the
last hope of hundreds of thousands is not entitled to claim good faith
as his defense. The penetrating question quo warrento is a good answer
to a claim of such good faith…
If the superintendent of a big hospital lets thousands of sick people
die so that he may devote himself to the sure rescue of one soul, he
will come out guilty, at least morally, even if it is proven that he
as an individual erroneously thought that there was no hope of saving
the other patients. He is a collaborator with the angel of death.
Either a complete atrophy of the soul or a blind involvement with
complete loss of senses and proportion in his small but personal
rescue operation could bring a man to such a gigantic, hazardous play.
And if all this is not enough to annul the claim of good faith which
was put before us on behalf of Kastner by the Attorney General, then
Kastner himself comes and annuls it altogether. Not only did he never
make this claim, but his own words prove the contrary. He writes in
his report to the Jewish Agency that the Committee sent emissaries to
many ghettos in the countryside and pleaded with them to organize
escapes and to refuse to board the trains. And though the story of
these pleadings is untrue, and the silence of Kastner in Kluj is
proven, the very uttering of these statements entirely contradicts the
claim that Kastner had concealed the
news about the fate of the ghetto inmates in good faith and only as a
result of his complete despairing of the chances of escaping or
resisting the Germans. You can not claim at the same time helplessness
and activity. Anyway, such a claim is not convincing…
We can sum up with three facts:
A. That the Nazis didn’t want to have a great revolt – nor small
revolts, and their passion was to have the extermination machine
working smoothly without resistance. This fact was known to Kastner
>from the best source – from Eichmann himself – And he had additional
proofs of that when he witnessed all the illusionary and misleading
tactics which were being taken by the Nazis from the first moment of
occupation.
B. That the most efficient means to paralyze the resistance with – or
the escape of a victim is to conceal from him the plot of the coming
murder. This fact is known to every man and one does not need any
proof of evidence for this.
C. That he, Kastner, in order to carry out the rescue plan for the few
prominents, fulfilled knowingly and without good faith the said desire
of the Nazis, thus expediting the work of exterminating the masses.
And also the rescue of Becher by Kastner…He who is capable of
rescuing this Becher from hanging proves that the atrocities of this
great war criminal were not so horrifying or despicable in his
eyes…I couldn’t base the main guilt of Kastner on this fact had it
been alone, but when it is attached even from afar to the whole scene
of events it throws retroactive
light on the whole affair and serves as a dozen proofs of our
conclusion.”(Supreme Court Judge, Moshe Silberg, 1957)
If that had been the majority judgement, one could say that whatever
their attitudes to the Arabs, and whatever their past behaviour might
have been under pressure, the Zionist leadership today did not
advocate collaboration with the Nazis.
But Judge Silberg’s judgement was that of a minority.
The Kastner case is therefore not an alleged episode in past history.
It is a continuing controversy in which the top Zionist leadership of
Israel stand indicted of continuing to publicly defend collaboration
with the Nazis in the extermination of Jews.
Despite the unanimous finding of the Supreme Court of Israel that Kurt
Becher was a major war criminal, the Jewish Agency (World Zionist
Organization) refused to withdraw the fraudulent certificate Kastner
gave on their behalf, which saved Becher from hanging, and allowed him
to remain a free man in West Germany, the head of several corporations
and with an estimated personal worth of $30 million.
Becher has even used his certification as a ‘good’ SS officer to give
evidence in support of his associates at other war crimes trials in
West Germany.
Since the prosecution, representing the Israeli Government agreed with
the Supreme Court that Becher was a major war criminal, one can only
pressure that the Israeli Government did not want him put on trial for
fear of what might come out.
Likewise, none of Kastner’s associates on the Zionist Relief and
Rescue Committee or his bosses in the Jewish Agency have ever been put
on trial .
Let alone the hundreds of ‘prominents’ who helped Kastner to reassure
the Hungarian Jews that they were going to Kenyermeze and not
Auschwitz, in exchange for tickets on the one train that took them
eventually to Palestine.
As for Kastner himself, he will cause no further embarrassment to the
Zionist leadership with his undisputed claims that everything he did
was approved by the Jewish Agency (World Zionist Organization)
leadership in Palestine. He is ‘now dead’. Or putting it less
delicately, on 3 March 1957 he was shot by Zeev Eckstein – immediately
after the appeal hearings were concluded, and before the judgement
‘rehabilitating’ him was delivered.
Eckstein was not a Hungarian avenger. He was a paid undercover agent
of the Israeli secret service. (Hecht, ibid., p.208). Another
‘fantastic allegation’ no doubt; but admitted in court during the
murder trial).
sven88
On Thu, 15 Oct 1998 12:39:09, [email protected] wrote:
>Readers are reminded that there is in fact no such
>organization as the “American Fascist Union”. All
>posts claiming to be from the “American Fascist Union”
>are in fact posted to Usenet by the same individual who
>was for some time using the name “Karl Zimmer”. This
>individual is most likely an operative of Nizkor.
From [email protected] Thu Oct 15 19:45:17 EDT 1998
Article: 127914 of can.general
Path: hub.org!hub.org!chippy.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!newshub.northeast.verio.net!news.idt.net!nntp.cadvision.com!news.agtac.net!news.telusplanet.net!news
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.general,bc.general,ns.general,soc.culture.europe,alt.collecting.stamps,rec.collecting.stamps,rec.collecting.stamps.discuss
Subject: Canada Post Managers Can STEAL MAIL!!!
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 17:46:43 GMT
Organization: TELUS Communications Inc.
Lines: 196
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References:
NNTP-Posting-Host: edtnpx09-port-52.agt.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451
Xref: hub.org soc.culture.canada:162471 can.general:127914 bc.general:80783 ns.general:34652 soc.culture.europe:131360 alt.collecting.stamps:6230 rec.collecting.stamps:414 rec.collecting.stamps.discuss:2259
On Tuesday 14 October 1998, a Court in Edmonton Canada confirmed that
Canada Post IS above the law, even above Magna Carta and the Canadian
Bill of Rights.
The Court confirmed, that THEY DO NOT HAVE TO PAY ONE CENT IN
COMPENSATION, even if their managers STEAL or lose a full sack of
mail, being a sack full of computer propgrams being sent to the
Government of Cuba!!
Further, that they are immune from any and all lawsuits!!!
No wonder so many people are having their mail, including registered,
STOLEN by managers at Canada Post!!!
Ask your government to consider an EMBARGO against Canada Post, until
they stop stealing mail!!!
>On Sat, 08 Aug 1998 14:03:13 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
>>Following all the recent news stories about thefts of mail by Canada
>>Post, today (7 August 1998) Canada Post is being sued, in two separate lawsuits!!!
>>The most damaging one relates to the disappearance of AN ENTIRE SACK
>>OF MAIL consisting of approximately 52 pounds of computer programs,
>>worth more than $4,000.– in a PO sealed sack, destined for a
>>foreign government department. The sackful was delivered and sealed on
>>10th June. According to written admissions from Canada Post, it
>>somehow “DISAPPEARED” the same day.Alberta Court Docket #P9890306082.
>>Mind you, the criminals running Canada Post did not bother to advise
>>the victim for one month, until 9th July!! It is now 2 months, Canada
>>Post say they have no idea how the full mail sack disappeared, and
>>they refuse to pay compensation for their thieves!!!
>>Since normal workers/staff can no longer steal because they are
>>constantly videotaped, one must assume that managers in canada Post
>>are somehow involved in the disappearance.
>>At the same time, another lawsuit was filed against Canada Post, in
>>connection with a “security registered” item, with $3000.– worth of
>>stamps sent to a representative of a European government, which
>>”disappeared” last year!!!Alberta Court Docket# p9890306081.
>>Victims are now getting together to organise a major international
>>campaign.
>>If you have had mail “disappear”, whether ‘lost’ or stolen – SUE
>>THEM!!!
>>Some of the contact names and phone numbers of the big sh*ts
>>at Canada Post include:
>>Alfonso Galiano,MP – Minister for Canada Post – 819-997-5421
>> Jonathan Moser is his gofer – same number
>>Georges Clermont – President of Canada Post – phone 613-734-8440
>> Sebastian Barnard is his gofer – same number
>>Stewart Bacon – VP Canada Post – phone 613-734-8440
>>Also be sure to send copies of your charges to the Deputy Leader of
>>the Opposition in the Canadian Parliament, Deborah Grey, MP.
>>In addition to the foregoing, notify all media in your area to run
>>this story, together with your complaints.
>>Further, foreign postal administrations including USPS are also being
>>contacted. Perhaps they can be convinced, to again place an EMBARGO on
>>mail to and from canada, until such time as Canada Post can ensure the
>>safety, and reliability of delivery of mail, without it
>>disappearing!!!
>>The original article documenting the problems experience by Carl kane,
>>as documented with APS, are but the tips of the problem.
>>It seems that dealers in Canada, and also now in UK, are filing their
>>complaints about thefts from Canada mails, with the MP D.Grey in
>>Ottawa, and also with media all over the world.
>>>Read all the articles below!!!
>>>It is not only in Toronto that Registered Mail is being regularly
>>>stolen.
>>>On Mon, 30 Mar 1998 04:19:49 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>Western Canada, especially Edmonton, is being reported in the media as
>>>>the latest crisis area for thefts, particularly of Registered Mail.
>>>>Apparently, senior staff in the main post office have been helping
>>>>themselves to mail of value, even including Registered mail.
>>>>So far, only one person has been charged, and convicted in Court.
>>>>Even the media have had to admit, that the thefts are still
>>>>continuing, so it is obvious that the senior thieves have still not
>>>>been arrested.
>>>>Governments overseas have been forced to intervene in connection with
>>>>the ongoing thefts from and to Edmonton, Canada.
>>>>Coming on the heels of the stupid mail strike just before Christmas,
>>>>it seems Canada Post just does not give a damn about delivering the
>>>>mail.
>>>>That only a few of the staff, probably management types, are the
>>>>culprits makes it difficult for those who are really honest workers in
>>>>Canada Post. It seems further, that management of Canada Post just
>>>>want to hush up, and cover up, the ongoing thefts.
>>>If you also are a victim of theft from the mails through western
>>>Canada, you should be contacting the following:
>>>Also, be sure to send copies of your complaint to the following;
>>>Ms.D.Gray – Deputy Leader of the Reform Party of Canada
>>>HOUSE OF COMMONS,
>>>OTTAWA – CANADA
>>>She is handling many complaints of thefts from the mail, even of
>>>Registered items!!!!
>>>No postage is needed if mailed in Canada
>>>Send your complaints of theft from the mails in Canada, in addition to
>>>D.Grey,MP, to your local media – radio,tv and newspapers.
>>>On 11 Jun 1998 18:34:27 GMT, [email protected] (Jay T. Carrigan)
>>>wrote:
>>>>Rainer,
>>>>Sorry to hear about your had problems with registered mail.
>>Here’s a very relevant “letter to the editor” published in the June
>>1998 issue of the American Philatelist:
>>”Canadian Mail Warning
>>”Philatelists should be aware of a string of registered mail losses of
>>letters and packages destined for or originating from Toronto, Canada,
>>in the last two years. Despite the fact that twenty-three Canadian
>>Postal Corp (CPC) employees were arrested for mail theft in 1997, the
>>losses continue, indicating that the arrests may have touched only the
>>tip of the iceberg.
>>”The arrests occurred in June 1997 at the Toronto’s Gateway Postal
>>Terminal, the largest mail sorting facility in Canada. Unfortunately,
>>to date there are no reports that any of those arrested have been
>>charged or prosecuted, material reported missing by thousands of
>>customers remains missing, and CPC users continue to suffer sometimes
>>substantial losses.
>>”Also unfortunately, there have been no stories in the American press
>>about these increasingly frequent losses. Collectors must be warned
>>of the high risk of using the Canadian mail service. Registered mail
>>is no protection against loss, and in fact may flag the mail to the
>>attention of the mail handlers who prey on the public. If you must
>>send material to Canada, or if you need to receive items from the
>>country, you will be more successful if you use Federal Express and
>>pay the higher cost.
>> Carl E. Kane
>> East Dennis, Massachusetts”
>>>> Jay Carrigan [email protected]
>>>>In article <[email protected]>, Rainer Fuchs
>>>>
>>>>>How does the Canadian Post handles registered letters?
>>>>>Does the receiver need to sign a receive note?
>>>>>It seems that some of my registered letters to Canada have not reached the
>>>>>receiver. For the first letter a inquiry was made… and the addressee just
>>>>>needed to sign on a paper form from the Canadian Post that he has not
>>>>>received the letter. Does the Canadian Post is not able to track the
>>>>>letters?
>>>>>Rainer Fuchs
>>>>>Email: [email protected]
>>>>>Web Site: http://fuchs-online.com
>>>If the thefts are in Canada, there is little point complaining to
>>>USPS.
>>>Complain to APS, and then the Canadian MP who is interested, as well
>>>as other media.
From [email protected] Thu Oct 15 19:45:47 EDT 1998
Article: 162471 of soc.culture.canada
Path: hub.org!hub.org!chippy.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!newshub.northeast.verio.net!news.idt.net!nntp.cadvision.com!news.agtac.net!news.telusplanet.net!news
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.general,bc.general,ns.general,soc.culture.europe,alt.collecting.stamps,rec.collecting.stamps,rec.collecting.stamps.discuss
Subject: Canada Post Managers Can STEAL MAIL!!!
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 17:46:43 GMT
Organization: TELUS Communications Inc.
Lines: 196
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References:
NNTP-Posting-Host: edtnpx09-port-52.agt.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451
Xref: hub.org soc.culture.canada:162471 can.general:127914 bc.general:80783 ns.general:34652 soc.culture.europe:131360 alt.collecting.stamps:6230 rec.collecting.stamps:414 rec.collecting.stamps.discuss:2259
On Tuesday 14 October 1998, a Court in Edmonton Canada confirmed that
Canada Post IS above the law, even above Magna Carta and the Canadian
Bill of Rights.
The Court confirmed, that THEY DO NOT HAVE TO PAY ONE CENT IN
COMPENSATION, even if their managers STEAL or lose a full sack of
mail, being a sack full of computer propgrams being sent to the
Government of Cuba!!
Further, that they are immune from any and all lawsuits!!!
No wonder so many people are having their mail, including registered,
STOLEN by managers at Canada Post!!!
Ask your government to consider an EMBARGO against Canada Post, until
they stop stealing mail!!!
>On Sat, 08 Aug 1998 14:03:13 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
>>Following all the recent news stories about thefts of mail by Canada
>>Post, today (7 August 1998) Canada Post is being sued, in two separate lawsuits!!!
>>The most damaging one relates to the disappearance of AN ENTIRE SACK
>>OF MAIL consisting of approximately 52 pounds of computer programs,
>>worth more than $4,000.– in a PO sealed sack, destined for a
>>foreign government department. The sackful was delivered and sealed on
>>10th June. According to written admissions from Canada Post, it
>>somehow “DISAPPEARED” the same day.Alberta Court Docket #P9890306082.
>>Mind you, the criminals running Canada Post did not bother to advise
>>the victim for one month, until 9th July!! It is now 2 months, Canada
>>Post say they have no idea how the full mail sack disappeared, and
>>they refuse to pay compensation for their thieves!!!
>>Since normal workers/staff can no longer steal because they are
>>constantly videotaped, one must assume that managers in canada Post
>>are somehow involved in the disappearance.
>>At the same time, another lawsuit was filed against Canada Post, in
>>connection with a “security registered” item, with $3000.– worth of
>>stamps sent to a representative of a European government, which
>>”disappeared” last year!!!Alberta Court Docket# p9890306081.
>>Victims are now getting together to organise a major international
>>campaign.
>>If you have had mail “disappear”, whether ‘lost’ or stolen – SUE
>>THEM!!!
>>Some of the contact names and phone numbers of the big sh*ts
>>at Canada Post include:
>>Alfonso Galiano,MP – Minister for Canada Post – 819-997-5421
>> Jonathan Moser is his gofer – same number
>>Georges Clermont – President of Canada Post – phone 613-734-8440
>> Sebastian Barnard is his gofer – same number
>>Stewart Bacon – VP Canada Post – phone 613-734-8440
>>Also be sure to send copies of your charges to the Deputy Leader of
>>the Opposition in the Canadian Parliament, Deborah Grey, MP.
>>In addition to the foregoing, notify all media in your area to run
>>this story, together with your complaints.
>>Further, foreign postal administrations including USPS are also being
>>contacted. Perhaps they can be convinced, to again place an EMBARGO on
>>mail to and from canada, until such time as Canada Post can ensure the
>>safety, and reliability of delivery of mail, without it
>>disappearing!!!
>>The original article documenting the problems experience by Carl kane,
>>as documented with APS, are but the tips of the problem.
>>It seems that dealers in Canada, and also now in UK, are filing their
>>complaints about thefts from Canada mails, with the MP D.Grey in
>>Ottawa, and also with media all over the world.
>>>Read all the articles below!!!
>>>It is not only in Toronto that Registered Mail is being regularly
>>>stolen.
>>>On Mon, 30 Mar 1998 04:19:49 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>Western Canada, especially Edmonton, is being reported in the media as
>>>>the latest crisis area for thefts, particularly of Registered Mail.
>>>>Apparently, senior staff in the main post office have been helping
>>>>themselves to mail of value, even including Registered mail.
>>>>So far, only one person has been charged, and convicted in Court.
>>>>Even the media have had to admit, that the thefts are still
>>>>continuing, so it is obvious that the senior thieves have still not
>>>>been arrested.
>>>>Governments overseas have been forced to intervene in connection with
>>>>the ongoing thefts from and to Edmonton, Canada.
>>>>Coming on the heels of the stupid mail strike just before Christmas,
>>>>it seems Canada Post just does not give a damn about delivering the
>>>>mail.
>>>>That only a few of the staff, probably management types, are the
>>>>culprits makes it difficult for those who are really honest workers in
>>>>Canada Post. It seems further, that management of Canada Post just
>>>>want to hush up, and cover up, the ongoing thefts.
>>>If you also are a victim of theft from the mails through western
>>>Canada, you should be contacting the following:
>>>Also, be sure to send copies of your complaint to the following;
>>>Ms.D.Gray – Deputy Leader of the Reform Party of Canada
>>>HOUSE OF COMMONS,
>>>OTTAWA – CANADA
>>>She is handling many complaints of thefts from the mail, even of
>>>Registered items!!!!
>>>No postage is needed if mailed in Canada
>>>Send your complaints of theft from the mails in Canada, in addition to
>>>D.Grey,MP, to your local media – radio,tv and newspapers.
>>>On 11 Jun 1998 18:34:27 GMT, [email protected] (Jay T. Carrigan)
>>>wrote:
>>>>Rainer,
>>>>Sorry to hear about your had problems with registered mail.
>>Here’s a very relevant “letter to the editor” published in the June
>>1998 issue of the American Philatelist:
>>”Canadian Mail Warning
>>”Philatelists should be aware of a string of registered mail losses of
>>letters and packages destined for or originating from Toronto, Canada,
>>in the last two years. Despite the fact that twenty-three Canadian
>>Postal Corp (CPC) employees were arrested for mail theft in 1997, the
>>losses continue, indicating that the arrests may have touched only the
>>tip of the iceberg.
>>”The arrests occurred in June 1997 at the Toronto’s Gateway Postal
>>Terminal, the largest mail sorting facility in Canada. Unfortunately,
>>to date there are no reports that any of those arrested have been
>>charged or prosecuted, material reported missing by thousands of
>>customers remains missing, and CPC users continue to suffer sometimes
>>substantial losses.
>>”Also unfortunately, there have been no stories in the American press
>>about these increasingly frequent losses. Collectors must be warned
>>of the high risk of using the Canadian mail service. Registered mail
>>is no protection against loss, and in fact may flag the mail to the
>>attention of the mail handlers who prey on the public. If you must
>>send material to Canada, or if you need to receive items from the
>>country, you will be more successful if you use Federal Express and
>>pay the higher cost.
>> Carl E. Kane
>> East Dennis, Massachusetts”
>>>> Jay Carrigan [email protected]
>>>>In article <[email protected]>, Rainer Fuchs
>>>>
>>>>>How does the Canadian Post handles registered letters?
>>>>>Does the receiver need to sign a receive note?
>>>>>It seems that some of my registered letters to Canada have not reached the
>>>>>receiver. For the first letter a inquiry was made… and the addressee just
>>>>>needed to sign on a paper form from the Canadian Post that he has not
>>>>>received the letter. Does the Canadian Post is not able to track the
>>>>>letters?
>>>>>Rainer Fuchs
>>>>>Email: [email protected]
>>>>>Web Site: http://fuchs-online.com
>>>If the thefts are in Canada, there is little point complaining to
>>>USPS.
>>>Complain to APS, and then the Canadian MP who is interested, as well
>>>as other media.
From [email protected] Thu Oct 15 19:49:49 EDT 1998
Article: 190720 of aus.politics
Path: hub.org!hub.org!chippy.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!nntp.giganews.com!news3.bellglobal.com!news1.bellglobal.com!news.agtac.net!news.telusplanet.net!news
From: [email protected]azikor.zhid.orgy
Newsgroups: aus.general,soc.culture.australia,aus.politics
Subject: JEW NAZIS!! Expose Them in Australia!!!
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 15:23:29 GMT
Organization: TELUS Communications Inc.
Lines: 186
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: edtntnt4-port-108.agt.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451
Xref: hub.org aus.general:36258 soc.culture.australia:12364 aus.politics:190720
On Wed, 14 Oct 1998 19:20:15 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
trying to stimulate discussion again
On Mon, 12 Oct 1998 00:15:04 GMT, [email protected] (Tony Hancock)
wrote:
>On Sun, 11 Oct 1998 18:51:30 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
>>>On Sun, 16 Aug 1998 23:01:23 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
>>>Since some of the undesirable Jews in Australia have published their
>>>Libelers List of people they consider undesirable, for supporting ON,
>>>perhaps ON should do similar??
>One Nation is an Australian issue and braindead Canadian usenet
>sock-puppet fetshists like you should just mind your own bloody
>business,
>Sure Liebler is a f*ckwit,
>Tony Hancock
On Sun, 16 Aug 1998 23:01:23 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
>Since some of the undesirable Jews in Australia have published their
>Libelers List of people they consider undesirable, for supporting ON,
>perhaps ON should do similar??
>
>Surely the angry citizens of Australia can readily prepare their own
>list of undesirable Jews, including such Illuminati as the notorious
>Rappaport, and others of his ilk?? What about drug dealers, white
>collar criminals, and similar criminals?
>
>After all these thousands of years, why would the admittedly
>genetically inbred creatures (according to their own recent
>pronouncements regarding DNA proof for jewishness) want to so
>antagonise a generous host country like Australia?
>
>Is there not enough resentment against the people responsible for the
>murder of Christ?
>
>Did the more than 100 millions killed in the interests of Jew
>communism in this century alone, not create enough enemies, that they
>want to generate more?
>
>Surely their worldwide attempts at extortion of nations has caused
>more ill-will?? Even the Swiss, who had provided shelter, but required
>that the Jews WORK in the 1940’s are now having extortion demands!!!
>
>Or, is their wish to force the world into another conflagration, so
>that by the Year 2000, their New World Order can take over what
>remains of this world?? They are certainly spreading their tentacles
>in many countries, trying to take control…
>
>>>Mr Leibler: you have chosen to gratuitously & viciously persecute
>>>a defenceless minority of Australians – who are innocent of any
>>>wrong-doing – on purely political grounds; by publishing to the
>>>world, their names & residential suburbs in your magazine.
>
>>>In the interests of “balance”, would you now care to publish to the
>>>world, the names & residential suburbs of those Australian residents
>>>& citizens who are bankrolling the “Genocide” of the Palestinian
>>>Nation; with a higher financial contribution per capita, than any
>>>other members of your diaspora, on the Planet.
>
>>>You say you have a deep & abiding concern for “political
>>>transparency”: lets see you really put your publishing skills
>>>where your mouth is…
>
>>>cheers, PJ
>
>>Better yet, publish a list of all those businesses owned or/and
>>controlled by Jews, in Australia, USA, GB, Germany, France and Russia.
>
>>Let the world see who is really controlling world affairs, even before
>>the year 2000!!!
>
>
>
>
>On Sun, 12 Jul 1998 11:12:52 GMT, [email protected] (Harold
>Wood) wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 09 Jul 1998 13:02:46 GMT,
>>[email protected] (David S. Maddison)
>>wrote:
>>
>>Thanks for clarifying where you’re coming from,
>>Harold.
>>
>>Have you considered that your estimation here
>>might be incorrect? I estimate that my words
>>probably have given you a false impression
>>however. 🙂
>>
>>Here is another angle on my ‘yike’.
>>
>>The Australia-Israel Review in their attempting to
>>facilitate the vilification (and worse) of ON
>>members by others (a cowardly act) is in fact
>>attempting to protect the ‘nice little earner’
>>which the ethnic industry (a major part of their
>>consituency) has going in Australia. They
>>recognise that ON is a direct and immediate threat
>>to their continuing their enjoyment of the
>>proceeds of the tax heist perpetrated on pre ON
>>hapless political ‘pincer movement’ entrapped
>>middle income earning Australians by Tweedle
>>Dumb(LibNat) and Tweedle Dumber(LabRat)).
>>
>>>Ummm… Was it “The Jews” ™ that published the list or was it a
>>>particular individual who happened to be an editor of a
>>>Jewish-interest magazine?
>>Some voices among ‘the Jews’ have now been
>>raised against that action of the Australia-Israel
>>Review. The action of those sensible people must
>>surely be generally appreciated by all. A very
>>wise move by those rightly concerned people
>>indeed.
>>>Why blame “The Jews” for the misguided actions of a single individual
>>>who I am fairly certain now realises that he made a mistake?
>>Consider my approach a ‘media technique’. One I
>>highly disapprove of but acknowledge the efficacy
>>of. (Yes that does mean I now temporarily
>>subscribe to the principle, ‘the end justifies the
>>means’.)
>>>With the widespread opposition to One Nation, I’d say it was equally
>>>likely that any other number of other publications might also have
>>>published it,
>>They haven’t.
>>> or someone may have posted it to the ‘Net.
>>Here of course mostly ‘anything goes’. That
>>theory proves nothing for your agument.
>>>It was certainly wrong to publish the list, if such information wasn’t
>>>already on the public record in the first place.
>>Yes, wrong but now a help to those who they
>>oppose. Quite stupid are they not! 🙂 I wonder
>>if an IQ test needs to be introduced for all
>>Australian voters?
>>> (Is membership of political parties on the public record?)
>>No, but you are certainly free to declare one if
>>you please. (I am not currently a member of any
>>party but have belonged in the past to a number.)
>>>David Maddison
>>Hope that helps. 🙂
>>Now, here is another aspect of my ‘yike’.
>>The arrogance displayed by Australia’s now
>>prolific ‘ursurper classes’ knows no bounds.
>>(In the context this time of the arrogance
>>displayed by the Australia-Israel Review.)
>> And nor should that come as any surprise to
>>anyone, that for the reason that the criminal
>>’politically correct screeching brigade’ has long
>>intimidated our good, polite, well meaning and
>>well mannered ‘Australian cultured’ citizens, thus
>>effectively preventing them from speaking out
>>loudly enough about their such gross maltreatment.
>>The Australia-Israel Review’s stupid move in
>>publishing those names was undoubtedly a
>>reflection of their verging hysterical panic
>>reaction to the realisation that their
>>constituency’s ‘game’ just might be about to be
>>up! Also it likely was a manifestation of their
>>failure to see that it is actually possible,
>>despite their getting away with it for years, for
>>their instinctual arrogance at some time to get
>>them into very deep and dangerous water indeed.
>>Harold.
From [email protected] Thu Oct 15 19:52:06 EDT 1998
Article: 27279 of soc.culture.swiss
Path: hub.org!hub.org!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cyclone.news.idirect.com!island.idirect.com!nntp.cadvision.com!news.agtac.net!news.telusplanet.net!news
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: soc.culture.polish,soc.culture.russian,soc.culture.ukrainian,soc.culture.usa,usa.general,soc.culture.swiss,soc.culture.australian,soc.culture.europe
Subject: MORE- JEW RABBIS LAUNDER DRUG MONEY IN NY!!!!
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 14:39:30 GMT
Organization: TELUS Communications Inc.
Lines: 159
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: edtnpx08-port-25.agt.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451
Xref: hub.org soc.culture.polish:123158 soc.culture.russian:95089 soc.culture.ukrainian:42085 soc.culture.usa:265279 soc.culture.swiss:27279 soc.culture.australian:78552 soc.culture.europe:131344
Another JEW Rabbi in NY state has been caught dealing drugs – this
time inside a prison!!!
Rabbi Eli Gottesman,a chaplain at a federal medium security prison at
Ray Brook, NY got caught with a large bottle filled with sealed
balloons of cocaine and marijuana.
He is a former head of the “who’s Who in canadian Jewry”, and has been
a chaplain of the year named by the NY Board of rabbis.
On Tue, 29 Sep 1998 13:52:54 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
>It seems that JEWS are not satisfied with having murdered Jesus
>Christ.
>Now some of them are involved, even from synagogues, in the DRUGS
>business.
>On Tue, 17 Jun 1997 07:10:26 -0800, in alt.revisionism
>[email protected] (Michael A. Hoffman II) wrote:
>>Michael A. Hoffman II comments: Why didn’t these two Orthodox Hasidic
>>(Bobover sect) rabbis enjoy the usual rabbinic immunity from arrest for
>>their crimes? Could it be that their mantle of protection was removed by
>>the more powerful Reform and Conservative Jews in America with whom they
>>are at war in occupied Palestine over issues pertaining to modernity and
>>conversion? Is this a warning to the Orthodox to back off from their
>>assaults on Reform and Orthodox Jews? For more go to:
>>http://www.hoffman-info.com
——————————————————————————
2 Rabbis Charged With Money Laundering
By ROBERT D. McFADDEN NY Times June 17, 1997
NEW YORK — A dozen men, including two identified as Orthodox Jewish
rabbis, were charged by federal authorities Monday with conspiring to
launder and hide $1.75 million in drug profits for Colombian
narcotics dealers by routing the cash through the bank accounts of a
synagogue and a yeshiva in Brooklyn.
The bizarre case, federal prosecutors in Brooklyn said, brought
together a collection of strange bedfellows — five New York
representatives of Colombian drug traffickers, three go-betweens who
purportedly transported cash in suitcase quantities, and four men with
ties to a close-knit Jewish community.
At one point, the officials charged, the rabbis ran tens of millions
of dollars in drug profits through the bank accounts of a relatively
modest Borough Park synagogue and provided nearly $3.5 million from
American and Swiss accounts for the purchase of an aircraft for the
Colombian drug lords.
“Money launderers are the indispensable partners of major drug
traffickers, and the cynical act of using religious institutions to
conceal drug proceeds is particularly reprehensible,” said Zachary
Carter, the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York, in
announcing the charges.
Seven defendants, including Rabbi Mahir Reiss, 47, of 3543 Bedford
Ave., and Rabbi Bernard Grunfeld, 64, of 1417 46th St., both in
Brooklyn, were arrested Monday and were arraigned late in the day
before U.S. Magistrate Judge Roanne L. Mann, charged with conspiracy
to launder money. Two suspects, Grunfeld and Israel Knobloch, 24, of
5200 15th Ave., Brooklyn, also were charged with conspiring to avoid
federal cash-transaction reporting requirements.
Six defendants were held without bail, and one, Abraham Reiss, 48, of
320 Riverside Drive in Manhattan, a brother of Mahir Reiss, was
released on $750,000 bail. Three other men named in the federal
complaint were listed as fugitives, and two more were being held in
custody elsewhere in New York in other cases, according to Lee Dunst,
the assistant federal attorney prosecuting the case.
Unveiling a three-year undercover investigation that used
court-authorize wiretaps and other surveillance, the federal complaint
charged that the two rabbis and Abraham Reiss laundered $750,000 by
taking cash from go-betweens, depositing it in the bank accounts of a
synagogue-based organization and, after subtracting commissions,
writing checks to drug traffickers.
Investigators said the bank accounts used in the scheme, held in the
name of Chaim Shel Shulem, which shares quarters with Congregation
Eitz Chaim at 1577 48th St. in Borough Park, held deposits of more
than $19 million during the 10-month period when the laundering
transactions occurred, between August 1995 and May 1996.
Grunfeld, listed as the president of Chaim Shel Shulem, was said to
have written all the checks that went to the drug traffickers. He and
Knobloch were also accused of concealing the movement of $1 million in
drug money by making 95 deposits and withdrawals of just under $10,000
— the amount that triggers a government cash-transaction reporting
requirement — through the bank accounts of Congregation Eitz Chaim
and Bobover Yeshiva, at the same location.
The defendants made no statements in court Monday. While Grunfeld was
listed by prosecutors as the head of Chaim Shel Shulem, dozens of
people at Congregation Eitz Chaim late Monday declined to say anything
about him or the case. Some seemed not to recognize the name Chaim
Shel Shulem.
The synagogue and yeshiva are in a five-story building with a brick
front and a small awning imprinted with the institution’s name in
Hebrew. The only words in English on the facade call it “the Katz
Family of Mexico Building.”
In a ground-floor, two-room school lined with books, about 100 people
were studying at tables. A man who appeared to be in charge, but who
would not give his name, said he knew nothing about the two rabbis
named in the federal complaint.
The federal investigation — an undertaking of the U.S. Attorney’s
Office, the Drug Enforcement Agency and the Internal Revenue Service
— began in 1994, when agents detected a pattern of cash deposits and
withdrawals intended to circumvent the government’s reporting rules in
various bank accounts held in the name of the synagogue and yeshiva,
officials said.
With court-authorized telephone wiretaps, surveillance and other
techniques, the investigators said they uncovered a conspiracy in
which Grunfeld and Knobloch eventually made more than $1 million in
deposits and withdrawals — transactions, they said, that let the
conspirators move large sums of illicit drug profits.
Later, in 1995 and 1996, investigators said, the 12 men named in
Monday’s complaint conducted a full money-laundering operation. Five
of them — Lisandro Montes De Oca, 29; Francisco Gil, 30; Estenio
Rodriguez, 30; Juan Suarez, 39, and Alvaro Duque, 36 –were said to
have brought in large sums that Colombian drug dealers wanted to
launder.
The money was given to three men described as intermediaries — Jack
Pinski, 35, a Colombian who is a fugitive, and Roberto Buendia, 40,
and Fabio Arana, both of Medford, N.Y. They were said to have counted
and stashed the money at an apartment at 243 West 75th St.
There, prosecutors said, Abraham Reiss picked up the money. It was
later deposited in various accounts held in the name of Chaim Shel
Shulem.
Grunfeld, the organization’s president, signed checks that were made
out to “entities in accordance with drug traffickers’ instructions,”
the federal complaint said.
Those instructions were communicated through Rabbi Reiss, who had no
formal connections to Chaim Shel Shulem, investigators said.
Commissions of 13 percent to 15 percent were deducted from the
laundered money and divided among the intermediaries.
Prosecutors said they did not know how members of a deeply religious
community came into contact with professional money launderers and
drug traffickers. But they charged that in 1994, Rabbis Reiss and
Grunfeld, and Abraham Reiss arranged $3.4 million in financing to buy
a Beech Super King aircraft, a type commonly used by drug smugglers.
================================================================================
The Campaign for Radical Truth in History: http://www.hoffman-info.com
——————————————————————————–
News Bureau and Archives Online
From [email protected] Thu Oct 15 19:52:24 EDT 1998
Article: 42085 of soc.culture.ukrainian
Path: hub.org!hub.org!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cyclone.news.idirect.com!island.idirect.com!nntp.cadvision.com!news.agtac.net!news.telusplanet.net!news
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: soc.culture.polish,soc.culture.russian,soc.culture.ukrainian,soc.culture.usa,usa.general,soc.culture.swiss,soc.culture.australian,soc.culture.europe
Subject: MORE- JEW RABBIS LAUNDER DRUG MONEY IN NY!!!!
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 14:39:30 GMT
Organization: TELUS Communications Inc.
Lines: 159
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: edtnpx08-port-25.agt.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451
Xref: hub.org soc.culture.polish:123158 soc.culture.russian:95089 soc.culture.ukrainian:42085 soc.culture.usa:265279 soc.culture.swiss:27279 soc.culture.australian:78552 soc.culture.europe:131344
Another JEW Rabbi in NY state has been caught dealing drugs – this
time inside a prison!!!
Rabbi Eli Gottesman,a chaplain at a federal medium security prison at
Ray Brook, NY got caught with a large bottle filled with sealed
balloons of cocaine and marijuana.
He is a former head of the “who’s Who in canadian Jewry”, and has been
a chaplain of the year named by the NY Board of rabbis.
On Tue, 29 Sep 1998 13:52:54 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
>It seems that JEWS are not satisfied with having murdered Jesus
>Christ.
>Now some of them are involved, even from synagogues, in the DRUGS
>business.
>On Tue, 17 Jun 1997 07:10:26 -0800, in alt.revisionism
>[email protected] (Michael A. Hoffman II) wrote:
>>Michael A. Hoffman II comments: Why didn’t these two Orthodox Hasidic
>>(Bobover sect) rabbis enjoy the usual rabbinic immunity from arrest for
>>their crimes? Could it be that their mantle of protection was removed by
>>the more powerful Reform and Conservative Jews in America with whom they
>>are at war in occupied Palestine over issues pertaining to modernity and
>>conversion? Is this a warning to the Orthodox to back off from their
>>assaults on Reform and Orthodox Jews? For more go to:
>>http://www.hoffman-info.com
——————————————————————————
2 Rabbis Charged With Money Laundering
By ROBERT D. McFADDEN NY Times June 17, 1997
NEW YORK — A dozen men, including two identified as Orthodox Jewish
rabbis, were charged by federal authorities Monday with conspiring to
launder and hide $1.75 million in drug profits for Colombian
narcotics dealers by routing the cash through the bank accounts of a
synagogue and a yeshiva in Brooklyn.
The bizarre case, federal prosecutors in Brooklyn said, brought
together a collection of strange bedfellows — five New York
representatives of Colombian drug traffickers, three go-betweens who
purportedly transported cash in suitcase quantities, and four men with
ties to a close-knit Jewish community.
At one point, the officials charged, the rabbis ran tens of millions
of dollars in drug profits through the bank accounts of a relatively
modest Borough Park synagogue and provided nearly $3.5 million from
American and Swiss accounts for the purchase of an aircraft for the
Colombian drug lords.
“Money launderers are the indispensable partners of major drug
traffickers, and the cynical act of using religious institutions to
conceal drug proceeds is particularly reprehensible,” said Zachary
Carter, the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York, in
announcing the charges.
Seven defendants, including Rabbi Mahir Reiss, 47, of 3543 Bedford
Ave., and Rabbi Bernard Grunfeld, 64, of 1417 46th St., both in
Brooklyn, were arrested Monday and were arraigned late in the day
before U.S. Magistrate Judge Roanne L. Mann, charged with conspiracy
to launder money. Two suspects, Grunfeld and Israel Knobloch, 24, of
5200 15th Ave., Brooklyn, also were charged with conspiring to avoid
federal cash-transaction reporting requirements.
Six defendants were held without bail, and one, Abraham Reiss, 48, of
320 Riverside Drive in Manhattan, a brother of Mahir Reiss, was
released on $750,000 bail. Three other men named in the federal
complaint were listed as fugitives, and two more were being held in
custody elsewhere in New York in other cases, according to Lee Dunst,
the assistant federal attorney prosecuting the case.
Unveiling a three-year undercover investigation that used
court-authorize wiretaps and other surveillance, the federal complaint
charged that the two rabbis and Abraham Reiss laundered $750,000 by
taking cash from go-betweens, depositing it in the bank accounts of a
synagogue-based organization and, after subtracting commissions,
writing checks to drug traffickers.
Investigators said the bank accounts used in the scheme, held in the
name of Chaim Shel Shulem, which shares quarters with Congregation
Eitz Chaim at 1577 48th St. in Borough Park, held deposits of more
than $19 million during the 10-month period when the laundering
transactions occurred, between August 1995 and May 1996.
Grunfeld, listed as the president of Chaim Shel Shulem, was said to
have written all the checks that went to the drug traffickers. He and
Knobloch were also accused of concealing the movement of $1 million in
drug money by making 95 deposits and withdrawals of just under $10,000
— the amount that triggers a government cash-transaction reporting
requirement — through the bank accounts of Congregation Eitz Chaim
and Bobover Yeshiva, at the same location.
The defendants made no statements in court Monday. While Grunfeld was
listed by prosecutors as the head of Chaim Shel Shulem, dozens of
people at Congregation Eitz Chaim late Monday declined to say anything
about him or the case. Some seemed not to recognize the name Chaim
Shel Shulem.
The synagogue and yeshiva are in a five-story building with a brick
front and a small awning imprinted with the institution’s name in
Hebrew. The only words in English on the facade call it “the Katz
Family of Mexico Building.”
In a ground-floor, two-room school lined with books, about 100 people
were studying at tables. A man who appeared to be in charge, but who
would not give his name, said he knew nothing about the two rabbis
named in the federal complaint.
The federal investigation — an undertaking of the U.S. Attorney’s
Office, the Drug Enforcement Agency and the Internal Revenue Service
— began in 1994, when agents detected a pattern of cash deposits and
withdrawals intended to circumvent the government’s reporting rules in
various bank accounts held in the name of the synagogue and yeshiva,
officials said.
With court-authorized telephone wiretaps, surveillance and other
techniques, the investigators said they uncovered a conspiracy in
which Grunfeld and Knobloch eventually made more than $1 million in
deposits and withdrawals — transactions, they said, that let the
conspirators move large sums of illicit drug profits.
Later, in 1995 and 1996, investigators said, the 12 men named in
Monday’s complaint conducted a full money-laundering operation. Five
of them — Lisandro Montes De Oca, 29; Francisco Gil, 30; Estenio
Rodriguez, 30; Juan Suarez, 39, and Alvaro Duque, 36 –were said to
have brought in large sums that Colombian drug dealers wanted to
launder.
The money was given to three men described as intermediaries — Jack
Pinski, 35, a Colombian who is a fugitive, and Roberto Buendia, 40,
and Fabio Arana, both of Medford, N.Y. They were said to have counted
and stashed the money at an apartment at 243 West 75th St.
There, prosecutors said, Abraham Reiss picked up the money. It was
later deposited in various accounts held in the name of Chaim Shel
Shulem.
Grunfeld, the organization’s president, signed checks that were made
out to “entities in accordance with drug traffickers’ instructions,”
the federal complaint said.
Those instructions were communicated through Rabbi Reiss, who had no
formal connections to Chaim Shel Shulem, investigators said.
Commissions of 13 percent to 15 percent were deducted from the
laundered money and divided among the intermediaries.
Prosecutors said they did not know how members of a deeply religious
community came into contact with professional money launderers and
drug traffickers. But they charged that in 1994, Rabbis Reiss and
Grunfeld, and Abraham Reiss arranged $3.4 million in financing to buy
a Beech Super King aircraft, a type commonly used by drug smugglers.
================================================================================
The Campaign for Radical Truth in History: http://www.hoffman-info.com
——————————————————————————–
News Bureau and Archives Online
From [email protected] Thu Oct 15 19:53:07 EDT 1998
Article: 196090 of soc.culture.malaysia
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: soc.culture.palestine,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.revisionism,soc.culture.islam,soc.culture.malaysia,soc.culture.australian,soc.culture.polish
Subject: Re: Nazi — Jewish Zionist Collaboration
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 15:14:47 GMT
Organization: TELUS Communications Inc.
Lines: 638
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: edtntnt4-port-108.agt.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451
Path: hub.org!hub.org!darla.visi.com!chippy.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!newshub.northeast.verio.net!cyclone.news.idirect.com!island.idirect.com!news.oanet.com!news.agtac.net!news.telusplanet.net!news
Xref: hub.org soc.culture.palestine:53077 alt.politics.nationalism.white:175196 alt.revisionism:269915 soc.culture.islam:4186 soc.culture.malaysia:196090 soc.culture.australian:78556 soc.culture.polish:123171
On Wed, 14 Oct 1998 16:31:36, [email protected] wrote:
On Tue, 13 Oct 1998 11:38:31, [email protected] wrote:
>On 28 Sep 1998 01:44:48 -0000, Anonymous
>>Death to each and every kike in the JDL only after hours of torture.
On Thu, 10 Sep 1998 22:56:46 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
trying to stimulate more interest in this topic,
On Sat, 15 Aug 1998 18:45:47 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
>On Fri, 03 Jul 1998 15:00:35 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
>>On 3 Jul 1998 06:38:05 GMT,
Orest Slepokura
…fully documented *Perfidy* blatantly exposes the degree to which
Zionists cooperated in the persecution of their fellow Jews…
Here is more evidence of NAZI-ZIONIST JEW COLLABORATION.
The Kastner Case
The most notorious case of Nazi-Zionist collaboration is that
involving a Jew – Rudolf Kastner.
Most Jewish people have never heard of Rudolf Kastner. Those who have,
are generally under the impression that there is some ‘controversy’
about negotiations he undertook for ‘the purchase of Jewish lives for
money and military equipment’, but that he was ‘fully rehabilitated’
by the Supreme Court of Israel.
The Accusations
Briefly, the accusations against Kastner are as follows:
Dr. Rudolf Verba, a Doctor of Science now serving at the British
Medical Research Council, was one of the few escapees from Auschwitz.
In his memoirs published in February, 1961, in the London Daily
Herald, he wrote:
I am a Jew. In spite of that – indeed because of that – I accuse
certain Jewish leaders of one of the most ghastly deeds of the war.
This group of quislings knew what was happening to their brethren in
Hitler’s gas chambers and bought their own lives with the price of
silence.
Among them was Dr. Kastner, leader of the council which spoke for all
Jews in Hungary. While I was prisoner number 44070 at Auschwitz – the
number is still on my arm – I compiled careful statistics of the
exterminations.
I took these terrible statistics with me when I escaped in 1944 and I
was able to give Hungarian Zionist leaders three weeks notice that
Eichmann planned to send a million of their Jews to his gas
chambers…Kastner went to Eichmann and told him, ‘I know of your
plans; spare some Jews of my choice and I shall keep quiet.’
Eichmann not only agreed, but dressed Kastner up in S.S. uniform and
took him to Belsen to trace some of his friends. Nor did the sordid
bargaining end there. Kastner paid Eichmann several thousand dollars.
With this little fortune, Eichmann was able to buy his way to freedom
when Germany collapsed, to set himself up in the Argentine…(Ben
Hecht, Perfidy, pp261-2)
These accusations are confirmed by the ‘Eichmann Confessions’
published in Life magazine, 28 November and 5 December 1960:
I resolved to show how well a job could be done when the commander
stands 100% behind it. By shipping the Jews off in a lightning
operation, I wanted to set an example for future campaigns
elsewhere…In obedience to Himmler’s directive I now concentrated on
negotiations with the Jewish political officials in Budapest…Among
them Dr. Rudolph Kastner, authorized representative of the Zionist
Movement. This Dr. Kastner was a young man about my age, an ice-cold
lawyer and a fanatical Zionist. He agreed to help keep the Jews from
resisting deportation – and even keep order in the collection camps –
if I could close my eyes and let a few hundred or a few thousand young
Jews emigrate illegally to Palestine.
It was a good bargain. For keeping order in the camps, the price was
not too high for me.
We trusted each other perfectly. When he was with me, Kastner smoke
cigarets as though he was in a coffeehouse. While we talked he would
smoke one aromatic cigaret after another, taking them from a silver
case and lighting them with a silver lighter. With his great polish
and reserve he would have made an ideal Gestapo officer himself.
Dr. Kastner’s main concern was to make it possible for a select group
of Hungarian Jews to emigrate to Israel…
As a matter of fact, there was a very strong similarity between our
attitudes in the S.S. and the viewpoint of these immensely idealistic
Zionist leaders. I believe that Kastner would have sacrificed a
thousand or a hundred thousand of his blood to achieve his political
goal ‘You can have the others’, he would say, ‘but let me have this
group here’. And because Kastner rendered us a great service by
helping keep the deportation camps peaceful, I would let his groups
escape. After all, I was not concerned with small groups of a thousand
or so Jews…That was the ‘gentleman’s agreement’ I had with Kastner
(Hecht, ibid., p.260-61)
Quite clearly these accusations, do not relate merely to ‘the purchase
of Jewish lives for money and military equipment’.
Are the accusations against Kastner true?
According to the Government of Israel, they are a lie. When Malchiel
Greenwald, a strongly pro-Zionist Israeli citizen published these
accusations against Kastner, the Israeli Government did rather more
than demand that his views should not be broadcast. Because a
prominent Zionist official (Dr. Kastner was a spokesman for the
Ministry of Trade and Industry) was involved, the Attorney General of
the State of Israel prosecuted Greenwald for criminal libel.
The Verdict
Let the verdict of Judge Benjamin Halevi (who later became one of the
panel of three judges that tried Eichmann) in Israel’s District Court
of Jerusalem speak for itself, given in criminal case No. 124 of 1953.
The Attorney General v. Malchiel Greenwald. This material should be
studied carefully.
The masses of Jews from Hungary’s ghettos obediently boarded the
deportation trains without knowing their fate. They were full of
confidence in the false information that they were being transferred
to Kenyermeze.
The Nazis could not have misled the masses of Jews so conclusively had
they not spread their false information through Jewish channels.
The Jews of the ghettos would not have trusted the Nazi or Hungarian
rulers. But they had trust in their Jewish leaders. Eichmann and
others used this known fact as part of their calculated plan to
mislead the Jews.
They were able to deport the Jews to their extermination by the help
of Jewish leaders.
The false information was spread by the Jewish leaders. The local
leaders of the Jews of Kluj and Nodvarod knew that other leaders were
spreading such false information and did not protest.
Those of the Jews who tried to warn their friends of the truth were
persecuted by the Jewish leaders in charge of the local ‘rescue work’.
The trust of the Jews in the misleading information and their lack of
knowledge that their wives, children and themselves were about to be
deported to the gas chambers of Auschwitz led the victims to remain
quiescent in their ghettos. It seduced them into not resisting or
hampering the deportation orders.
Dozens of thousands of Jews were guarded in their ghettos by a few
dozen police. Yet even vigorous young Jews made no attempt to
overpower these few guards and escape to nearby Rumania. No resistance
activities to the deportations were organized in these ghettos.
And the Jewish leaders did everything in their power to soothe the
Jews in the ghettos and to prevent such resistance activities.
The same Jews who spread in Kluj and Nodvarod the false rumor of
Kenyermeze, or confirmed it, the same public leaders who did not warn
their own people against the misleading statements, the same Jewish
leaders who did not organize any resistance or any sabotage of
deportations…these same leaders did not join the people of their
community in their ride to Auschwitz, but were all included in the
Rescue train.
The Nazi organizers of extermination and the perpetrators of
extermination permitted Rudolf Kastner and the members of the Jewish
Council in Budapest to save themselves, their relatives, and friends.
The Nazis did this as a means of making the local Jewish leaders, whom
they favoured, dependent on the Nazi regime, dependent on its good
will during the time of its fatal deportation schedule. In short, the
Nazis succeeded in bringing the Jewish leaders into collaboration with
the Nazis at the time of the catastrophe.
The Nazi chiefs knew that the Zionists were a most vital element in
Jewry and the most trusted by the Jews.
The personality of Rudolph Kastner made him a convenient catspaw for
Eichmann and his clique, to draw into collaboration and make their
task easier.
The question here is not, as stated by the Attorney General in his
summation, whether members of the Jewish Rescue Committee were or were
not capable of fulfilling their duty without the patronage of the S.S.
chiefs
.
It is obvious that without such S.S. Nazi patronage the Jewish Rescue
Committee could not have existed, and could have acted only as an
underground.
The question is, as put by the lawyer for the defense, why were the
Nazis interested in the existence of the Rescue Committee? Why did the
S.S. chiefs make every effort to encourage the existence of the Jewish
Rescue Committee? Did the exterminators turn into rescuers?
The same question rises concerning the rescue of prominent Jews by
these German killers of Jews. Was the rescue of such Jews a part of
the extermination plan of the killers ?
The support given by the extermination leaders to Kastner’s Rescue
Committee proves that indeed there was a place for Kastner and his
friends in their Final Solution for the Jews of Hungary – their total
annihilation.
The Nazi’s patronage of Kastner, and their agreement to let him save
six hundred prominent Jews, were part of the plan to exterminate the
Jews.
Kastner was given a chance to add a few more to that number. The bait
attracted him. The opportunity of rescuing prominent people appealed
to him greatly. He considered the rescue of the most important Jews as
a great personal success and a success for Zionism. It was a success
that would also justify his conduct – his political negotiation with
Nazis and the Nazi patronage of his committee.
When Kastner received this present from the Nazis, Kastner sold his
soul to the German Satan.
The sacrifice of the vital interests of the majority of the Jews, in
order to rescue the prominents, was the basic element in the agreement
between Kastner and the Nazis. This agreement fixed the division of
the nation into two unequal camps: a small fragment of prominents,
whom the Nazis promised Kastner to save, on the one hand, and the
great majority or Hungarian Jews whom the Nazis designated for death,
on the other hand.
An imperative condition for the rescue of the first camp by the Nazis
was that Kastner will not interfere in the action of the Nazis against
the other camp and will not hamper them in its extermination. Kastner
fulfilled this condition. He concentrated his efforts in the rescue of
the prominents and treated the camp of the doomed as if they had
already been wiped out from the book of the living.
One cannot estimate the damage caused by Kastner’s collaboration and
put down the number of victims which it cost Hungarian Jews. These are
not only the thousands of Jews in Nodvarod or any other community in
the border area, Jews who could escape through the border, had the
chief of their rescue committee fulfilled his duty toward them.
All of Kastner’s answers in his final testimony were a constant effort
to evade this truth.
Kastner has tried to escape through every crack he could find in the
wall of evidence. When one crack was sealed in his face, he darted
quickly to another. (Judgement of Judge Benjamin Halevi, Criminal Case
124/53; Attorney General v. Malchiel Greenwald, District Court,
Jerusalem, June 22,1955).
Judge Halevi reverts to the meeting of Kastner with the S.S. officers
Becher and Rudolf Hoess, commandant of Auschwitz at the time when the
‘new line’ of rescuing Jews was revealed by Hoess. He says:
>From this gathering in Budapest, it is obvious that the ‘new line’
stretched from Himmler to Hoess, from Jutner to Becher and Krumey.
According to Kastner, however, these Nazis were all active in rescuing
Jews.
This meeting of these important German guests in Budapest exposes the
‘rescue’ work of Becher in its true light. It reveals also the extent
of Kastner’s involvement in the inner circle of the chief German war
criminals.
Just as the Nazi war criminals knew they needed an alibi and hoped to
achieve it by the rescue of a few Jews at the eleventh hour, so
Kastner also needed an alibi for himself.
Collaboration between the Jewish Agency Rescue Committee and the
Exterminators of the Jews was solidified in Budapest and Vienna.
Kastner’s duties were part and parcel of the general duties of the
S.S.
In addition to its Extermination Department and Looting Department,
the Nazi S.S. opened a Rescue Department headed by Kastner.
All these extermination, robbery and rescue activities of the S.S.
were coordinated under the management of Heinrich Himmler”.
Judge Halevi continues:
Kastner perjured himself knowingly in his testimony before this court
when he denied he had interceded in Becher’s behalf. Moreover, he
concealed the important fact that he interceded for Becher in the name
of the Jewish Agency and the Jewish World Congress.
As to the contents of Kastner’s affidavit, it was enough for the
defense to provide Becher was a war criminal. It was up to the
prosecution to remove Becher from this status, if they wished to
negate the affidavit.
The Attorney General admitted in his summation that Becher was a war
criminal.
The lies in the contents of Kastner’s affidavit, the lies in his
testimony concerning the document, and Kastner’s knowing participation
in the activities of Nazi war criminals, and his participation in the
last minute fake rescue activities – all these combine to show one
overwhelming truth – that this affidavit was not given in good faith.
Kastner knew well, as he himself testified, that Becher had never
stood up against the stream of Jewish extermination, as Kastner has
declared in the affidavit.
The aims of Becher and his superior, Himmler, were not to save Jews
but to serve the Nazi regime with full compliance. These is not truth
and no good faith in Kastner’s testimony, ‘I never doubted for one
moment the good intention of good Becher’.
It is clear that the positive recommendation by Kastner, not only in
his own name but also in the name of the Jewish Agency and the Jewish
World Congress was of decisive importance for Becher. Kastner did not
exaggerate when he said that Becher was released by the Allies because
of his personal intervention. The lies in the affidavit of Kastner and
the contradictions and various pretexts, which were proven to be lies,
were sufficient to annul the value of his statements and to prove that
there was no good faith in his testimony in favor of this German war
criminal. Kastner’s affidavit in favor of Becher was a wilfully false
affidavit given in favor of a war
criminal to save him from trial and punishment in Nuremberg.
Therefore, the defendant, Malchiel Greenwald, was correct in his
accusations against Rudolf Kastner in the first, second and fourth of
his statements.”
Judge Halevi’s verdict found Malchiel Greenwald generally innocent of
libel against Kastner, but fined him one Israeli pound for the one
unproved accusation – that Kastner had actually collected money from
his Nazi
partners for his aide to their slaughter program. The judge also
ordered the Government of Israel to pay Greenwald two hundred Israeli
pounds as court costs.
If the story ended there, it would only prove conclusively that the
individual Kastner was a collaborator and the Israeli Government had
attempted to defend him, although facts brought out in the trial
pointed to much more than that.
But the story does not end there.
The Reaction
The Communist Party newspaper Kol Ha’am (Voice of the People) wrote:
All those whose relatives were butchered by the Germans in Hungary
know now clearly that Jewish hands helped the mass murder” (23 June
1955)
But public opinion was not quite unanimous. The problem with bringing
Kastner and his associates to trial was that his associates were the
Government of Israel.
As the evening paper *Yedi’ot Aharonot* said:
If Kastner is brought to trial the entire government faces a total
political and national collapse – as a result of what such a trial may
disclose.” (23 June 1955)
Accordingly, the Government of Israel did not put Kastner on trial,
instead it filed an appeal against the acquittal of Greenwald for
criminal libel.
At 11 P.M. the verdict was given. At 11 A.M. next morning the
government announces the defense of Kastner will be renewed – an
appeal filed.
What exemplary expediency! Since when does this government possess
such lawyer-genius who can weigh in one night the legal chances of an
appeal on a detailed, complex verdict of three hundred pages?
At the appeal hearings before the Supreme Court, the Attorney General
of Israel, Chaim Cohen, explained clearly why the Government of Israel
was defending Kastner so strongly:
The man Kastner does not stand here as a private individual. He was a
recognized representative, official or non-official of the Jewish
National Institutes in Palestine and of the Zionist Executive; and I
come here in this court to defend the representative of our national
institutions.”(Hecht, p. 268)
The truth of this statement cannot be denied. Kastner’s collaboration
was not that of an individual. It was the collaboration of the Zionist
leadership.
So far, it has only been established that the Government of Israel
continued to support a Nazi collaborator after the facts about his
collaboration had been conclusively established in an Israeli court.
But the story gets worse.
The Supreme Court of Israel unanimously found that Becher was indeed a
Nazi war criminal and that Kastner had without justification, and in
the name of the Jewish Agency, helped Becher to escape justice. On
this point Greenwald was acquitted of libel and Kastner was not
‘fully rehabilitated’.
The Supreme Court also accepted the facts established in the lower
court – that Kastner deliberately concealed the truth about Auschwitz
>from the majority of Hungarian Jews in exchange for Nazi permission to
take a thousand or so to Palestine. Again, Kastner was far from being
‘fully rehabilitated’.
But now comes the really nasty bit. After unanimously acknowledging
these facts, the Supreme Court of Israel, by a majority of three to
two, found that Kastner’s actions were morally justifiable and
convicted Greenwald of criminal libel for calling this
‘collaboration’.
Kastner’s actions only proved that he was a Nazi collaborator. It is
the defense of these actions by the Government and Courts of Israel
that prove conclusively that Zionism approves of Nazi collaboration.
The majority of the Supreme Court of Israel did not rehabilitate
Kastner. They joined him.
Let us read from the majority judgement of Supreme Court Judge Shlomo
Chesin:
….What point was there in telling the people boarding the trains in
Kluj, people struck by fate and persecuted, as to what awaits them at
the end of their journey…Kastner spoke in detail of the situation,
saying, ‘The Hungarian Jew was a branch which long ago dried up on the
tree’. This vivid description coincides with the testimony of another
witness about the Hungarian Jews, ‘This was a big Jewish community in
Hungary, without any ideological Jewish backbone’ (Moshe Shweiger, a
Kastner aide in Budapest, protocol 465).
I fully agree with my friend, Judge Agranot, when he states that, ‘The
Jews of Hungary, including those in the countryside, were not capable,
neither physically nor mentally, to carry out resistance operations
with force against the deportation scheme’…From this point of view
no rescue achievement could have resulted by disclosing the Auschwitz
news to the Jewish leaders there, and this is a consideration which on
can properly conclude that Kastner had in front of his eyes.
….And I take one more step. I am certain that the silence of Kastner
when he arrived in Kluj was premeditated and calculated and did not
result from his great despair because of the helplessness of the
Jewish community.
Even then, I say, this is still not considered wilful collaboration
and assistance in the extermination, because all the signs indicate
that Kastner’s efforts were aimed at rescue and rescue on a big
scale…And towards the end I take one last step. In doing so I go
very far and say that even if Kastner ordered himself to keep silent
knowingly, in submission to the strong will of the Nazis, in order to
save a few Jews from Hell – this is still no proof that he stained his
hands by collaborating with the enemies of his people and carrying out
their plan to exterminate most of the Jewish community in Hungary.
Even if, through these activities of his – or rather, his omission –
the extermination became easier. And as to the moral issue, the
question is not whether a man is allowed to kill many in order to save
a few, or vice-versa. The question is altogether in another sphere and
should be defined as follows: A man is aware that a whole community is
awaiting its doom. He is allowed to make efforts to save a few,
although part of his efforts involve concealment of truth from the
many or should he disclose
the truth to many though it is his best opinion that this way
everybody will perish. I think that the answer is clear. What good
will the blood of the few bring if everybody is to perish?…As I
said, I am not arguing with the basic factual findings of the learned
President of the Jewish District Court (Judge Halevi) but it seems to
me, with all due respect, that his findings do not, as of necessity,
demand the conclusion he has arrived at.
That is to say, collaboration on the part of Kastner in the
extermination of the Jews. And that they better coincide with bad
leadership both from a moral and public point of view…
In my opinion, one can say outright that if you find out that Kastner
collaborated with the enemy because he did not disclose to the people
who boarded the trains in Kluj that they were being led to
extermination, one has to put on trial today Danzig, Herman, Hanzi,
Brand, Revis and Marton, and many more leaders and half-leaders who
gagged themselves in an hour of crisis and did not inform others of
what was known to them and did not warn
and did not cry out of the coming danger….
Because of all this I cannot confirm the conclusion of the District
Court with regard to the accusation that Greenwald has thrown on
Kastner of collaboration with the Nazis in exterminating the Jewish
people in Hungary during the last war.” (Hecht, ibid., pp.270-2)
In other words, the Court approved of Kastner’s contempt for the
Hungarian Jews and could not allow him to be condemned for doing
exactly what many other Zionist leaders and half-leaders did –
concealing their knowledge of the Nazi extermination plans so that
Jews would board the trains to Auschwitz peacefully while their
Zionist ‘leaders’ boarded a different train for Palestine.
The most precise answer to this sickening judgement of Judge Chesin is
provided in the minority judgement of Supreme Court Judge Moshe
Silberg:
I do not say that he was the only man who possessed information among
the leaders. It is quite possible that somebody else as well does not
have a clear conscience with regards to this concealment. But we are
dealing here with the guilt of Kastner and we do not have to make
judgements on the guilt of others….
The declaration of the learned Attorney General therefore shrinks into
an opinion….’Kastner was convinced and believed that there was no
ray of hope for the Jews of Hungary, almost for none of them, and as
he, as a result of his personal despair, did not disclose the secret
of the extermination in order not to endanger or frustrate the rescue
of the few – therefore he acted in good faith and should not be
accused of collaborating with the Nazis in expediting the
extermination of the Jews, even though, in fact, he brought about its
result.’
I am compelled to state that it is very difficult for me to conceive
such an intention. Is this good faith? Can a single man, even in
cooperation with some of his friends, yield to despair on behalf and
without the knowledge of 800,000 other people? This is, in my opinion,
the decisive consideration in the problem facing us. The charge
emanating from the testimony of the witnesses against Kastner is that
had they known of the Auschwitz secret, then thousands or tens of
thousands would have been able
to save their lives by local, partial, specific or indirect rescue
operations like local revolts, resistance, escapes, hidings,
concealment of children with Gentiles, forging of documents, ransom
money, bribery,etc. – and when this is the case and when one deals
with many hundreds of thousands, how does a human being, a mortal,
reject with complete certainty and with an extreme ‘no’ the efficiency
of all the many and varied rescue ways? How can he examine the tens of
thousands of possibilities? Does he decide instead of God?
Indeed, he who can act with such a usurpation of the
last hope of hundreds of thousands is not entitled to claim good faith
as his defense. The penetrating question quo warrento is a good answer
to a claim of such good faith…
If the superintendent of a big hospital lets thousands of sick people
die so that he may devote himself to the sure rescue of one soul, he
will come out guilty, at least morally, even if it is proven that he
as an individual erroneously thought that there was no hope of saving
the other patients. He is a collaborator with the angel of death.
Either a complete atrophy of the soul or a blind involvement with
complete loss of senses and proportion in his small but personal
rescue operation could bring a man to such a gigantic, hazardous play.
And if all this is not enough to annul the claim of good faith which
was put before us on behalf of Kastner by the Attorney General, then
Kastner himself comes and annuls it altogether. Not only did he never
make this claim, but his own words prove the contrary. He writes in
his report to the Jewish Agency that the Committee sent emissaries to
many ghettos in the countryside and pleaded with them to organize
escapes and to refuse to board the trains. And though the story of
these pleadings is untrue, and the silence of Kastner in Kluj is
proven, the very uttering of these statements entirely contradicts the
claim that Kastner had concealed the
news about the fate of the ghetto inmates in good faith and only as a
result of his complete despairing of the chances of escaping or
resisting the Germans. You can not claim at the same time helplessness
and activity. Anyway, such a claim is not convincing…
We can sum up with three facts:
A. That the Nazis didn’t want to have a great revolt – nor small
revolts, and their passion was to have the extermination machine
working smoothly without resistance. This fact was known to Kastner
>from the best source – from Eichmann himself – And he had additional
proofs of that when he witnessed all the illusionary and misleading
tactics which were being taken by the Nazis from the first moment of
occupation.
B. That the most efficient means to paralyze the resistance with – or
the escape of a victim is to conceal from him the plot of the coming
murder. This fact is known to every man and one does not need any
proof of evidence for this.
C. That he, Kastner, in order to carry out the rescue plan for the few
prominents, fulfilled knowingly and without good faith the said desire
of the Nazis, thus expediting the work of exterminating the masses.
And also the rescue of Becher by Kastner…He who is capable of
rescuing this Becher from hanging proves that the atrocities of this
great war criminal were not so horrifying or despicable in his
eyes…I couldn’t base the main guilt of Kastner on this fact had it
been alone, but when it is attached even from afar to the whole scene
of events it throws retroactive
light on the whole affair and serves as a dozen proofs of our
conclusion.”(Supreme Court Judge, Moshe Silberg, 1957)
If that had been the majority judgement, one could say that whatever
their attitudes to the Arabs, and whatever their past behaviour might
have been under pressure, the Zionist leadership today did not
advocate collaboration with the Nazis.
But Judge Silberg’s judgement was that of a minority.
The Kastner case is therefore not an alleged episode in past history.
It is a continuing controversy in which the top Zionist leadership of
Israel stand indicted of continuing to publicly defend collaboration
with the Nazis in the extermination of Jews.
Despite the unanimous finding of the Supreme Court of Israel that Kurt
Becher was a major war criminal, the Jewish Agency (World Zionist
Organization) refused to withdraw the fraudulent certificate Kastner
gave on their behalf, which saved Becher from hanging, and allowed him
to remain a free man in West Germany, the head of several corporations
and with an estimated personal worth of $30 million.
Becher has even used his certification as a ‘good’ SS officer to give
evidence in support of his associates at other war crimes trials in
West Germany.
Since the prosecution, representing the Israeli Government agreed with
the Supreme Court that Becher was a major war criminal, one can only
pressure that the Israeli Government did not want him put on trial for
fear of what might come out.
Likewise, none of Kastner’s associates on the Zionist Relief and
Rescue Committee or his bosses in the Jewish Agency have ever been put
on trial .
Let alone the hundreds of ‘prominents’ who helped Kastner to reassure
the Hungarian Jews that they were going to Kenyermeze and not
Auschwitz, in exchange for tickets on the one train that took them
eventually to Palestine.
As for Kastner himself, he will cause no further embarrassment to the
Zionist leadership with his undisputed claims that everything he did
was approved by the Jewish Agency (World Zionist Organization)
leadership in Palestine. He is ‘now dead’. Or putting it less
delicately, on 3 March 1957 he was shot by Zeev Eckstein – immediately
after the appeal hearings were concluded, and before the judgement
‘rehabilitating’ him was delivered.
Eckstein was not a Hungarian avenger. He was a paid undercover agent
of the Israeli secret service. (Hecht, ibid., p.208). Another
‘fantastic allegation’ no doubt; but admitted in court during the
murder trial).
sven88
From [email protected] Thu Oct 15 19:53:10 EDT 1998
Article: 196096 of soc.culture.malaysia
Path: hub.org!hub.org!darla.visi.com!chippy.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!news-nyc.telia.net!newsfeed.cwix.com!206.172.150.11!news1.bellglobal.com!news.agtac.net!news.telusplanet.net!news
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: soc.culture.palestine,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.revisionism,soc.culture.islam,soc.culture.malaysia,soc.culture.australian,soc.culture.polish
Subject: Re: Nazi — Jewish Zionist Collaboration
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 15:20:13 GMT
Organization: TELUS Communications Inc.
Lines: 661
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: edtntnt4-port-108.agt.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451
Xref: hub.org soc.culture.palestine:53078 alt.politics.nationalism.white:175197 alt.revisionism:269916 soc.culture.islam:4187 soc.culture.malaysia:196096 soc.culture.australian:78557 soc.culture.polish:123175
On Tue, 13 Oct 1998 11:38:31, [email protected] wrote:
On Thu, 10 Sep 1998 22:56:46 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
trying to stimulate more interest in this topic,
On Sat, 15 Aug 1998 18:45:47 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
>On Fri, 03 Jul 1998 15:00:35 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
>>On 3 Jul 1998 06:38:05 GMT,
Orest Slepokura
…fully documented *Perfidy* blatantly exposes the degree to which
Zionists cooperated in the persecution of their fellow Jews…
Here is more evidence of NAZI-ZIONIST JEW COLLABORATION.
The Kastner Case
The most notorious case of Nazi-Zionist collaboration is that
involving a Jew – Rudolf Kastner.
Most Jewish people have never heard of Rudolf Kastner. Those who have,
are generally under the impression that there is some ‘controversy’
about negotiations he undertook for ‘the purchase of Jewish lives for
money and military equipment’, but that he was ‘fully rehabilitated’
by the Supreme Court of Israel.
The Accusations
Briefly, the accusations against Kastner are as follows:
Dr. Rudolf Verba, a Doctor of Science now serving at the British
Medical Research Council, was one of the few escapees from Auschwitz.
In his memoirs published in February, 1961, in the London Daily
Herald, he wrote:
I am a Jew. In spite of that – indeed because of that – I accuse
certain Jewish leaders of one of the most ghastly deeds of the war.
This group of quislings knew what was happening to their brethren in
Hitler’s gas chambers and bought their own lives with the price of
silence.
Among them was Dr. Kastner, leader of the council which spoke for all
Jews in Hungary. While I was prisoner number 44070 at Auschwitz – the
number is still on my arm – I compiled careful statistics of the
exterminations.
I took these terrible statistics with me when I escaped in 1944 and I
was able to give Hungarian Zionist leaders three weeks notice that
Eichmann planned to send a million of their Jews to his gas
chambers…Kastner went to Eichmann and told him, ‘I know of your
plans; spare some Jews of my choice and I shall keep quiet.’
Eichmann not only agreed, but dressed Kastner up in S.S. uniform and
took him to Belsen to trace some of his friends. Nor did the sordid
bargaining end there. Kastner paid Eichmann several thousand dollars.
With this little fortune, Eichmann was able to buy his way to freedom
when Germany collapsed, to set himself up in the Argentine…(Ben
Hecht, Perfidy, pp261-2)
These accusations are confirmed by the ‘Eichmann Confessions’
published in Life magazine, 28 November and 5 December 1960:
I resolved to show how well a job could be done when the commander
stands 100% behind it. By shipping the Jews off in a lightning
operation, I wanted to set an example for future campaigns
elsewhere…In obedience to Himmler’s directive I now concentrated on
negotiations with the Jewish political officials in Budapest…Among
them Dr. Rudolph Kastner, authorized representative of the Zionist
Movement. This Dr. Kastner was a young man about my age, an ice-cold
lawyer and a fanatical Zionist. He agreed to help keep the Jews from
resisting deportation – and even keep order in the collection camps –
if I could close my eyes and let a few hundred or a few thousand young
Jews emigrate illegally to Palestine.
It was a good bargain. For keeping order in the camps, the price was
not too high for me.
We trusted each other perfectly. When he was with me, Kastner smoke
cigarets as though he was in a coffeehouse. While we talked he would
smoke one aromatic cigaret after another, taking them from a silver
case and lighting them with a silver lighter. With his great polish
and reserve he would have made an ideal Gestapo officer himself.
Dr. Kastner’s main concern was to make it possible for a select group
of Hungarian Jews to emigrate to Israel…
As a matter of fact, there was a very strong similarity between our
attitudes in the S.S. and the viewpoint of these immensely idealistic
Zionist leaders. I believe that Kastner would have sacrificed a
thousand or a hundred thousand of his blood to achieve his political
goal ‘You can have the others’, he would say, ‘but let me have this
group here’. And because Kastner rendered us a great service by
helping keep the deportation camps peaceful, I would let his groups
escape. After all, I was not concerned with small groups of a thousand
or so Jews…That was the ‘gentleman’s agreement’ I had with Kastner
(Hecht, ibid., p.260-61)
Quite clearly these accusations, do not relate merely to ‘the purchase
of Jewish lives for money and military equipment’.
Are the accusations against Kastner true?
According to the Government of Israel, they are a lie. When Malchiel
Greenwald, a strongly pro-Zionist Israeli citizen published these
accusations against Kastner, the Israeli Government did rather more
than demand that his views should not be broadcast. Because a
prominent Zionist official (Dr. Kastner was a spokesman for the
Ministry of Trade and Industry) was involved, the Attorney General of
the State of Israel prosecuted Greenwald for criminal libel.
The Verdict
Let the verdict of Judge Benjamin Halevi (who later became one of the
panel of three judges that tried Eichmann) in Israel’s District Court
of Jerusalem speak for itself, given in criminal case No. 124 of 1953.
The Attorney General v. Malchiel Greenwald. This material should be
studied carefully.
The masses of Jews from Hungary’s ghettos obediently boarded the
deportation trains without knowing their fate. They were full of
confidence in the false information that they were being transferred
to Kenyermeze.
The Nazis could not have misled the masses of Jews so conclusively had
they not spread their false information through Jewish channels.
The Jews of the ghettos would not have trusted the Nazi or Hungarian
rulers. But they had trust in their Jewish leaders. Eichmann and
others used this known fact as part of their calculated plan to
mislead the Jews.
They were able to deport the Jews to their extermination by the help
of Jewish leaders.
The false information was spread by the Jewish leaders. The local
leaders of the Jews of Kluj and Nodvarod knew that other leaders were
spreading such false information and did not protest.
Those of the Jews who tried to warn their friends of the truth were
persecuted by the Jewish leaders in charge of the local ‘rescue work’.
The trust of the Jews in the misleading information and their lack of
knowledge that their wives, children and themselves were about to be
deported to the gas chambers of Auschwitz led the victims to remain
quiescent in their ghettos. It seduced them into not resisting or
hampering the deportation orders.
Dozens of thousands of Jews were guarded in their ghettos by a few
dozen police. Yet even vigorous young Jews made no attempt to
overpower these few guards and escape to nearby Rumania. No resistance
activities to the deportations were organized in these ghettos.
And the Jewish leaders did everything in their power to soothe the
Jews in the ghettos and to prevent such resistance activities.
The same Jews who spread in Kluj and Nodvarod the false rumor of
Kenyermeze, or confirmed it, the same public leaders who did not warn
their own people against the misleading statements, the same Jewish
leaders who did not organize any resistance or any sabotage of
deportations…these same leaders did not join the people of their
community in their ride to Auschwitz, but were all included in the
Rescue train.
The Nazi organizers of extermination and the perpetrators of
extermination permitted Rudolf Kastner and the members of the Jewish
Council in Budapest to save themselves, their relatives, and friends.
The Nazis did this as a means of making the local Jewish leaders, whom
they favoured, dependent on the Nazi regime, dependent on its good
will during the time of its fatal deportation schedule. In short, the
Nazis succeeded in bringing the Jewish leaders into collaboration with
the Nazis at the time of the catastrophe.
The Nazi chiefs knew that the Zionists were a most vital element in
Jewry and the most trusted by the Jews.
The personality of Rudolph Kastner made him a convenient catspaw for
Eichmann and his clique, to draw into collaboration and make their
task easier.
The question here is not, as stated by the Attorney General in his
summation, whether members of the Jewish Rescue Committee were or were
not capable of fulfilling their duty without the patronage of the S.S.
chiefs
.
It is obvious that without such S.S. Nazi patronage the Jewish Rescue
Committee could not have existed, and could have acted only as an
underground.
The question is, as put by the lawyer for the defense, why were the
Nazis interested in the existence of the Rescue Committee? Why did the
S.S. chiefs make every effort to encourage the existence of the Jewish
Rescue Committee? Did the exterminators turn into rescuers?
The same question rises concerning the rescue of prominent Jews by
these German killers of Jews. Was the rescue of such Jews a part of
the extermination plan of the killers ?
The support given by the extermination leaders to Kastner’s Rescue
Committee proves that indeed there was a place for Kastner and his
friends in their Final Solution for the Jews of Hungary – their total
annihilation.
The Nazi’s patronage of Kastner, and their agreement to let him save
six hundred prominent Jews, were part of the plan to exterminate the
Jews.
Kastner was given a chance to add a few more to that number. The bait
attracted him. The opportunity of rescuing prominent people appealed
to him greatly. He considered the rescue of the most important Jews as
a great personal success and a success for Zionism. It was a success
that would also justify his conduct – his political negotiation with
Nazis and the Nazi patronage of his committee.
When Kastner received this present from the Nazis, Kastner sold his
soul to the German Satan.
The sacrifice of the vital interests of the majority of the Jews, in
order to rescue the prominents, was the basic element in the agreement
between Kastner and the Nazis. This agreement fixed the division of
the nation into two unequal camps: a small fragment of prominents,
whom the Nazis promised Kastner to save, on the one hand, and the
great majority or Hungarian Jews whom the Nazis designated for death,
on the other hand.
An imperative condition for the rescue of the first camp by the Nazis
was that Kastner will not interfere in the action of the Nazis against
the other camp and will not hamper them in its extermination. Kastner
fulfilled this condition. He concentrated his efforts in the rescue of
the prominents and treated the camp of the doomed as if they had
already been wiped out from the book of the living.
One cannot estimate the damage caused by Kastner’s collaboration and
put down the number of victims which it cost Hungarian Jews. These are
not only the thousands of Jews in Nodvarod or any other community in
the border area, Jews who could escape through the border, had the
chief of their rescue committee fulfilled his duty toward them.
All of Kastner’s answers in his final testimony were a constant effort
to evade this truth.
Kastner has tried to escape through every crack he could find in the
wall of evidence. When one crack was sealed in his face, he darted
quickly to another. (Judgement of Judge Benjamin Halevi, Criminal Case
124/53; Attorney General v. Malchiel Greenwald, District Court,
Jerusalem, June 22,1955).
Judge Halevi reverts to the meeting of Kastner with the S.S. officers
Becher and Rudolf Hoess, commandant of Auschwitz at the time when the
‘new line’ of rescuing Jews was revealed by Hoess. He says:
>From this gathering in Budapest, it is obvious that the ‘new line’
stretched from Himmler to Hoess, from Jutner to Becher and Krumey.
According to Kastner, however, these Nazis were all active in rescuing
Jews.
This meeting of these important German guests in Budapest exposes the
‘rescue’ work of Becher in its true light. It reveals also the extent
of Kastner’s involvement in the inner circle of the chief German war
criminals.
Just as the Nazi war criminals knew they needed an alibi and hoped to
achieve it by the rescue of a few Jews at the eleventh hour, so
Kastner also needed an alibi for himself.
Collaboration between the Jewish Agency Rescue Committee and the
Exterminators of the Jews was solidified in Budapest and Vienna.
Kastner’s duties were part and parcel of the general duties of the
S.S.
In addition to its Extermination Department and Looting Department,
the Nazi S.S. opened a Rescue Department headed by Kastner.
All these extermination, robbery and rescue activities of the S.S.
were coordinated under the management of Heinrich Himmler”.
Judge Halevi continues:
Kastner perjured himself knowingly in his testimony before this court
when he denied he had interceded in Becher’s behalf. Moreover, he
concealed the important fact that he interceded for Becher in the name
of the Jewish Agency and the Jewish World Congress.
As to the contents of Kastner’s affidavit, it was enough for the
defense to provide Becher was a war criminal. It was up to the
prosecution to remove Becher from this status, if they wished to
negate the affidavit.
The Attorney General admitted in his summation that Becher was a war
criminal.
The lies in the contents of Kastner’s affidavit, the lies in his
testimony concerning the document, and Kastner’s knowing participation
in the activities of Nazi war criminals, and his participation in the
last minute fake rescue activities – all these combine to show one
overwhelming truth – that this affidavit was not given in good faith.
Kastner knew well, as he himself testified, that Becher had never
stood up against the stream of Jewish extermination, as Kastner has
declared in the affidavit.
The aims of Becher and his superior, Himmler, were not to save Jews
but to serve the Nazi regime with full compliance. These is not truth
and no good faith in Kastner’s testimony, ‘I never doubted for one
moment the good intention of good Becher’.
It is clear that the positive recommendation by Kastner, not only in
his own name but also in the name of the Jewish Agency and the Jewish
World Congress was of decisive importance for Becher. Kastner did not
exaggerate when he said that Becher was released by the Allies because
of his personal intervention. The lies in the affidavit of Kastner and
the contradictions and various pretexts, which were proven to be lies,
were sufficient to annul the value of his statements and to prove that
there was no good faith in his testimony in favor of this German war
criminal. Kastner’s affidavit in favor of Becher was a wilfully false
affidavit given in favor of a war
criminal to save him from trial and punishment in Nuremberg.
Therefore, the defendant, Malchiel Greenwald, was correct in his
accusations against Rudolf Kastner in the first, second and fourth of
his statements.”
Judge Halevi’s verdict found Malchiel Greenwald generally innocent of
libel against Kastner, but fined him one Israeli pound for the one
unproved accusation – that Kastner had actually collected money from
his Nazi
partners for his aide to their slaughter program. The judge also
ordered the Government of Israel to pay Greenwald two hundred Israeli
pounds as court costs.
If the story ended there, it would only prove conclusively that the
individual Kastner was a collaborator and the Israeli Government had
attempted to defend him, although facts brought out in the trial
pointed to much more than that.
But the story does not end there.
The Reaction
The Communist Party newspaper Kol Ha’am (Voice of the People) wrote:
All those whose relatives were butchered by the Germans in Hungary
know now clearly that Jewish hands helped the mass murder” (23 June
1955)
But public opinion was not quite unanimous. The problem with bringing
Kastner and his associates to trial was that his associates were the
Government of Israel.
As the evening paper *Yedi’ot Aharonot* said:
If Kastner is brought to trial the entire government faces a total
political and national collapse – as a result of what such a trial may
disclose.” (23 June 1955)
Accordingly, the Government of Israel did not put Kastner on trial,
instead it filed an appeal against the acquittal of Greenwald for
criminal libel.
At 11 P.M. the verdict was given. At 11 A.M. next morning the
government announces the defense of Kastner will be renewed – an
appeal filed.
What exemplary expediency! Since when does this government possess
such lawyer-genius who can weigh in one night the legal chances of an
appeal on a detailed, complex verdict of three hundred pages?
At the appeal hearings before the Supreme Court, the Attorney General
of Israel, Chaim Cohen, explained clearly why the Government of Israel
was defending Kastner so strongly:
The man Kastner does not stand here as a private individual. He was a
recognized representative, official or non-official of the Jewish
National Institutes in Palestine and of the Zionist Executive; and I
come here in this court to defend the representative of our national
institutions.”(Hecht, p. 268)
The truth of this statement cannot be denied. Kastner’s collaboration
was not that of an individual. It was the collaboration of the Zionist
leadership.
So far, it has only been established that the Government of Israel
continued to support a Nazi collaborator after the facts about his
collaboration had been conclusively established in an Israeli court.
But the story gets worse.
The Supreme Court of Israel unanimously found that Becher was indeed a
Nazi war criminal and that Kastner had without justification, and in
the name of the Jewish Agency, helped Becher to escape justice. On
this point Greenwald was acquitted of libel and Kastner was not
‘fully rehabilitated’.
The Supreme Court also accepted the facts established in the lower
court – that Kastner deliberately concealed the truth about Auschwitz
>from the majority of Hungarian Jews in exchange for Nazi permission to
take a thousand or so to Palestine. Again, Kastner was far from being
‘fully rehabilitated’.
But now comes the really nasty bit. After unanimously acknowledging
these facts, the Supreme Court of Israel, by a majority of three to
two, found that Kastner’s actions were morally justifiable and
convicted Greenwald of criminal libel for calling this
‘collaboration’.
Kastner’s actions only proved that he was a Nazi collaborator. It is
the defense of these actions by the Government and Courts of Israel
that prove conclusively that Zionism approves of Nazi collaboration.
The majority of the Supreme Court of Israel did not rehabilitate
Kastner. They joined him.
Let us read from the majority judgement of Supreme Court Judge Shlomo
Chesin:
….What point was there in telling the people boarding the trains in
Kluj, people struck by fate and persecuted, as to what awaits them at
the end of their journey…Kastner spoke in detail of the situation,
saying, ‘The Hungarian Jew was a branch which long ago dried up on the
tree’. This vivid description coincides with the testimony of another
witness about the Hungarian Jews, ‘This was a big Jewish community in
Hungary, without any ideological Jewish backbone’ (Moshe Shweiger, a
Kastner aide in Budapest, protocol 465).
I fully agree with my friend, Judge Agranot, when he states that, ‘The
Jews of Hungary, including those in the countryside, were not capable,
neither physically nor mentally, to carry out resistance operations
with force against the deportation scheme’…From this point of view
no rescue achievement could have resulted by disclosing the Auschwitz
news to the Jewish leaders there, and this is a consideration which on
can properly conclude that Kastner had in front of his eyes.
….And I take one more step. I am certain that the silence of Kastner
when he arrived in Kluj was premeditated and calculated and did not
result from his great despair because of the helplessness of the
Jewish community.
Even then, I say, this is still not considered wilful collaboration
and assistance in the extermination, because all the signs indicate
that Kastner’s efforts were aimed at rescue and rescue on a big
scale…And towards the end I take one last step. In doing so I go
very far and say that even if Kastner ordered himself to keep silent
knowingly, in submission to the strong will of the Nazis, in order to
save a few Jews from Hell – this is still no proof that he stained his
hands by collaborating with the enemies of his people and carrying out
their plan to exterminate most of the Jewish community in Hungary.
Even if, through these activities of his – or rather, his omission –
the extermination became easier. And as to the moral issue, the
question is not whether a man is allowed to kill many in order to save
a few, or vice-versa. The question is altogether in another sphere and
should be defined as follows: A man is aware that a whole community is
awaiting its doom. He is allowed to make efforts to save a few,
although part of his efforts involve concealment of truth from the
many or should he disclose
the truth to many though it is his best opinion that this way
everybody will perish. I think that the answer is clear. What good
will the blood of the few bring if everybody is to perish?…As I
said, I am not arguing with the basic factual findings of the learned
President of the Jewish District Court (Judge Halevi) but it seems to
me, with all due respect, that his findings do not, as of necessity,
demand the conclusion he has arrived at.
That is to say, collaboration on the part of Kastner in the
extermination of the Jews. And that they better coincide with bad
leadership both from a moral and public point of view…
In my opinion, one can say outright that if you find out that Kastner
collaborated with the enemy because he did not disclose to the people
who boarded the trains in Kluj that they were being led to
extermination, one has to put on trial today Danzig, Herman, Hanzi,
Brand, Revis and Marton, and many more leaders and half-leaders who
gagged themselves in an hour of crisis and did not inform others of
what was known to them and did not warn
and did not cry out of the coming danger….
Because of all this I cannot confirm the conclusion of the District
Court with regard to the accusation that Greenwald has thrown on
Kastner of collaboration with the Nazis in exterminating the Jewish
people in Hungary during the last war.” (Hecht, ibid., pp.270-2)
In other words, the Court approved of Kastner’s contempt for the
Hungarian Jews and could not allow him to be condemned for doing
exactly what many other Zionist leaders and half-leaders did –
concealing their knowledge of the Nazi extermination plans so that
Jews would board the trains to Auschwitz peacefully while their
Zionist ‘leaders’ boarded a different train for Palestine.
The most precise answer to this sickening judgement of Judge Chesin is
provided in the minority judgement of Supreme Court Judge Moshe
Silberg:
I do not say that he was the only man who possessed information among
the leaders. It is quite possible that somebody else as well does not
have a clear conscience with regards to this concealment. But we are
dealing here with the guilt of Kastner and we do not have to make
judgements on the guilt of others….
The declaration of the learned Attorney General therefore shrinks into
an opinion….’Kastner was convinced and believed that there was no
ray of hope for the Jews of Hungary, almost for none of them, and as
he, as a result of his personal despair, did not disclose the secret
of the extermination in order not to endanger or frustrate the rescue
of the few – therefore he acted in good faith and should not be
accused of collaborating with the Nazis in expediting the
extermination of the Jews, even though, in fact, he brought about its
result.’
I am compelled to state that it is very difficult for me to conceive
such an intention. Is this good faith? Can a single man, even in
cooperation with some of his friends, yield to despair on behalf and
without the knowledge of 800,000 other people? This is, in my opinion,
the decisive consideration in the problem facing us. The charge
emanating from the testimony of the witnesses against Kastner is that
had they known of the Auschwitz secret, then thousands or tens of
thousands would have been able
to save their lives by local, partial, specific or indirect rescue
operations like local revolts, resistance, escapes, hidings,
concealment of children with Gentiles, forging of documents, ransom
money, bribery,etc. – and when this is the case and when one deals
with many hundreds of thousands, how does a human being, a mortal,
reject with complete certainty and with an extreme ‘no’ the efficiency
of all the many and varied rescue ways? How can he examine the tens of
thousands of possibilities? Does he decide instead of God?
Indeed, he who can act with such a usurpation of the
last hope of hundreds of thousands is not entitled to claim good faith
as his defense. The penetrating question quo warrento is a good answer
to a claim of such good faith…
If the superintendent of a big hospital lets thousands of sick people
die so that he may devote himself to the sure rescue of one soul, he
will come out guilty, at least morally, even if it is proven that he
as an individual erroneously thought that there was no hope of saving
the other patients. He is a collaborator with the angel of death.
Either a complete atrophy of the soul or a blind involvement with
complete loss of senses and proportion in his small but personal
rescue operation could bring a man to such a gigantic, hazardous play.
And if all this is not enough to annul the claim of good faith which
was put before us on behalf of Kastner by the Attorney General, then
Kastner himself comes and annuls it altogether. Not only did he never
make this claim, but his own words prove the contrary. He writes in
his report to the Jewish Agency that the Committee sent emissaries to
many ghettos in the countryside and pleaded with them to organize
escapes and to refuse to board the trains. And though the story of
these pleadings is untrue, and the silence of Kastner in Kluj is
proven, the very uttering of these statements entirely contradicts the
claim that Kastner had concealed the
news about the fate of the ghetto inmates in good faith and only as a
result of his complete despairing of the chances of escaping or
resisting the Germans. You can not claim at the same time helplessness
and activity. Anyway, such a claim is not convincing…
We can sum up with three facts:
A. That the Nazis didn’t want to have a great revolt – nor small
revolts, and their passion was to have the extermination machine
working smoothly without resistance. This fact was known to Kastner
>from the best source – from Eichmann himself – And he had additional
proofs of that when he witnessed all the illusionary and misleading
tactics which were being taken by the Nazis from the first moment of
occupation.
B. That the most efficient means to paralyze the resistance with – or
the escape of a victim is to conceal from him the plot of the coming
murder. This fact is known to every man and one does not need any
proof of evidence for this.
C. That he, Kastner, in order to carry out the rescue plan for the few
prominents, fulfilled knowingly and without good faith the said desire
of the Nazis, thus expediting the work of exterminating the masses.
And also the rescue of Becher by Kastner…He who is capable of
rescuing this Becher from hanging proves that the atrocities of this
great war criminal were not so horrifying or despicable in his
eyes…I couldn’t base the main guilt of Kastner on this fact had it
been alone, but when it is attached even from afar to the whole scene
of events it throws retroactive
light on the whole affair and serves as a dozen proofs of our
conclusion.”(Supreme Court Judge, Moshe Silberg, 1957)
If that had been the majority judgement, one could say that whatever
their attitudes to the Arabs, and whatever their past behaviour might
have been under pressure, the Zionist leadership today did not
advocate collaboration with the Nazis.
But Judge Silberg’s judgement was that of a minority.
The Kastner case is therefore not an alleged episode in past history.
It is a continuing controversy in which the top Zionist leadership of
Israel stand indicted of continuing to publicly defend collaboration
with the Nazis in the extermination of Jews.
Despite the unanimous finding of the Supreme Court of Israel that Kurt
Becher was a major war criminal, the Jewish Agency (World Zionist
Organization) refused to withdraw the fraudulent certificate Kastner
gave on their behalf, which saved Becher from hanging, and allowed him
to remain a free man in West Germany, the head of several corporations
and with an estimated personal worth of $30 million.
Becher has even used his certification as a ‘good’ SS officer to give
evidence in support of his associates at other war crimes trials in
West Germany.
Since the prosecution, representing the Israeli Government agreed with
the Supreme Court that Becher was a major war criminal, one can only
pressure that the Israeli Government did not want him put on trial for
fear of what might come out.
Likewise, none of Kastner’s associates on the Zionist Relief and
Rescue Committee or his bosses in the Jewish Agency have ever been put
on trial .
Let alone the hundreds of ‘prominents’ who helped Kastner to reassure
the Hungarian Jews that they were going to Kenyermeze and not
Auschwitz, in exchange for tickets on the one train that took them
eventually to Palestine.
As for Kastner himself, he will cause no further embarrassment to the
Zionist leadership with his undisputed claims that everything he did
was approved by the Jewish Agency (World Zionist Organization)
leadership in Palestine. He is ‘now dead’. Or putting it less
delicately, on 3 March 1957 he was shot by Zeev Eckstein – immediately
after the appeal hearings were concluded, and before the judgement
‘rehabilitating’ him was delivered.
Eckstein was not a Hungarian avenger. He was a paid undercover agent
of the Israeli secret service. (Hecht, ibid., p.208). Another
‘fantastic allegation’ no doubt; but admitted in court during the
murder trial).
sven88
On Mon, 12 Oct 1998 15:15:22 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
>Private Dan “BELIEVE ME OR ELSE, SCHWEIN!” Parker burped:
>(From Instauration: April 1996, p 121)
>The argument of Holocaust ‘true believers’ falls into three categories:
>1) Testimonies of ‘survivors’ who obviously did not die in the Holocaust;
> 2) perjured testimony (obtained under torture) and forged affidavits at
>the Nuremberg Trial,;
> 3) the “everybody knows it happened” argument.<<
>1) Testimonies of survivors who witnessed atrocities against countless Nazi
>victims;
>2) Testimony from Nazis who testified under oath, without ever having mentioned
>being coerced or forced in any way, some of whom wrote diaries and memoirs
>before their deaths detailing their crimes (notably Rudolf Hoess, who wrote of
>his kind treatment by the Poles);
>3) The mountains of documentary, material, and photographic/filmic evidence
>left behind by the Nazis: deportation records, blueprints, MANY execution
>orders/slaughter orders and reports, not to mention the remnants of gas
>chambers, human ashes/bone/hair recovered at burning pit sites, loot from
>Jewish private property, shipment records of Zyklon-B, tests of Zyklon-B on
>inmates at Dachau…
From [email protected] Thu Oct 15 19:53:12 EDT 1998
Article: 196195 of soc.culture.malaysia
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: soc.culture.palestine,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.revisionism,soc.culture.islam,soc.culture.malaysia,soc.culture.australian,soc.culture.polish
Subject: Re: Nazi — Jewish Zionist Collaboration
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 17:46:57 GMT
Organization: TELUS Communications Inc.
Lines: 643
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: edtnpx09-port-52.agt.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451
Path: hub.org!hub.org!newsfeed.axxsys.net!newsfeed.cwix.com!198.138.0.5!newshub.northeast.verio.net!cyclone.news.idirect.com!island.idirect.com!news.en.com!news.oanet.com!news.agtac.net!news.telusplanet.net!news
Xref: hub.org soc.culture.palestine:53080 alt.politics.nationalism.white:175205 alt.revisionism:269926 soc.culture.islam:4188 soc.culture.malaysia:196195 soc.culture.australian:78565 soc.culture.polish:123234
On Tue, 13 Oct 1998 11:38:31, [email protected] wrote:
On Thu, 10 Sep 1998 22:56:46 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
trying to stimulate more interest in this topic,
On Sat, 15 Aug 1998 18:45:47 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
>On Fri, 03 Jul 1998 15:00:35 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
>>On 3 Jul 1998 06:38:05 GMT,
Orest Slepokura
…fully documented *Perfidy* blatantly exposes the degree to which
Zionists cooperated in the persecution of their fellow Jews…
Here is more evidence of NAZI-ZIONIST JEW COLLABORATION.
The Kastner Case
The most notorious case of Nazi-Zionist collaboration is that
involving a Jew – Rudolf Kastner.
Most Jewish people have never heard of Rudolf Kastner. Those who have,
are generally under the impression that there is some ‘controversy’
about negotiations he undertook for ‘the purchase of Jewish lives for
money and military equipment’, but that he was ‘fully rehabilitated’
by the Supreme Court of Israel.
The Accusations
Briefly, the accusations against Kastner are as follows:
Dr. Rudolf Verba, a Doctor of Science now serving at the British
Medical Research Council, was one of the few escapees from Auschwitz.
In his memoirs published in February, 1961, in the London Daily
Herald, he wrote:
I am a Jew. In spite of that – indeed because of that – I accuse
certain Jewish leaders of one of the most ghastly deeds of the war.
This group of quislings knew what was happening to their brethren in
Hitler’s gas chambers and bought their own lives with the price of
silence.
Among them was Dr. Kastner, leader of the council which spoke for all
Jews in Hungary. While I was prisoner number 44070 at Auschwitz – the
number is still on my arm – I compiled careful statistics of the
exterminations.
I took these terrible statistics with me when I escaped in 1944 and I
was able to give Hungarian Zionist leaders three weeks notice that
Eichmann planned to send a million of their Jews to his gas
chambers…Kastner went to Eichmann and told him, ‘I know of your
plans; spare some Jews of my choice and I shall keep quiet.’
Eichmann not only agreed, but dressed Kastner up in S.S. uniform and
took him to Belsen to trace some of his friends. Nor did the sordid
bargaining end there. Kastner paid Eichmann several thousand dollars.
With this little fortune, Eichmann was able to buy his way to freedom
when Germany collapsed, to set himself up in the Argentine…(Ben
Hecht, Perfidy, pp261-2)
These accusations are confirmed by the ‘Eichmann Confessions’
published in Life magazine, 28 November and 5 December 1960:
I resolved to show how well a job could be done when the commander
stands 100% behind it. By shipping the Jews off in a lightning
operation, I wanted to set an example for future campaigns
elsewhere…In obedience to Himmler’s directive I now concentrated on
negotiations with the Jewish political officials in Budapest…Among
them Dr. Rudolph Kastner, authorized representative of the Zionist
Movement. This Dr. Kastner was a young man about my age, an ice-cold
lawyer and a fanatical Zionist. He agreed to help keep the Jews from
resisting deportation – and even keep order in the collection camps –
if I could close my eyes and let a few hundred or a few thousand young
Jews emigrate illegally to Palestine.
It was a good bargain. For keeping order in the camps, the price was
not too high for me.
We trusted each other perfectly. When he was with me, Kastner smoke
cigarets as though he was in a coffeehouse. While we talked he would
smoke one aromatic cigaret after another, taking them from a silver
case and lighting them with a silver lighter. With his great polish
and reserve he would have made an ideal Gestapo officer himself.
Dr. Kastner’s main concern was to make it possible for a select group
of Hungarian Jews to emigrate to Israel…
As a matter of fact, there was a very strong similarity between our
attitudes in the S.S. and the viewpoint of these immensely idealistic
Zionist leaders. I believe that Kastner would have sacrificed a
thousand or a hundred thousand of his blood to achieve his political
goal ‘You can have the others’, he would say, ‘but let me have this
group here’. And because Kastner rendered us a great service by
helping keep the deportation camps peaceful, I would let his groups
escape. After all, I was not concerned with small groups of a thousand
or so Jews…That was the ‘gentleman’s agreement’ I had with Kastner
(Hecht, ibid., p.260-61)
Quite clearly these accusations, do not relate merely to ‘the purchase
of Jewish lives for money and military equipment’.
Are the accusations against Kastner true?
According to the Government of Israel, they are a lie. When Malchiel
Greenwald, a strongly pro-Zionist Israeli citizen published these
accusations against Kastner, the Israeli Government did rather more
than demand that his views should not be broadcast. Because a
prominent Zionist official (Dr. Kastner was a spokesman for the
Ministry of Trade and Industry) was involved, the Attorney General of
the State of Israel prosecuted Greenwald for criminal libel.
The Verdict
Let the verdict of Judge Benjamin Halevi (who later became one of the
panel of three judges that tried Eichmann) in Israel’s District Court
of Jerusalem speak for itself, given in criminal case No. 124 of 1953.
The Attorney General v. Malchiel Greenwald. This material should be
studied carefully.
The masses of Jews from Hungary’s ghettos obediently boarded the
deportation trains without knowing their fate. They were full of
confidence in the false information that they were being transferred
to Kenyermeze.
The Nazis could not have misled the masses of Jews so conclusively had
they not spread their false information through Jewish channels.
The Jews of the ghettos would not have trusted the Nazi or Hungarian
rulers. But they had trust in their Jewish leaders. Eichmann and
others used this known fact as part of their calculated plan to
mislead the Jews.
They were able to deport the Jews to their extermination by the help
of Jewish leaders.
The false information was spread by the Jewish leaders. The local
leaders of the Jews of Kluj and Nodvarod knew that other leaders were
spreading such false information and did not protest.
Those of the Jews who tried to warn their friends of the truth were
persecuted by the Jewish leaders in charge of the local ‘rescue work’.
The trust of the Jews in the misleading information and their lack of
knowledge that their wives, children and themselves were about to be
deported to the gas chambers of Auschwitz led the victims to remain
quiescent in their ghettos. It seduced them into not resisting or
hampering the deportation orders.
Dozens of thousands of Jews were guarded in their ghettos by a few
dozen police. Yet even vigorous young Jews made no attempt to
overpower these few guards and escape to nearby Rumania. No resistance
activities to the deportations were organized in these ghettos.
And the Jewish leaders did everything in their power to soothe the
Jews in the ghettos and to prevent such resistance activities.
The same Jews who spread in Kluj and Nodvarod the false rumor of
Kenyermeze, or confirmed it, the same public leaders who did not warn
their own people against the misleading statements, the same Jewish
leaders who did not organize any resistance or any sabotage of
deportations…these same leaders did not join the people of their
community in their ride to Auschwitz, but were all included in the
Rescue train.
The Nazi organizers of extermination and the perpetrators of
extermination permitted Rudolf Kastner and the members of the Jewish
Council in Budapest to save themselves, their relatives, and friends.
The Nazis did this as a means of making the local Jewish leaders, whom
they favoured, dependent on the Nazi regime, dependent on its good
will during the time of its fatal deportation schedule. In short, the
Nazis succeeded in bringing the Jewish leaders into collaboration with
the Nazis at the time of the catastrophe.
The Nazi chiefs knew that the Zionists were a most vital element in
Jewry and the most trusted by the Jews.
The personality of Rudolph Kastner made him a convenient catspaw for
Eichmann and his clique, to draw into collaboration and make their
task easier.
The question here is not, as stated by the Attorney General in his
summation, whether members of the Jewish Rescue Committee were or were
not capable of fulfilling their duty without the patronage of the S.S.
chiefs
.
It is obvious that without such S.S. Nazi patronage the Jewish Rescue
Committee could not have existed, and could have acted only as an
underground.
The question is, as put by the lawyer for the defense, why were the
Nazis interested in the existence of the Rescue Committee? Why did the
S.S. chiefs make every effort to encourage the existence of the Jewish
Rescue Committee? Did the exterminators turn into rescuers?
The same question rises concerning the rescue of prominent Jews by
these German killers of Jews. Was the rescue of such Jews a part of
the extermination plan of the killers ?
The support given by the extermination leaders to Kastner’s Rescue
Committee proves that indeed there was a place for Kastner and his
friends in their Final Solution for the Jews of Hungary – their total
annihilation.
The Nazi’s patronage of Kastner, and their agreement to let him save
six hundred prominent Jews, were part of the plan to exterminate the
Jews.
Kastner was given a chance to add a few more to that number. The bait
attracted him. The opportunity of rescuing prominent people appealed
to him greatly. He considered the rescue of the most important Jews as
a great personal success and a success for Zionism. It was a success
that would also justify his conduct – his political negotiation with
Nazis and the Nazi patronage of his committee.
When Kastner received this present from the Nazis, Kastner sold his
soul to the German Satan.
The sacrifice of the vital interests of the majority of the Jews, in
order to rescue the prominents, was the basic element in the agreement
between Kastner and the Nazis. This agreement fixed the division of
the nation into two unequal camps: a small fragment of prominents,
whom the Nazis promised Kastner to save, on the one hand, and the
great majority or Hungarian Jews whom the Nazis designated for death,
on the other hand.
An imperative condition for the rescue of the first camp by the Nazis
was that Kastner will not interfere in the action of the Nazis against
the other camp and will not hamper them in its extermination. Kastner
fulfilled this condition. He concentrated his efforts in the rescue of
the prominents and treated the camp of the doomed as if they had
already been wiped out from the book of the living.
One cannot estimate the damage caused by Kastner’s collaboration and
put down the number of victims which it cost Hungarian Jews. These are
not only the thousands of Jews in Nodvarod or any other community in
the border area, Jews who could escape through the border, had the
chief of their rescue committee fulfilled his duty toward them.
All of Kastner’s answers in his final testimony were a constant effort
to evade this truth.
Kastner has tried to escape through every crack he could find in the
wall of evidence. When one crack was sealed in his face, he darted
quickly to another. (Judgement of Judge Benjamin Halevi, Criminal Case
124/53; Attorney General v. Malchiel Greenwald, District Court,
Jerusalem, June 22,1955).
Judge Halevi reverts to the meeting of Kastner with the S.S. officers
Becher and Rudolf Hoess, commandant of Auschwitz at the time when the
‘new line’ of rescuing Jews was revealed by Hoess. He says:
>From this gathering in Budapest, it is obvious that the ‘new line’
stretched from Himmler to Hoess, from Jutner to Becher and Krumey.
According to Kastner, however, these Nazis were all active in rescuing
Jews.
This meeting of these important German guests in Budapest exposes the
‘rescue’ work of Becher in its true light. It reveals also the extent
of Kastner’s involvement in the inner circle of the chief German war
criminals.
Just as the Nazi war criminals knew they needed an alibi and hoped to
achieve it by the rescue of a few Jews at the eleventh hour, so
Kastner also needed an alibi for himself.
Collaboration between the Jewish Agency Rescue Committee and the
Exterminators of the Jews was solidified in Budapest and Vienna.
Kastner’s duties were part and parcel of the general duties of the
S.S.
In addition to its Extermination Department and Looting Department,
the Nazi S.S. opened a Rescue Department headed by Kastner.
All these extermination, robbery and rescue activities of the S.S.
were coordinated under the management of Heinrich Himmler”.
Judge Halevi continues:
Kastner perjured himself knowingly in his testimony before this court
when he denied he had interceded in Becher’s behalf. Moreover, he
concealed the important fact that he interceded for Becher in the name
of the Jewish Agency and the Jewish World Congress.
As to the contents of Kastner’s affidavit, it was enough for the
defense to provide Becher was a war criminal. It was up to the
prosecution to remove Becher from this status, if they wished to
negate the affidavit.
The Attorney General admitted in his summation that Becher was a war
criminal.
The lies in the contents of Kastner’s affidavit, the lies in his
testimony concerning the document, and Kastner’s knowing participation
in the activities of Nazi war criminals, and his participation in the
last minute fake rescue activities – all these combine to show one
overwhelming truth – that this affidavit was not given in good faith.
Kastner knew well, as he himself testified, that Becher had never
stood up against the stream of Jewish extermination, as Kastner has
declared in the affidavit.
The aims of Becher and his superior, Himmler, were not to save Jews
but to serve the Nazi regime with full compliance. These is not truth
and no good faith in Kastner’s testimony, ‘I never doubted for one
moment the good intention of good Becher’.
It is clear that the positive recommendation by Kastner, not only in
his own name but also in the name of the Jewish Agency and the Jewish
World Congress was of decisive importance for Becher. Kastner did not
exaggerate when he said that Becher was released by the Allies because
of his personal intervention. The lies in the affidavit of Kastner and
the contradictions and various pretexts, which were proven to be lies,
were sufficient to annul the value of his statements and to prove that
there was no good faith in his testimony in favor of this German war
criminal. Kastner’s affidavit in favor of Becher was a wilfully false
affidavit given in favor of a war
criminal to save him from trial and punishment in Nuremberg.
Therefore, the defendant, Malchiel Greenwald, was correct in his
accusations against Rudolf Kastner in the first, second and fourth of
his statements.”
Judge Halevi’s verdict found Malchiel Greenwald generally innocent of
libel against Kastner, but fined him one Israeli pound for the one
unproved accusation – that Kastner had actually collected money from
his Nazi
partners for his aide to their slaughter program. The judge also
ordered the Government of Israel to pay Greenwald two hundred Israeli
pounds as court costs.
If the story ended there, it would only prove conclusively that the
individual Kastner was a collaborator and the Israeli Government had
attempted to defend him, although facts brought out in the trial
pointed to much more than that.
But the story does not end there.
The Reaction
The Communist Party newspaper Kol Ha’am (Voice of the People) wrote:
All those whose relatives were butchered by the Germans in Hungary
know now clearly that Jewish hands helped the mass murder” (23 June
1955)
But public opinion was not quite unanimous. The problem with bringing
Kastner and his associates to trial was that his associates were the
Government of Israel.
As the evening paper *Yedi’ot Aharonot* said:
If Kastner is brought to trial the entire government faces a total
political and national collapse – as a result of what such a trial may
disclose.” (23 June 1955)
Accordingly, the Government of Israel did not put Kastner on trial,
instead it filed an appeal against the acquittal of Greenwald for
criminal libel.
At 11 P.M. the verdict was given. At 11 A.M. next morning the
government announces the defense of Kastner will be renewed – an
appeal filed.
What exemplary expediency! Since when does this government possess
such lawyer-genius who can weigh in one night the legal chances of an
appeal on a detailed, complex verdict of three hundred pages?
At the appeal hearings before the Supreme Court, the Attorney General
of Israel, Chaim Cohen, explained clearly why the Government of Israel
was defending Kastner so strongly:
The man Kastner does not stand here as a private individual. He was a
recognized representative, official or non-official of the Jewish
National Institutes in Palestine and of the Zionist Executive; and I
come here in this court to defend the representative of our national
institutions.”(Hecht, p. 268)
The truth of this statement cannot be denied. Kastner’s collaboration
was not that of an individual. It was the collaboration of the Zionist
leadership.
So far, it has only been established that the Government of Israel
continued to support a Nazi collaborator after the facts about his
collaboration had been conclusively established in an Israeli court.
But the story gets worse.
The Supreme Court of Israel unanimously found that Becher was indeed a
Nazi war criminal and that Kastner had without justification, and in
the name of the Jewish Agency, helped Becher to escape justice. On
this point Greenwald was acquitted of libel and Kastner was not
‘fully rehabilitated’.
The Supreme Court also accepted the facts established in the lower
court – that Kastner deliberately concealed the truth about Auschwitz
>from the majority of Hungarian Jews in exchange for Nazi permission to
take a thousand or so to Palestine. Again, Kastner was far from being
‘fully rehabilitated’.
But now comes the really nasty bit. After unanimously acknowledging
these facts, the Supreme Court of Israel, by a majority of three to
two, found that Kastner’s actions were morally justifiable and
convicted Greenwald of criminal libel for calling this
‘collaboration’.
Kastner’s actions only proved that he was a Nazi collaborator. It is
the defense of these actions by the Government and Courts of Israel
that prove conclusively that Zionism approves of Nazi collaboration.
The majority of the Supreme Court of Israel did not rehabilitate
Kastner. They joined him.
Let us read from the majority judgement of Supreme Court Judge Shlomo
Chesin:
….What point was there in telling the people boarding the trains in
Kluj, people struck by fate and persecuted, as to what awaits them at
the end of their journey…Kastner spoke in detail of the situation,
saying, ‘The Hungarian Jew was a branch which long ago dried up on the
tree’. This vivid description coincides with the testimony of another
witness about the Hungarian Jews, ‘This was a big Jewish community in
Hungary, without any ideological Jewish backbone’ (Moshe Shweiger, a
Kastner aide in Budapest, protocol 465).
I fully agree with my friend, Judge Agranot, when he states that, ‘The
Jews of Hungary, including those in the countryside, were not capable,
neither physically nor mentally, to carry out resistance operations
with force against the deportation scheme’…From this point of view
no rescue achievement could have resulted by disclosing the Auschwitz
news to the Jewish leaders there, and this is a consideration which on
can properly conclude that Kastner had in front of his eyes.
….And I take one more step. I am certain that the silence of Kastner
when he arrived in Kluj was premeditated and calculated and did not
result from his great despair because of the helplessness of the
Jewish community.
Even then, I say, this is still not considered wilful collaboration
and assistance in the extermination, because all the signs indicate
that Kastner’s efforts were aimed at rescue and rescue on a big
scale…And towards the end I take one last step. In doing so I go
very far and say that even if Kastner ordered himself to keep silent
knowingly, in submission to the strong will of the Nazis, in order to
save a few Jews from Hell – this is still no proof that he stained his
hands by collaborating with the enemies of his people and carrying out
their plan to exterminate most of the Jewish community in Hungary.
Even if, through these activities of his – or rather, his omission –
the extermination became easier. And as to the moral issue, the
question is not whether a man is allowed to kill many in order to save
a few, or vice-versa. The question is altogether in another sphere and
should be defined as follows: A man is aware that a whole community is
awaiting its doom. He is allowed to make efforts to save a few,
although part of his efforts involve concealment of truth from the
many or should he disclose
the truth to many though it is his best opinion that this way
everybody will perish. I think that the answer is clear. What good
will the blood of the few bring if everybody is to perish?…As I
said, I am not arguing with the basic factual findings of the learned
President of the Jewish District Court (Judge Halevi) but it seems to
me, with all due respect, that his findings do not, as of necessity,
demand the conclusion he has arrived at.
That is to say, collaboration on the part of Kastner in the
extermination of the Jews. And that they better coincide with bad
leadership both from a moral and public point of view…
In my opinion, one can say outright that if you find out that Kastner
collaborated with the enemy because he did not disclose to the people
who boarded the trains in Kluj that they were being led to
extermination, one has to put on trial today Danzig, Herman, Hanzi,
Brand, Revis and Marton, and many more leaders and half-leaders who
gagged themselves in an hour of crisis and did not inform others of
what was known to them and did not warn
and did not cry out of the coming danger….
Because of all this I cannot confirm the conclusion of the District
Court with regard to the accusation that Greenwald has thrown on
Kastner of collaboration with the Nazis in exterminating the Jewish
people in Hungary during the last war.” (Hecht, ibid., pp.270-2)
In other words, the Court approved of Kastner’s contempt for the
Hungarian Jews and could not allow him to be condemned for doing
exactly what many other Zionist leaders and half-leaders did –
concealing their knowledge of the Nazi extermination plans so that
Jews would board the trains to Auschwitz peacefully while their
Zionist ‘leaders’ boarded a different train for Palestine.
The most precise answer to this sickening judgement of Judge Chesin is
provided in the minority judgement of Supreme Court Judge Moshe
Silberg:
I do not say that he was the only man who possessed information among
the leaders. It is quite possible that somebody else as well does not
have a clear conscience with regards to this concealment. But we are
dealing here with the guilt of Kastner and we do not have to make
judgements on the guilt of others….
The declaration of the learned Attorney General therefore shrinks into
an opinion….’Kastner was convinced and believed that there was no
ray of hope for the Jews of Hungary, almost for none of them, and as
he, as a result of his personal despair, did not disclose the secret
of the extermination in order not to endanger or frustrate the rescue
of the few – therefore he acted in good faith and should not be
accused of collaborating with the Nazis in expediting the
extermination of the Jews, even though, in fact, he brought about its
result.’
I am compelled to state that it is very difficult for me to conceive
such an intention. Is this good faith? Can a single man, even in
cooperation with some of his friends, yield to despair on behalf and
without the knowledge of 800,000 other people? This is, in my opinion,
the decisive consideration in the problem facing us. The charge
emanating from the testimony of the witnesses against Kastner is that
had they known of the Auschwitz secret, then thousands or tens of
thousands would have been able
to save their lives by local, partial, specific or indirect rescue
operations like local revolts, resistance, escapes, hidings,
concealment of children with Gentiles, forging of documents, ransom
money, bribery,etc. – and when this is the case and when one deals
with many hundreds of thousands, how does a human being, a mortal,
reject with complete certainty and with an extreme ‘no’ the efficiency
of all the many and varied rescue ways? How can he examine the tens of
thousands of possibilities? Does he decide instead of God?
Indeed, he who can act with such a usurpation of the
last hope of hundreds of thousands is not entitled to claim good faith
as his defense. The penetrating question quo warrento is a good answer
to a claim of such good faith…
If the superintendent of a big hospital lets thousands of sick people
die so that he may devote himself to the sure rescue of one soul, he
will come out guilty, at least morally, even if it is proven that he
as an individual erroneously thought that there was no hope of saving
the other patients. He is a collaborator with the angel of death.
Either a complete atrophy of the soul or a blind involvement with
complete loss of senses and proportion in his small but personal
rescue operation could bring a man to such a gigantic, hazardous play.
And if all this is not enough to annul the claim of good faith which
was put before us on behalf of Kastner by the Attorney General, then
Kastner himself comes and annuls it altogether. Not only did he never
make this claim, but his own words prove the contrary. He writes in
his report to the Jewish Agency that the Committee sent emissaries to
many ghettos in the countryside and pleaded with them to organize
escapes and to refuse to board the trains. And though the story of
these pleadings is untrue, and the silence of Kastner in Kluj is
proven, the very uttering of these statements entirely contradicts the
claim that Kastner had concealed the
news about the fate of the ghetto inmates in good faith and only as a
result of his complete despairing of the chances of escaping or
resisting the Germans. You can not claim at the same time helplessness
and activity. Anyway, such a claim is not convincing…
We can sum up with three facts:
A. That the Nazis didn’t want to have a great revolt – nor small
revolts, and their passion was to have the extermination machine
working smoothly without resistance. This fact was known to Kastner
>from the best source – from Eichmann himself – And he had additional
proofs of that when he witnessed all the illusionary and misleading
tactics which were being taken by the Nazis from the first moment of
occupation.
B. That the most efficient means to paralyze the resistance with – or
the escape of a victim is to conceal from him the plot of the coming
murder. This fact is known to every man and one does not need any
proof of evidence for this.
C. That he, Kastner, in order to carry out the rescue plan for the few
prominents, fulfilled knowingly and without good faith the said desire
of the Nazis, thus expediting the work of exterminating the masses.
And also the rescue of Becher by Kastner…He who is capable of
rescuing this Becher from hanging proves that the atrocities of this
great war criminal were not so horrifying or despicable in his
eyes…I couldn’t base the main guilt of Kastner on this fact had it
been alone, but when it is attached even from afar to the whole scene
of events it throws retroactive
light on the whole affair and serves as a dozen proofs of our
conclusion.”(Supreme Court Judge, Moshe Silberg, 1957)
If that had been the majority judgement, one could say that whatever
their attitudes to the Arabs, and whatever their past behaviour might
have been under pressure, the Zionist leadership today did not
advocate collaboration with the Nazis.
But Judge Silberg’s judgement was that of a minority.
The Kastner case is therefore not an alleged episode in past history.
It is a continuing controversy in which the top Zionist leadership of
Israel stand indicted of continuing to publicly defend collaboration
with the Nazis in the extermination of Jews.
Despite the unanimous finding of the Supreme Court of Israel that Kurt
Becher was a major war criminal, the Jewish Agency (World Zionist
Organization) refused to withdraw the fraudulent certificate Kastner
gave on their behalf, which saved Becher from hanging, and allowed him
to remain a free man in West Germany, the head of several corporations
and with an estimated personal worth of $30 million.
Becher has even used his certification as a ‘good’ SS officer to give
evidence in support of his associates at other war crimes trials in
West Germany.
Since the prosecution, representing the Israeli Government agreed with
the Supreme Court that Becher was a major war criminal, one can only
pressure that the Israeli Government did not want him put on trial for
fear of what might come out.
Likewise, none of Kastner’s associates on the Zionist Relief and
Rescue Committee or his bosses in the Jewish Agency have ever been put
on trial .
Let alone the hundreds of ‘prominents’ who helped Kastner to reassure
the Hungarian Jews that they were going to Kenyermeze and not
Auschwitz, in exchange for tickets on the one train that took them
eventually to Palestine.
As for Kastner himself, he will cause no further embarrassment to the
Zionist leadership with his undisputed claims that everything he did
was approved by the Jewish Agency (World Zionist Organization)
leadership in Palestine. He is ‘now dead’. Or putting it less
delicately, on 3 March 1957 he was shot by Zeev Eckstein – immediately
after the appeal hearings were concluded, and before the judgement
‘rehabilitating’ him was delivered.
Eckstein was not a Hungarian avenger. He was a paid undercover agent
of the Israeli secret service. (Hecht, ibid., p.208). Another
‘fantastic allegation’ no doubt; but admitted in court during the
murder trial).
sven88
On Thu, 15 Oct 1998 12:39:09, [email protected] wrote:
>Readers are reminded that there is in fact no such
>organization as the “American Fascist Union”. All
>posts claiming to be from the “American Fascist Union”
>are in fact posted to Usenet by the same individual who
>was for some time using the name “Karl Zimmer”. This
>individual is most likely an operative of Nizkor.
From [email protected] Fri Oct 16 15:01:39 EDT 1998
Article: 275318 of alt.revisionism
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: soc.culture.palestine,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.revisionism,soc.culture.islam,soc.culture.malaysia,soc.culture.australian,soc.culture.polish
Subject: Re: Nazi — Jew Zionist Collaboration
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 14:18:17 GMT
Organization: TELUS Communications Inc.
Lines: 819
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: edtnpx08-port-58.agt.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451
Path: hub.org!hub.org!newsfeed.axxsys.net!news.idt.net!newshub.northeast.verio.net!cyclone.news.idirect.com!island.idirect.com!news.oanet.com!news.agtac.net!news.telusplanet.net!news
Xref: hub.org soc.culture.palestine:53129 alt.politics.nationalism.white:180684 alt.revisionism:275318 soc.culture.islam:4197 soc.culture.malaysia:196676 soc.culture.australian:78649 soc.culture.polish:123520
On Thu, 15 Oct 1998 15:30:35, [email protected] wrote:
On Thu, 10 Sep 1998 22:56:46 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
trying to stimulate more interest in this topic,
On Sat, 15 Aug 1998 18:45:47 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
>On Fri, 03 Jul 1998 15:00:35 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>On 3 Jul 1998 06:38:05 GMT,
>>
Orest Slepokura
…fully documented *Perfidy* blatantly exposes the degree to which
Zionists cooperated in the persecution of their fellow Jews…
Here is more evidence of NAZI-ZIONIST JEW COLLABORATION.
The Kastner Case
The most notorious case of Nazi-Zionist collaboration is that
involving a Jew – Rudolf Kastner.
Most Jewish people have never heard of Rudolf Kastner. Those who have,
are generally under the impression that there is some ‘controversy’
about negotiations he undertook for ‘the purchase of Jewish lives for
money and military equipment’, but that he was ‘fully rehabilitated’
by the Supreme Court of Israel.
The Accusations
Briefly, the accusations against Kastner are as follows:
Dr. Rudolf Verba, a Doctor of Science now serving at the British
Medical Research Council, was one of the few escapees from Auschwitz.
In his memoirs published in February, 1961, in the London Daily
Herald, he wrote:
I am a Jew. In spite of that – indeed because of that – I accuse
certain Jewish leaders of one of the most ghastly deeds of the war.
This group of quislings knew what was happening to their brethren in
Hitler’s gas chambers and bought their own lives with the price of
silence.
Among them was Dr. Kastner, leader of the council which spoke for all
Jews in Hungary. While I was prisoner number 44070 at Auschwitz – the
number is still on my arm – I compiled careful statistics of the
exterminations.
I took these terrible statistics with me when I escaped in 1944 and I
was able to give Hungarian Zionist leaders three weeks notice that
Eichmann planned to send a million of their Jews to his gas
chambers…Kastner went to Eichmann and told him, ‘I know of your
plans; spare some Jews of my choice and I shall keep quiet.’
Eichmann not only agreed, but dressed Kastner up in S.S. uniform and
took him to Belsen to trace some of his friends. Nor did the sordid
bargaining end there. Kastner paid Eichmann several thousand dollars.
With this little fortune, Eichmann was able to buy his way to freedom
when Germany collapsed, to set himself up in the Argentine…(Ben
Hecht, Perfidy, pp261-2)
These accusations are confirmed by the ‘Eichmann Confessions’
published in Life magazine, 28 November and 5 December 1960:
I resolved to show how well a job could be done when the commander
stands 100% behind it. By shipping the Jews off in a lightning
operation, I wanted to set an example for future campaigns
elsewhere…In obedience to Himmler’s directive I now concentrated on
negotiations with the Jewish political officials in Budapest…Among
them Dr. Rudolph Kastner, authorized representative of the Zionist
Movement. This Dr. Kastner was a young man about my age, an ice-cold
lawyer and a fanatical Zionist. He agreed to help keep the Jews from
resisting deportation – and even keep order in the collection camps –
if I could close my eyes and let a few hundred or a few thousand young
Jews emigrate illegally to Palestine.
It was a good bargain. For keeping order in the camps, the price was
not too high for me.
We trusted each other perfectly. When he was with me, Kastner smoke
cigarets as though he was in a coffeehouse. While we talked he would
smoke one aromatic cigaret after another, taking them from a silver
case and lighting them with a silver lighter. With his great polish
and reserve he would have made an ideal Gestapo officer himself.
Dr. Kastner’s main concern was to make it possible for a select group
of Hungarian Jews to emigrate to Israel…
>>As a matter of fact, there was a very strong similarity between our
>>attitudes in the S.S. and the viewpoint of these immensely idealistic
>>Zionist leaders. I believe that Kastner would have sacrificed a
>>thousand
>>or a hundred thousand of his blood to achieve his political goal ‘You
>>can
>>have the others’, he would say, ‘but let me have this group here’. And
>>because Kastner rendered us a great service by helping keep the
>>deportation
>>camps peaceful, I would let his groups escape. After all, I was not
>>concerned with small groups of a thousand or so Jews…That was the
>>’gentleman’s agreement’ I had with Kastner (Hecht, ibid., p.260-61)
>>
>>Quite clearly these accusations, do not relate merely to ‘the purchase
>>of
>>Jewish lives for money and military equipment’.
>>
>>Are the accusations against Kastner true?
>>
>>According to the Government of Israel, they are a lie. When Malchiel
>>Greenwald, a strongly pro-Zionist Israeli citizen published these
>>accusations against Kastner, the Israeli Government did rather more
>>than
>>demand that his views should not be broadcast. Because a prominent
>>Zionist
>>official (Dr. Kastner was a spokesman for the Ministry of Trade and
>>Industry) was involved, the Attorney General of the State of Israel
>>prosecuted Greenwald for criminal libel.
>>
>> The Verdict
>>
>>Let the verdict of Judge Benjamin Halevi (who later became one of the
>>panel
>>of three judges that tried Eichmann) in Israel’s District Court of
>>Jerusalem speak for itself, given in criminal case No. 124 of 1953.
>>The
>>Attorney General v. Malchiel Greenwald. This material should be
>>studied
>>carefully.
>>
>>The masses of Jews from Hungary’s ghettos obediently boarded the
>>deportation trains without knowing their fate. They were full of
>>confidence
>>in the false information that they were being transferred to
>>Kenyermeze.
>>
>>The Nazis could not have misled the masses of Jews so conclusively had
>>they
>>not spread their false information through Jewish channels.
>>
>>The Jews of the ghettos would not have trusted the Nazi or Hungarian
>>rulers. But they had trust in their Jewish leaders. Eichmann and
>>others
>>used this known fact as part of their calculated plan to mislead the
>>Jews.
>>They were able to deport the Jews to their extermination by the help
>>of
>>Jewish leaders.
>>
>>The false information was spread by the Jewish leaders. The local
>>leaders
>>of the Jews of Kluj and Nodvarod knew that other leaders were
>>spreading
>>such false information and did not protest.
>>
>>Those of the Jews who tried to warn their friends of the truth were
>>persecuted by the Jewish leaders in charge of the local ‘rescue work’.
>>
>>The trust of the Jews in the misleading information and their lack of
>>knowledge that their wives, children and themselves were about to be
>>deported to the gas chambers of Auschwitz led the victims to remain
>>quiescent in their ghettos. It seduced them into not resisting or
>>hampering
>>the deportation orders.
>>
>>Dozens of thousands of Jews were guarded in their ghettos by a few
>>dozen
>>police. Yet even vigorous young Jews made no attempt to overpower
>>these few
>>guards and escape to nearby Rumania. No resistance activities to the
>>deportations were organized in these ghettos.
>>
>>And the Jewish leaders did everything in their power to soothe the
>>Jews in
>>the ghettos and to prevent such resistance activities.
>>
>>The same Jews who spread in Kluj and Nodvarod the false rumor of
>>Kenyermeze, or confirmed it, the same public leaders who did not warn
>>their
>>own people against the misleading statements, the same Jewish leaders
>>who
>>did not organize any resistance or any sabotage of
>>deportations…these
>>same leaders did not join the people of their community in their ride
>>to
>>Auschwitz, but were all included in the Rescue train.
>>
>>The Nazi organizers of extermination and the perpetrators of
>>extermination
>>permitted Rudolf Kastner and the members of the Jewish Council in
>>Budapest
>>to save themselves, their relatives, and friends. The Nazis did this
>>as a
>>means of making the local Jewish leaders, whom they favoured,
>>dependent on
>>the Nazi regime, dependent on its good will during the time of its
>>fatal
>>deportation schedule. In short, the Nazis succeeded in bringing the
>>Jewish
>>leaders into collaboration with the Nazis at the time of the
>>catastrophe.
>>
>>The Nazi chiefs knew that the Zionists were a most vital element in
>>Jewry
>>and the most trusted by the Jews.
>>
>>The personality of Rudolph Kastner made him a convenient catspaw for
>>Eichmann and his clique, to draw into collaboration and make their
>>task
>>easier.
>>
>>The question here is not, as stated by the Attorney General in his
>>summation, whether members of the Jewish Rescue Committee were or were
>>not capable of fulfilling their duty without the patronage of the S.S.
>>
>>chiefs.
>>It is obvious that without such S.S. Nazi patronage the Jewish Rescue
>>Committee could not have existed, and could have acted only as an
>>underground.
>>
>>The question is, as put by the lawyer for the defense, why were the
>>Nazis
>>interested in the existence of the Rescue Committee? Why did the S.S.
>>chiefs make every effort to encourage the existence of the Jewish
>>Rescue
>>Committee? Did the exterminators turn into rescuers?
>>
>>The same question rises concerning the rescue of prominent Jews by
>>these
>>German killers of Jews. Was the rescue of such Jews a part of the
>>extermination plan of the killers ?
>>
>>The support given by the extermination leaders to Kastner’s Rescue
>>Committee proves that indeed there was a place for Kastner and his
>>friends
>>in their Final Solution for the Jews of Hungary – their total
>>annihilation.
>>
>>The Nazi’s patronage of Kastner, and their agreement to let him save
>>six
>>hundred prominent Jews, were part of the plan to exterminate the Jews.
>>Kastner was given a chance to add a few more to that number. The bait
>>attracted him. The opportunity of rescuing prominent people appealed
>>to him
>>greatly. He considered the rescue of the most important Jews as a
>>great
>>personal success and a success for Zionism. It was a success that
>>would
>>also justify his conduct – his political negotiation with Nazis and
>>the
>>Nazi patronage of his committee.
>>
>>When Kastner received this present from the Nazis, Kastner sold his
>>soul to
>>the German Satan.
>>
>>The sacrifice of the vital interests of the majority of the Jews, in
>>order
>>to rescue the prominents, was the basic element in the agreement
>>between
>>Kastner and the Nazis. This agreement fixed the division of the nation
>>into
>>two unequal camps: a small fragment of prominents, whom the Nazis
>>promised
>>Kastner to save, on the one hand, and the great majority or Hungarian
>>Jews
>>whom the Nazis designated for death, on the other hand. An imperative
>>condition for the rescue of the first camp by the Nazis was that
>>Kastner
>>will not interfere in the action of the Nazis against the other camp
>>and
>>will not hamper them in its extermination. Kastner fulfilled this
>>condition. He concentrated his efforts in the rescue of the prominents
>>and
>>treated the camp of the doomed as if they had already been wiped out
>>from
>>the book of the living.
>>
>>One cannot estimate the damage caused by Kastner’s collaboration and
>>put
>>down the number of victims which it cost Hungarian Jews. These are not
>>only
>>the thousands of Jews in Nodvarod or any other community in the border
>>area, Jews who could escape through the border, had the chief of their
>>rescue committee fulfilled his duty toward them.
>>
>>All of Kastner’s answers in his final testimony were a constant effort
>>to
>>evade this truth.
>>
>>Kastner has tried to escape through every crack he could find in the
>>wall
>>of evidence. When one crack was sealed in his face, he darted quickly
>>to
>>another. (Judgement of Judge Benjamin Halevi, Criminal Case 124/53;
>>Attorney General v. Malchiel Greenwald, District Court, Jerusalem,
>>June 22,
>>1955).
>>
>>Judge Halevi reverts to the meeting of Kastner with the S.S. officers
>>Becher and Rudolf Hoess, commandant of Auschwitz at the time when the
>>’new
>>line’ of rescuing Jews was revealed by Hoess. He says:
>>
>>From this gathering in Budapest, it is obvious that the ‘new line’
>>stretched from Himmler to Hoess, from Jutner to Becher and Krumey.
>>
>>According to Kastner, however, these Nazis were all active in rescuing
>>Jews.
>>
>>This meeting of these important German guests in Budapest exposes the
>>’rescue’ work of Becher in its true light. It reveals also the extent
>>of
>>Kastner’s involvement in the inner circle of the chief German war
>>criminals.
>>
>>Just as the Nazi war criminals knew they needed an alibi and hoped to
>>achieve it by the rescue of a few Jews at the eleventh hour, so
>>Kastner
>>also needed an alibi for himself.
>>
>>Collaboration between the Jewish Agency Rescue Committee and the
>>Exterminators of the Jews was solidified in Budapest and Vienna.
>>Kastner’s
>>duties were part and parcel of the general duties of the S.S.
>>
>>In addition to its Extermination Department and Looting Department,
>>the
>>Nazi S.S. opened a Rescue Department headed by Kastner.
>>
>>All these extermination, robbery and rescue activities of the S.S.
>>were
>>coordinated under the management of Heinrich Himmler”.
>>
>>Judge Halevi continues:
>>
>>Kastner perjured himself knowingly in his testimony before this court
>>when
>>he denied he had interceded in Becher’s behalf. Moreover, he concealed
>>the
>>important fact that he interceded for Becher in the name of the Jewish
>>Agency and the Jewish World Congress.
>>
>>As to the contents of Kastner’s affidavit, it was enough for the
>>defense to
>>provide Becher was a war criminal. It was up to the prosecution to
>>remove
>>Becher from this status, if they wished to negate the affidavit.
>>
>>The Attorney General admitted in his summation that Becher was a war
>>criminal.
>>
>>The lies in the contents of Kastner’s affidavit, the lies in his
>>testimony
>>concerning the document, and Kastner’s knowing participation in the
>>activities of Nazi war criminals, and his participation in the last
>>minute
>>fake rescue activities – all these combine to show one overwhelming
>>truth –
>>that this affidavit was not given in good faith.
>>
>>Kastner knew well, as he himself testified, that Becher had never
>>stood up
>>against the stream of Jewish extermination, as Kastner has declared in
>>the
>>affidavit.
>>
>>The aims of Becher and his superior, Himmler, were not to save Jews
>>but to
>>serve the Nazi regime with full compliance. These is not truth and no
>>good
>>faith in Kastner’s testimony, ‘I never doubted for one moment the good
>>intention of good Becher’.
>>
>>It is clear that the positive recommendation by Kastner, not only in
>>his
>>own name but also in the name of the Jewish Agency and the Jewish
>>World
>>Congress was of decisive importance for Becher. Kastner did not
>>exaggerate
>>when he said that Becher was released by the Allies because of his
>>personal
>>intervention. The lies in the affidavit of Kastner and the
>>contradictions
>>and various pretexts, which were proven to be lies, were sufficient to
>>annul the value of his statements and to prove that there was no good
>>faith
>>in his testimony in favor of this German war criminal. Kastner’s
>>affidavit
>>in favor of Becher was a wilfully false affidavit given in favor of a
>>war
>>criminal to save him from trial and punishment in Nuremberg.
>>
>>Therefore, the defendant, Malchiel Greenwald, was correct in his
>>accusations against Rudolf Kastner in the first, second and fourth of
>>his
>>statements.”
>>
>>Judge Halevi’s verdict found Malchiel Greenwald generally innocent of
>>libel
>>against Kastner, but fined him one Israeli pound for the one unproved
>>accusation – that Kastner had actually collected money from his Nazi
>>partners for his aide to their slaughter program. The judge also
>>ordered
>>the Government of Israel to pay Greenwald two hundred Israeli pounds
>>as
>>court costs.
>>
>>If the story ended there, it would only prove conclusively that the
>>individual Kastner was a collaborator and the Israeli Government had
>>attempted to defend him, although facts brought out in the trial
>>pointed to
>>much more than that.
>>
>>But the story does not end there.
>>
>>The Reaction
>>The Communist Party newspaper Kol Ha’am (Voice of the People) wrote:
>>
>>All those whose relatives were butchered by the Germans in Hungary
>>know now
>>clearly that Jewish hands helped the mass murder” (23 June 1955)
>>
>>But public opinion was not quite unanimous. The problem with bringing
>>Kastner and his associates to trial was that his associates were the
>>Government of Israel.
>>
>>As the evening paper *Yedi’ot Aharonot* said:
>>
>>If Kastner is brought to trial the entire government faces a total
>>political and national collapse – as a result of what such a trial may
>>disclose.” (23 June 1955)
>>
>>Accordingly, the Government of Israel did not put Kastner on trial,
>>instead
>>it filed an appeal against the acquittal of Greenwald for criminal
>>libel.
>>
>>At 11 P.M. the verdict was given. At 11 A.M. next morning the
>>government
>>announces the defense of Kastner will be renewed – an appeal filed.
>>What
>>exemplary expediency! Since when does this government possess such
>>lawyer-genius who can weigh in one night the legal chances of an
>>appeal on
>>a detailed, complex verdict of three hundred pages?
>>
>>At the appeal hearings before the Supreme Court, the Attorney General
>>of
>>Israel, Chaim Cohen, explained clearly why the Government of Israel
>>was
>>defending Kastner so strongly:
>>
>>The man Kastner does not stand here as a private individual. He was a
>>recognized representative, official or non-official of the Jewish
>>National
>>Institutes in Palestine and of the Zionist Executive; and I come here
>>in
>>this court to defend the representative of our national institutions.”
>>(Hecht, p. 268)
>>
>>The truth of this statement cannot be denied. Kastner’s collaboration
>>was
>>not that of an individual. It was the collaboration of the Zionist
>>leadership.
>>
>>So far, it has only been established that the Government of Israel
>>continued to support a Nazi collaborator after the facts about his
>>collaboration had been conclusively established in an Israeli court.
>>But
>>the story gets worse.
>>
>>The Supreme Court of Israel unanimously found that Becher was indeed a
>>
>>Nazi war criminal and that Kastner had without justification, and in
>>the
>>name
>>of the Jewish Agency, helped Becher to escape justice. On this point
>>Greenwald was acquitted of libel and Kastner was not ‘fully
>>rehabilitated’.
>>
>>The Supreme Court also accepted the facts established in the lower
>>court –
>>that Kastner deliberately concealed the truth about Auschwitz from the
>>majority of Hungarian Jews in exchange for Nazi permission to take a
>>thousand or so to Palestine. Again, Kastner was far from being ‘fully
>>rehabilitated’.
>>
>>
>>But now comes the really nasty bit. After unanimously acknowledging
>>these
>>facts, the Supreme Court of Israel, by a majority of three to two,
>>found
>>that Kastner’s actions were morally justifiable and convicted
>>Greenwald of
>>criminal libel for calling this ‘collaboration’.
>>
>>Kastner’s actions only proved that he was a Nazi collaborator. It is
>>the
>>defense of these actions by the Government and Courts of Israel that
>>prove
>>conclusively that Zionism approves of Nazi collaboration.
>>
>>The majority of the Supreme Court of Israel did not rehabilitate
>>Kastner.
>>They joined him.
>>
>>Let us read from the majority judgement of Supreme Court Judge Shlomo
>>Chesin:
>>
>>….What point was there in telling the people boarding the trains in
>>Kluj,
>>people struck by fate and persecuted, as to what awaits them at the
>>end of
>>their journey…Kastner spoke in detail of the situation, saying, ‘The
>>Hungarian Jew was a branch which long ago dried up on the tree’. This
>>vivid
>>description coincides with the testimony of another witness about the
>>Hungarian Jews, ‘This was a big Jewish community in Hungary, without
>>any
>>ideological Jewish backbone’ (Moshe Shweiger, a Kastner aide in
>>Budapest,
>>protocol 465).
>>
>>I fully agree with my friend, Judge Agranot, when he states that, ‘The
>>Jews
>>of Hungary, including those in the countryside, were not capable,
>>neither
>>physically nor mentally, to carry out resistance operations with force
>>against the deportation scheme’…From this point of view no rescue
>>achievement could have resulted by disclosing the Auschwitz news to
>>the
>>Jewish leaders there, and this is a consideration which on can
>>properly
>>conclude that Kastner had in front of his eyes.
>>
>>….And I take one more step. I am certain that the silence of Kastner
>>when
>>he arrived in Kluj was premeditated and calculated and did not result
>>from
>>his great despair because of the helplessness of the Jewish community.
>>Even
>>then, I say, this is still not considered wilful collaboration and
>>assistance in the extermination, because all the signs indicate that
>>Kastner’s efforts were aimed at rescue and rescue on a big scale…And
>>towards the end I take one last step. In doing so I go very far and
>>say
>>that even if Kastner ordered himself to keep silent knowingly, in
>>submission to the strong will of the Nazis, in order to save a few
>>Jews
>>from Hell – this is still no proof that he stained his hands by
>>collaborating with the enemies of his people and carrying out their
>>plan to
>>exterminate most of the Jewish community in Hungary.
>>
>>Even if, through these activities of his – or rather, his omission –
>>the
>>extermination became easier. And as to the moral issue, the question
>>is not
>>whether a man is allowed to kill many in order to save a few, or
>>vice-versa. The question is altogether in another sphere and should be
>>defined as follows: A man is aware that a whole community is awaiting
>>its
>>doom. He is allowed to make efforts to save a few, although part of
>>his
>>efforts involve concealment of truth from the many or should he
>>disclose
>>the truth to many though it is his best opinion that this way
>>everybody
>>will perish. I think that the answer is clear. What good will the
>>blood of
>>the few bring if everybody is to perish?…As I said, I am not arguing
>>with
>>the basic factual findings of the learned President of the Jewish
>>District
>>Court (Judge Halevi) but it seems to me, with all due respect, that
>>his
>>findings do not, as of necessity, demand the conclusion he has arrived
>>at.
>>That is to say, collaboration on the part of Kastner in the
>>extermination
>>of the Jews. And that they better coincide with bad leadership both
>>from a
>>moral and public point of view…
>>
>>In my opinion, one can say outright that if you find out that Kastner
>>collaborated with the enemy because he did not disclose to the people
>>who
>>boarded the trains in Kluj that they were being led to extermination,
>>one
>>has to put on trial today Danzig, Herman, Hanzi, Brand, Revis and
>>Marton,
>>and many more leaders and half-leaders who gagged themselves in an
>>hour of
>>crisis and did not inform others of what was known to them and did not
>>warn
>>and did not cry out of the coming danger….
>>
>>Because of all this I cannot confirm the conclusion of the District
>>Court
>>with regard to the accusation that Greenwald has thrown on Kastner of
>>collaboration with the Nazis in exterminating the Jewish people in
>>Hungary
>>during the last war.” (Hecht, ibid., pp.270-2)
>>
>>In other words, the Court approved of Kastner’s contempt for the
>>Hungarian
>>Jews and could not allow him to be condemned for doing exactly what
>>many
>>other Zionist leaders had half-leaders did – concealing their
>>knowledge of
>>the Nazi extermination plans so that Jews would board the trains to
>>Auschwitz peacefully while their Zionist ‘leaders’ boarded a different
>>train for Palestine.
>>
>>The most precise answer to this sickening judgement of Judge Chesin is
>>
>>provided in the minority judgement of Supreme Court Judge Moshe
>>Silberg:
>>
>>I do not say that he was the only man who possessed information among
>>the
>>leaders. It is quite possible that somebody else as well does not have
>>a
>>clear conscience with regards to this concealment. But we are dealing
>>here
>>with the guilt of Kastner and we do not have to make judgements on the
>>guilt of others….
>>
>>The declaration of the learned Attorney General therefore shrinks into
>>an
>>opinion….’Kastner was convinced and believed that there was no ray
>>of
>>hope for the Jews of Hungary, almost for none of them, and as he, as a
>>result of his personal despair, did not disclose the secret of the
>>extermination in order not to endanger or frustrate the rescue of the
>>few –
>>therefore he acted in good faith and should not be accused of
>>collaborating
>>with the Nazis in expediting the extermination of the Jews, even
>>though, in
>>fact, he brought about its result.’
>>
>>I am compelled to state that it is very difficult for me to conceive
>>such
>>an intention. Is this good faith? Can a single man, even in
>>cooperation
>>with some of his friends, yield to despair on behalf and without the
>>knowledge of 800,000 other people? This is, in my opinion, the
>>decisive
>>consideration in the problem facing us. The charge emanating from the
>>testimony of the witnesses against Kastner is that had they known of
>>the
>>Auschwitz secret, then thousands or tens of thousands would have been
>>able
>>to save their lives by local, partial, specific or indirect rescue
>>operations like local revolts, resistance, escapes, hidings,
>>concealment of
>>children with Gentiles, forging of documents, ransom money, bribery,
>>etc. –
>>and when this is the case and when one deals with many hundreds of
>>thousands, how does a human being, a mortal, reject with complete
>>certainty
>>and with an extreme ‘no’ the efficiency of all the many and varied
>>rescue
>>ways? How can he examine the tens of thousands of possibilities? Does
>>he
>>decide instead of God? Indeed, he who can act with such a usurpation
>>of the
>>last hope of hundreds of thousands is not entitled to claim good faith
>>as
>>his defense. The penetrating question quo warrento is a good answer to
>>a
>>claim of such good faith…
>>
>>If the superintendent of a big hospital lets thousands of sick people
>>die
>>so that he may devote himself to the sure rescue of one soul, he will
>>come
>>out guilty, at least morally, even if it is proven that he as an
>>individual
>>erroneously thought that there was no hope of saving the other
>>patients. He
>>is a collaborator with the angel of death.
>>
>>Either a complete atrophy of the soul or a blind involvement with
>>complete
>>loss of senses and proportion in his small but personal rescue
>>operation
>>could bring a man to such a gigantic, hazardous play.
>>
>>And if all this is not enough to annul the claim of good faith which
>>was
>>put before us on behalf of Kastner by the Attorney General, then
>>Kastner
>>himself comes and annuls it altogether. Not only did he never make
>>this
>>claim, but his own words prove the contrary. He writes in his report
>>to the
>>Jewish Agency that the Committee sent emissaries to many ghettos in
>>the
>>countryside and pleaded with them to organize escapes and to refuse to
>>board the trains. And though the story of these pleadings is untrue,
>>and
>>the silence of Kastner in Kluj is proven, the very uttering of these
>>statements entirely contradicts the claim that Kastner had concealed
>>the
>>news about the fate of the ghetto inmates in good faith and only as a
>>result of his complete despairing of the chances of escaping or
>>resisting
>>the Germans. You can not claim at the same time helplessness and
>>activity.
>>Anyway, such a claim is not convincing…
>>
>>We can sum up with three facts:
>>
>>A. That the Nazis didn’t want to have a great revolt – nor small
>>revolts,
>>and their passion was to have the extermination machine working
>>smoothly without resistance. This fact was known to Kastner from
>>the best source – from Eichmann himself – And he had additional proofs
>>of
>>that when he witnessed all the illusionary and misleading tactics
>>which
>>were being taken by the Nazis from the first moment of occupation.
>>
>>B. That the most efficient means to paralyze the resistance with – or
>>the
>>escape of a victim is to conceal from him the plot of the coming
>>murder.
>>This fact is known to every man and one does not need any proof of
>>evidence for this.
>>
>>C. That he, Kastner, in order to carry out the rescue plan for the few
>>prominents, fulfilled knowingly and without good faith the said desire
>>of
>>the Nazis, thus expediting the work of exterminating the masses.
>>
>>And also the rescue of Becher by Kastner…He who is capable of
>>rescuing
>>this Becher from hanging proves that the atrocities of this great war
>>criminal were not so horrifying or despicable in his eyes…I couldn’t
>>base
>>the main guilt of Kastner on this fact had it been alone, but when it
>>is
>>attached even from afar to the whole scene of events it throws
>>retroactive
>>light on the whole affair and serves as a dozen proofs of our
>>conclusion.”(Supreme Court Judge, Moshe Silberg, 1957)
>>
>>
>>If that had been the majority judgement, one could say that whatever
>>their
>>attitudes to the Arabs, and whatever their past behaviour might have
>>been
>>under pressure, the Zionist leadership today did not advocate
>>collaboration
>>with the Nazis.
>>
>>But Judge Silberg’s judgement was that of a minority.
>>
>>The Kastner case is therefore not an alleged episode in past history.
>>
>>It is a continuing controversy in which the top Zionist leadership of
>>Israel stand indicted of continuing to publicly defend collaboration
>>with
>>the Nazis in the extermination of Jews.
>>
>>Despite the unanimous finding of the Supreme Court of Israel that Kurt
>>Becher was a major war criminal, the Jewish Agency (World Zionist
>>Organization) refused to withdraw the fraudulent certificate Kastner
>>gave
>>on their behalf, which saved Becher from hanging, and allowed him to
>>remain
>>a free man in West Germany, the head of several corporations and with
>>an
>>estimated personal worth of $30 million.
>>
>>Becher has even used his certification as a ‘good’ SS officer to give
>>evidence in support of his associates at other war crimes trials in
>>West
>>Germany.
>>
>>Since the prosecution, representing the Israeli Government agreed with
>>the
>>Supreme Court that Becher was a major war criminal, one can only
>>pressure
>>that the Israeli Government did not want him put on trial for fear of
>>what
>>might come out.
>>
>>Likewise, none of Kastner’s associates on the Zionist Relief and
>>Rescue
>>Committee or his bosses in the Jewish Agency have ever been put on
>>trial .
>>Let alone the hundreds of ‘prominents’ who helped Kastner to reassure
>>the
>>Hungarian Jews that they were going to Kenyermeze and not Auschwitz,
>>in exchange for tickets on the one train that took them eventually to
>>Palestine.
>>
>>As for Kastner himself, he will cause no further embarrassment to the
>>Zionist leadership with his undisputed claims that everything he did
>>was
>>approved by the Jewish Agency (World Zionist Organization) leadership
>>in
>>Palestine. He is ‘now dead’. Or putting it less delicately, on 3 March
>>1957
>>he was shot by Zeev Eckstein – immediately after the appeal hearings
>>were
>>concluded, and before the judgement ‘rehabilitating’ him was
>>delivered.
>>Eckstein was not a Hungarian avenger. He was a paid undercover agent
>>of the
>>Israeli secret service. (Hecht, ibid., p.208). Another ‘fantastic
>>allegation’ no doubt; but admitted in court during the murder trial).
sven88
From [email protected] Fri Oct 16 15:01:40 EDT 1998
Article: 275319 of alt.revisionism
Path: hub.org!hub.org!news.gv.tsc.tdk.com!news.cmc.net!spamkiller2.cwix.com!newsfeed.cwix.com!198.138.0.5!newshub.northeast.verio.net!cyclone.news.idirect.com!island.idirect.com!news.agtac.net!news.telusplanet.net!news
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: soc.culture.palestine,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.revisionism,soc.culture.islam,soc.culture.malaysia,soc.culture.australian,soc.culture.polish
Subject: Re: Nazi — Jewish Zionist Collaboration
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 14:19:12 GMT
Organization: TELUS Communications Inc.
Lines: 830
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: edtnpx08-port-58.agt.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451
Xref: hub.org soc.culture.palestine:53130 alt.politics.nationalism.white:180685 alt.revisionism:275319 soc.culture.islam:4198 soc.culture.malaysia:196678 soc.culture.australian:78655 soc.culture.polish:123521
On Thu, 10 Sep 1998 22:56:46 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
trying to stimulate more interest in this topic,
On Sat, 15 Aug 1998 18:45:47 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
>On Fri, 03 Jul 1998 15:00:35 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>On 3 Jul 1998 06:38:05 GMT,
>>
Orest Slepokura
…fully documented *Perfidy* blatantly exposes the degree to which
Zionists cooperated in the persecution of their fellow Jews…
Here is more evidence of NAZI-ZIONIST JEW COLLABORATION.
The Kastner Case
The most notorious case of Nazi-Zionist collaboration is that
involving a Jew – Rudolf Kastner.
Most Jewish people have never heard of Rudolf Kastner. Those who have,
are generally under the impression that there is some ‘controversy’
about negotiations he undertook for ‘the purchase of Jewish lives for
money and military equipment’, but that he was ‘fully rehabilitated’
by the Supreme Court of Israel.
The Accusations
Briefly, the accusations against Kastner are as follows:
Dr. Rudolf Verba, a Doctor of Science now serving at the British
Medical Research Council, was one of the few escapees from Auschwitz.
In his memoirs published in February, 1961, in the London Daily
Herald, he wrote:
I am a Jew. In spite of that – indeed because of that – I accuse
certain Jewish leaders of one of the most ghastly deeds of the war.
This group of quislings knew what was happening to their brethren in
Hitler’s gas chambers and bought their own lives with the price of
silence.
Among them was Dr. Kastner, leader of the council which spoke for all
Jews in Hungary. While I was prisoner number 44070 at Auschwitz – the
number is still on my arm – I compiled careful statistics of the
exterminations.
I took these terrible statistics with me when I escaped in 1944 and I
was able to give Hungarian Zionist leaders three weeks notice that
Eichmann planned to send a million of their Jews to his gas
chambers…Kastner went to Eichmann and told him, ‘I know of your
plans; spare some Jews of my choice and I shall keep quiet.’
Eichmann not only agreed, but dressed Kastner up in S.S. uniform and
took him to Belsen to trace some of his friends. Nor did the sordid
bargaining end there. Kastner paid Eichmann several thousand dollars.
With this little fortune, Eichmann was able to buy his way to freedom
when Germany collapsed, to set himself up in the Argentine…(Ben
Hecht, Perfidy, pp261-2)
These accusations are confirmed by the ‘Eichmann Confessions’
published in Life magazine, 28 November and 5 December 1960:
I resolved to show how well a job could be done when the commander
stands 100% behind it. By shipping the Jews off in a lightning
operation, I wanted to set an example for future campaigns
elsewhere…In obedience to Himmler’s directive I now concentrated on
negotiations with the Jewish political officials in Budapest…Among
them Dr. Rudolph Kastner, authorized representative of the Zionist
Movement. This Dr. Kastner was a young man about my age, an ice-cold
lawyer and a fanatical Zionist. He agreed to help keep the Jews from
resisting deportation – and even keep order in the collection camps –
if I could close my eyes and let a few hundred or a few thousand young
Jews emigrate illegally to Palestine.
It was a good bargain. For keeping order in the camps, the price was
not too high for me.
We trusted each other perfectly. When he was with me, Kastner smoke
cigarets as though he was in a coffeehouse. While we talked he would
smoke one aromatic cigaret after another, taking them from a silver
case and lighting them with a silver lighter. With his great polish
and reserve he would have made an ideal Gestapo officer himself.
Dr. Kastner’s main concern was to make it possible for a select group
of Hungarian Jews to emigrate to Israel…
>>As a matter of fact, there was a very strong similarity between our
>>attitudes in the S.S. and the viewpoint of these immensely idealistic
>>Zionist leaders. I believe that Kastner would have sacrificed a
>>thousand
>>or a hundred thousand of his blood to achieve his political goal ‘You
>>can
>>have the others’, he would say, ‘but let me have this group here’. And
>>because Kastner rendered us a great service by helping keep the
>>deportation
>>camps peaceful, I would let his groups escape. After all, I was not
>>concerned with small groups of a thousand or so Jews…That was the
>>’gentleman’s agreement’ I had with Kastner (Hecht, ibid., p.260-61)
>>
>>Quite clearly these accusations, do not relate merely to ‘the purchase
>>of
>>Jewish lives for money and military equipment’.
>>
>>Are the accusations against Kastner true?
>>
>>According to the Government of Israel, they are a lie. When Malchiel
>>Greenwald, a strongly pro-Zionist Israeli citizen published these
>>accusations against Kastner, the Israeli Government did rather more
>>than
>>demand that his views should not be broadcast. Because a prominent
>>Zionist
>>official (Dr. Kastner was a spokesman for the Ministry of Trade and
>>Industry) was involved, the Attorney General of the State of Israel
>>prosecuted Greenwald for criminal libel.
>>
>> The Verdict
>>
>>Let the verdict of Judge Benjamin Halevi (who later became one of the
>>panel
>>of three judges that tried Eichmann) in Israel’s District Court of
>>Jerusalem speak for itself, given in criminal case No. 124 of 1953.
>>The
>>Attorney General v. Malchiel Greenwald. This material should be
>>studied
>>carefully.
>>
>>The masses of Jews from Hungary’s ghettos obediently boarded the
>>deportation trains without knowing their fate. They were full of
>>confidence
>>in the false information that they were being transferred to
>>Kenyermeze.
>>
>>The Nazis could not have misled the masses of Jews so conclusively had
>>they
>>not spread their false information through Jewish channels.
>>
>>The Jews of the ghettos would not have trusted the Nazi or Hungarian
>>rulers. But they had trust in their Jewish leaders. Eichmann and
>>others
>>used this known fact as part of their calculated plan to mislead the
>>Jews.
>>They were able to deport the Jews to their extermination by the help
>>of
>>Jewish leaders.
>>
>>The false information was spread by the Jewish leaders. The local
>>leaders
>>of the Jews of Kluj and Nodvarod knew that other leaders were
>>spreading
>>such false information and did not protest.
>>
>>Those of the Jews who tried to warn their friends of the truth were
>>persecuted by the Jewish leaders in charge of the local ‘rescue work’.
>>
>>The trust of the Jews in the misleading information and their lack of
>>knowledge that their wives, children and themselves were about to be
>>deported to the gas chambers of Auschwitz led the victims to remain
>>quiescent in their ghettos. It seduced them into not resisting or
>>hampering
>>the deportation orders.
>>
>>Dozens of thousands of Jews were guarded in their ghettos by a few
>>dozen
>>police. Yet even vigorous young Jews made no attempt to overpower
>>these few
>>guards and escape to nearby Rumania. No resistance activities to the
>>deportations were organized in these ghettos.
>>
>>And the Jewish leaders did everything in their power to soothe the
>>Jews in
>>the ghettos and to prevent such resistance activities.
>>
>>The same Jews who spread in Kluj and Nodvarod the false rumor of
>>Kenyermeze, or confirmed it, the same public leaders who did not warn
>>their
>>own people against the misleading statements, the same Jewish leaders
>>who
>>did not organize any resistance or any sabotage of
>>deportations…these
>>same leaders did not join the people of their community in their ride
>>to
>>Auschwitz, but were all included in the Rescue train.
>>
>>The Nazi organizers of extermination and the perpetrators of
>>extermination
>>permitted Rudolf Kastner and the members of the Jewish Council in
>>Budapest
>>to save themselves, their relatives, and friends. The Nazis did this
>>as a
>>means of making the local Jewish leaders, whom they favoured,
>>dependent on
>>the Nazi regime, dependent on its good will during the time of its
>>fatal
>>deportation schedule. In short, the Nazis succeeded in bringing the
>>Jewish
>>leaders into collaboration with the Nazis at the time of the
>>catastrophe.
>>
>>The Nazi chiefs knew that the Zionists were a most vital element in
>>Jewry
>>and the most trusted by the Jews.
>>
>>The personality of Rudolph Kastner made him a convenient catspaw for
>>Eichmann and his clique, to draw into collaboration and make their
>>task
>>easier.
>>
>>The question here is not, as stated by the Attorney General in his
>>summation, whether members of the Jewish Rescue Committee were or were
>>not capable of fulfilling their duty without the patronage of the S.S.
>>
>>chiefs.
>>It is obvious that without such S.S. Nazi patronage the Jewish Rescue
>>Committee could not have existed, and could have acted only as an
>>underground.
>>
>>The question is, as put by the lawyer for the defense, why were the
>>Nazis
>>interested in the existence of the Rescue Committee? Why did the S.S.
>>chiefs make every effort to encourage the existence of the Jewish
>>Rescue
>>Committee? Did the exterminators turn into rescuers?
>>
>>The same question rises concerning the rescue of prominent Jews by
>>these
>>German killers of Jews. Was the rescue of such Jews a part of the
>>extermination plan of the killers ?
>>
>>The support given by the extermination leaders to Kastner’s Rescue
>>Committee proves that indeed there was a place for Kastner and his
>>friends
>>in their Final Solution for the Jews of Hungary – their total
>>annihilation.
>>
>>The Nazi’s patronage of Kastner, and their agreement to let him save
>>six
>>hundred prominent Jews, were part of the plan to exterminate the Jews.
>>Kastner was given a chance to add a few more to that number. The bait
>>attracted him. The opportunity of rescuing prominent people appealed
>>to him
>>greatly. He considered the rescue of the most important Jews as a
>>great
>>personal success and a success for Zionism. It was a success that
>>would
>>also justify his conduct – his political negotiation with Nazis and
>>the
>>Nazi patronage of his committee.
>>
>>When Kastner received this present from the Nazis, Kastner sold his
>>soul to
>>the German Satan.
>>
>>The sacrifice of the vital interests of the majority of the Jews, in
>>order
>>to rescue the prominents, was the basic element in the agreement
>>between
>>Kastner and the Nazis. This agreement fixed the division of the nation
>>into
>>two unequal camps: a small fragment of prominents, whom the Nazis
>>promised
>>Kastner to save, on the one hand, and the great majority or Hungarian
>>Jews
>>whom the Nazis designated for death, on the other hand. An imperative
>>condition for the rescue of the first camp by the Nazis was that
>>Kastner
>>will not interfere in the action of the Nazis against the other camp
>>and
>>will not hamper them in its extermination. Kastner fulfilled this
>>condition. He concentrated his efforts in the rescue of the prominents
>>and
>>treated the camp of the doomed as if they had already been wiped out
>>from
>>the book of the living.
>>
>>One cannot estimate the damage caused by Kastner’s collaboration and
>>put
>>down the number of victims which it cost Hungarian Jews. These are not
>>only
>>the thousands of Jews in Nodvarod or any other community in the border
>>area, Jews who could escape through the border, had the chief of their
>>rescue committee fulfilled his duty toward them.
>>
>>All of Kastner’s answers in his final testimony were a constant effort
>>to
>>evade this truth.
>>
>>Kastner has tried to escape through every crack he could find in the
>>wall
>>of evidence. When one crack was sealed in his face, he darted quickly
>>to
>>another. (Judgement of Judge Benjamin Halevi, Criminal Case 124/53;
>>Attorney General v. Malchiel Greenwald, District Court, Jerusalem,
>>June 22,
>>1955).
>>
>>Judge Halevi reverts to the meeting of Kastner with the S.S. officers
>>Becher and Rudolf Hoess, commandant of Auschwitz at the time when the
>>’new
>>line’ of rescuing Jews was revealed by Hoess. He says:
>>
>>From this gathering in Budapest, it is obvious that the ‘new line’
>>stretched from Himmler to Hoess, from Jutner to Becher and Krumey.
>>
>>According to Kastner, however, these Nazis were all active in rescuing
>>Jews.
>>
>>This meeting of these important German guests in Budapest exposes the
>>’rescue’ work of Becher in its true light. It reveals also the extent
>>of
>>Kastner’s involvement in the inner circle of the chief German war
>>criminals.
>>
>>Just as the Nazi war criminals knew they needed an alibi and hoped to
>>achieve it by the rescue of a few Jews at the eleventh hour, so
>>Kastner
>>also needed an alibi for himself.
>>
>>Collaboration between the Jewish Agency Rescue Committee and the
>>Exterminators of the Jews was solidified in Budapest and Vienna.
>>Kastner’s
>>duties were part and parcel of the general duties of the S.S.
>>
>>In addition to its Extermination Department and Looting Department,
>>the
>>Nazi S.S. opened a Rescue Department headed by Kastner.
>>
>>All these extermination, robbery and rescue activities of the S.S.
>>were
>>coordinated under the management of Heinrich Himmler”.
>>
>>Judge Halevi continues:
>>
>>Kastner perjured himself knowingly in his testimony before this court
>>when
>>he denied he had interceded in Becher’s behalf. Moreover, he concealed
>>the
>>important fact that he interceded for Becher in the name of the Jewish
>>Agency and the Jewish World Congress.
>>
>>As to the contents of Kastner’s affidavit, it was enough for the
>>defense to
>>provide Becher was a war criminal. It was up to the prosecution to
>>remove
>>Becher from this status, if they wished to negate the affidavit.
>>
>>The Attorney General admitted in his summation that Becher was a war
>>criminal.
>>
>>The lies in the contents of Kastner’s affidavit, the lies in his
>>testimony
>>concerning the document, and Kastner’s knowing participation in the
>>activities of Nazi war criminals, and his participation in the last
>>minute
>>fake rescue activities – all these combine to show one overwhelming
>>truth –
>>that this affidavit was not given in good faith.
>>
>>Kastner knew well, as he himself testified, that Becher had never
>>stood up
>>against the stream of Jewish extermination, as Kastner has declared in
>>the
>>affidavit.
>>
>>The aims of Becher and his superior, Himmler, were not to save Jews
>>but to
>>serve the Nazi regime with full compliance. These is not truth and no
>>good
>>faith in Kastner’s testimony, ‘I never doubted for one moment the good
>>intention of good Becher’.
>>
>>It is clear that the positive recommendation by Kastner, not only in
>>his
>>own name but also in the name of the Jewish Agency and the Jewish
>>World
>>Congress was of decisive importance for Becher. Kastner did not
>>exaggerate
>>when he said that Becher was released by the Allies because of his
>>personal
>>intervention. The lies in the affidavit of Kastner and the
>>contradictions
>>and various pretexts, which were proven to be lies, were sufficient to
>>annul the value of his statements and to prove that there was no good
>>faith
>>in his testimony in favor of this German war criminal. Kastner’s
>>affidavit
>>in favor of Becher was a wilfully false affidavit given in favor of a
>>war
>>criminal to save him from trial and punishment in Nuremberg.
>>
>>Therefore, the defendant, Malchiel Greenwald, was correct in his
>>accusations against Rudolf Kastner in the first, second and fourth of
>>his
>>statements.”
>>
>>Judge Halevi’s verdict found Malchiel Greenwald generally innocent of
>>libel
>>against Kastner, but fined him one Israeli pound for the one unproved
>>accusation – that Kastner had actually collected money from his Nazi
>>partners for his aide to their slaughter program. The judge also
>>ordered
>>the Government of Israel to pay Greenwald two hundred Israeli pounds
>>as
>>court costs.
>>
>>If the story ended there, it would only prove conclusively that the
>>individual Kastner was a collaborator and the Israeli Government had
>>attempted to defend him, although facts brought out in the trial
>>pointed to
>>much more than that.
>>
>>But the story does not end there.
>>
>>The Reaction
>>The Communist Party newspaper Kol Ha’am (Voice of the People) wrote:
>>
>>All those whose relatives were butchered by the Germans in Hungary
>>know now
>>clearly that Jewish hands helped the mass murder” (23 June 1955)
>>
>>But public opinion was not quite unanimous. The problem with bringing
>>Kastner and his associates to trial was that his associates were the
>>Government of Israel.
>>
>>As the evening paper *Yedi’ot Aharonot* said:
>>
>>If Kastner is brought to trial the entire government faces a total
>>political and national collapse – as a result of what such a trial may
>>disclose.” (23 June 1955)
>>
>>Accordingly, the Government of Israel did not put Kastner on trial,
>>instead
>>it filed an appeal against the acquittal of Greenwald for criminal
>>libel.
>>
>>At 11 P.M. the verdict was given. At 11 A.M. next morning the
>>government
>>announces the defense of Kastner will be renewed – an appeal filed.
>>What
>>exemplary expediency! Since when does this government possess such
>>lawyer-genius who can weigh in one night the legal chances of an
>>appeal on
>>a detailed, complex verdict of three hundred pages?
>>
>>At the appeal hearings before the Supreme Court, the Attorney General
>>of
>>Israel, Chaim Cohen, explained clearly why the Government of Israel
>>was
>>defending Kastner so strongly:
>>
>>The man Kastner does not stand here as a private individual. He was a
>>recognized representative, official or non-official of the Jewish
>>National
>>Institutes in Palestine and of the Zionist Executive; and I come here
>>in
>>this court to defend the representative of our national institutions.”
>>(Hecht, p. 268)
>>
>>The truth of this statement cannot be denied. Kastner’s collaboration
>>was
>>not that of an individual. It was the collaboration of the Zionist
>>leadership.
>>
>>So far, it has only been established that the Government of Israel
>>continued to support a Nazi collaborator after the facts about his
>>collaboration had been conclusively established in an Israeli court.
>>But
>>the story gets worse.
>>
>>The Supreme Court of Israel unanimously found that Becher was indeed a
>>
>>Nazi war criminal and that Kastner had without justification, and in
>>the
>>name
>>of the Jewish Agency, helped Becher to escape justice. On this point
>>Greenwald was acquitted of libel and Kastner was not ‘fully
>>rehabilitated’.
>>
>>The Supreme Court also accepted the facts established in the lower
>>court –
>>that Kastner deliberately concealed the truth about Auschwitz from the
>>majority of Hungarian Jews in exchange for Nazi permission to take a
>>thousand or so to Palestine. Again, Kastner was far from being ‘fully
>>rehabilitated’.
>>
>>
>>But now comes the really nasty bit. After unanimously acknowledging
>>these
>>facts, the Supreme Court of Israel, by a majority of three to two,
>>found
>>that Kastner’s actions were morally justifiable and convicted
>>Greenwald of
>>criminal libel for calling this ‘collaboration’.
>>
>>Kastner’s actions only proved that he was a Nazi collaborator. It is
>>the
>>defense of these actions by the Government and Courts of Israel that
>>prove
>>conclusively that Zionism approves of Nazi collaboration.
>>
>>The majority of the Supreme Court of Israel did not rehabilitate
>>Kastner.
>>They joined him.
>>
>>Let us read from the majority judgement of Supreme Court Judge Shlomo
>>Chesin:
>>
>>….What point was there in telling the people boarding the trains in
>>Kluj,
>>people struck by fate and persecuted, as to what awaits them at the
>>end of
>>their journey…Kastner spoke in detail of the situation, saying, ‘The
>>Hungarian Jew was a branch which long ago dried up on the tree’. This
>>vivid
>>description coincides with the testimony of another witness about the
>>Hungarian Jews, ‘This was a big Jewish community in Hungary, without
>>any
>>ideological Jewish backbone’ (Moshe Shweiger, a Kastner aide in
>>Budapest,
>>protocol 465).
>>
>>I fully agree with my friend, Judge Agranot, when he states that, ‘The
>>Jews
>>of Hungary, including those in the countryside, were not capable,
>>neither
>>physically nor mentally, to carry out resistance operations with force
>>against the deportation scheme’…From this point of view no rescue
>>achievement could have resulted by disclosing the Auschwitz news to
>>the
>>Jewish leaders there, and this is a consideration which on can
>>properly
>>conclude that Kastner had in front of his eyes.
>>
>>….And I take one more step. I am certain that the silence of Kastner
>>when
>>he arrived in Kluj was premeditated and calculated and did not result
>>from
>>his great despair because of the helplessness of the Jewish community.
>>Even
>>then, I say, this is still not considered wilful collaboration and
>>assistance in the extermination, because all the signs indicate that
>>Kastner’s efforts were aimed at rescue and rescue on a big scale…And
>>towards the end I take one last step. In doing so I go very far and
>>say
>>that even if Kastner ordered himself to keep silent knowingly, in
>>submission to the strong will of the Nazis, in order to save a few
>>Jews
>>from Hell – this is still no proof that he stained his hands by
>>collaborating with the enemies of his people and carrying out their
>>plan to
>>exterminate most of the Jewish community in Hungary.
>>
>>Even if, through these activities of his – or rather, his omission –
>>the
>>extermination became easier. And as to the moral issue, the question
>>is not
>>whether a man is allowed to kill many in order to save a few, or
>>vice-versa. The question is altogether in another sphere and should be
>>defined as follows: A man is aware that a whole community is awaiting
>>its
>>doom. He is allowed to make efforts to save a few, although part of
>>his
>>efforts involve concealment of truth from the many or should he
>>disclose
>>the truth to many though it is his best opinion that this way
>>everybody
>>will perish. I think that the answer is clear. What good will the
>>blood of
>>the few bring if everybody is to perish?…As I said, I am not arguing
>>with
>>the basic factual findings of the learned President of the Jewish
>>District
>>Court (Judge Halevi) but it seems to me, with all due respect, that
>>his
>>findings do not, as of necessity, demand the conclusion he has arrived
>>at.
>>That is to say, collaboration on the part of Kastner in the
>>extermination
>>of the Jews. And that they better coincide with bad leadership both
>>from a
>>moral and public point of view…
>>
>>In my opinion, one can say outright that if you find out that Kastner
>>collaborated with the enemy because he did not disclose to the people
>>who
>>boarded the trains in Kluj that they were being led to extermination,
>>one
>>has to put on trial today Danzig, Herman, Hanzi, Brand, Revis and
>>Marton,
>>and many more leaders and half-leaders who gagged themselves in an
>>hour of
>>crisis and did not inform others of what was known to them and did not
>>warn
>>and did not cry out of the coming danger….
>>
>>Because of all this I cannot confirm the conclusion of the District
>>Court
>>with regard to the accusation that Greenwald has thrown on Kastner of
>>collaboration with the Nazis in exterminating the Jewish people in
>>Hungary
>>during the last war.” (Hecht, ibid., pp.270-2)
>>
>>In other words, the Court approved of Kastner’s contempt for the
>>Hungarian
>>Jews and could not allow him to be condemned for doing exactly what
>>many
>>other Zionist leaders had half-leaders did – concealing their
>>knowledge of
>>the Nazi extermination plans so that Jews would board the trains to
>>Auschwitz peacefully while their Zionist ‘leaders’ boarded a different
>>train for Palestine.
>>
>>The most precise answer to this sickening judgement of Judge Chesin is
>>
>>provided in the minority judgement of Supreme Court Judge Moshe
>>Silberg:
>>
>>I do not say that he was the only man who possessed information among
>>the
>>leaders. It is quite possible that somebody else as well does not have
>>a
>>clear conscience with regards to this concealment. But we are dealing
>>here
>>with the guilt of Kastner and we do not have to make judgements on the
>>guilt of others….
>>
>>The declaration of the learned Attorney General therefore shrinks into
>>an
>>opinion….’Kastner was convinced and believed that there was no ray
>>of
>>hope for the Jews of Hungary, almost for none of them, and as he, as a
>>result of his personal despair, did not disclose the secret of the
>>extermination in order not to endanger or frustrate the rescue of the
>>few –
>>therefore he acted in good faith and should not be accused of
>>collaborating
>>with the Nazis in expediting the extermination of the Jews, even
>>though, in
>>fact, he brought about its result.’
>>
>>I am compelled to state that it is very difficult for me to conceive
>>such
>>an intention. Is this good faith? Can a single man, even in
>>cooperation
>>with some of his friends, yield to despair on behalf and without the
>>knowledge of 800,000 other people? This is, in my opinion, the
>>decisive
>>consideration in the problem facing us. The charge emanating from the
>>testimony of the witnesses against Kastner is that had they known of
>>the
>>Auschwitz secret, then thousands or tens of thousands would have been
>>able
>>to save their lives by local, partial, specific or indirect rescue
>>operations like local revolts, resistance, escapes, hidings,
>>concealment of
>>children with Gentiles, forging of documents, ransom money, bribery,
>>etc. –
>>and when this is the case and when one deals with many hundreds of
>>thousands, how does a human being, a mortal, reject with complete
>>certainty
>>and with an extreme ‘no’ the efficiency of all the many and varied
>>rescue
>>ways? How can he examine the tens of thousands of possibilities? Does
>>he
>>decide instead of God? Indeed, he who can act with such a usurpation
>>of the
>>last hope of hundreds of thousands is not entitled to claim good faith
>>as
>>his defense. The penetrating question quo warrento is a good answer to
>>a
>>claim of such good faith…
>>
>>If the superintendent of a big hospital lets thousands of sick people
>>die
>>so that he may devote himself to the sure rescue of one soul, he will
>>come
>>out guilty, at least morally, even if it is proven that he as an
>>individual
>>erroneously thought that there was no hope of saving the other
>>patients. He
>>is a collaborator with the angel of death.
>>
>>Either a complete atrophy of the soul or a blind involvement with
>>complete
>>loss of senses and proportion in his small but personal rescue
>>operation
>>could bring a man to such a gigantic, hazardous play.
>>
>>And if all this is not enough to annul the claim of good faith which
>>was
>>put before us on behalf of Kastner by the Attorney General, then
>>Kastner
>>himself comes and annuls it altogether. Not only did he never make
>>this
>>claim, but his own words prove the contrary. He writes in his report
>>to the
>>Jewish Agency that the Committee sent emissaries to many ghettos in
>>the
>>countryside and pleaded with them to organize escapes and to refuse to
>>board the trains. And though the story of these pleadings is untrue,
>>and
>>the silence of Kastner in Kluj is proven, the very uttering of these
>>statements entirely contradicts the claim that Kastner had concealed
>>the
>>news about the fate of the ghetto inmates in good faith and only as a
>>result of his complete despairing of the chances of escaping or
>>resisting
>>the Germans. You can not claim at the same time helplessness and
>>activity.
>>Anyway, such a claim is not convincing…
>>
>>We can sum up with three facts:
>>
>>A. That the Nazis didn’t want to have a great revolt – nor small
>>revolts,
>>and their passion was to have the extermination machine working
>>smoothly without resistance. This fact was known to Kastner from
>>the best source – from Eichmann himself – And he had additional proofs
>>of
>>that when he witnessed all the illusionary and misleading tactics
>>which
>>were being taken by the Nazis from the first moment of occupation.
>>
>>B. That the most efficient means to paralyze the resistance with – or
>>the
>>escape of a victim is to conceal from him the plot of the coming
>>murder.
>>This fact is known to every man and one does not need any proof of
>>evidence for this.
>>
>>C. That he, Kastner, in order to carry out the rescue plan for the few
>>prominents, fulfilled knowingly and without good faith the said desire
>>of
>>the Nazis, thus expediting the work of exterminating the masses.
>>
>>And also the rescue of Becher by Kastner…He who is capable of
>>rescuing
>>this Becher from hanging proves that the atrocities of this great war
>>criminal were not so horrifying or despicable in his eyes…I couldn’t
>>base
>>the main guilt of Kastner on this fact had it been alone, but when it
>>is
>>attached even from afar to the whole scene of events it throws
>>retroactive
>>light on the whole affair and serves as a dozen proofs of our
>>conclusion.”(Supreme Court Judge, Moshe Silberg, 1957)
>>
>>
>>If that had been the majority judgement, one could say that whatever
>>their
>>attitudes to the Arabs, and whatever their past behaviour might have
>>been
>>under pressure, the Zionist leadership today did not advocate
>>collaboration
>>with the Nazis.
>>
>>But Judge Silberg’s judgement was that of a minority.
>>
>>The Kastner case is therefore not an alleged episode in past history.
>>
>>It is a continuing controversy in which the top Zionist leadership of
>>Israel stand indicted of continuing to publicly defend collaboration
>>with
>>the Nazis in the extermination of Jews.
>>
>>Despite the unanimous finding of the Supreme Court of Israel that Kurt
>>Becher was a major war criminal, the Jewish Agency (World Zionist
>>Organization) refused to withdraw the fraudulent certificate Kastner
>>gave
>>on their behalf, which saved Becher from hanging, and allowed him to
>>remain
>>a free man in West Germany, the head of several corporations and with
>>an
>>estimated personal worth of $30 million.
>>
>>Becher has even used his certification as a ‘good’ SS officer to give
>>evidence in support of his associates at other war crimes trials in
>>West
>>Germany.
>>
>>Since the prosecution, representing the Israeli Government agreed with
>>the
>>Supreme Court that Becher was a major war criminal, one can only
>>pressure
>>that the Israeli Government did not want him put on trial for fear of
>>what
>>might come out.
>>
>>Likewise, none of Kastner’s associates on the Zionist Relief and
>>Rescue
>>Committee or his bosses in the Jewish Agency have ever been put on
>>trial .
>>Let alone the hundreds of ‘prominents’ who helped Kastner to reassure
>>the
>>Hungarian Jews that they were going to Kenyermeze and not Auschwitz,
>>in exchange for tickets on the one train that took them eventually to
>>Palestine.
>>
>>As for Kastner himself, he will cause no further embarrassment to the
>>Zionist leadership with his undisputed claims that everything he did
>>was
>>approved by the Jewish Agency (World Zionist Organization) leadership
>>in
>>Palestine. He is ‘now dead’. Or putting it less delicately, on 3 March
>>1957
>>he was shot by Zeev Eckstein – immediately after the appeal hearings
>>were
>>concluded, and before the judgement ‘rehabilitating’ him was
>>delivered.
>>Eckstein was not a Hungarian avenger. He was a paid undercover agent
>>of the
>>Israeli secret service. (Hecht, ibid., p.208). Another ‘fantastic
>>allegation’ no doubt; but admitted in court during the murder trial).
sven88
On Thu, 15 Oct 1998 12:39:09, [email protected] wrote:
>Readers are reminded that there is in fact no such
>organization as the “American Fascist Union”. All
>posts claiming to be from the “American Fascist Union”
>are in fact posted to Usenet by the same individual who
>was for some time using the name “Karl Zimmer”. This
>individual is most likely an operative of Nizkor.
From [email protected] Fri Oct 16 15:01:43 EDT 1998
Article: 275320 of alt.revisionism
Path: hub.org!hub.org!news.gv.tsc.tdk.com!Supernews73!supernews.com!howland.erols.net!newshub.northeast.verio.net!cyclone.news.idirect.com!island.idirect.com!news.agtac.net!news.telusplanet.net!news
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: soc.culture.palestine,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.revisionism,soc.culture.islam,soc.culture.malaysia,soc.culture.australian,soc.culture.polish
Subject: Re: Nazi — Jew Zionist Collaboration
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 14:20:57 GMT
Organization: TELUS Communications Inc.
Lines: 819
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: edtnpx08-port-58.agt.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451
Xref: hub.org soc.culture.palestine:53131 alt.politics.nationalism.white:180686 alt.revisionism:275320 soc.culture.islam:4199 soc.culture.malaysia:196682 soc.culture.australian:78656 soc.culture.polish:123522
On Thu, 15 Oct 1998 10:12:53, [email protected] wrote:
On Thu, 10 Sep 1998 22:56:46 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
trying to stimulate more interest in this topic,
On Sat, 15 Aug 1998 18:45:47 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
>On Fri, 03 Jul 1998 15:00:35 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>On 3 Jul 1998 06:38:05 GMT,
>>
Orest Slepokura
…fully documented *Perfidy* blatantly exposes the degree to which
Zionists cooperated in the persecution of their fellow Jews…
Here is more evidence of NAZI-ZIONIST JEW COLLABORATION.
The Kastner Case
The most notorious case of Nazi-Zionist collaboration is that
involving a Jew – Rudolf Kastner.
Most Jewish people have never heard of Rudolf Kastner. Those who have,
are generally under the impression that there is some ‘controversy’
about negotiations he undertook for ‘the purchase of Jewish lives for
money and military equipment’, but that he was ‘fully rehabilitated’
by the Supreme Court of Israel.
The Accusations
Briefly, the accusations against Kastner are as follows:
Dr. Rudolf Verba, a Doctor of Science now serving at the British
Medical Research Council, was one of the few escapees from Auschwitz.
In his memoirs published in February, 1961, in the London Daily
Herald, he wrote:
I am a Jew. In spite of that – indeed because of that – I accuse
certain Jewish leaders of one of the most ghastly deeds of the war.
This group of quislings knew what was happening to their brethren in
Hitler’s gas chambers and bought their own lives with the price of
silence.
Among them was Dr. Kastner, leader of the council which spoke for all
Jews in Hungary. While I was prisoner number 44070 at Auschwitz – the
number is still on my arm – I compiled careful statistics of the
exterminations.
I took these terrible statistics with me when I escaped in 1944 and I
was able to give Hungarian Zionist leaders three weeks notice that
Eichmann planned to send a million of their Jews to his gas
chambers…Kastner went to Eichmann and told him, ‘I know of your
plans; spare some Jews of my choice and I shall keep quiet.’
Eichmann not only agreed, but dressed Kastner up in S.S. uniform and
took him to Belsen to trace some of his friends. Nor did the sordid
bargaining end there. Kastner paid Eichmann several thousand dollars.
With this little fortune, Eichmann was able to buy his way to freedom
when Germany collapsed, to set himself up in the Argentine…(Ben
Hecht, Perfidy, pp261-2)
These accusations are confirmed by the ‘Eichmann Confessions’
published in Life magazine, 28 November and 5 December 1960:
I resolved to show how well a job could be done when the commander
stands 100% behind it. By shipping the Jews off in a lightning
operation, I wanted to set an example for future campaigns
elsewhere…In obedience to Himmler’s directive I now concentrated on
negotiations with the Jewish political officials in Budapest…Among
them Dr. Rudolph Kastner, authorized representative of the Zionist
Movement. This Dr. Kastner was a young man about my age, an ice-cold
lawyer and a fanatical Zionist. He agreed to help keep the Jews from
resisting deportation – and even keep order in the collection camps –
if I could close my eyes and let a few hundred or a few thousand young
Jews emigrate illegally to Palestine.
It was a good bargain. For keeping order in the camps, the price was
not too high for me.
We trusted each other perfectly. When he was with me, Kastner smoke
cigarets as though he was in a coffeehouse. While we talked he would
smoke one aromatic cigaret after another, taking them from a silver
case and lighting them with a silver lighter. With his great polish
and reserve he would have made an ideal Gestapo officer himself.
Dr. Kastner’s main concern was to make it possible for a select group
of Hungarian Jews to emigrate to Israel…
>>As a matter of fact, there was a very strong similarity between our
>>attitudes in the S.S. and the viewpoint of these immensely idealistic
>>Zionist leaders. I believe that Kastner would have sacrificed a
>>thousand
>>or a hundred thousand of his blood to achieve his political goal ‘You
>>can
>>have the others’, he would say, ‘but let me have this group here’. And
>>because Kastner rendered us a great service by helping keep the
>>deportation
>>camps peaceful, I would let his groups escape. After all, I was not
>>concerned with small groups of a thousand or so Jews…That was the
>>’gentleman’s agreement’ I had with Kastner (Hecht, ibid., p.260-61)
>>
>>Quite clearly these accusations, do not relate merely to ‘the purchase
>>of
>>Jewish lives for money and military equipment’.
>>
>>Are the accusations against Kastner true?
>>
>>According to the Government of Israel, they are a lie. When Malchiel
>>Greenwald, a strongly pro-Zionist Israeli citizen published these
>>accusations against Kastner, the Israeli Government did rather more
>>than
>>demand that his views should not be broadcast. Because a prominent
>>Zionist
>>official (Dr. Kastner was a spokesman for the Ministry of Trade and
>>Industry) was involved, the Attorney General of the State of Israel
>>prosecuted Greenwald for criminal libel.
>>
>> The Verdict
>>
>>Let the verdict of Judge Benjamin Halevi (who later became one of the
>>panel
>>of three judges that tried Eichmann) in Israel’s District Court of
>>Jerusalem speak for itself, given in criminal case No. 124 of 1953.
>>The
>>Attorney General v. Malchiel Greenwald. This material should be
>>studied
>>carefully.
>>
>>The masses of Jews from Hungary’s ghettos obediently boarded the
>>deportation trains without knowing their fate. They were full of
>>confidence
>>in the false information that they were being transferred to
>>Kenyermeze.
>>
>>The Nazis could not have misled the masses of Jews so conclusively had
>>they
>>not spread their false information through Jewish channels.
>>
>>The Jews of the ghettos would not have trusted the Nazi or Hungarian
>>rulers. But they had trust in their Jewish leaders. Eichmann and
>>others
>>used this known fact as part of their calculated plan to mislead the
>>Jews.
>>They were able to deport the Jews to their extermination by the help
>>of
>>Jewish leaders.
>>
>>The false information was spread by the Jewish leaders. The local
>>leaders
>>of the Jews of Kluj and Nodvarod knew that other leaders were
>>spreading
>>such false information and did not protest.
>>
>>Those of the Jews who tried to warn their friends of the truth were
>>persecuted by the Jewish leaders in charge of the local ‘rescue work’.
>>
>>The trust of the Jews in the misleading information and their lack of
>>knowledge that their wives, children and themselves were about to be
>>deported to the gas chambers of Auschwitz led the victims to remain
>>quiescent in their ghettos. It seduced them into not resisting or
>>hampering
>>the deportation orders.
>>
>>Dozens of thousands of Jews were guarded in their ghettos by a few
>>dozen
>>police. Yet even vigorous young Jews made no attempt to overpower
>>these few
>>guards and escape to nearby Rumania. No resistance activities to the
>>deportations were organized in these ghettos.
>>
>>And the Jewish leaders did everything in their power to soothe the
>>Jews in
>>the ghettos and to prevent such resistance activities.
>>
>>The same Jews who spread in Kluj and Nodvarod the false rumor of
>>Kenyermeze, or confirmed it, the same public leaders who did not warn
>>their
>>own people against the misleading statements, the same Jewish leaders
>>who
>>did not organize any resistance or any sabotage of
>>deportations…these
>>same leaders did not join the people of their community in their ride
>>to
>>Auschwitz, but were all included in the Rescue train.
>>
>>The Nazi organizers of extermination and the perpetrators of
>>extermination
>>permitted Rudolf Kastner and the members of the Jewish Council in
>>Budapest
>>to save themselves, their relatives, and friends. The Nazis did this
>>as a
>>means of making the local Jewish leaders, whom they favoured,
>>dependent on
>>the Nazi regime, dependent on its good will during the time of its
>>fatal
>>deportation schedule. In short, the Nazis succeeded in bringing the
>>Jewish
>>leaders into collaboration with the Nazis at the time of the
>>catastrophe.
>>
>>The Nazi chiefs knew that the Zionists were a most vital element in
>>Jewry
>>and the most trusted by the Jews.
>>
>>The personality of Rudolph Kastner made him a convenient catspaw for
>>Eichmann and his clique, to draw into collaboration and make their
>>task
>>easier.
>>
>>The question here is not, as stated by the Attorney General in his
>>summation, whether members of the Jewish Rescue Committee were or were
>>not capable of fulfilling their duty without the patronage of the S.S.
>>
>>chiefs.
>>It is obvious that without such S.S. Nazi patronage the Jewish Rescue
>>Committee could not have existed, and could have acted only as an
>>underground.
>>
>>The question is, as put by the lawyer for the defense, why were the
>>Nazis
>>interested in the existence of the Rescue Committee? Why did the S.S.
>>chiefs make every effort to encourage the existence of the Jewish
>>Rescue
>>Committee? Did the exterminators turn into rescuers?
>>
>>The same question rises concerning the rescue of prominent Jews by
>>these
>>German killers of Jews. Was the rescue of such Jews a part of the
>>extermination plan of the killers ?
>>
>>The support given by the extermination leaders to Kastner’s Rescue
>>Committee proves that indeed there was a place for Kastner and his
>>friends
>>in their Final Solution for the Jews of Hungary – their total
>>annihilation.
>>
>>The Nazi’s patronage of Kastner, and their agreement to let him save
>>six
>>hundred prominent Jews, were part of the plan to exterminate the Jews.
>>Kastner was given a chance to add a few more to that number. The bait
>>attracted him. The opportunity of rescuing prominent people appealed
>>to him
>>greatly. He considered the rescue of the most important Jews as a
>>great
>>personal success and a success for Zionism. It was a success that
>>would
>>also justify his conduct – his political negotiation with Nazis and
>>the
>>Nazi patronage of his committee.
>>
>>When Kastner received this present from the Nazis, Kastner sold his
>>soul to
>>the German Satan.
>>
>>The sacrifice of the vital interests of the majority of the Jews, in
>>order
>>to rescue the prominents, was the basic element in the agreement
>>between
>>Kastner and the Nazis. This agreement fixed the division of the nation
>>into
>>two unequal camps: a small fragment of prominents, whom the Nazis
>>promised
>>Kastner to save, on the one hand, and the great majority or Hungarian
>>Jews
>>whom the Nazis designated for death, on the other hand. An imperative
>>condition for the rescue of the first camp by the Nazis was that
>>Kastner
>>will not interfere in the action of the Nazis against the other camp
>>and
>>will not hamper them in its extermination. Kastner fulfilled this
>>condition. He concentrated his efforts in the rescue of the prominents
>>and
>>treated the camp of the doomed as if they had already been wiped out
>>from
>>the book of the living.
>>
>>One cannot estimate the damage caused by Kastner’s collaboration and
>>put
>>down the number of victims which it cost Hungarian Jews. These are not
>>only
>>the thousands of Jews in Nodvarod or any other community in the border
>>area, Jews who could escape through the border, had the chief of their
>>rescue committee fulfilled his duty toward them.
>>
>>All of Kastner’s answers in his final testimony were a constant effort
>>to
>>evade this truth.
>>
>>Kastner has tried to escape through every crack he could find in the
>>wall
>>of evidence. When one crack was sealed in his face, he darted quickly
>>to
>>another. (Judgement of Judge Benjamin Halevi, Criminal Case 124/53;
>>Attorney General v. Malchiel Greenwald, District Court, Jerusalem,
>>June 22,
>>1955).
>>
>>Judge Halevi reverts to the meeting of Kastner with the S.S. officers
>>Becher and Rudolf Hoess, commandant of Auschwitz at the time when the
>>’new
>>line’ of rescuing Jews was revealed by Hoess. He says:
>>
>>From this gathering in Budapest, it is obvious that the ‘new line’
>>stretched from Himmler to Hoess, from Jutner to Becher and Krumey.
>>
>>According to Kastner, however, these Nazis were all active in rescuing
>>Jews.
>>
>>This meeting of these important German guests in Budapest exposes the
>>’rescue’ work of Becher in its true light. It reveals also the extent
>>of
>>Kastner’s involvement in the inner circle of the chief German war
>>criminals.
>>
>>Just as the Nazi war criminals knew they needed an alibi and hoped to
>>achieve it by the rescue of a few Jews at the eleventh hour, so
>>Kastner
>>also needed an alibi for himself.
>>
>>Collaboration between the Jewish Agency Rescue Committee and the
>>Exterminators of the Jews was solidified in Budapest and Vienna.
>>Kastner’s
>>duties were part and parcel of the general duties of the S.S.
>>
>>In addition to its Extermination Department and Looting Department,
>>the
>>Nazi S.S. opened a Rescue Department headed by Kastner.
>>
>>All these extermination, robbery and rescue activities of the S.S.
>>were
>>coordinated under the management of Heinrich Himmler”.
>>
>>Judge Halevi continues:
>>
>>Kastner perjured himself knowingly in his testimony before this court
>>when
>>he denied he had interceded in Becher’s behalf. Moreover, he concealed
>>the
>>important fact that he interceded for Becher in the name of the Jewish
>>Agency and the Jewish World Congress.
>>
>>As to the contents of Kastner’s affidavit, it was enough for the
>>defense to
>>provide Becher was a war criminal. It was up to the prosecution to
>>remove
>>Becher from this status, if they wished to negate the affidavit.
>>
>>The Attorney General admitted in his summation that Becher was a war
>>criminal.
>>
>>The lies in the contents of Kastner’s affidavit, the lies in his
>>testimony
>>concerning the document, and Kastner’s knowing participation in the
>>activities of Nazi war criminals, and his participation in the last
>>minute
>>fake rescue activities – all these combine to show one overwhelming
>>truth –
>>that this affidavit was not given in good faith.
>>
>>Kastner knew well, as he himself testified, that Becher had never
>>stood up
>>against the stream of Jewish extermination, as Kastner has declared in
>>the
>>affidavit.
>>
>>The aims of Becher and his superior, Himmler, were not to save Jews
>>but to
>>serve the Nazi regime with full compliance. These is not truth and no
>>good
>>faith in Kastner’s testimony, ‘I never doubted for one moment the good
>>intention of good Becher’.
>>
>>It is clear that the positive recommendation by Kastner, not only in
>>his
>>own name but also in the name of the Jewish Agency and the Jewish
>>World
>>Congress was of decisive importance for Becher. Kastner did not
>>exaggerate
>>when he said that Becher was released by the Allies because of his
>>personal
>>intervention. The lies in the affidavit of Kastner and the
>>contradictions
>>and various pretexts, which were proven to be lies, were sufficient to
>>annul the value of his statements and to prove that there was no good
>>faith
>>in his testimony in favor of this German war criminal. Kastner’s
>>affidavit
>>in favor of Becher was a wilfully false affidavit given in favor of a
>>war
>>criminal to save him from trial and punishment in Nuremberg.
>>
>>Therefore, the defendant, Malchiel Greenwald, was correct in his
>>accusations against Rudolf Kastner in the first, second and fourth of
>>his
>>statements.”
>>
>>Judge Halevi’s verdict found Malchiel Greenwald generally innocent of
>>libel
>>against Kastner, but fined him one Israeli pound for the one unproved
>>accusation – that Kastner had actually collected money from his Nazi
>>partners for his aide to their slaughter program. The judge also
>>ordered
>>the Government of Israel to pay Greenwald two hundred Israeli pounds
>>as
>>court costs.
>>
>>If the story ended there, it would only prove conclusively that the
>>individual Kastner was a collaborator and the Israeli Government had
>>attempted to defend him, although facts brought out in the trial
>>pointed to
>>much more than that.
>>
>>But the story does not end there.
>>
>>The Reaction
>>The Communist Party newspaper Kol Ha’am (Voice of the People) wrote:
>>
>>All those whose relatives were butchered by the Germans in Hungary
>>know now
>>clearly that Jewish hands helped the mass murder” (23 June 1955)
>>
>>But public opinion was not quite unanimous. The problem with bringing
>>Kastner and his associates to trial was that his associates were the
>>Government of Israel.
>>
>>As the evening paper *Yedi’ot Aharonot* said:
>>
>>If Kastner is brought to trial the entire government faces a total
>>political and national collapse – as a result of what such a trial may
>>disclose.” (23 June 1955)
>>
>>Accordingly, the Government of Israel did not put Kastner on trial,
>>instead
>>it filed an appeal against the acquittal of Greenwald for criminal
>>libel.
>>
>>At 11 P.M. the verdict was given. At 11 A.M. next morning the
>>government
>>announces the defense of Kastner will be renewed – an appeal filed.
>>What
>>exemplary expediency! Since when does this government possess such
>>lawyer-genius who can weigh in one night the legal chances of an
>>appeal on
>>a detailed, complex verdict of three hundred pages?
>>
>>At the appeal hearings before the Supreme Court, the Attorney General
>>of
>>Israel, Chaim Cohen, explained clearly why the Government of Israel
>>was
>>defending Kastner so strongly:
>>
>>The man Kastner does not stand here as a private individual. He was a
>>recognized representative, official or non-official of the Jewish
>>National
>>Institutes in Palestine and of the Zionist Executive; and I come here
>>in
>>this court to defend the representative of our national institutions.”
>>(Hecht, p. 268)
>>
>>The truth of this statement cannot be denied. Kastner’s collaboration
>>was
>>not that of an individual. It was the collaboration of the Zionist
>>leadership.
>>
>>So far, it has only been established that the Government of Israel
>>continued to support a Nazi collaborator after the facts about his
>>collaboration had been conclusively established in an Israeli court.
>>But
>>the story gets worse.
>>
>>The Supreme Court of Israel unanimously found that Becher was indeed a
>>
>>Nazi war criminal and that Kastner had without justification, and in
>>the
>>name
>>of the Jewish Agency, helped Becher to escape justice. On this point
>>Greenwald was acquitted of libel and Kastner was not ‘fully
>>rehabilitated’.
>>
>>The Supreme Court also accepted the facts established in the lower
>>court –
>>that Kastner deliberately concealed the truth about Auschwitz from the
>>majority of Hungarian Jews in exchange for Nazi permission to take a
>>thousand or so to Palestine. Again, Kastner was far from being ‘fully
>>rehabilitated’.
>>
>>
>>But now comes the really nasty bit. After unanimously acknowledging
>>these
>>facts, the Supreme Court of Israel, by a majority of three to two,
>>found
>>that Kastner’s actions were morally justifiable and convicted
>>Greenwald of
>>criminal libel for calling this ‘collaboration’.
>>
>>Kastner’s actions only proved that he was a Nazi collaborator. It is
>>the
>>defense of these actions by the Government and Courts of Israel that
>>prove
>>conclusively that Zionism approves of Nazi collaboration.
>>
>>The majority of the Supreme Court of Israel did not rehabilitate
>>Kastner.
>>They joined him.
>>
>>Let us read from the majority judgement of Supreme Court Judge Shlomo
>>Chesin:
>>
>>….What point was there in telling the people boarding the trains in
>>Kluj,
>>people struck by fate and persecuted, as to what awaits them at the
>>end of
>>their journey…Kastner spoke in detail of the situation, saying, ‘The
>>Hungarian Jew was a branch which long ago dried up on the tree’. This
>>vivid
>>description coincides with the testimony of another witness about the
>>Hungarian Jews, ‘This was a big Jewish community in Hungary, without
>>any
>>ideological Jewish backbone’ (Moshe Shweiger, a Kastner aide in
>>Budapest,
>>protocol 465).
>>
>>I fully agree with my friend, Judge Agranot, when he states that, ‘The
>>Jews
>>of Hungary, including those in the countryside, were not capable,
>>neither
>>physically nor mentally, to carry out resistance operations with force
>>against the deportation scheme’…From this point of view no rescue
>>achievement could have resulted by disclosing the Auschwitz news to
>>the
>>Jewish leaders there, and this is a consideration which on can
>>properly
>>conclude that Kastner had in front of his eyes.
>>
>>….And I take one more step. I am certain that the silence of Kastner
>>when
>>he arrived in Kluj was premeditated and calculated and did not result
>>from
>>his great despair because of the helplessness of the Jewish community.
>>Even
>>then, I say, this is still not considered wilful collaboration and
>>assistance in the extermination, because all the signs indicate that
>>Kastner’s efforts were aimed at rescue and rescue on a big scale…And
>>towards the end I take one last step. In doing so I go very far and
>>say
>>that even if Kastner ordered himself to keep silent knowingly, in
>>submission to the strong will of the Nazis, in order to save a few
>>Jews
>>from Hell – this is still no proof that he stained his hands by
>>collaborating with the enemies of his people and carrying out their
>>plan to
>>exterminate most of the Jewish community in Hungary.
>>
>>Even if, through these activities of his – or rather, his omission –
>>the
>>extermination became easier. And as to the moral issue, the question
>>is not
>>whether a man is allowed to kill many in order to save a few, or
>>vice-versa. The question is altogether in another sphere and should be
>>defined as follows: A man is aware that a whole community is awaiting
>>its
>>doom. He is allowed to make efforts to save a few, although part of
>>his
>>efforts involve concealment of truth from the many or should he
>>disclose
>>the truth to many though it is his best opinion that this way
>>everybody
>>will perish. I think that the answer is clear. What good will the
>>blood of
>>the few bring if everybody is to perish?…As I said, I am not arguing
>>with
>>the basic factual findings of the learned President of the Jewish
>>District
>>Court (Judge Halevi) but it seems to me, with all due respect, that
>>his
>>findings do not, as of necessity, demand the conclusion he has arrived
>>at.
>>That is to say, collaboration on the part of Kastner in the
>>extermination
>>of the Jews. And that they better coincide with bad leadership both
>>from a
>>moral and public point of view…
>>
>>In my opinion, one can say outright that if you find out that Kastner
>>collaborated with the enemy because he did not disclose to the people
>>who
>>boarded the trains in Kluj that they were being led to extermination,
>>one
>>has to put on trial today Danzig, Herman, Hanzi, Brand, Revis and
>>Marton,
>>and many more leaders and half-leaders who gagged themselves in an
>>hour of
>>crisis and did not inform others of what was known to them and did not
>>warn
>>and did not cry out of the coming danger….
>>
>>Because of all this I cannot confirm the conclusion of the District
>>Court
>>with regard to the accusation that Greenwald has thrown on Kastner of
>>collaboration with the Nazis in exterminating the Jewish people in
>>Hungary
>>during the last war.” (Hecht, ibid., pp.270-2)
>>
>>In other words, the Court approved of Kastner’s contempt for the
>>Hungarian
>>Jews and could not allow him to be condemned for doing exactly what
>>many
>>other Zionist leaders had half-leaders did – concealing their
>>knowledge of
>>the Nazi extermination plans so that Jews would board the trains to
>>Auschwitz peacefully while their Zionist ‘leaders’ boarded a different
>>train for Palestine.
>>
>>The most precise answer to this sickening judgement of Judge Chesin is
>>
>>provided in the minority judgement of Supreme Court Judge Moshe
>>Silberg:
>>
>>I do not say that he was the only man who possessed information among
>>the
>>leaders. It is quite possible that somebody else as well does not have
>>a
>>clear conscience with regards to this concealment. But we are dealing
>>here
>>with the guilt of Kastner and we do not have to make judgements on the
>>guilt of others….
>>
>>The declaration of the learned Attorney General therefore shrinks into
>>an
>>opinion….’Kastner was convinced and believed that there was no ray
>>of
>>hope for the Jews of Hungary, almost for none of them, and as he, as a
>>result of his personal despair, did not disclose the secret of the
>>extermination in order not to endanger or frustrate the rescue of the
>>few –
>>therefore he acted in good faith and should not be accused of
>>collaborating
>>with the Nazis in expediting the extermination of the Jews, even
>>though, in
>>fact, he brought about its result.’
>>
>>I am compelled to state that it is very difficult for me to conceive
>>such
>>an intention. Is this good faith? Can a single man, even in
>>cooperation
>>with some of his friends, yield to despair on behalf and without the
>>knowledge of 800,000 other people? This is, in my opinion, the
>>decisive
>>consideration in the problem facing us. The charge emanating from the
>>testimony of the witnesses against Kastner is that had they known of
>>the
>>Auschwitz secret, then thousands or tens of thousands would have been
>>able
>>to save their lives by local, partial, specific or indirect rescue
>>operations like local revolts, resistance, escapes, hidings,
>>concealment of
>>children with Gentiles, forging of documents, ransom money, bribery,
>>etc. –
>>and when this is the case and when one deals with many hundreds of
>>thousands, how does a human being, a mortal, reject with complete
>>certainty
>>and with an extreme ‘no’ the efficiency of all the many and varied
>>rescue
>>ways? How can he examine the tens of thousands of possibilities? Does
>>he
>>decide instead of God? Indeed, he who can act with such a usurpation
>>of the
>>last hope of hundreds of thousands is not entitled to claim good faith
>>as
>>his defense. The penetrating question quo warrento is a good answer to
>>a
>>claim of such good faith…
>>
>>If the superintendent of a big hospital lets thousands of sick people
>>die
>>so that he may devote himself to the sure rescue of one soul, he will
>>come
>>out guilty, at least morally, even if it is proven that he as an
>>individual
>>erroneously thought that there was no hope of saving the other
>>patients. He
>>is a collaborator with the angel of death.
>>
>>Either a complete atrophy of the soul or a blind involvement with
>>complete
>>loss of senses and proportion in his small but personal rescue
>>operation
>>could bring a man to such a gigantic, hazardous play.
>>
>>And if all this is not enough to annul the claim of good faith which
>>was
>>put before us on behalf of Kastner by the Attorney General, then
>>Kastner
>>himself comes and annuls it altogether. Not only did he never make
>>this
>>claim, but his own words prove the contrary. He writes in his report
>>to the
>>Jewish Agency that the Committee sent emissaries to many ghettos in
>>the
>>countryside and pleaded with them to organize escapes and to refuse to
>>board the trains. And though the story of these pleadings is untrue,
>>and
>>the silence of Kastner in Kluj is proven, the very uttering of these
>>statements entirely contradicts the claim that Kastner had concealed
>>the
>>news about the fate of the ghetto inmates in good faith and only as a
>>result of his complete despairing of the chances of escaping or
>>resisting
>>the Germans. You can not claim at the same time helplessness and
>>activity.
>>Anyway, such a claim is not convincing…
>>
>>We can sum up with three facts:
>>
>>A. That the Nazis didn’t want to have a great revolt – nor small
>>revolts,
>>and their passion was to have the extermination machine working
>>smoothly without resistance. This fact was known to Kastner from
>>the best source – from Eichmann himself – And he had additional proofs
>>of
>>that when he witnessed all the illusionary and misleading tactics
>>which
>>were being taken by the Nazis from the first moment of occupation.
>>
>>B. That the most efficient means to paralyze the resistance with – or
>>the
>>escape of a victim is to conceal from him the plot of the coming
>>murder.
>>This fact is known to every man and one does not need any proof of
>>evidence for this.
>>
>>C. That he, Kastner, in order to carry out the rescue plan for the few
>>prominents, fulfilled knowingly and without good faith the said desire
>>of
>>the Nazis, thus expediting the work of exterminating the masses.
>>
>>And also the rescue of Becher by Kastner…He who is capable of
>>rescuing
>>this Becher from hanging proves that the atrocities of this great war
>>criminal were not so horrifying or despicable in his eyes…I couldn’t
>>base
>>the main guilt of Kastner on this fact had it been alone, but when it
>>is
>>attached even from afar to the whole scene of events it throws
>>retroactive
>>light on the whole affair and serves as a dozen proofs of our
>>conclusion.”(Supreme Court Judge, Moshe Silberg, 1957)
>>
>>
>>If that had been the majority judgement, one could say that whatever
>>their
>>attitudes to the Arabs, and whatever their past behaviour might have
>>been
>>under pressure, the Zionist leadership today did not advocate
>>collaboration
>>with the Nazis.
>>
>>But Judge Silberg’s judgement was that of a minority.
>>
>>The Kastner case is therefore not an alleged episode in past history.
>>
>>It is a continuing controversy in which the top Zionist leadership of
>>Israel stand indicted of continuing to publicly defend collaboration
>>with
>>the Nazis in the extermination of Jews.
>>
>>Despite the unanimous finding of the Supreme Court of Israel that Kurt
>>Becher was a major war criminal, the Jewish Agency (World Zionist
>>Organization) refused to withdraw the fraudulent certificate Kastner
>>gave
>>on their behalf, which saved Becher from hanging, and allowed him to
>>remain
>>a free man in West Germany, the head of several corporations and with
>>an
>>estimated personal worth of $30 million.
>>
>>Becher has even used his certification as a ‘good’ SS officer to give
>>evidence in support of his associates at other war crimes trials in
>>West
>>Germany.
>>
>>Since the prosecution, representing the Israeli Government agreed with
>>the
>>Supreme Court that Becher was a major war criminal, one can only
>>pressure
>>that the Israeli Government did not want him put on trial for fear of
>>what
>>might come out.
>>
>>Likewise, none of Kastner’s associates on the Zionist Relief and
>>Rescue
>>Committee or his bosses in the Jewish Agency have ever been put on
>>trial .
>>Let alone the hundreds of ‘prominents’ who helped Kastner to reassure
>>the
>>Hungarian Jews that they were going to Kenyermeze and not Auschwitz,
>>in exchange for tickets on the one train that took them eventually to
>>Palestine.
>>
>>As for Kastner himself, he will cause no further embarrassment to the
>>Zionist leadership with his undisputed claims that everything he did
>>was
>>approved by the Jewish Agency (World Zionist Organization) leadership
>>in
>>Palestine. He is ‘now dead’. Or putting it less delicately, on 3 March
>>1957
>>he was shot by Zeev Eckstein – immediately after the appeal hearings
>>were
>>concluded, and before the judgement ‘rehabilitating’ him was
>>delivered.
>>Eckstein was not a Hungarian avenger. He was a paid undercover agent
>>of the
>>Israeli secret service. (Hecht, ibid., p.208). Another ‘fantastic
>>allegation’ no doubt; but admitted in court during the murder trial).
sven88
From [email protected] Fri Oct 16 15:01:43 EDT 1998
Article: 275321 of alt.revisionism
Path: hub.org!hub.org!chippy.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!newshub.northeast.verio.net!news-nyc.telia.net!newsfeed.cwix.com!206.172.150.11!news1.bellglobal.com!news.agtac.net!news.telusplanet.net!news
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: aus.politics,aus.general,soc.culture.australian,soc.culture.palestine,soc.culture.polish,soc.culture.swiss,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: JEW NAZIS! Backlash!!
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 14:25:43 GMT
Organization: TELUS Communications Inc.
Lines: 216
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: edtnpx08-port-58.agt.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451
Xref: hub.org aus.politics:191175 aus.general:36373 soc.culture.australian:78657 soc.culture.palestine:53132 soc.culture.polish:123526 soc.culture.swiss:27295 alt.revisionism:275321
On Fri, 16 Oct 1998 22:39:09, The Rottnest Quokka
On Mon, 13 Jul 1998 12:59:56 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
>Since some of the undesirable Jews in Australia have published their
>Libelers List of people they consider undesirable, for supporting ON,
>perhaps ON should do similar??
>
>Surely the angry citizens of Australia can readily prepare their own
>list of undesirable Jews, including such Illuminati as the notorious
>Rappaport, and others of his ilk?? What about drug dealers, white
>collar criminals, and similar criminals?
>
>After all these thousands of years, why would the admittedly
>genetically inbred creatures (according to their own recent
>pronouncements regarding DNA proof for jewishness) want to so
>antagonise a generous host country like Australia?
>
>Is there not enough resentment against the people responsible for the
>murder of Christ?
>
>Did the more than 100 millions killed in the interests of Jew
>communism in this century alone, not create enough enemies, that they
>want to generate more?
>
>Surely their worldwide attempts at extortion of nations has caused
>more ill-will?? Even the Swiss, who had provided shelter, but required
>that the Jews WORK in the 1940’s are now having extortion demands!!!
>
>Or, is their wish to force the world into another conflagration, so
>that by the Year 2000, their New World Order can take over what
>remains of this world?? They are certainly spreading their tentacles
>in many countries, trying to take control…
>
>>>Mr Leibler: you have chosen to gratuitously & viciously persecute
>>>a defenceless minority of Australians – who are innocent of any
>>>wrong-doing – on purely political grounds; by publishing to the
>>>world, their names & residential suburbs in your magazine.
>
>>>In the interests of “balance”, would you now care to publish to the
>>>world, the names & residential suburbs of those Australian residents
>>>& citizens who are bankrolling the “Genocide” of the Palestinian
>>>Nation; with a higher financial contribution per capita, than any
>>>other members of your diaspora, on the Planet.
>
>>>You say you have a deep & abiding concern for “political
>>>transparency”: lets see you really put your publishing skills
>>>where your mouth is…
>
>>>cheers, PJ
>
>>Better yet, publish a list of all those businesses owned or/and
>>controlled by Jews, in Australia, USA, GB, Germany, France and Russia.
>
>>Let the world see who is really controlling world affairs, even before
>>the year 2000!!!
>
>
>
>
>On Sun, 12 Jul 1998 11:12:52 GMT, [email protected] (Harold
>Wood) wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 09 Jul 1998 13:02:46 GMT,
>>[email protected] (David S. Maddison)
>>wrote:
>>Thanks for clarifying where you’re coming from,
>>Harold.
>
>>Have you considered that your estimation here
>>might be incorrect? I estimate that my words
>>probably have given you a false impression
>>however. 🙂
>
>>Here is another angle on my ‘yike’.
>
>>The Australia-Israel Review in their attempting to
>>facilitate the vilification (and worse) of ON
>>members by others (a cowardly act) is in fact
>>attempting to protect the ‘nice little earner’
>>which the ethnic industry (a major part of their
>>consituency) has going in Australia. They
>>recognise that ON is a direct and immediate threat
>>to their continuing their enjoyment of the
>>proceeds of the tax heist perpetrated on pre ON
>>hapless political ‘pincer movement’ entrapped
>>middle income earning Australians by Tweedle
>>Dumb(LibNat) and Tweedle Dumber(LabRat)).
>
>>>Ummm… Was it “The Jews” ™ that published the list or was it a
>>>particular individual who happened to be an editor of a
>>>Jewish-interest magazine?
>
>>Some voices among ‘the Jews’ have now been
>>raised against that action of the Australia-Israel
>>Review. The action of those sensible people must
>>surely be generally appreciated by all. A very
>>wise move by those rightly concerned people
>>indeed.
>
>>>Why blame “The Jews” for the misguided actions of a single individual
>>>who I am fairly certain now realises that he made a mistake?
>
>>Consider my approach a ‘media technique’. One I
>>highly disapprove of but acknowledge the efficacy
>>of. (Yes that does mean I now temporarily
>>subscribe to the principle, ‘the end justifies the
>>means’.)
>
>>>With the widespread opposition to One Nation, I’d say it was equally
>>>likely that any other number of other publications might also have
>>>published it,
>
>>They haven’t.
>
>>> or someone may have posted it to the ‘Net.
>
>>Here of course mostly ‘anything goes’. That
>>theory proves nothing for your agument.
>
>>>It was certainly wrong to publish the list, if such information wasn’t
>>>already on the public record in the first place.
>
>>Yes, wrong but now a help to those who they
>>oppose. Quite stupid are they not! 🙂 I wonder
>>if an IQ test needs to be introduced for all
>>Australian voters?
>
>>> (Is membership of political parties on the public record?)
>
>>No, but you are certainly free to declare one if
>>you please. (I am not currently a member of any
>>party but have belonged in the past to a number.)
>
>>>David Maddison
>
>>Hope that helps. 🙂
>
>>Now, here is another aspect of my ‘yike’.
>
>>The arrogance displayed by Australia’s now
>>prolific ‘ursurper classes’ knows no bounds.
>
>>(In the context this time of the arrogance
>>displayed by the Australia-Israel Review.)
>
>> And nor should that come as any surprise to
>>anyone, that for the reason that the criminal
>>’politically correct screeching brigade’ has long
>>intimidated our good, polite, well meaning and
>>well mannered ‘Australian cultured’ citizens, thus
>>effectively preventing them from speaking out
>>loudly enough about their such gross maltreatment.
>
>>The Australia-Israel Review’s stupid move in
>>publishing those names was undoubtedly a
>>reflection of their verging hysterical panic
>>reaction to the realisation that their
>>constituency’s ‘game’ just might be about to be
>>up! Also it likely was a manifestation of their
>>failure to see that it is actually possible,
>>despite their getting away with it for years, for
>>their instinctual arrogance at some time to get
>>them into very deep and dangerous water indeed.
>
>>Harold.
>
>
>
>On Mon, 13 Jul 1998 17:07:13 +1000, [email protected]>not.awww….
>(Mr.Interesting) wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>[email protected] (Harold Wood) wrote:
>>
>>> JEWISH NAZIS!
>>>
>>> How dare those cynical pernicious professional
>>> peddlers of guilt, those ‘oonga boonga’ mere
>>
>>
>>Shouldn’t that be “Oingo Boingo”?
>>
>>Doesn’t Hebraic tradition have a saying that goes along the lines of
>>”Be careful who you hate, because you’ll end up being just like them”.
>>
>>They’re behaving like Nazi’s in Palestine (let’s call it by it’s real name
>>shall we, that is unless you STILL believe that the bible isn’t one of the
>>most successful pieces of Politico-Religious Propagandistic Re-writes of
>>the Past AND the Future?…).
>>
>>Funny thing is, the ones who are causing all the troubles, ie the
>>Ultra-Orthodox Right wing and Likud parties, apart from being
>>DOLE-BLUDGERS in Israel, are also CONVENIENTLY EXEMPT from military
>>service, or from facing the bullets and bombs, that they demand their
>>fellow secular countrymen face(some of which, by the way, are planted by
>>Orthodox jews, killing ordinary jews, to stir up a bit more hatred).
>>
>>I find it quite strange that the majority of Israeli’s are secular and
>>want peace, but allow themselves to be kept in a state of terror, NOT by
>>Palestinians, but by OTHER JEWS!. WHO DON’T WORK. WHO DON’T HAVE TO DO
>>MILITARY SERVICE. WHO ASSASSINATED THE PRESIDENT who was going to deliver
>>peace.
>>
>>And while we’re here, Don’t the cries of the UNIONISTS in Ireland, that
>>they need protection from CATHOLIC TERRORISM start to sound a bit hollow
>>now? I think nearly every act of terrorism (inc. Murder) since the
>>referendum has been against Catholics.
>>
>>AAhhhhh…….. Religion, even when it’s the SAME GOD, there’s still
>>enough difference to go out and KKKIIILLLLLL SSOMEONE, and feel good about
>>it.
>>
>>The Pope wears Orange stockings and suspenders.
From [email protected] Fri Oct 16 15:01:44 EDT 1998
Article: 275322 of alt.revisionism
Path: hub.org!hub.org!news.gv.tsc.tdk.com!Supernews73!supernews.com!newsfeed.corridex.com!newsfeed.cwix.com!207.136.66.98!cyclone.news.idirect.com!island.idirect.com!nntp.cadvision.com!news.agtac.net!news.telusplanet.net!news
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: triangle.politics,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: OyVay & NIZKOR Even Swindle JEWs as Tax Fraud??
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 14:22:55 GMT
Organization: TELUS Communications Inc.
Lines: 271
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: edtnpx08-port-58.agt.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451
Xref: hub.org triangle.politics:47967 alt.politics.nationalism.white:180688 alt.politics.white-power:215241 alt.revisionism:275322
On Thu, 15 Oct 1998 05:09:48, Ed Kadach
On Thu, 17 Sep 1998 18:21:48 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
>On Tue, 18 Aug 1998 13:28:08 -0400, The Truth of HateWatchWatch
>
>>McVay is just trying to make money off his people being killed in the holacaust.
>>I think that is damnable, but jews seems to want to profit from the holacaust.
>It seems that the despicable OyVay, the gas station attendant and Tax
>Fraud, just does not like being exposed and investigated by the Tax
>authorities in both canada and the USA!!!
>On 28 Mar 1998 19:27:41 GMT, [email protected] (Kenneth McVay SOB)
>wrote:
>Feel free to forward your complaints also to Revenue Canada, either by
>phone or E-mail.
>Notice that the gas station employee McVay, his employment exposed in
>an interview a week ago in local papers, refuses to answer the
>questions.
>Even his masters, the JEWS, must be getting annoyed by now, with all
>the tax fraud investigations in Canada and the USA.
>The Victoria synagogue where he used to hide, had to kick him out
>because of the heat from the authorities!!!
>One must wonder whether he is so rejected by the Jews in B.C, that he
>had to go to Edmonton to hold a meeting??
>Or, could it be that in Alberta Canada, there are more thinking
>people, who reject the garbage disseminated by OyVay and his gang??
>Perhaps some of the others in North America intersted in discussing
>the Holohoax will also respond.
>>On Wed, 11 Feb 1998 19:17:57 GMT, [email protected] (Michael )wrote:
>>On Sat, 07 Feb 1998 06:44:38 -0500, Avenger
>> The goyboy token getting paid by the swindlers at NAZIKOR/NIZKOR just
>> will not answer the critical questions.
>>Nothing new here.
>> It seems he and his creatures may in fact have been swindling not only
>> the IRS in the USA, and Revenue canada Taxation, but also swindling
>> the people who made donations, thinking it was a legal charity, which
>> it is NOT!!!
>>Definitely not a charity.
Revenue Canada Taxation – Charities Division Ottawa, again today
confirmed that there is no registration for Nizkor as a charity in
Canada!!!
They can be reached directly, for filing complaints, at:
Telephone to: 1-800-267-2384
Also, you can E-mail complaints about Nizkor, to them, at:
http://www.rc.gc.ca/charities
An alternative telephone number for fraud complaints is Special
Investigations Revenue Canada at:
telephone # 204-983-1829
>> Subject: Re: Questions OyVey Won’t Answer!!!!
>>
>> Where are the answers to all the questions, which Nazikor/NIZKOR refuses to
>> answer??
>> Is it really an international tax fraud?
>> What have the I.R.S. to say??
>> Over the past few months, there have been a set of questions, which
>> OyVey and his minions have refused to answer.
>> Perhaps the officials at the I.R.S. Financial Crimes Enforcement Branch,
>> who can be reached at:
http://www.ustreas.gov/mail/fincen.html
>> will be interested in receiving complaints regarding NIZKOR and OyVey.
>> Also, Revenue Canada Taxation can be reached with similar complaints at:
>> [email protected], or
>> http://www.rc.gc.ca
>> In Message, put first line of message as:
>> ATTENTION SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS
>> or telephone to: 204-983-1829
>> They are waiting for your complaints
> >The text relating to Questions OyVey Won’t Answer is:
> >Date: Thu. 23 Jan 1997 00:14:06 GMT
> >From: Doctor detroit ([email protected])
> >Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
> >Subject: to repeat the questions
> > Since this appears to be a tradition in a.r let us continue it.
> > 1) What exactly is the political origin of the initials OBC?
>>Order of the British Crown. In McGoy’s case it is the Order of British Columbia.
> > 2) What did Ken McVay do to receive the approval to use the letters?
>>Being a politically correct gopher for Bnai Brith and promoting the Holocaust(tm)
>>Terrorist Campaign. Further they maintain spy/smear files on people who question
>>certain myths about the Holocaust(tm) for possible prosecution of citizens who travel
>>to Europe. They undoubtably provide information to Mossad.
> > 3) What is the tax number of Nizkor?
> > 4) What is the physical address of Nizkor?
>>Probably written on McGoy’s forehead. Hard to tell since he has his nose up Bnai Brith’s butt.
>> It seems that temple Emanuel in Victoria, Canada could no longer stand the stench
>> of the shabbas-goy Oyvay
>>McGoy dropped them for greener pastures.
> > 5) What is the phone number of Nizkor?
> > 6) Where can one find the organisational papers for Nizkor?
>>For the US they should be filed in the State of Texas under the San Antonio Area
>>Foundation. This is the front-end shell organization for Nizkookland in the US.
> > 7) What is the evidence offered that Nizkor is authorised to
> > solicit tax free contributions?
>>Unknown. Except they claim that if someone “contributes” more than $10 that Bnai
>>Brith will give them a receipt for tax purposes. They do not specify if this is US or
>>Canadian dollars.
> >In view of the refusal by OyVey and Nizkor to answer the critical
> >questions in #3, #4,#6, and especially #7, one must wonder.
> >Is NIZKOR JUST A HUGE TAX FRAUD, with the proceeds lining the pockets of
> >OyVey???
>>It’s a reasonable assumption.
> >Try to get answers from the tax authorities, both in the USA and Canada.
>> On Sun, 15 Jun 1997 00:41:49 GMT, in alt.revisionism [email protected]
>> (Dan Leonik) wrote:
>>Check this out!
>>Read this. This was after Ken McGoy denied a connection with any other Jewish
>>organization. I know I posted it. Also if you want me to repost Ken’s “Big Lie”
>>letter just ask.
> >Nizkor Funding
> >URL: http://www.almanac.bc.ca/funding.html
> >Summary: Please make your donations payable to League for Human Rights
> >of B’nai Brith Canada …with the cheque’s memo including “Nizkor
> >Project”. ). In the United States, donations in support of the Project
> >should be made payable to San Antonio Area Foundation – Nizkor Fund
> >and should be mailed to San Antonio Area Foundation.
> >Excite Search—Search: “nizkor”
> >”From B’nai Brith’s 1996 ‘Audit of Anti-Semitic Incidents’:
>> The League is working closely
>>with Ken McVay’s Nizkor Project (https://nizkor.org) through the
>>”Holocaust and Hope” program. The League and Nizkor have prepared a
>>workbook entitled Hate and the Internet: Selected Readings to assist
>>in workshops on assist in workshops on this topic. The creation of a
>>B’nai web site (http://www.bnaibrith.ca) facilitates the dissemination
>>of information to counter hate and also provides a means of reporting
>>incidents directly to the National Office.”
>>Interesting. This after the Liar McGoy had denied any connection.
> >There can be no doubt that the Nizkor WHORES are in the business to
> >promote Jewish interests.
>>That is putting it “lightly”.
> >If any of them are White Americans then they
> >are paid agents of a foreign government accepting money to undermine
> >American values of honesty and truth in reporting the facts of WWII.
>>Their MO is described in former Mossad agent Victor Ostrovsky’s book “By Way of
>>Deception”. Read it. It should pretty much remove any doubts you might have of what
>>the Nizkooks are up to.
>>[email protected]
>>”http://www.natall.com”
>>”http://www.natvan.com”
>>National Vanguard Books
>>P.O. Box 330
>>Hillsboro, WV 24946
>>”No man has come to true greatness who has not felt
>>in some degree that his life belongs to his race.”
>> —-Phillips Brooks
>>+++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>Get the text of American Dissident Voices broadcasts by e-mail!
>>Subscribe to our mailing list by sending an e-mail message to:
>>[email protected] which contains the
>>word _subscribe_ as the subject of your message.
>> You may also get them from our FTP site at: ftp://natvan.com
>>Revenue Canada Taxation – Charities Division Ottawa, again today
>>confirmed that there is no registration for Nizkor as a charity in
>>Canada!!!
>show us where Nizkor has ever claimed to have one.
All you need do, is read above, or get your orderly to read for you.
>Please print this form and send to:
>The Nizkor Project
>c/o
>The League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada
>15 Hove Street
>Toronto, Ontario M3H 4Y8
>Name:________________________________________
>Street Address:________________________________________________
>City_________________State/Province__________Postal Code_______
>E-Mail Address:_________________________________
>Amount Enclosed: $___________
>Please make your donations payable to “The League for Human Rights of
>B’nai Brith Canada,” and add the words “Nizkor Trust Fund” to the
>cheque’s memo section.
>Donations over $10.00 will receive a Canadian tax receipt.
>[#0235903-43-13]
>Attention:CHARITIES
>also: SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS
> Hearing yet another kike religious supremacist
>going on about German National Socialists between
>1933-1945 prompts the question:
> When did the British Labour Party first know
>about the systematic murder of 50+ MILLION Russians
>and Ukrainians by Soviet libruls between 1917-1959?
From [email protected] Fri Oct 16 15:01:44 EDT 1998
Article: 275323 of alt.revisionism
Path: hub.org!hub.org!news.gv.tsc.tdk.com!Supernews73!supernews.com!howland.erols.net!newshub.northeast.verio.net!cyclone.news.idirect.com!island.idirect.com!news.agtac.net!news.telusplanet.net!news
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: soc.culture.palestine,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.revisionism,soc.culture.islam,soc.culture.malaysia,soc.culture.australian,soc.culture.polish
Subject: Re: Nazi — Jewish Zionist Collaboration
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 14:33:15 GMT
Organization: TELUS Communications Inc.
Lines: 847
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: edtnpx08-port-58.agt.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451
Xref: hub.org soc.culture.palestine:53133 alt.politics.nationalism.white:180689 alt.revisionism:275323 soc.culture.islam:4200 soc.culture.malaysia:196687 soc.culture.australian:78658 soc.culture.polish:123528
On Thu, 15 Oct 1998 15:30:35, [email protected] wrote:
On Thu, 10 Sep 1998 22:56:46 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
trying to stimulate more interest in this topic,
On Sat, 15 Aug 1998 18:45:47 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
>On Fri, 03 Jul 1998 15:00:35 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>On 3 Jul 1998 06:38:05 GMT,
>>
Orest Slepokura
…fully documented *Perfidy* blatantly exposes the degree to which
Zionists cooperated in the persecution of their fellow Jews…
Here is more evidence of NAZI-ZIONIST JEW COLLABORATION.
The Kastner Case
The most notorious case of Nazi-Zionist collaboration is that
involving a Jew – Rudolf Kastner.
Most Jewish people have never heard of Rudolf Kastner. Those who have,
are generally under the impression that there is some ‘controversy’
about negotiations he undertook for ‘the purchase of Jewish lives for
money and military equipment’, but that he was ‘fully rehabilitated’
by the Supreme Court of Israel.
The Accusations
Briefly, the accusations against Kastner are as follows:
Dr. Rudolf Verba, a Doctor of Science now serving at the British
Medical Research Council, was one of the few escapees from Auschwitz.
In his memoirs published in February, 1961, in the London Daily
Herald, he wrote:
I am a Jew. In spite of that – indeed because of that – I accuse
certain Jewish leaders of one of the most ghastly deeds of the war.
This group of quislings knew what was happening to their brethren in
Hitler’s gas chambers and bought their own lives with the price of
silence.
Among them was Dr. Kastner, leader of the council which spoke for all
Jews in Hungary. While I was prisoner number 44070 at Auschwitz – the
number is still on my arm – I compiled careful statistics of the
exterminations.
I took these terrible statistics with me when I escaped in 1944 and I
was able to give Hungarian Zionist leaders three weeks notice that
Eichmann planned to send a million of their Jews to his gas
chambers…Kastner went to Eichmann and told him, ‘I know of your
plans; spare some Jews of my choice and I shall keep quiet.’
Eichmann not only agreed, but dressed Kastner up in S.S. uniform and
took him to Belsen to trace some of his friends. Nor did the sordid
bargaining end there. Kastner paid Eichmann several thousand dollars.
With this little fortune, Eichmann was able to buy his way to freedom
when Germany collapsed, to set himself up in the Argentine…(Ben
Hecht, Perfidy, pp261-2)
These accusations are confirmed by the ‘Eichmann Confessions’
published in Life magazine, 28 November and 5 December 1960:
I resolved to show how well a job could be done when the commander
stands 100% behind it. By shipping the Jews off in a lightning
operation, I wanted to set an example for future campaigns
elsewhere…In obedience to Himmler’s directive I now concentrated on
negotiations with the Jewish political officials in Budapest…Among
them Dr. Rudolph Kastner, authorized representative of the Zionist
Movement. This Dr. Kastner was a young man about my age, an ice-cold
lawyer and a fanatical Zionist. He agreed to help keep the Jews from
resisting deportation – and even keep order in the collection camps –
if I could close my eyes and let a few hundred or a few thousand young
Jews emigrate illegally to Palestine.
It was a good bargain. For keeping order in the camps, the price was
not too high for me.
We trusted each other perfectly. When he was with me, Kastner smoke
cigarets as though he was in a coffeehouse. While we talked he would
smoke one aromatic cigaret after another, taking them from a silver
case and lighting them with a silver lighter. With his great polish
and reserve he would have made an ideal Gestapo officer himself.
Dr. Kastner’s main concern was to make it possible for a select group
of Hungarian Jews to emigrate to Israel…
>>As a matter of fact, there was a very strong similarity between our
>>attitudes in the S.S. and the viewpoint of these immensely idealistic
>>Zionist leaders. I believe that Kastner would have sacrificed a
>>thousand
>>or a hundred thousand of his blood to achieve his political goal ‘You
>>can
>>have the others’, he would say, ‘but let me have this group here’. And
>>because Kastner rendered us a great service by helping keep the
>>deportation
>>camps peaceful, I would let his groups escape. After all, I was not
>>concerned with small groups of a thousand or so Jews…That was the
>>’gentleman’s agreement’ I had with Kastner (Hecht, ibid., p.260-61)
>>
>>Quite clearly these accusations, do not relate merely to ‘the purchase
>>of
>>Jewish lives for money and military equipment’.
>>
>>Are the accusations against Kastner true?
>>
>>According to the Government of Israel, they are a lie. When Malchiel
>>Greenwald, a strongly pro-Zionist Israeli citizen published these
>>accusations against Kastner, the Israeli Government did rather more
>>than
>>demand that his views should not be broadcast. Because a prominent
>>Zionist
>>official (Dr. Kastner was a spokesman for the Ministry of Trade and
>>Industry) was involved, the Attorney General of the State of Israel
>>prosecuted Greenwald for criminal libel.
>>
>> The Verdict
>>
>>Let the verdict of Judge Benjamin Halevi (who later became one of the
>>panel
>>of three judges that tried Eichmann) in Israel’s District Court of
>>Jerusalem speak for itself, given in criminal case No. 124 of 1953.
>>The
>>Attorney General v. Malchiel Greenwald. This material should be
>>studied
>>carefully.
>>
>>The masses of Jews from Hungary’s ghettos obediently boarded the
>>deportation trains without knowing their fate. They were full of
>>confidence
>>in the false information that they were being transferred to
>>Kenyermeze.
>>
>>The Nazis could not have misled the masses of Jews so conclusively had
>>they
>>not spread their false information through Jewish channels.
>>
>>The Jews of the ghettos would not have trusted the Nazi or Hungarian
>>rulers. But they had trust in their Jewish leaders. Eichmann and
>>others
>>used this known fact as part of their calculated plan to mislead the
>>Jews.
>>They were able to deport the Jews to their extermination by the help
>>of
>>Jewish leaders.
>>
>>The false information was spread by the Jewish leaders. The local
>>leaders
>>of the Jews of Kluj and Nodvarod knew that other leaders were
>>spreading
>>such false information and did not protest.
>>
>>Those of the Jews who tried to warn their friends of the truth were
>>persecuted by the Jewish leaders in charge of the local ‘rescue work’.
>>
>>The trust of the Jews in the misleading information and their lack of
>>knowledge that their wives, children and themselves were about to be
>>deported to the gas chambers of Auschwitz led the victims to remain
>>quiescent in their ghettos. It seduced them into not resisting or
>>hampering
>>the deportation orders.
>>
>>Dozens of thousands of Jews were guarded in their ghettos by a few
>>dozen
>>police. Yet even vigorous young Jews made no attempt to overpower
>>these few
>>guards and escape to nearby Rumania. No resistance activities to the
>>deportations were organized in these ghettos.
>>
>>And the Jewish leaders did everything in their power to soothe the
>>Jews in
>>the ghettos and to prevent such resistance activities.
>>
>>The same Jews who spread in Kluj and Nodvarod the false rumor of
>>Kenyermeze, or confirmed it, the same public leaders who did not warn
>>their
>>own people against the misleading statements, the same Jewish leaders
>>who
>>did not organize any resistance or any sabotage of
>>deportations…these
>>same leaders did not join the people of their community in their ride
>>to
>>Auschwitz, but were all included in the Rescue train.
>>
>>The Nazi organizers of extermination and the perpetrators of
>>extermination
>>permitted Rudolf Kastner and the members of the Jewish Council in
>>Budapest
>>to save themselves, their relatives, and friends. The Nazis did this
>>as a
>>means of making the local Jewish leaders, whom they favoured,
>>dependent on
>>the Nazi regime, dependent on its good will during the time of its
>>fatal
>>deportation schedule. In short, the Nazis succeeded in bringing the
>>Jewish
>>leaders into collaboration with the Nazis at the time of the
>>catastrophe.
>>
>>The Nazi chiefs knew that the Zionists were a most vital element in
>>Jewry
>>and the most trusted by the Jews.
>>
>>The personality of Rudolph Kastner made him a convenient catspaw for
>>Eichmann and his clique, to draw into collaboration and make their
>>task
>>easier.
>>
>>The question here is not, as stated by the Attorney General in his
>>summation, whether members of the Jewish Rescue Committee were or were
>>not capable of fulfilling their duty without the patronage of the S.S.
>>
>>chiefs.
>>It is obvious that without such S.S. Nazi patronage the Jewish Rescue
>>Committee could not have existed, and could have acted only as an
>>underground.
>>
>>The question is, as put by the lawyer for the defense, why were the
>>Nazis
>>interested in the existence of the Rescue Committee? Why did the S.S.
>>chiefs make every effort to encourage the existence of the Jewish
>>Rescue
>>Committee? Did the exterminators turn into rescuers?
>>
>>The same question rises concerning the rescue of prominent Jews by
>>these
>>German killers of Jews. Was the rescue of such Jews a part of the
>>extermination plan of the killers ?
>>
>>The support given by the extermination leaders to Kastner’s Rescue
>>Committee proves that indeed there was a place for Kastner and his
>>friends
>>in their Final Solution for the Jews of Hungary – their total
>>annihilation.
>>
>>The Nazi’s patronage of Kastner, and their agreement to let him save
>>six
>>hundred prominent Jews, were part of the plan to exterminate the Jews.
>>Kastner was given a chance to add a few more to that number. The bait
>>attracted him. The opportunity of rescuing prominent people appealed
>>to him
>>greatly. He considered the rescue of the most important Jews as a
>>great
>>personal success and a success for Zionism. It was a success that
>>would
>>also justify his conduct – his political negotiation with Nazis and
>>the
>>Nazi patronage of his committee.
>>
>>When Kastner received this present from the Nazis, Kastner sold his
>>soul to
>>the German Satan.
>>
>>The sacrifice of the vital interests of the majority of the Jews, in
>>order
>>to rescue the prominents, was the basic element in the agreement
>>between
>>Kastner and the Nazis. This agreement fixed the division of the nation
>>into
>>two unequal camps: a small fragment of prominents, whom the Nazis
>>promised
>>Kastner to save, on the one hand, and the great majority or Hungarian
>>Jews
>>whom the Nazis designated for death, on the other hand. An imperative
>>condition for the rescue of the first camp by the Nazis was that
>>Kastner
>>will not interfere in the action of the Nazis against the other camp
>>and
>>will not hamper them in its extermination. Kastner fulfilled this
>>condition. He concentrated his efforts in the rescue of the prominents
>>and
>>treated the camp of the doomed as if they had already been wiped out
>>from
>>the book of the living.
>>
>>One cannot estimate the damage caused by Kastner’s collaboration and
>>put
>>down the number of victims which it cost Hungarian Jews. These are not
>>only
>>the thousands of Jews in Nodvarod or any other community in the border
>>area, Jews who could escape through the border, had the chief of their
>>rescue committee fulfilled his duty toward them.
>>
>>All of Kastner’s answers in his final testimony were a constant effort
>>to
>>evade this truth.
>>
>>Kastner has tried to escape through every crack he could find in the
>>wall
>>of evidence. When one crack was sealed in his face, he darted quickly
>>to
>>another. (Judgement of Judge Benjamin Halevi, Criminal Case 124/53;
>>Attorney General v. Malchiel Greenwald, District Court, Jerusalem,
>>June 22,
>>1955).
>>
>>Judge Halevi reverts to the meeting of Kastner with the S.S. officers
>>Becher and Rudolf Hoess, commandant of Auschwitz at the time when the
>>’new
>>line’ of rescuing Jews was revealed by Hoess. He says:
>>
>>From this gathering in Budapest, it is obvious that the ‘new line’
>>stretched from Himmler to Hoess, from Jutner to Becher and Krumey.
>>
>>According to Kastner, however, these Nazis were all active in rescuing
>>Jews.
>>
>>This meeting of these important German guests in Budapest exposes the
>>’rescue’ work of Becher in its true light. It reveals also the extent
>>of
>>Kastner’s involvement in the inner circle of the chief German war
>>criminals.
>>
>>Just as the Nazi war criminals knew they needed an alibi and hoped to
>>achieve it by the rescue of a few Jews at the eleventh hour, so
>>Kastner
>>also needed an alibi for himself.
>>
>>Collaboration between the Jewish Agency Rescue Committee and the
>>Exterminators of the Jews was solidified in Budapest and Vienna.
>>Kastner’s
>>duties were part and parcel of the general duties of the S.S.
>>
>>In addition to its Extermination Department and Looting Department,
>>the
>>Nazi S.S. opened a Rescue Department headed by Kastner.
>>
>>All these extermination, robbery and rescue activities of the S.S.
>>were
>>coordinated under the management of Heinrich Himmler”.
>>
>>Judge Halevi continues:
>>
>>Kastner perjured himself knowingly in his testimony before this court
>>when
>>he denied he had interceded in Becher’s behalf. Moreover, he concealed
>>the
>>important fact that he interceded for Becher in the name of the Jewish
>>Agency and the Jewish World Congress.
>>
>>As to the contents of Kastner’s affidavit, it was enough for the
>>defense to
>>provide Becher was a war criminal. It was up to the prosecution to
>>remove
>>Becher from this status, if they wished to negate the affidavit.
>>
>>The Attorney General admitted in his summation that Becher was a war
>>criminal.
>>
>>The lies in the contents of Kastner’s affidavit, the lies in his
>>testimony
>>concerning the document, and Kastner’s knowing participation in the
>>activities of Nazi war criminals, and his participation in the last
>>minute
>>fake rescue activities – all these combine to show one overwhelming
>>truth –
>>that this affidavit was not given in good faith.
>>
>>Kastner knew well, as he himself testified, that Becher had never
>>stood up
>>against the stream of Jewish extermination, as Kastner has declared in
>>the
>>affidavit.
>>
>>The aims of Becher and his superior, Himmler, were not to save Jews
>>but to
>>serve the Nazi regime with full compliance. These is not truth and no
>>good
>>faith in Kastner’s testimony, ‘I never doubted for one moment the good
>>intention of good Becher’.
>>
>>It is clear that the positive recommendation by Kastner, not only in
>>his
>>own name but also in the name of the Jewish Agency and the Jewish
>>World
>>Congress was of decisive importance for Becher. Kastner did not
>>exaggerate
>>when he said that Becher was released by the Allies because of his
>>personal
>>intervention. The lies in the affidavit of Kastner and the
>>contradictions
>>and various pretexts, which were proven to be lies, were sufficient to
>>annul the value of his statements and to prove that there was no good
>>faith
>>in his testimony in favor of this German war criminal. Kastner’s
>>affidavit
>>in favor of Becher was a wilfully false affidavit given in favor of a
>>war
>>criminal to save him from trial and punishment in Nuremberg.
>>
>>Therefore, the defendant, Malchiel Greenwald, was correct in his
>>accusations against Rudolf Kastner in the first, second and fourth of
>>his
>>statements.”
>>
>>Judge Halevi’s verdict found Malchiel Greenwald generally innocent of
>>libel
>>against Kastner, but fined him one Israeli pound for the one unproved
>>accusation – that Kastner had actually collected money from his Nazi
>>partners for his aide to their slaughter program. The judge also
>>ordered
>>the Government of Israel to pay Greenwald two hundred Israeli pounds
>>as
>>court costs.
>>
>>If the story ended there, it would only prove conclusively that the
>>individual Kastner was a collaborator and the Israeli Government had
>>attempted to defend him, although facts brought out in the trial
>>pointed to
>>much more than that.
>>
>>But the story does not end there.
>>
>>The Reaction
>>The Communist Party newspaper Kol Ha’am (Voice of the People) wrote:
>>
>>All those whose relatives were butchered by the Germans in Hungary
>>know now
>>clearly that Jewish hands helped the mass murder” (23 June 1955)
>>
>>But public opinion was not quite unanimous. The problem with bringing
>>Kastner and his associates to trial was that his associates were the
>>Government of Israel.
>>
>>As the evening paper *Yedi’ot Aharonot* said:
>>
>>If Kastner is brought to trial the entire government faces a total
>>political and national collapse – as a result of what such a trial may
>>disclose.” (23 June 1955)
>>
>>Accordingly, the Government of Israel did not put Kastner on trial,
>>instead
>>it filed an appeal against the acquittal of Greenwald for criminal
>>libel.
>>
>>At 11 P.M. the verdict was given. At 11 A.M. next morning the
>>government
>>announces the defense of Kastner will be renewed – an appeal filed.
>>What
>>exemplary expediency! Since when does this government possess such
>>lawyer-genius who can weigh in one night the legal chances of an
>>appeal on
>>a detailed, complex verdict of three hundred pages?
>>
>>At the appeal hearings before the Supreme Court, the Attorney General
>>of
>>Israel, Chaim Cohen, explained clearly why the Government of Israel
>>was
>>defending Kastner so strongly:
>>
>>The man Kastner does not stand here as a private individual. He was a
>>recognized representative, official or non-official of the Jewish
>>National
>>Institutes in Palestine and of the Zionist Executive; and I come here
>>in
>>this court to defend the representative of our national institutions.”
>>(Hecht, p. 268)
>>
>>The truth of this statement cannot be denied. Kastner’s collaboration
>>was
>>not that of an individual. It was the collaboration of the Zionist
>>leadership.
>>
>>So far, it has only been established that the Government of Israel
>>continued to support a Nazi collaborator after the facts about his
>>collaboration had been conclusively established in an Israeli court.
>>But
>>the story gets worse.
>>
>>The Supreme Court of Israel unanimously found that Becher was indeed a
>>
>>Nazi war criminal and that Kastner had without justification, and in
>>the
>>name
>>of the Jewish Agency, helped Becher to escape justice. On this point
>>Greenwald was acquitted of libel and Kastner was not ‘fully
>>rehabilitated’.
>>
>>The Supreme Court also accepted the facts established in the lower
>>court –
>>that Kastner deliberately concealed the truth about Auschwitz from the
>>majority of Hungarian Jews in exchange for Nazi permission to take a
>>thousand or so to Palestine. Again, Kastner was far from being ‘fully
>>rehabilitated’.
>>
>>
>>But now comes the really nasty bit. After unanimously acknowledging
>>these
>>facts, the Supreme Court of Israel, by a majority of three to two,
>>found
>>that Kastner’s actions were morally justifiable and convicted
>>Greenwald of
>>criminal libel for calling this ‘collaboration’.
>>
>>Kastner’s actions only proved that he was a Nazi collaborator. It is
>>the
>>defense of these actions by the Government and Courts of Israel that
>>prove
>>conclusively that Zionism approves of Nazi collaboration.
>>
>>The majority of the Supreme Court of Israel did not rehabilitate
>>Kastner.
>>They joined him.
>>
>>Let us read from the majority judgement of Supreme Court Judge Shlomo
>>Chesin:
>>
>>….What point was there in telling the people boarding the trains in
>>Kluj,
>>people struck by fate and persecuted, as to what awaits them at the
>>end of
>>their journey…Kastner spoke in detail of the situation, saying, ‘The
>>Hungarian Jew was a branch which long ago dried up on the tree’. This
>>vivid
>>description coincides with the testimony of another witness about the
>>Hungarian Jews, ‘This was a big Jewish community in Hungary, without
>>any
>>ideological Jewish backbone’ (Moshe Shweiger, a Kastner aide in
>>Budapest,
>>protocol 465).
>>
>>I fully agree with my friend, Judge Agranot, when he states that, ‘The
>>Jews
>>of Hungary, including those in the countryside, were not capable,
>>neither
>>physically nor mentally, to carry out resistance operations with force
>>against the deportation scheme’…From this point of view no rescue
>>achievement could have resulted by disclosing the Auschwitz news to
>>the
>>Jewish leaders there, and this is a consideration which on can
>>properly
>>conclude that Kastner had in front of his eyes.
>>
>>….And I take one more step. I am certain that the silence of Kastner
>>when
>>he arrived in Kluj was premeditated and calculated and did not result
>>from
>>his great despair because of the helplessness of the Jewish community.
>>Even
>>then, I say, this is still not considered wilful collaboration and
>>assistance in the extermination, because all the signs indicate that
>>Kastner’s efforts were aimed at rescue and rescue on a big scale…And
>>towards the end I take one last step. In doing so I go very far and
>>say
>>that even if Kastner ordered himself to keep silent knowingly, in
>>submission to the strong will of the Nazis, in order to save a few
>>Jews
>>from Hell – this is still no proof that he stained his hands by
>>collaborating with the enemies of his people and carrying out their
>>plan to
>>exterminate most of the Jewish community in Hungary.
>>
>>Even if, through these activities of his – or rather, his omission –
>>the
>>extermination became easier. And as to the moral issue, the question
>>is not
>>whether a man is allowed to kill many in order to save a few, or
>>vice-versa. The question is altogether in another sphere and should be
>>defined as follows: A man is aware that a whole community is awaiting
>>its
>>doom. He is allowed to make efforts to save a few, although part of
>>his
>>efforts involve concealment of truth from the many or should he
>>disclose
>>the truth to many though it is his best opinion that this way
>>everybody
>>will perish. I think that the answer is clear. What good will the
>>blood of
>>the few bring if everybody is to perish?…As I said, I am not arguing
>>with
>>the basic factual findings of the learned President of the Jewish
>>District
>>Court (Judge Halevi) but it seems to me, with all due respect, that
>>his
>>findings do not, as of necessity, demand the conclusion he has arrived
>>at.
>>That is to say, collaboration on the part of Kastner in the
>>extermination
>>of the Jews. And that they better coincide with bad leadership both
>>from a
>>moral and public point of view…
>>
>>In my opinion, one can say outright that if you find out that Kastner
>>collaborated with the enemy because he did not disclose to the people
>>who
>>boarded the trains in Kluj that they were being led to extermination,
>>one
>>has to put on trial today Danzig, Herman, Hanzi, Brand, Revis and
>>Marton,
>>and many more leaders and half-leaders who gagged themselves in an
>>hour of
>>crisis and did not inform others of what was known to them and did not
>>warn
>>and did not cry out of the coming danger….
>>
>>Because of all this I cannot confirm the conclusion of the District
>>Court
>>with regard to the accusation that Greenwald has thrown on Kastner of
>>collaboration with the Nazis in exterminating the Jewish people in
>>Hungary
>>during the last war.” (Hecht, ibid., pp.270-2)
>>
>>In other words, the Court approved of Kastner’s contempt for the
>>Hungarian
>>Jews and could not allow him to be condemned for doing exactly what
>>many
>>other Zionist leaders had half-leaders did – concealing their
>>knowledge of
>>the Nazi extermination plans so that Jews would board the trains to
>>Auschwitz peacefully while their Zionist ‘leaders’ boarded a different
>>train for Palestine.
>>
>>The most precise answer to this sickening judgement of Judge Chesin is
>>
>>provided in the minority judgement of Supreme Court Judge Moshe
>>Silberg:
>>
>>I do not say that he was the only man who possessed information among
>>the
>>leaders. It is quite possible that somebody else as well does not have
>>a
>>clear conscience with regards to this concealment. But we are dealing
>>here
>>with the guilt of Kastner and we do not have to make judgements on the
>>guilt of others….
>>
>>The declaration of the learned Attorney General therefore shrinks into
>>an
>>opinion….’Kastner was convinced and believed that there was no ray
>>of
>>hope for the Jews of Hungary, almost for none of them, and as he, as a
>>result of his personal despair, did not disclose the secret of the
>>extermination in order not to endanger or frustrate the rescue of the
>>few –
>>therefore he acted in good faith and should not be accused of
>>collaborating
>>with the Nazis in expediting the extermination of the Jews, even
>>though, in
>>fact, he brought about its result.’
>>
>>I am compelled to state that it is very difficult for me to conceive
>>such
>>an intention. Is this good faith? Can a single man, even in
>>cooperation
>>with some of his friends, yield to despair on behalf and without the
>>knowledge of 800,000 other people? This is, in my opinion, the
>>decisive
>>consideration in the problem facing us. The charge emanating from the
>>testimony of the witnesses against Kastner is that had they known of
>>the
>>Auschwitz secret, then thousands or tens of thousands would have been
>>able
>>to save their lives by local, partial, specific or indirect rescue
>>operations like local revolts, resistance, escapes, hidings,
>>concealment of
>>children with Gentiles, forging of documents, ransom money, bribery,
>>etc. –
>>and when this is the case and when one deals with many hundreds of
>>thousands, how does a human being, a mortal, reject with complete
>>certainty
>>and with an extreme ‘no’ the efficiency of all the many and varied
>>rescue
>>ways? How can he examine the tens of thousands of possibilities? Does
>>he
>>decide instead of God? Indeed, he who can act with such a usurpation
>>of the
>>last hope of hundreds of thousands is not entitled to claim good faith
>>as
>>his defense. The penetrating question quo warrento is a good answer to
>>a
>>claim of such good faith…
>>
>>If the superintendent of a big hospital lets thousands of sick people
>>die
>>so that he may devote himself to the sure rescue of one soul, he will
>>come
>>out guilty, at least morally, even if it is proven that he as an
>>individual
>>erroneously thought that there was no hope of saving the other
>>patients. He
>>is a collaborator with the angel of death.
>>
>>Either a complete atrophy of the soul or a blind involvement with
>>complete
>>loss of senses and proportion in his small but personal rescue
>>operation
>>could bring a man to such a gigantic, hazardous play.
>>
>>And if all this is not enough to annul the claim of good faith which
>>was
>>put before us on behalf of Kastner by the Attorney General, then
>>Kastner
>>himself comes and annuls it altogether. Not only did he never make
>>this
>>claim, but his own words prove the contrary. He writes in his report
>>to the
>>Jewish Agency that the Committee sent emissaries to many ghettos in
>>the
>>countryside and pleaded with them to organize escapes and to refuse to
>>board the trains. And though the story of these pleadings is untrue,
>>and
>>the silence of Kastner in Kluj is proven, the very uttering of these
>>statements entirely contradicts the claim that Kastner had concealed
>>the
>>news about the fate of the ghetto inmates in good faith and only as a
>>result of his complete despairing of the chances of escaping or
>>resisting
>>the Germans. You can not claim at the same time helplessness and
>>activity.
>>Anyway, such a claim is not convincing…
>>
>>We can sum up with three facts:
>>
>>A. That the Nazis didn’t want to have a great revolt – nor small
>>revolts,
>>and their passion was to have the extermination machine working
>>smoothly without resistance. This fact was known to Kastner from
>>the best source – from Eichmann himself – And he had additional proofs
>>of
>>that when he witnessed all the illusionary and misleading tactics
>>which
>>were being taken by the Nazis from the first moment of occupation.
>>
>>B. That the most efficient means to paralyze the resistance with – or
>>the
>>escape of a victim is to conceal from him the plot of the coming
>>murder.
>>This fact is known to every man and one does not need any proof of
>>evidence for this.
>>
>>C. That he, Kastner, in order to carry out the rescue plan for the few
>>prominents, fulfilled knowingly and without good faith the said desire
>>of
>>the Nazis, thus expediting the work of exterminating the masses.
>>
>>And also the rescue of Becher by Kastner…He who is capable of
>>rescuing
>>this Becher from hanging proves that the atrocities of this great war
>>criminal were not so horrifying or despicable in his eyes…I couldn’t
>>base
>>the main guilt of Kastner on this fact had it been alone, but when it
>>is
>>attached even from afar to the whole scene of events it throws
>>retroactive
>>light on the whole affair and serves as a dozen proofs of our
>>conclusion.”(Supreme Court Judge, Moshe Silberg, 1957)
>>
>>
>>If that had been the majority judgement, one could say that whatever
>>their
>>attitudes to the Arabs, and whatever their past behaviour might have
>>been
>>under pressure, the Zionist leadership today did not advocate
>>collaboration
>>with the Nazis.
>>
>>But Judge Silberg’s judgement was that of a minority.
>>
>>The Kastner case is therefore not an alleged episode in past history.
>>
>>It is a continuing controversy in which the top Zionist leadership of
>>Israel stand indicted of continuing to publicly defend collaboration
>>with
>>the Nazis in the extermination of Jews.
>>
>>Despite the unanimous finding of the Supreme Court of Israel that Kurt
>>Becher was a major war criminal, the Jewish Agency (World Zionist
>>Organization) refused to withdraw the fraudulent certificate Kastner
>>gave
>>on their behalf, which saved Becher from hanging, and allowed him to
>>remain
>>a free man in West Germany, the head of several corporations and with
>>an
>>estimated personal worth of $30 million.
>>
>>Becher has even used his certification as a ‘good’ SS officer to give
>>evidence in support of his associates at other war crimes trials in
>>West
>>Germany.
>>
>>Since the prosecution, representing the Israeli Government agreed with
>>the
>>Supreme Court that Becher was a major war criminal, one can only
>>pressure
>>that the Israeli Government did not want him put on trial for fear of
>>what
>>might come out.
>>
>>Likewise, none of Kastner’s associates on the Zionist Relief and
>>Rescue
>>Committee or his bosses in the Jewish Agency have ever been put on
>>trial .
>>Let alone the hundreds of ‘prominents’ who helped Kastner to reassure
>>the
>>Hungarian Jews that they were going to Kenyermeze and not Auschwitz,
>>in exchange for tickets on the one train that took them eventually to
>>Palestine.
>>
>>As for Kastner himself, he will cause no further embarrassment to the
>>Zionist leadership with his undisputed claims that everything he did
>>was
>>approved by the Jewish Agency (World Zionist Organization) leadership
>>in
>>Palestine. He is ‘now dead’. Or putting it less delicately, on 3 March
>>1957
>>he was shot by Zeev Eckstein – immediately after the appeal hearings
>>were
>>concluded, and before the judgement ‘rehabilitating’ him was
>>delivered.
>>Eckstein was not a Hungarian avenger. He was a paid undercover agent
>>of the
>>Israeli secret service. (Hecht, ibid., p.208). Another ‘fantastic
>>allegation’ no doubt; but admitted in court during the murder trial).
sven88
>When Dachau fell into Western hands in 1945, it had to look
>the part, so, under the inspiration of Philip Auerbach, Under-
>Secretary of State in the provincial government of Bavaria,
>it was transformed into a showplace of horrors.
>
>Near the entrance stood a big fir tree with a horizontal
>bough. On the orders of American Captain Strauss,
>German prisoners of war worked the bough with ropes to
>damage the bark. Auerbach then proclaimed it the “Hanging
>Tree,” and said that 10,000 Jews had been hung on its bough.
>
>The workers received orders to dig a blood-pit with a drain
>pipe for draining off the blood, because it must be made to appear
>that here Jewish blood had been flowing in streams. The shower-
>baths, dressing rooms and reception halls had to be rebuilt so that they
>should appear like gas-chambers. For the sake of achieving this
>appearance, a special separate concrete structure was built
>with small porthole-like openings, and these contraptions are
>still on show today (1958-rb) purporting to demonstrate that the killing
>”death gas” was let in through these portholes.”
>
>…Jews converted this camp into a chamber of horrors……
>
>
>Comment: Sounds just like Hollywood, doesn’t it? The only
>thing missing is Jamie Lee…..
>
From [email protected] Fri Oct 16 15:01:47 EDT 1998
Article: 275324 of alt.revisionism
Path: hub.org!hub.org!news.gv.tsc.tdk.com!Supernews73!supernews.com!newsfeed.corridex.com!newsfeed.cwix.com!169.132.11.200!news.idt.net!newsfeed.nyu.edu!nntp.cadvision.com!news.agtac.net!news.telusplanet.net!news
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: soc.culture.palestine,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.revisionism,soc.culture.islam,soc.culture.malaysia,soc.culture.australian,soc.culture.polish
Subject: Re: Nazi — Jewish Zionist Collaboration
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 14:34:29 GMT
Organization: TELUS Communications Inc.
Lines: 819
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: edtnpx08-port-58.agt.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451
Xref: hub.org soc.culture.palestine:53134 alt.politics.nationalism.white:180692 alt.revisionism:275324 soc.culture.islam:4201 soc.culture.malaysia:196691 soc.culture.australian:78659 soc.culture.polish:123531
On Thu, 15 Oct 1998 09:34:04, [email protected] wrote:
On Thu, 10 Sep 1998 22:56:46 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
trying to stimulate more interest in this topic,
On Sat, 15 Aug 1998 18:45:47 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
>On Fri, 03 Jul 1998 15:00:35 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>On 3 Jul 1998 06:38:05 GMT,
>>
Orest Slepokura
…fully documented *Perfidy* blatantly exposes the degree to which
Zionists cooperated in the persecution of their fellow Jews…
Here is more evidence of NAZI-ZIONIST JEW COLLABORATION.
The Kastner Case
The most notorious case of Nazi-Zionist collaboration is that
involving a Jew – Rudolf Kastner.
Most Jewish people have never heard of Rudolf Kastner. Those who have,
are generally under the impression that there is some ‘controversy’
about negotiations he undertook for ‘the purchase of Jewish lives for
money and military equipment’, but that he was ‘fully rehabilitated’
by the Supreme Court of Israel.
The Accusations
Briefly, the accusations against Kastner are as follows:
Dr. Rudolf Verba, a Doctor of Science now serving at the British
Medical Research Council, was one of the few escapees from Auschwitz.
In his memoirs published in February, 1961, in the London Daily
Herald, he wrote:
I am a Jew. In spite of that – indeed because of that – I accuse
certain Jewish leaders of one of the most ghastly deeds of the war.
This group of quislings knew what was happening to their brethren in
Hitler’s gas chambers and bought their own lives with the price of
silence.
Among them was Dr. Kastner, leader of the council which spoke for all
Jews in Hungary. While I was prisoner number 44070 at Auschwitz – the
number is still on my arm – I compiled careful statistics of the
exterminations.
I took these terrible statistics with me when I escaped in 1944 and I
was able to give Hungarian Zionist leaders three weeks notice that
Eichmann planned to send a million of their Jews to his gas
chambers…Kastner went to Eichmann and told him, ‘I know of your
plans; spare some Jews of my choice and I shall keep quiet.’
Eichmann not only agreed, but dressed Kastner up in S.S. uniform and
took him to Belsen to trace some of his friends. Nor did the sordid
bargaining end there. Kastner paid Eichmann several thousand dollars.
With this little fortune, Eichmann was able to buy his way to freedom
when Germany collapsed, to set himself up in the Argentine…(Ben
Hecht, Perfidy, pp261-2)
These accusations are confirmed by the ‘Eichmann Confessions’
published in Life magazine, 28 November and 5 December 1960:
I resolved to show how well a job could be done when the commander
stands 100% behind it. By shipping the Jews off in a lightning
operation, I wanted to set an example for future campaigns
elsewhere…In obedience to Himmler’s directive I now concentrated on
negotiations with the Jewish political officials in Budapest…Among
them Dr. Rudolph Kastner, authorized representative of the Zionist
Movement. This Dr. Kastner was a young man about my age, an ice-cold
lawyer and a fanatical Zionist. He agreed to help keep the Jews from
resisting deportation – and even keep order in the collection camps –
if I could close my eyes and let a few hundred or a few thousand young
Jews emigrate illegally to Palestine.
It was a good bargain. For keeping order in the camps, the price was
not too high for me.
We trusted each other perfectly. When he was with me, Kastner smoke
cigarets as though he was in a coffeehouse. While we talked he would
smoke one aromatic cigaret after another, taking them from a silver
case and lighting them with a silver lighter. With his great polish
and reserve he would have made an ideal Gestapo officer himself.
Dr. Kastner’s main concern was to make it possible for a select group
of Hungarian Jews to emigrate to Israel…
>>As a matter of fact, there was a very strong similarity between our
>>attitudes in the S.S. and the viewpoint of these immensely idealistic
>>Zionist leaders. I believe that Kastner would have sacrificed a
>>thousand
>>or a hundred thousand of his blood to achieve his political goal ‘You
>>can
>>have the others’, he would say, ‘but let me have this group here’. And
>>because Kastner rendered us a great service by helping keep the
>>deportation
>>camps peaceful, I would let his groups escape. After all, I was not
>>concerned with small groups of a thousand or so Jews…That was the
>>’gentleman’s agreement’ I had with Kastner (Hecht, ibid., p.260-61)
>>
>>Quite clearly these accusations, do not relate merely to ‘the purchase
>>of
>>Jewish lives for money and military equipment’.
>>
>>Are the accusations against Kastner true?
>>
>>According to the Government of Israel, they are a lie. When Malchiel
>>Greenwald, a strongly pro-Zionist Israeli citizen published these
>>accusations against Kastner, the Israeli Government did rather more
>>than
>>demand that his views should not be broadcast. Because a prominent
>>Zionist
>>official (Dr. Kastner was a spokesman for the Ministry of Trade and
>>Industry) was involved, the Attorney General of the State of Israel
>>prosecuted Greenwald for criminal libel.
>>
>> The Verdict
>>
>>Let the verdict of Judge Benjamin Halevi (who later became one of the
>>panel
>>of three judges that tried Eichmann) in Israel’s District Court of
>>Jerusalem speak for itself, given in criminal case No. 124 of 1953.
>>The
>>Attorney General v. Malchiel Greenwald. This material should be
>>studied
>>carefully.
>>
>>The masses of Jews from Hungary’s ghettos obediently boarded the
>>deportation trains without knowing their fate. They were full of
>>confidence
>>in the false information that they were being transferred to
>>Kenyermeze.
>>
>>The Nazis could not have misled the masses of Jews so conclusively had
>>they
>>not spread their false information through Jewish channels.
>>
>>The Jews of the ghettos would not have trusted the Nazi or Hungarian
>>rulers. But they had trust in their Jewish leaders. Eichmann and
>>others
>>used this known fact as part of their calculated plan to mislead the
>>Jews.
>>They were able to deport the Jews to their extermination by the help
>>of
>>Jewish leaders.
>>
>>The false information was spread by the Jewish leaders. The local
>>leaders
>>of the Jews of Kluj and Nodvarod knew that other leaders were
>>spreading
>>such false information and did not protest.
>>
>>Those of the Jews who tried to warn their friends of the truth were
>>persecuted by the Jewish leaders in charge of the local ‘rescue work’.
>>
>>The trust of the Jews in the misleading information and their lack of
>>knowledge that their wives, children and themselves were about to be
>>deported to the gas chambers of Auschwitz led the victims to remain
>>quiescent in their ghettos. It seduced them into not resisting or
>>hampering
>>the deportation orders.
>>
>>Dozens of thousands of Jews were guarded in their ghettos by a few
>>dozen
>>police. Yet even vigorous young Jews made no attempt to overpower
>>these few
>>guards and escape to nearby Rumania. No resistance activities to the
>>deportations were organized in these ghettos.
>>
>>And the Jewish leaders did everything in their power to soothe the
>>Jews in
>>the ghettos and to prevent such resistance activities.
>>
>>The same Jews who spread in Kluj and Nodvarod the false rumor of
>>Kenyermeze, or confirmed it, the same public leaders who did not warn
>>their
>>own people against the misleading statements, the same Jewish leaders
>>who
>>did not organize any resistance or any sabotage of
>>deportations…these
>>same leaders did not join the people of their community in their ride
>>to
>>Auschwitz, but were all included in the Rescue train.
>>
>>The Nazi organizers of extermination and the perpetrators of
>>extermination
>>permitted Rudolf Kastner and the members of the Jewish Council in
>>Budapest
>>to save themselves, their relatives, and friends. The Nazis did this
>>as a
>>means of making the local Jewish leaders, whom they favoured,
>>dependent on
>>the Nazi regime, dependent on its good will during the time of its
>>fatal
>>deportation schedule. In short, the Nazis succeeded in bringing the
>>Jewish
>>leaders into collaboration with the Nazis at the time of the
>>catastrophe.
>>
>>The Nazi chiefs knew that the Zionists were a most vital element in
>>Jewry
>>and the most trusted by the Jews.
>>
>>The personality of Rudolph Kastner made him a convenient catspaw for
>>Eichmann and his clique, to draw into collaboration and make their
>>task
>>easier.
>>
>>The question here is not, as stated by the Attorney General in his
>>summation, whether members of the Jewish Rescue Committee were or were
>>not capable of fulfilling their duty without the patronage of the S.S.
>>
>>chiefs.
>>It is obvious that without such S.S. Nazi patronage the Jewish Rescue
>>Committee could not have existed, and could have acted only as an
>>underground.
>>
>>The question is, as put by the lawyer for the defense, why were the
>>Nazis
>>interested in the existence of the Rescue Committee? Why did the S.S.
>>chiefs make every effort to encourage the existence of the Jewish
>>Rescue
>>Committee? Did the exterminators turn into rescuers?
>>
>>The same question rises concerning the rescue of prominent Jews by
>>these
>>German killers of Jews. Was the rescue of such Jews a part of the
>>extermination plan of the killers ?
>>
>>The support given by the extermination leaders to Kastner’s Rescue
>>Committee proves that indeed there was a place for Kastner and his
>>friends
>>in their Final Solution for the Jews of Hungary – their total
>>annihilation.
>>
>>The Nazi’s patronage of Kastner, and their agreement to let him save
>>six
>>hundred prominent Jews, were part of the plan to exterminate the Jews.
>>Kastner was given a chance to add a few more to that number. The bait
>>attracted him. The opportunity of rescuing prominent people appealed
>>to him
>>greatly. He considered the rescue of the most important Jews as a
>>great
>>personal success and a success for Zionism. It was a success that
>>would
>>also justify his conduct – his political negotiation with Nazis and
>>the
>>Nazi patronage of his committee.
>>
>>When Kastner received this present from the Nazis, Kastner sold his
>>soul to
>>the German Satan.
>>
>>The sacrifice of the vital interests of the majority of the Jews, in
>>order
>>to rescue the prominents, was the basic element in the agreement
>>between
>>Kastner and the Nazis. This agreement fixed the division of the nation
>>into
>>two unequal camps: a small fragment of prominents, whom the Nazis
>>promised
>>Kastner to save, on the one hand, and the great majority or Hungarian
>>Jews
>>whom the Nazis designated for death, on the other hand. An imperative
>>condition for the rescue of the first camp by the Nazis was that
>>Kastner
>>will not interfere in the action of the Nazis against the other camp
>>and
>>will not hamper them in its extermination. Kastner fulfilled this
>>condition. He concentrated his efforts in the rescue of the prominents
>>and
>>treated the camp of the doomed as if they had already been wiped out
>>from
>>the book of the living.
>>
>>One cannot estimate the damage caused by Kastner’s collaboration and
>>put
>>down the number of victims which it cost Hungarian Jews. These are not
>>only
>>the thousands of Jews in Nodvarod or any other community in the border
>>area, Jews who could escape through the border, had the chief of their
>>rescue committee fulfilled his duty toward them.
>>
>>All of Kastner’s answers in his final testimony were a constant effort
>>to
>>evade this truth.
>>
>>Kastner has tried to escape through every crack he could find in the
>>wall
>>of evidence. When one crack was sealed in his face, he darted quickly
>>to
>>another. (Judgement of Judge Benjamin Halevi, Criminal Case 124/53;
>>Attorney General v. Malchiel Greenwald, District Court, Jerusalem,
>>June 22,
>>1955).
>>
>>Judge Halevi reverts to the meeting of Kastner with the S.S. officers
>>Becher and Rudolf Hoess, commandant of Auschwitz at the time when the
>>’new
>>line’ of rescuing Jews was revealed by Hoess. He says:
>>
>>From this gathering in Budapest, it is obvious that the ‘new line’
>>stretched from Himmler to Hoess, from Jutner to Becher and Krumey.
>>
>>According to Kastner, however, these Nazis were all active in rescuing
>>Jews.
>>
>>This meeting of these important German guests in Budapest exposes the
>>’rescue’ work of Becher in its true light. It reveals also the extent
>>of
>>Kastner’s involvement in the inner circle of the chief German war
>>criminals.
>>
>>Just as the Nazi war criminals knew they needed an alibi and hoped to
>>achieve it by the rescue of a few Jews at the eleventh hour, so
>>Kastner
>>also needed an alibi for himself.
>>
>>Collaboration between the Jewish Agency Rescue Committee and the
>>Exterminators of the Jews was solidified in Budapest and Vienna.
>>Kastner’s
>>duties were part and parcel of the general duties of the S.S.
>>
>>In addition to its Extermination Department and Looting Department,
>>the
>>Nazi S.S. opened a Rescue Department headed by Kastner.
>>
>>All these extermination, robbery and rescue activities of the S.S.
>>were
>>coordinated under the management of Heinrich Himmler”.
>>
>>Judge Halevi continues:
>>
>>Kastner perjured himself knowingly in his testimony before this court
>>when
>>he denied he had interceded in Becher’s behalf. Moreover, he concealed
>>the
>>important fact that he interceded for Becher in the name of the Jewish
>>Agency and the Jewish World Congress.
>>
>>As to the contents of Kastner’s affidavit, it was enough for the
>>defense to
>>provide Becher was a war criminal. It was up to the prosecution to
>>remove
>>Becher from this status, if they wished to negate the affidavit.
>>
>>The Attorney General admitted in his summation that Becher was a war
>>criminal.
>>
>>The lies in the contents of Kastner’s affidavit, the lies in his
>>testimony
>>concerning the document, and Kastner’s knowing participation in the
>>activities of Nazi war criminals, and his participation in the last
>>minute
>>fake rescue activities – all these combine to show one overwhelming
>>truth –
>>that this affidavit was not given in good faith.
>>
>>Kastner knew well, as he himself testified, that Becher had never
>>stood up
>>against the stream of Jewish extermination, as Kastner has declared in
>>the
>>affidavit.
>>
>>The aims of Becher and his superior, Himmler, were not to save Jews
>>but to
>>serve the Nazi regime with full compliance. These is not truth and no
>>good
>>faith in Kastner’s testimony, ‘I never doubted for one moment the good
>>intention of good Becher’.
>>
>>It is clear that the positive recommendation by Kastner, not only in
>>his
>>own name but also in the name of the Jewish Agency and the Jewish
>>World
>>Congress was of decisive importance for Becher. Kastner did not
>>exaggerate
>>when he said that Becher was released by the Allies because of his
>>personal
>>intervention. The lies in the affidavit of Kastner and the
>>contradictions
>>and various pretexts, which were proven to be lies, were sufficient to
>>annul the value of his statements and to prove that there was no good
>>faith
>>in his testimony in favor of this German war criminal. Kastner’s
>>affidavit
>>in favor of Becher was a wilfully false affidavit given in favor of a
>>war
>>criminal to save him from trial and punishment in Nuremberg.
>>
>>Therefore, the defendant, Malchiel Greenwald, was correct in his
>>accusations against Rudolf Kastner in the first, second and fourth of
>>his
>>statements.”
>>
>>Judge Halevi’s verdict found Malchiel Greenwald generally innocent of
>>libel
>>against Kastner, but fined him one Israeli pound for the one unproved
>>accusation – that Kastner had actually collected money from his Nazi
>>partners for his aide to their slaughter program. The judge also
>>ordered
>>the Government of Israel to pay Greenwald two hundred Israeli pounds
>>as
>>court costs.
>>
>>If the story ended there, it would only prove conclusively that the
>>individual Kastner was a collaborator and the Israeli Government had
>>attempted to defend him, although facts brought out in the trial
>>pointed to
>>much more than that.
>>
>>But the story does not end there.
>>
>>The Reaction
>>The Communist Party newspaper Kol Ha’am (Voice of the People) wrote:
>>
>>All those whose relatives were butchered by the Germans in Hungary
>>know now
>>clearly that Jewish hands helped the mass murder” (23 June 1955)
>>
>>But public opinion was not quite unanimous. The problem with bringing
>>Kastner and his associates to trial was that his associates were the
>>Government of Israel.
>>
>>As the evening paper *Yedi’ot Aharonot* said:
>>
>>If Kastner is brought to trial the entire government faces a total
>>political and national collapse – as a result of what such a trial may
>>disclose.” (23 June 1955)
>>
>>Accordingly, the Government of Israel did not put Kastner on trial,
>>instead
>>it filed an appeal against the acquittal of Greenwald for criminal
>>libel.
>>
>>At 11 P.M. the verdict was given. At 11 A.M. next morning the
>>government
>>announces the defense of Kastner will be renewed – an appeal filed.
>>What
>>exemplary expediency! Since when does this government possess such
>>lawyer-genius who can weigh in one night the legal chances of an
>>appeal on
>>a detailed, complex verdict of three hundred pages?
>>
>>At the appeal hearings before the Supreme Court, the Attorney General
>>of
>>Israel, Chaim Cohen, explained clearly why the Government of Israel
>>was
>>defending Kastner so strongly:
>>
>>The man Kastner does not stand here as a private individual. He was a
>>recognized representative, official or non-official of the Jewish
>>National
>>Institutes in Palestine and of the Zionist Executive; and I come here
>>in
>>this court to defend the representative of our national institutions.”
>>(Hecht, p. 268)
>>
>>The truth of this statement cannot be denied. Kastner’s collaboration
>>was
>>not that of an individual. It was the collaboration of the Zionist
>>leadership.
>>
>>So far, it has only been established that the Government of Israel
>>continued to support a Nazi collaborator after the facts about his
>>collaboration had been conclusively established in an Israeli court.
>>But
>>the story gets worse.
>>
>>The Supreme Court of Israel unanimously found that Becher was indeed a
>>
>>Nazi war criminal and that Kastner had without justification, and in
>>the
>>name
>>of the Jewish Agency, helped Becher to escape justice. On this point
>>Greenwald was acquitted of libel and Kastner was not ‘fully
>>rehabilitated’.
>>
>>The Supreme Court also accepted the facts established in the lower
>>court –
>>that Kastner deliberately concealed the truth about Auschwitz from the
>>majority of Hungarian Jews in exchange for Nazi permission to take a
>>thousand or so to Palestine. Again, Kastner was far from being ‘fully
>>rehabilitated’.
>>
>>
>>But now comes the really nasty bit. After unanimously acknowledging
>>these
>>facts, the Supreme Court of Israel, by a majority of three to two,
>>found
>>that Kastner’s actions were morally justifiable and convicted
>>Greenwald of
>>criminal libel for calling this ‘collaboration’.
>>
>>Kastner’s actions only proved that he was a Nazi collaborator. It is
>>the
>>defense of these actions by the Government and Courts of Israel that
>>prove
>>conclusively that Zionism approves of Nazi collaboration.
>>
>>The majority of the Supreme Court of Israel did not rehabilitate
>>Kastner.
>>They joined him.
>>
>>Let us read from the majority judgement of Supreme Court Judge Shlomo
>>Chesin:
>>
>>….What point was there in telling the people boarding the trains in
>>Kluj,
>>people struck by fate and persecuted, as to what awaits them at the
>>end of
>>their journey…Kastner spoke in detail of the situation, saying, ‘The
>>Hungarian Jew was a branch which long ago dried up on the tree’. This
>>vivid
>>description coincides with the testimony of another witness about the
>>Hungarian Jews, ‘This was a big Jewish community in Hungary, without
>>any
>>ideological Jewish backbone’ (Moshe Shweiger, a Kastner aide in
>>Budapest,
>>protocol 465).
>>
>>I fully agree with my friend, Judge Agranot, when he states that, ‘The
>>Jews
>>of Hungary, including those in the countryside, were not capable,
>>neither
>>physically nor mentally, to carry out resistance operations with force
>>against the deportation scheme’…From this point of view no rescue
>>achievement could have resulted by disclosing the Auschwitz news to
>>the
>>Jewish leaders there, and this is a consideration which on can
>>properly
>>conclude that Kastner had in front of his eyes.
>>
>>….And I take one more step. I am certain that the silence of Kastner
>>when
>>he arrived in Kluj was premeditated and calculated and did not result
>>from
>>his great despair because of the helplessness of the Jewish community.
>>Even
>>then, I say, this is still not considered wilful collaboration and
>>assistance in the extermination, because all the signs indicate that
>>Kastner’s efforts were aimed at rescue and rescue on a big scale…And
>>towards the end I take one last step. In doing so I go very far and
>>say
>>that even if Kastner ordered himself to keep silent knowingly, in
>>submission to the strong will of the Nazis, in order to save a few
>>Jews
>>from Hell – this is still no proof that he stained his hands by
>>collaborating with the enemies of his people and carrying out their
>>plan to
>>exterminate most of the Jewish community in Hungary.
>>
>>Even if, through these activities of his – or rather, his omission –
>>the
>>extermination became easier. And as to the moral issue, the question
>>is not
>>whether a man is allowed to kill many in order to save a few, or
>>vice-versa. The question is altogether in another sphere and should be
>>defined as follows: A man is aware that a whole community is awaiting
>>its
>>doom. He is allowed to make efforts to save a few, although part of
>>his
>>efforts involve concealment of truth from the many or should he
>>disclose
>>the truth to many though it is his best opinion that this way
>>everybody
>>will perish. I think that the answer is clear. What good will the
>>blood of
>>the few bring if everybody is to perish?…As I said, I am not arguing
>>with
>>the basic factual findings of the learned President of the Jewish
>>District
>>Court (Judge Halevi) but it seems to me, with all due respect, that
>>his
>>findings do not, as of necessity, demand the conclusion he has arrived
>>at.
>>That is to say, collaboration on the part of Kastner in the
>>extermination
>>of the Jews. And that they better coincide with bad leadership both
>>from a
>>moral and public point of view…
>>
>>In my opinion, one can say outright that if you find out that Kastner
>>collaborated with the enemy because he did not disclose to the people
>>who
>>boarded the trains in Kluj that they were being led to extermination,
>>one
>>has to put on trial today Danzig, Herman, Hanzi, Brand, Revis and
>>Marton,
>>and many more leaders and half-leaders who gagged themselves in an
>>hour of
>>crisis and did not inform others of what was known to them and did not
>>warn
>>and did not cry out of the coming danger….
>>
>>Because of all this I cannot confirm the conclusion of the District
>>Court
>>with regard to the accusation that Greenwald has thrown on Kastner of
>>collaboration with the Nazis in exterminating the Jewish people in
>>Hungary
>>during the last war.” (Hecht, ibid., pp.270-2)
>>
>>In other words, the Court approved of Kastner’s contempt for the
>>Hungarian
>>Jews and could not allow him to be condemned for doing exactly what
>>many
>>other Zionist leaders had half-leaders did – concealing their
>>knowledge of
>>the Nazi extermination plans so that Jews would board the trains to
>>Auschwitz peacefully while their Zionist ‘leaders’ boarded a different
>>train for Palestine.
>>
>>The most precise answer to this sickening judgement of Judge Chesin is
>>
>>provided in the minority judgement of Supreme Court Judge Moshe
>>Silberg:
>>
>>I do not say that he was the only man who possessed information among
>>the
>>leaders. It is quite possible that somebody else as well does not have
>>a
>>clear conscience with regards to this concealment. But we are dealing
>>here
>>with the guilt of Kastner and we do not have to make judgements on the
>>guilt of others….
>>
>>The declaration of the learned Attorney General therefore shrinks into
>>an
>>opinion….’Kastner was convinced and believed that there was no ray
>>of
>>hope for the Jews of Hungary, almost for none of them, and as he, as a
>>result of his personal despair, did not disclose the secret of the
>>extermination in order not to endanger or frustrate the rescue of the
>>few –
>>therefore he acted in good faith and should not be accused of
>>collaborating
>>with the Nazis in expediting the extermination of the Jews, even
>>though, in
>>fact, he brought about its result.’
>>
>>I am compelled to state that it is very difficult for me to conceive
>>such
>>an intention. Is this good faith? Can a single man, even in
>>cooperation
>>with some of his friends, yield to despair on behalf and without the
>>knowledge of 800,000 other people? This is, in my opinion, the
>>decisive
>>consideration in the problem facing us. The charge emanating from the
>>testimony of the witnesses against Kastner is that had they known of
>>the
>>Auschwitz secret, then thousands or tens of thousands would have been
>>able
>>to save their lives by local, partial, specific or indirect rescue
>>operations like local revolts, resistance, escapes, hidings,
>>concealment of
>>children with Gentiles, forging of documents, ransom money, bribery,
>>etc. –
>>and when this is the case and when one deals with many hundreds of
>>thousands, how does a human being, a mortal, reject with complete
>>certainty
>>and with an extreme ‘no’ the efficiency of all the many and varied
>>rescue
>>ways? How can he examine the tens of thousands of possibilities? Does
>>he
>>decide instead of God? Indeed, he who can act with such a usurpation
>>of the
>>last hope of hundreds of thousands is not entitled to claim good faith
>>as
>>his defense. The penetrating question quo warrento is a good answer to
>>a
>>claim of such good faith…
>>
>>If the superintendent of a big hospital lets thousands of sick people
>>die
>>so that he may devote himself to the sure rescue of one soul, he will
>>come
>>out guilty, at least morally, even if it is proven that he as an
>>individual
>>erroneously thought that there was no hope of saving the other
>>patients. He
>>is a collaborator with the angel of death.
>>
>>Either a complete atrophy of the soul or a blind involvement with
>>complete
>>loss of senses and proportion in his small but personal rescue
>>operation
>>could bring a man to such a gigantic, hazardous play.
>>
>>And if all this is not enough to annul the claim of good faith which
>>was
>>put before us on behalf of Kastner by the Attorney General, then
>>Kastner
>>himself comes and annuls it altogether. Not only did he never make
>>this
>>claim, but his own words prove the contrary. He writes in his report
>>to the
>>Jewish Agency that the Committee sent emissaries to many ghettos in
>>the
>>countryside and pleaded with them to organize escapes and to refuse to
>>board the trains. And though the story of these pleadings is untrue,
>>and
>>the silence of Kastner in Kluj is proven, the very uttering of these
>>statements entirely contradicts the claim that Kastner had concealed
>>the
>>news about the fate of the ghetto inmates in good faith and only as a
>>result of his complete despairing of the chances of escaping or
>>resisting
>>the Germans. You can not claim at the same time helplessness and
>>activity.
>>Anyway, such a claim is not convincing…
>>
>>We can sum up with three facts:
>>
>>A. That the Nazis didn’t want to have a great revolt – nor small
>>revolts,
>>and their passion was to have the extermination machine working
>>smoothly without resistance. This fact was known to Kastner from
>>the best source – from Eichmann himself – And he had additional proofs
>>of
>>that when he witnessed all the illusionary and misleading tactics
>>which
>>were being taken by the Nazis from the first moment of occupation.
>>
>>B. That the most efficient means to paralyze the resistance with – or
>>the
>>escape of a victim is to conceal from him the plot of the coming
>>murder.
>>This fact is known to every man and one does not need any proof of
>>evidence for this.
>>
>>C. That he, Kastner, in order to carry out the rescue plan for the few
>>prominents, fulfilled knowingly and without good faith the said desire
>>of
>>the Nazis, thus expediting the work of exterminating the masses.
>>
>>And also the rescue of Becher by Kastner…He who is capable of
>>rescuing
>>this Becher from hanging proves that the atrocities of this great war
>>criminal were not so horrifying or despicable in his eyes…I couldn’t
>>base
>>the main guilt of Kastner on this fact had it been alone, but when it
>>is
>>attached even from afar to the whole scene of events it throws
>>retroactive
>>light on the whole affair and serves as a dozen proofs of our
>>conclusion.”(Supreme Court Judge, Moshe Silberg, 1957)
>>
>>
>>If that had been the majority judgement, one could say that whatever
>>their
>>attitudes to the Arabs, and whatever their past behaviour might have
>>been
>>under pressure, the Zionist leadership today did not advocate
>>collaboration
>>with the Nazis.
>>
>>But Judge Silberg’s judgement was that of a minority.
>>
>>The Kastner case is therefore not an alleged episode in past history.
>>
>>It is a continuing controversy in which the top Zionist leadership of
>>Israel stand indicted of continuing to publicly defend collaboration
>>with
>>the Nazis in the extermination of Jews.
>>
>>Despite the unanimous finding of the Supreme Court of Israel that Kurt
>>Becher was a major war criminal, the Jewish Agency (World Zionist
>>Organization) refused to withdraw the fraudulent certificate Kastner
>>gave
>>on their behalf, which saved Becher from hanging, and allowed him to
>>remain
>>a free man in West Germany, the head of several corporations and with
>>an
>>estimated personal worth of $30 million.
>>
>>Becher has even used his certification as a ‘good’ SS officer to give
>>evidence in support of his associates at other war crimes trials in
>>West
>>Germany.
>>
>>Since the prosecution, representing the Israeli Government agreed with
>>the
>>Supreme Court that Becher was a major war criminal, one can only
>>pressure
>>that the Israeli Government did not want him put on trial for fear of
>>what
>>might come out.
>>
>>Likewise, none of Kastner’s associates on the Zionist Relief and
>>Rescue
>>Committee or his bosses in the Jewish Agency have ever been put on
>>trial .
>>Let alone the hundreds of ‘prominents’ who helped Kastner to reassure
>>the
>>Hungarian Jews that they were going to Kenyermeze and not Auschwitz,
>>in exchange for tickets on the one train that took them eventually to
>>Palestine.
>>
>>As for Kastner himself, he will cause no further embarrassment to the
>>Zionist leadership with his undisputed claims that everything he did
>>was
>>approved by the Jewish Agency (World Zionist Organization) leadership
>>in
>>Palestine. He is ‘now dead’. Or putting it less delicately, on 3 March
>>1957
>>he was shot by Zeev Eckstein – immediately after the appeal hearings
>>were
>>concluded, and before the judgement ‘rehabilitating’ him was
>>delivered.
>>Eckstein was not a Hungarian avenger. He was a paid undercover agent
>>of the
>>Israeli secret service. (Hecht, ibid., p.208). Another ‘fantastic
>>allegation’ no doubt; but admitted in court during the murder trial).
sven88
From [email protected] Fri Oct 16 15:08:33 EDT 1998
Article: 123367 of soc.culture.polish
Path: hub.org!hub.org!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cyclone.news.idirect.com!island.idirect.com!news.agtac.net!news.telusplanet.net!news
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: soc.culture.polish,soc.culture.ukrainian,soc.culture.europe,soc.culture.palestine
Subject: Re: Crosses at Auschwitz
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 00:45:46 GMT
Organization: TELUS Communications Inc.
Lines: 159
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <199[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: edtntnt4-port-27.agt.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451
Xref: hub.org soc.culture.polish:123367 soc.culture.ukrainian:42094 soc.culture.europe:131435 soc.culture.palestine:53095
On Mon, 12 Oct 1998 13:05:23, watcher2
>FEATURE-Auschwitz remains troubled ground for Poland
>By Sean Maguire
>Sept. 14, 1998
>OSWIECIM, Poland (Reuters) – An angry man waving a gasoline can, a barking
>puppy and a teen-age boy guard dozens of wooden crosses erected in a grassy
>pit outside the high brick walls of the former Nazi death camp of Auschwitz.
>Kazimierz Switon, a veteran anti-communist and radical Roman Catholic with a
>history of anti-establishment gestures, has threatened to set himself on
>fire if the Polish government tries to remove him and the crosses from the
>sensitive site.
>From the bedraggled tent that is home to his campaign he has managed to give
>the government an intractable problem, the latest to dog attempts to better
>Poland’s image abroad and improve relations between the country and Jewish
>groups.
>“The conflict strikes a blow at Poland’s interests and must be resolved as
>swiftly as possible,” prime ministerial adviser Agnieszka Magdziak
>Miszewska told the Catholic news agency. “We are beginning to be perceived
>as anarchistic xenophobes ruled by our emotions,” she added.
>But even if the government quickly secures an eviction order against Switon,
>the affair has stalled efforts to put the management of the Auschwitz
>Birkenau complex on a firm footing and made further conflict over the tragic
>site inevitable.
>DO’S AND DONT’S AT AUSCHWITZ
>At issue is the definition of what activity is appropriate at a place where
>Nazi forces occupying Poland murdered up to 1.5 million people, 90 percent
>of them Jews, in World War II. Papal intervention was needed to resolve a
>dispute over the presence of a Carmelite convent, which was moved out, and a
>crisis erupted over plans to put a supermarket near the site.
>The presence of any religious symbols at the largest graveyard of European
>Jewry has been a particular irritant since Jewish groups regard them as a
>violation of the commemorative character and dignity of the complex.
>Poland’s center-right government scored a minor triumph in December when it
>removed unauthorized Stars of David and crosses from the dumping ground for
>human ashes at Birkenau.
>A discreet deal between the government and an international Jewish coalition
>to remove a large cross under which Polish-born Pope John Paul prayed in
>1979 came unstuck when press attention caused a nationalist uproar.
>Switon’s campaign to protect that and other crosses is backed by an informal
>alliance of right-wing clergy, radical worker groups, anti-Semitic skinheads
>and nationalists.
>It received initial support from Polish Catholics with memories of Communist
>prohibitions on crosses in public places and from patriots determined that
>national suffering at Auschwitz, where thousands of Poles died, not be
>forgotten.
>But Switon’s support has ebbed since bishops and the government took the
>compromise position that the papal cross should remain and all new crosses
>be removed.
>
>A U.S-led international Jewish coalition, which has broken off dialogue with
>Poland until the new crosses are taken down, is unlikely to accept the papal
>cross as a permanent presence. That issue, the presence of a church in an
>old Nazi building near Birkenau and a recent decision to allow a parking lot
>and shop near Auschwitz are the next obstacles to be negotiated.
>
>“The cross is a major problem,” said Ralph Grunewald of the Holocaust
>Memorial Museum in Washington. “I don’t know the answer but the cross, all
>religious symbols, all post-period elements should be the subject of behind-
>the-scene discussion.”
>
>“We have to remove all the crosses that were put up to provoke the Jewish
>community,” said presidential advisor Marek Siwiec, “But I don’t see any
>chance to have a serious and moderate discussion about the papal cross at
>the moment.”
>POLISH DESIRE FOR DIALOGUE
>Polish officials are irritated that the Switon affair has stymied efforts to
>sign a deal that would take the future of Auschwitz-Birkenau out of the
>political arena. Mindful of its campaign to join NATO and the European Union
>and anxious to expiate the guilt of a 1946 pogrom and an anti-Semitic
>campaign in 1968, authorities have been working to improve ties with Israel
>and the Jewish diaspora.
>President Alexander Kwasniewski proposed a renovation, preservation and
>education program in 1996 and the state began work on costly local
>improvement schemes that also benefited the adjacent run-down town of
>Oswiecim. But a grander plan for the bleak sites in southwestern Poland, and
>international funding, are on hold.
>The ambitious plan includes linking Auschwitz more directly to Birkenau, two
>miles away. Birkenau, built explicitly as an extermination center and where
>most Jews died, is harder to get to and visited less frequently.
>A new walkway could join the two sites, passing by the “Judenrampe,” the
>railway siding where most of the Jews arriving from across Europe were
>offloaded, which is now neglected and overgrown with weeds. The tracks
>directly into Birkenau, familiar from photographs, were built in 1944 for
>Hungarian Jewish transports in the last phase of the extermination campaign.
>“No. 1 is to preserve the site,” said Miles Lerman, chairman of the U.S.
>Holocaust Museum Council. “We’re talking about preserving barbed wire,
>concrete, the crematories.”
>A new visitors’ center, educational efforts, a better defined protection
>zone, ground rules for what commercial activity is permissible nearby and an
>internationally accountable management board are also on the agenda.
>Despite the frosty climate the government has high hopes for a new law
>taking all Nazi German camps on Polish territory out of local authority
>control, meeting objections that they are sometimes managed parochially. The
>law will cover camps where Polish political prisoners died and where
>Hitler’s troops implemented the “Final Solution,” wiping out most of
>Poland’s pre-war 3.3 million Jewish population.
>“I hope this law will be accepted by the main Jewish circles because its
>absence was previously a barrier to creating dialogue,” said Agnieszka
>Magdziak-Miszewska.
>But officials accept that, despite good will and improving relations,
>Polish- Jewish dialogue is still vulnerable.
>“We have to live with the fact that protests and controversies will be with
>us for a long time,” said Stanislaw Krajewski, a leader of Poland’s tiny
>Jewish community.
On Thu, 15 Oct 1998 14:31:49 GMT, [email protected] (Wieslaw
Kochanski) wrote:
>On Wed, 14 Oct 1998 19:11:47 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>> [email protected] (MunnyGumm) wrote:
>>> URL: http://www.scrapbookpages.com/Poland/Crosses/index.html
>>===== From John Walker: ============
>>The referred to site, above, is excellent and I hope it will
>>continue to be expanded upon.
>[…]
>>- John Walker
>And what YOU have to do with this matter.
>Are you Jewish or Polish ??????????
>Did some from your family died in Oswiecim (like mine)
>so get lost.
>For a 50 yars ther was no crosses in Oswiecim
>(and nobody wants them) so why now..??????
>Wieslaw
It is a decision that is to be made by good POLISH people, in Poland,
not by cursed Christkillers and despicable JEWS in another occupied
country.
From [email protected] Fri Oct 16 15:08:33 EDT 1998
Article: 123368 of soc.culture.polish
Path: hub.org!hub.org!newsfeed.direct.ca!cyclone.news.idirect.com!island.idirect.com!nntp.cadvision.com!news.agtac.net!news.telusplanet.net!news
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: soc.culture.polish
Subject: Re: ANTI – NIZKOR BATTLE
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 00:42:13 GMT
Organization: TELUS Communications Inc.
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: edtntnt4-port-27.agt.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451
Xref: hub.org soc.culture.polish:123368
Could it be that NAZIKOR/NIZKOR are spouting the JEW Communist line,
while others are warning you, and others of the risks of such/
Don’t forget that it was the cursed JEWS who are the principals of
communism this century.
Don’t forget it was the JEW-led KGB who murdered the 25,000 Polish
officers at Katyn.
Who can foget the 30,000,000 Ukrainians murdered by Stalin in the
1930’s??
On 12 Oct 1998 22:18:03 GMT, [email protected] (Kaszubik) wrote:
>
>Hello,
>
>Why is the battle between these two so endless here on this newsgroup? Both
>seem to offer but a mere fragment of truth in their words, both being reduced
>to wild accusations against one another, which reduce their credibility to
>almost zero. What is their real agenda?
>
>Keith Kaszubik
From [email protected] Fri Oct 16 15:08:34 EDT 1998
Article: 123520 of soc.culture.polish
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: soc.culture.palestine,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.revisionism,soc.culture.islam,soc.culture.malaysia,soc.culture.australian,soc.culture.polish
Subject: Re: Nazi — Jew Zionist Collaboration
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 14:18:17 GMT
Organization: TELUS Communications Inc.
Lines: 819
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: edtnpx08-port-58.agt.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451
Path: hub.org!hub.org!newsfeed.axxsys.net!news.idt.net!newshub.northeast.verio.net!cyclone.news.idirect.com!island.idirect.com!news.oanet.com!news.agtac.net!news.telusplanet.net!news
Xref: hub.org soc.culture.palestine:53129 alt.politics.nationalism.white:180684 alt.revisionism:275318 soc.culture.islam:4197 soc.culture.malaysia:196676 soc.culture.australian:78649 soc.culture.polish:123520
On Thu, 15 Oct 1998 15:30:35, [email protected] wrote:
On Thu, 10 Sep 1998 22:56:46 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
trying to stimulate more interest in this topic,
On Sat, 15 Aug 1998 18:45:47 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
>On Fri, 03 Jul 1998 15:00:35 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>On 3 Jul 1998 06:38:05 GMT,
>>
Orest Slepokura
…fully documented *Perfidy* blatantly exposes the degree to which
Zionists cooperated in the persecution of their fellow Jews…
Here is more evidence of NAZI-ZIONIST JEW COLLABORATION.
The Kastner Case
The most notorious case of Nazi-Zionist collaboration is that
involving a Jew – Rudolf Kastner.
Most Jewish people have never heard of Rudolf Kastner. Those who have,
are generally under the impression that there is some ‘controversy’
about negotiations he undertook for ‘the purchase of Jewish lives for
money and military equipment’, but that he was ‘fully rehabilitated’
by the Supreme Court of Israel.
The Accusations
Briefly, the accusations against Kastner are as follows:
Dr. Rudolf Verba, a Doctor of Science now serving at the British
Medical Research Council, was one of the few escapees from Auschwitz.
In his memoirs published in February, 1961, in the London Daily
Herald, he wrote:
I am a Jew. In spite of that – indeed because of that – I accuse
certain Jewish leaders of one of the most ghastly deeds of the war.
This group of quislings knew what was happening to their brethren in
Hitler’s gas chambers and bought their own lives with the price of
silence.
Among them was Dr. Kastner, leader of the council which spoke for all
Jews in Hungary. While I was prisoner number 44070 at Auschwitz – the
number is still on my arm – I compiled careful statistics of the
exterminations.
I took these terrible statistics with me when I escaped in 1944 and I
was able to give Hungarian Zionist leaders three weeks notice that
Eichmann planned to send a million of their Jews to his gas
chambers…Kastner went to Eichmann and told him, ‘I know of your
plans; spare some Jews of my choice and I shall keep quiet.’
Eichmann not only agreed, but dressed Kastner up in S.S. uniform and
took him to Belsen to trace some of his friends. Nor did the sordid
bargaining end there. Kastner paid Eichmann several thousand dollars.
With this little fortune, Eichmann was able to buy his way to freedom
when Germany collapsed, to set himself up in the Argentine…(Ben
Hecht, Perfidy, pp261-2)
These accusations are confirmed by the ‘Eichmann Confessions’
published in Life magazine, 28 November and 5 December 1960:
I resolved to show how well a job could be done when the commander
stands 100% behind it. By shipping the Jews off in a lightning
operation, I wanted to set an example for future campaigns
elsewhere…In obedience to Himmler’s directive I now concentrated on
negotiations with the Jewish political officials in Budapest…Among
them Dr. Rudolph Kastner, authorized representative of the Zionist
Movement. This Dr. Kastner was a young man about my age, an ice-cold
lawyer and a fanatical Zionist. He agreed to help keep the Jews from
resisting deportation – and even keep order in the collection camps –
if I could close my eyes and let a few hundred or a few thousand young
Jews emigrate illegally to Palestine.
It was a good bargain. For keeping order in the camps, the price was
not too high for me.
We trusted each other perfectly. When he was with me, Kastner smoke
cigarets as though he was in a coffeehouse. While we talked he would
smoke one aromatic cigaret after another, taking them from a silver
case and lighting them with a silver lighter. With his great polish
and reserve he would have made an ideal Gestapo officer himself.
Dr. Kastner’s main concern was to make it possible for a select group
of Hungarian Jews to emigrate to Israel…
>>As a matter of fact, there was a very strong similarity between our
>>attitudes in the S.S. and the viewpoint of these immensely idealistic
>>Zionist leaders. I believe that Kastner would have sacrificed a
>>thousand
>>or a hundred thousand of his blood to achieve his political goal ‘You
>>can
>>have the others’, he would say, ‘but let me have this group here’. And
>>because Kastner rendered us a great service by helping keep the
>>deportation
>>camps peaceful, I would let his groups escape. After all, I was not
>>concerned with small groups of a thousand or so Jews…That was the
>>’gentleman’s agreement’ I had with Kastner (Hecht, ibid., p.260-61)
>>
>>Quite clearly these accusations, do not relate merely to ‘the purchase
>>of
>>Jewish lives for money and military equipment’.
>>
>>Are the accusations against Kastner true?
>>
>>According to the Government of Israel, they are a lie. When Malchiel
>>Greenwald, a strongly pro-Zionist Israeli citizen published these
>>accusations against Kastner, the Israeli Government did rather more
>>than
>>demand that his views should not be broadcast. Because a prominent
>>Zionist
>>official (Dr. Kastner was a spokesman for the Ministry of Trade and
>>Industry) was involved, the Attorney General of the State of Israel
>>prosecuted Greenwald for criminal libel.
>>
>> The Verdict
>>
>>Let the verdict of Judge Benjamin Halevi (who later became one of the
>>panel
>>of three judges that tried Eichmann) in Israel’s District Court of
>>Jerusalem speak for itself, given in criminal case No. 124 of 1953.
>>The
>>Attorney General v. Malchiel Greenwald. This material should be
>>studied
>>carefully.
>>
>>The masses of Jews from Hungary’s ghettos obediently boarded the
>>deportation trains without knowing their fate. They were full of
>>confidence
>>in the false information that they were being transferred to
>>Kenyermeze.
>>
>>The Nazis could not have misled the masses of Jews so conclusively had
>>they
>>not spread their false information through Jewish channels.
>>
>>The Jews of the ghettos would not have trusted the Nazi or Hungarian
>>rulers. But they had trust in their Jewish leaders. Eichmann and
>>others
>>used this known fact as part of their calculated plan to mislead the
>>Jews.
>>They were able to deport the Jews to their extermination by the help
>>of
>>Jewish leaders.
>>
>>The false information was spread by the Jewish leaders. The local
>>leaders
>>of the Jews of Kluj and Nodvarod knew that other leaders were
>>spreading
>>such false information and did not protest.
>>
>>Those of the Jews who tried to warn their friends of the truth were
>>persecuted by the Jewish leaders in charge of the local ‘rescue work’.
>>
>>The trust of the Jews in the misleading information and their lack of
>>knowledge that their wives, children and themselves were about to be
>>deported to the gas chambers of Auschwitz led the victims to remain
>>quiescent in their ghettos. It seduced them into not resisting or
>>hampering
>>the deportation orders.
>>
>>Dozens of thousands of Jews were guarded in their ghettos by a few
>>dozen
>>police. Yet even vigorous young Jews made no attempt to overpower
>>these few
>>guards and escape to nearby Rumania. No resistance activities to the
>>deportations were organized in these ghettos.
>>
>>And the Jewish leaders did everything in their power to soothe the
>>Jews in
>>the ghettos and to prevent such resistance activities.
>>
>>The same Jews who spread in Kluj and Nodvarod the false rumor of
>>Kenyermeze, or confirmed it, the same public leaders who did not warn
>>their
>>own people against the misleading statements, the same Jewish leaders
>>who
>>did not organize any resistance or any sabotage of
>>deportations…these
>>same leaders did not join the people of their community in their ride
>>to
>>Auschwitz, but were all included in the Rescue train.
>>
>>The Nazi organizers of extermination and the perpetrators of
>>extermination
>>permitted Rudolf Kastner and the members of the Jewish Council in
>>Budapest
>>to save themselves, their relatives, and friends. The Nazis did this
>>as a
>>means of making the local Jewish leaders, whom they favoured,
>>dependent on
>>the Nazi regime, dependent on its good will during the time of its
>>fatal
>>deportation schedule. In short, the Nazis succeeded in bringing the
>>Jewish
>>leaders into collaboration with the Nazis at the time of the
>>catastrophe.
>>
>>The Nazi chiefs knew that the Zionists were a most vital element in
>>Jewry
>>and the most trusted by the Jews.
>>
>>The personality of Rudolph Kastner made him a convenient catspaw for
>>Eichmann and his clique, to draw into collaboration and make their
>>task
>>easier.
>>
>>The question here is not, as stated by the Attorney General in his
>>summation, whether members of the Jewish Rescue Committee were or were
>>not capable of fulfilling their duty without the patronage of the S.S.
>>
>>chiefs.
>>It is obvious that without such S.S. Nazi patronage the Jewish Rescue
>>Committee could not have existed, and could have acted only as an
>>underground.
>>
>>The question is, as put by the lawyer for the defense, why were the
>>Nazis
>>interested in the existence of the Rescue Committee? Why did the S.S.
>>chiefs make every effort to encourage the existence of the Jewish
>>Rescue
>>Committee? Did the exterminators turn into rescuers?
>>
>>The same question rises concerning the rescue of prominent Jews by
>>these
>>German killers of Jews. Was the rescue of such Jews a part of the
>>extermination plan of the killers ?
>>
>>The support given by the extermination leaders to Kastner’s Rescue
>>Committee proves that indeed there was a place for Kastner and his
>>friends
>>in their Final Solution for the Jews of Hungary – their total
>>annihilation.
>>
>>The Nazi’s patronage of Kastner, and their agreement to let him save
>>six
>>hundred prominent Jews, were part of the plan to exterminate the Jews.
>>Kastner was given a chance to add a few more to that number. The bait
>>attracted him. The opportunity of rescuing prominent people appealed
>>to him
>>greatly. He considered the rescue of the most important Jews as a
>>great
>>personal success and a success for Zionism. It was a success that
>>would
>>also justify his conduct – his political negotiation with Nazis and
>>the
>>Nazi patronage of his committee.
>>
>>When Kastner received this present from the Nazis, Kastner sold his
>>soul to
>>the German Satan.
>>
>>The sacrifice of the vital interests of the majority of the Jews, in
>>order
>>to rescue the prominents, was the basic element in the agreement
>>between
>>Kastner and the Nazis. This agreement fixed the division of the nation
>>into
>>two unequal camps: a small fragment of prominents, whom the Nazis
>>promised
>>Kastner to save, on the one hand, and the great majority or Hungarian
>>Jews
>>whom the Nazis designated for death, on the other hand. An imperative
>>condition for the rescue of the first camp by the Nazis was that
>>Kastner
>>will not interfere in the action of the Nazis against the other camp
>>and
>>will not hamper them in its extermination. Kastner fulfilled this
>>condition. He concentrated his efforts in the rescue of the prominents
>>and
>>treated the camp of the doomed as if they had already been wiped out
>>from
>>the book of the living.
>>
>>One cannot estimate the damage caused by Kastner’s collaboration and
>>put
>>down the number of victims which it cost Hungarian Jews. These are not
>>only
>>the thousands of Jews in Nodvarod or any other community in the border
>>area, Jews who could escape through the border, had the chief of their
>>rescue committee fulfilled his duty toward them.
>>
>>All of Kastner’s answers in his final testimony were a constant effort
>>to
>>evade this truth.
>>
>>Kastner has tried to escape through every crack he could find in the
>>wall
>>of evidence. When one crack was sealed in his face, he darted quickly
>>to
>>another. (Judgement of Judge Benjamin Halevi, Criminal Case 124/53;
>>Attorney General v. Malchiel Greenwald, District Court, Jerusalem,
>>June 22,
>>1955).
>>
>>Judge Halevi reverts to the meeting of Kastner with the S.S. officers
>>Becher and Rudolf Hoess, commandant of Auschwitz at the time when the
>>’new
>>line’ of rescuing Jews was revealed by Hoess. He says:
>>
>>From this gathering in Budapest, it is obvious that the ‘new line’
>>stretched from Himmler to Hoess, from Jutner to Becher and Krumey.
>>
>>According to Kastner, however, these Nazis were all active in rescuing
>>Jews.
>>
>>This meeting of these important German guests in Budapest exposes the
>>’rescue’ work of Becher in its true light. It reveals also the extent
>>of
>>Kastner’s involvement in the inner circle of the chief German war
>>criminals.
>>
>>Just as the Nazi war criminals knew they needed an alibi and hoped to
>>achieve it by the rescue of a few Jews at the eleventh hour, so
>>Kastner
>>also needed an alibi for himself.
>>
>>Collaboration between the Jewish Agency Rescue Committee and the
>>Exterminators of the Jews was solidified in Budapest and Vienna.
>>Kastner’s
>>duties were part and parcel of the general duties of the S.S.
>>
>>In addition to its Extermination Department and Looting Department,
>>the
>>Nazi S.S. opened a Rescue Department headed by Kastner.
>>
>>All these extermination, robbery and rescue activities of the S.S.
>>were
>>coordinated under the management of Heinrich Himmler”.
>>
>>Judge Halevi continues:
>>
>>Kastner perjured himself knowingly in his testimony before this court
>>when
>>he denied he had interceded in Becher’s behalf. Moreover, he concealed
>>the
>>important fact that he interceded for Becher in the name of the Jewish
>>Agency and the Jewish World Congress.
>>
>>As to the contents of Kastner’s affidavit, it was enough for the
>>defense to
>>provide Becher was a war criminal. It was up to the prosecution to
>>remove
>>Becher from this status, if they wished to negate the affidavit.
>>
>>The Attorney General admitted in his summation that Becher was a war
>>criminal.
>>
>>The lies in the contents of Kastner’s affidavit, the lies in his
>>testimony
>>concerning the document, and Kastner’s knowing participation in the
>>activities of Nazi war criminals, and his participation in the last
>>minute
>>fake rescue activities – all these combine to show one overwhelming
>>truth –
>>that this affidavit was not given in good faith.
>>
>>Kastner knew well, as he himself testified, that Becher had never
>>stood up
>>against the stream of Jewish extermination, as Kastner has declared in
>>the
>>affidavit.
>>
>>The aims of Becher and his superior, Himmler, were not to save Jews
>>but to
>>serve the Nazi regime with full compliance. These is not truth and no
>>good
>>faith in Kastner’s testimony, ‘I never doubted for one moment the good
>>intention of good Becher’.
>>
>>It is clear that the positive recommendation by Kastner, not only in
>>his
>>own name but also in the name of the Jewish Agency and the Jewish
>>World
>>Congress was of decisive importance for Becher. Kastner did not
>>exaggerate
>>when he said that Becher was released by the Allies because of his
>>personal
>>intervention. The lies in the affidavit of Kastner and the
>>contradictions
>>and various pretexts, which were proven to be lies, were sufficient to
>>annul the value of his statements and to prove that there was no good
>>faith
>>in his testimony in favor of this German war criminal. Kastner’s
>>affidavit
>>in favor of Becher was a wilfully false affidavit given in favor of a
>>war
>>criminal to save him from trial and punishment in Nuremberg.
>>
>>Therefore, the defendant, Malchiel Greenwald, was correct in his
>>accusations against Rudolf Kastner in the first, second and fourth of
>>his
>>statements.”
>>
>>Judge Halevi’s verdict found Malchiel Greenwald generally innocent of
>>libel
>>against Kastner, but fined him one Israeli pound for the one unproved
>>accusation – that Kastner had actually collected money from his Nazi
>>partners for his aide to their slaughter program. The judge also
>>ordered
>>the Government of Israel to pay Greenwald two hundred Israeli pounds
>>as
>>court costs.
>>
>>If the story ended there, it would only prove conclusively that the
>>individual Kastner was a collaborator and the Israeli Government had
>>attempted to defend him, although facts brought out in the trial
>>pointed to
>>much more than that.
>>
>>But the story does not end there.
>>
>>The Reaction
>>The Communist Party newspaper Kol Ha’am (Voice of the People) wrote:
>>
>>All those whose relatives were butchered by the Germans in Hungary
>>know now
>>clearly that Jewish hands helped the mass murder” (23 June 1955)
>>
>>But public opinion was not quite unanimous. The problem with bringing
>>Kastner and his associates to trial was that his associates were the
>>Government of Israel.
>>
>>As the evening paper *Yedi’ot Aharonot* said:
>>
>>If Kastner is brought to trial the entire government faces a total
>>political and national collapse – as a result of what such a trial may
>>disclose.” (23 June 1955)
>>
>>Accordingly, the Government of Israel did not put Kastner on trial,
>>instead
>>it filed an appeal against the acquittal of Greenwald for criminal
>>libel.
>>
>>At 11 P.M. the verdict was given. At 11 A.M. next morning the
>>government
>>announces the defense of Kastner will be renewed – an appeal filed.
>>What
>>exemplary expediency! Since when does this government possess such
>>lawyer-genius who can weigh in one night the legal chances of an
>>appeal on
>>a detailed, complex verdict of three hundred pages?
>>
>>At the appeal hearings before the Supreme Court, the Attorney General
>>of
>>Israel, Chaim Cohen, explained clearly why the Government of Israel
>>was
>>defending Kastner so strongly:
>>
>>The man Kastner does not stand here as a private individual. He was a
>>recognized representative, official or non-official of the Jewish
>>National
>>Institutes in Palestine and of the Zionist Executive; and I come here
>>in
>>this court to defend the representative of our national institutions.”
>>(Hecht, p. 268)
>>
>>The truth of this statement cannot be denied. Kastner’s collaboration
>>was
>>not that of an individual. It was the collaboration of the Zionist
>>leadership.
>>
>>So far, it has only been established that the Government of Israel
>>continued to support a Nazi collaborator after the facts about his
>>collaboration had been conclusively established in an Israeli court.
>>But
>>the story gets worse.
>>
>>The Supreme Court of Israel unanimously found that Becher was indeed a
>>
>>Nazi war criminal and that Kastner had without justification, and in
>>the
>>name
>>of the Jewish Agency, helped Becher to escape justice. On this point
>>Greenwald was acquitted of libel and Kastner was not ‘fully
>>rehabilitated’.
>>
>>The Supreme Court also accepted the facts established in the lower
>>court –
>>that Kastner deliberately concealed the truth about Auschwitz from the
>>majority of Hungarian Jews in exchange for Nazi permission to take a
>>thousand or so to Palestine. Again, Kastner was far from being ‘fully
>>rehabilitated’.
>>
>>
>>But now comes the really nasty bit. After unanimously acknowledging
>>these
>>facts, the Supreme Court of Israel, by a majority of three to two,
>>found
>>that Kastner’s actions were morally justifiable and convicted
>>Greenwald of
>>criminal libel for calling this ‘collaboration’.
>>
>>Kastner’s actions only proved that he was a Nazi collaborator. It is
>>the
>>defense of these actions by the Government and Courts of Israel that
>>prove
>>conclusively that Zionism approves of Nazi collaboration.
>>
>>The majority of the Supreme Court of Israel did not rehabilitate
>>Kastner.
>>They joined him.
>>
>>Let us read from the majority judgement of Supreme Court Judge Shlomo
>>Chesin:
>>
>>….What point was there in telling the people boarding the trains in
>>Kluj,
>>people struck by fate and persecuted, as to what awaits them at the
>>end of
>>their journey…Kastner spoke in detail of the situation, saying, ‘The
>>Hungarian Jew was a branch which long ago dried up on the tree’. This
>>vivid
>>description coincides with the testimony of another witness about the
>>Hungarian Jews, ‘This was a big Jewish community in Hungary, without
>>any
>>ideological Jewish backbone’ (Moshe Shweiger, a Kastner aide in
>>Budapest,
>>protocol 465).
>>
>>I fully agree with my friend, Judge Agranot, when he states that, ‘The
>>Jews
>>of Hungary, including those in the countryside, were not capable,
>>neither
>>physically nor mentally, to carry out resistance operations with force
>>against the deportation scheme’…From this point of view no rescue
>>achievement could have resulted by disclosing the Auschwitz news to
>>the
>>Jewish leaders there, and this is a consideration which on can
>>properly
>>conclude that Kastner had in front of his eyes.
>>
>>….And I take one more step. I am certain that the silence of Kastner
>>when
>>he arrived in Kluj was premeditated and calculated and did not result
>>from
>>his great despair because of the helplessness of the Jewish community.
>>Even
>>then, I say, this is still not considered wilful collaboration and
>>assistance in the extermination, because all the signs indicate that
>>Kastner’s efforts were aimed at rescue and rescue on a big scale…And
>>towards the end I take one last step. In doing so I go very far and
>>say
>>that even if Kastner ordered himself to keep silent knowingly, in
>>submission to the strong will of the Nazis, in order to save a few
>>Jews
>>from Hell – this is still no proof that he stained his hands by
>>collaborating with the enemies of his people and carrying out their
>>plan to
>>exterminate most of the Jewish community in Hungary.
>>
>>Even if, through these activities of his – or rather, his omission –
>>the
>>extermination became easier. And as to the moral issue, the question
>>is not
>>whether a man is allowed to kill many in order to save a few, or
>>vice-versa. The question is altogether in another sphere and should be
>>defined as follows: A man is aware that a whole community is awaiting
>>its
>>doom. He is allowed to make efforts to save a few, although part of
>>his
>>efforts involve concealment of truth from the many or should he
>>disclose
>>the truth to many though it is his best opinion that this way
>>everybody
>>will perish. I think that the answer is clear. What good will the
>>blood of
>>the few bring if everybody is to perish?…As I said, I am not arguing
>>with
>>the basic factual findings of the learned President of the Jewish
>>District
>>Court (Judge Halevi) but it seems to me, with all due respect, that
>>his
>>findings do not, as of necessity, demand the conclusion he has arrived
>>at.
>>That is to say, collaboration on the part of Kastner in the
>>extermination
>>of the Jews. And that they better coincide with bad leadership both
>>from a
>>moral and public point of view…
>>
>>In my opinion, one can say outright that if you find out that Kastner
>>collaborated with the enemy because he did not disclose to the people
>>who
>>boarded the trains in Kluj that they were being led to extermination,
>>one
>>has to put on trial today Danzig, Herman, Hanzi, Brand, Revis and
>>Marton,
>>and many more leaders and half-leaders who gagged themselves in an
>>hour of
>>crisis and did not inform others of what was known to them and did not
>>warn
>>and did not cry out of the coming danger….
>>
>>Because of all this I cannot confirm the conclusion of the District
>>Court
>>with regard to the accusation that Greenwald has thrown on Kastner of
>>collaboration with the Nazis in exterminating the Jewish people in
>>Hungary
>>during the last war.” (Hecht, ibid., pp.270-2)
>>
>>In other words, the Court approved of Kastner’s contempt for the
>>Hungarian
>>Jews and could not allow him to be condemned for doing exactly what
>>many
>>other Zionist leaders had half-leaders did – concealing their
>>knowledge of
>>the Nazi extermination plans so that Jews would board the trains to
>>Auschwitz peacefully while their Zionist ‘leaders’ boarded a different
>>train for Palestine.
>>
>>The most precise answer to this sickening judgement of Judge Chesin is
>>
>>provided in the minority judgement of Supreme Court Judge Moshe
>>Silberg:
>>
>>I do not say that he was the only man who possessed information among
>>the
>>leaders. It is quite possible that somebody else as well does not have
>>a
>>clear conscience with regards to this concealment. But we are dealing
>>here
>>with the guilt of Kastner and we do not have to make judgements on the
>>guilt of others….
>>
>>The declaration of the learned Attorney General therefore shrinks into
>>an
>>opinion….’Kastner was convinced and believed that there was no ray
>>of
>>hope for the Jews of Hungary, almost for none of them, and as he, as a
>>result of his personal despair, did not disclose the secret of the
>>extermination in order not to endanger or frustrate the rescue of the
>>few –
>>therefore he acted in good faith and should not be accused of
>>collaborating
>>with the Nazis in expediting the extermination of the Jews, even
>>though, in
>>fact, he brought about its result.’
>>
>>I am compelled to state that it is very difficult for me to conceive
>>such
>>an intention. Is this good faith? Can a single man, even in
>>cooperation
>>with some of his friends, yield to despair on behalf and without the
>>knowledge of 800,000 other people? This is, in my opinion, the
>>decisive
>>consideration in the problem facing us. The charge emanating from the
>>testimony of the witnesses against Kastner is that had they known of
>>the
>>Auschwitz secret, then thousands or tens of thousands would have been
>>able
>>to save their lives by local, partial, specific or indirect rescue
>>operations like local revolts, resistance, escapes, hidings,
>>concealment of
>>children with Gentiles, forging of documents, ransom money, bribery,
>>etc. –
>>and when this is the case and when one deals with many hundreds of
>>thousands, how does a human being, a mortal, reject with complete
>>certainty
>>and with an extreme ‘no’ the efficiency of all the many and varied
>>rescue
>>ways? How can he examine the tens of thousands of possibilities? Does
>>he
>>decide instead of God? Indeed, he who can act with such a usurpation
>>of the
>>last hope of hundreds of thousands is not entitled to claim good faith
>>as
>>his defense. The penetrating question quo warrento is a good answer to
>>a
>>claim of such good faith…
>>
>>If the superintendent of a big hospital lets thousands of sick people
>>die
>>so that he may devote himself to the sure rescue of one soul, he will
>>come
>>out guilty, at least morally, even if it is proven that he as an
>>individual
>>erroneously thought that there was no hope of saving the other
>>patients. He
>>is a collaborator with the angel of death.
>>
>>Either a complete atrophy of the soul or a blind involvement with
>>complete
>>loss of senses and proportion in his small but personal rescue
>>operation
>>could bring a man to such a gigantic, hazardous play.
>>
>>And if all this is not enough to annul the claim of good faith which
>>was
>>put before us on behalf of Kastner by the Attorney General, then
>>Kastner
>>himself comes and annuls it altogether. Not only did he never make
>>this
>>claim, but his own words prove the contrary. He writes in his report
>>to the
>>Jewish Agency that the Committee sent emissaries to many ghettos in
>>the
>>countryside and pleaded with them to organize escapes and to refuse to
>>board the trains. And though the story of these pleadings is untrue,
>>and
>>the silence of Kastner in Kluj is proven, the very uttering of these
>>statements entirely contradicts the claim that Kastner had concealed
>>the
>>news about the fate of the ghetto inmates in good faith and only as a
>>result of his complete despairing of the chances of escaping or
>>resisting
>>the Germans. You can not claim at the same time helplessness and
>>activity.
>>Anyway, such a claim is not convincing…
>>
>>We can sum up with three facts:
>>
>>A. That the Nazis didn’t want to have a great revolt – nor small
>>revolts,
>>and their passion was to have the extermination machine working
>>smoothly without resistance. This fact was known to Kastner from
>>the best source – from Eichmann himself – And he had additional proofs
>>of
>>that when he witnessed all the illusionary and misleading tactics
>>which
>>were being taken by the Nazis from the first moment of occupation.
>>
>>B. That the most efficient means to paralyze the resistance with – or
>>the
>>escape of a victim is to conceal from him the plot of the coming
>>murder.
>>This fact is known to every man and one does not need any proof of
>>evidence for this.
>>
>>C. That he, Kastner, in order to carry out the rescue plan for the few
>>prominents, fulfilled knowingly and without good faith the said desire
>>of
>>the Nazis, thus expediting the work of exterminating the masses.
>>
>>And also the rescue of Becher by Kastner…He who is capable of
>>rescuing
>>this Becher from hanging proves that the atrocities of this great war
>>criminal were not so horrifying or despicable in his eyes…I couldn’t
>>base
>>the main guilt of Kastner on this fact had it been alone, but when it
>>is
>>attached even from afar to the whole scene of events it throws
>>retroactive
>>light on the whole affair and serves as a dozen proofs of our
>>conclusion.”(Supreme Court Judge, Moshe Silberg, 1957)
>>
>>
>>If that had been the majority judgement, one could say that whatever
>>their
>>attitudes to the Arabs, and whatever their past behaviour might have
>>been
>>under pressure, the Zionist leadership today did not advocate
>>collaboration
>>with the Nazis.
>>
>>But Judge Silberg’s judgement was that of a minority.
>>
>>The Kastner case is therefore not an alleged episode in past history.
>>
>>It is a continuing controversy in which the top Zionist leadership of
>>Israel stand indicted of continuing to publicly defend collaboration
>>with
>>the Nazis in the extermination of Jews.
>>
>>Despite the unanimous finding of the Supreme Court of Israel that Kurt
>>Becher was a major war criminal, the Jewish Agency (World Zionist
>>Organization) refused to withdraw the fraudulent certificate Kastner
>>gave
>>on their behalf, which saved Becher from hanging, and allowed him to
>>remain
>>a free man in West Germany, the head of several corporations and with
>>an
>>estimated personal worth of $30 million.
>>
>>Becher has even used his certification as a ‘good’ SS officer to give
>>evidence in support of his associates at other war crimes trials in
>>West
>>Germany.
>>
>>Since the prosecution, representing the Israeli Government agreed with
>>the
>>Supreme Court that Becher was a major war criminal, one can only
>>pressure
>>that the Israeli Government did not want him put on trial for fear of
>>what
>>might come out.
>>
>>Likewise, none of Kastner’s associates on the Zionist Relief and
>>Rescue
>>Committee or his bosses in the Jewish Agency have ever been put on
>>trial .
>>Let alone the hundreds of ‘prominents’ who helped Kastner to reassure
>>the
>>Hungarian Jews that they were going to Kenyermeze and not Auschwitz,
>>in exchange for tickets on the one train that took them eventually to
>>Palestine.
>>
>>As for Kastner himself, he will cause no further embarrassment to the
>>Zionist leadership with his undisputed claims that everything he did
>>was
>>approved by the Jewish Agency (World Zionist Organization) leadership
>>in
>>Palestine. He is ‘now dead’. Or putting it less delicately, on 3 March
>>1957
>>he was shot by Zeev Eckstein – immediately after the appeal hearings
>>were
>>concluded, and before the judgement ‘rehabilitating’ him was
>>delivered.
>>Eckstein was not a Hungarian avenger. He was a paid undercover agent
>>of the
>>Israeli secret service. (Hecht, ibid., p.208). Another ‘fantastic
>>allegation’ no doubt; but admitted in court during the murder trial).
sven88
From [email protected] Fri Oct 16 15:08:35 EDT 1998
Article: 123521 of soc.culture.polish
Path: hub.org!hub.org!news.gv.tsc.tdk.com!news.cmc.net!spamkiller2.cwix.com!newsfeed.cwix.com!198.138.0.5!newshub.northeast.verio.net!cyclone.news.idirect.com!island.idirect.com!news.agtac.net!news.telusplanet.net!news
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: soc.culture.palestine,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.revisionism,soc.culture.islam,soc.culture.malaysia,soc.culture.australian,soc.culture.polish
Subject: Re: Nazi — Jewish Zionist Collaboration
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 14:19:12 GMT
Organization: TELUS Communications Inc.
Lines: 830
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: edtnpx08-port-58.agt.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451
Xref: hub.org soc.culture.palestine:53130 alt.politics.nationalism.white:180685 alt.revisionism:275319 soc.culture.islam:4198 soc.culture.malaysia:196678 soc.culture.australian:78655 soc.culture.polish:123521
On Thu, 10 Sep 1998 22:56:46 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
trying to stimulate more interest in this topic,
On Sat, 15 Aug 1998 18:45:47 GMT, klarj[email protected] wrote:
>On Fri, 03 Jul 1998 15:00:35 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>On 3 Jul 1998 06:38:05 GMT,
>>
Orest Slepokura
…fully documented *Perfidy* blatantly exposes the degree to which
Zionists cooperated in the persecution of their fellow Jews…
Here is more evidence of NAZI-ZIONIST JEW COLLABORATION.
The Kastner Case
The most notorious case of Nazi-Zionist collaboration is that
involving a Jew – Rudolf Kastner.
Most Jewish people have never heard of Rudolf Kastner. Those who have,
are generally under the impression that there is some ‘controversy’
about negotiations he undertook for ‘the purchase of Jewish lives for
money and military equipment’, but that he was ‘fully rehabilitated’
by the Supreme Court of Israel.
The Accusations
Briefly, the accusations against Kastner are as follows:
Dr. Rudolf Verba, a Doctor of Science now serving at the British
Medical Research Council, was one of the few escapees from Auschwitz.
In his memoirs published in February, 1961, in the London Daily
Herald, he wrote:
I am a Jew. In spite of that – indeed because of that – I accuse
certain Jewish leaders of one of the most ghastly deeds of the war.
This group of quislings knew what was happening to their brethren in
Hitler’s gas chambers and bought their own lives with the price of
silence.
Among them was Dr. Kastner, leader of the council which spoke for all
Jews in Hungary. While I was prisoner number 44070 at Auschwitz – the
number is still on my arm – I compiled careful statistics of the
exterminations.
I took these terrible statistics with me when I escaped in 1944 and I
was able to give Hungarian Zionist leaders three weeks notice that
Eichmann planned to send a million of their Jews to his gas
chambers…Kastner went to Eichmann and told him, ‘I know of your
plans; spare some Jews of my choice and I shall keep quiet.’
Eichmann not only agreed, but dressed Kastner up in S.S. uniform and
took him to Belsen to trace some of his friends. Nor did the sordid
bargaining end there. Kastner paid Eichmann several thousand dollars.
With this little fortune, Eichmann was able to buy his way to freedom
when Germany collapsed, to set himself up in the Argentine…(Ben
Hecht, Perfidy, pp261-2)
These accusations are confirmed by the ‘Eichmann Confessions’
published in Life magazine, 28 November and 5 December 1960:
I resolved to show how well a job could be done when the commander
stands 100% behind it. By shipping the Jews off in a lightning
operation, I wanted to set an example for future campaigns
elsewhere…In obedience to Himmler’s directive I now concentrated on
negotiations with the Jewish political officials in Budapest…Among
them Dr. Rudolph Kastner, authorized representative of the Zionist
Movement. This Dr. Kastner was a young man about my age, an ice-cold
lawyer and a fanatical Zionist. He agreed to help keep the Jews from
resisting deportation – and even keep order in the collection camps –
if I could close my eyes and let a few hundred or a few thousand young
Jews emigrate illegally to Palestine.
It was a good bargain. For keeping order in the camps, the price was
not too high for me.
We trusted each other perfectly. When he was with me, Kastner smoke
cigarets as though he was in a coffeehouse. While we talked he would
smoke one aromatic cigaret after another, taking them from a silver
case and lighting them with a silver lighter. With his great polish
and reserve he would have made an ideal Gestapo officer himself.
Dr. Kastner’s main concern was to make it possible for a select group
of Hungarian Jews to emigrate to Israel…
>>As a matter of fact, there was a very strong similarity between our
>>attitudes in the S.S. and the viewpoint of these immensely idealistic
>>Zionist leaders. I believe that Kastner would have sacrificed a
>>thousand
>>or a hundred thousand of his blood to achieve his political goal ‘You
>>can
>>have the others’, he would say, ‘but let me have this group here’. And
>>because Kastner rendered us a great service by helping keep the
>>deportation
>>camps peaceful, I would let his groups escape. After all, I was not
>>concerned with small groups of a thousand or so Jews…That was the
>>’gentleman’s agreement’ I had with Kastner (Hecht, ibid., p.260-61)
>>
>>Quite clearly these accusations, do not relate merely to ‘the purchase
>>of
>>Jewish lives for money and military equipment’.
>>
>>Are the accusations against Kastner true?
>>
>>According to the Government of Israel, they are a lie. When Malchiel
>>Greenwald, a strongly pro-Zionist Israeli citizen published these
>>accusations against Kastner, the Israeli Government did rather more
>>than
>>demand that his views should not be broadcast. Because a prominent
>>Zionist
>>official (Dr. Kastner was a spokesman for the Ministry of Trade and
>>Industry) was involved, the Attorney General of the State of Israel
>>prosecuted Greenwald for criminal libel.
>>
>> The Verdict
>>
>>Let the verdict of Judge Benjamin Halevi (who later became one of the
>>panel
>>of three judges that tried Eichmann) in Israel’s District Court of
>>Jerusalem speak for itself, given in criminal case No. 124 of 1953.
>>The
>>Attorney General v. Malchiel Greenwald. This material should be
>>studied
>>carefully.
>>
>>The masses of Jews from Hungary’s ghettos obediently boarded the
>>deportation trains without knowing their fate. They were full of
>>confidence
>>in the false information that they were being transferred to
>>Kenyermeze.
>>
>>The Nazis could not have misled the masses of Jews so conclusively had
>>they
>>not spread their false information through Jewish channels.
>>
>>The Jews of the ghettos would not have trusted the Nazi or Hungarian
>>rulers. But they had trust in their Jewish leaders. Eichmann and
>>others
>>used this known fact as part of their calculated plan to mislead the
>>Jews.
>>They were able to deport the Jews to their extermination by the help
>>of
>>Jewish leaders.
>>
>>The false information was spread by the Jewish leaders. The local
>>leaders
>>of the Jews of Kluj and Nodvarod knew that other leaders were
>>spreading
>>such false information and did not protest.
>>
>>Those of the Jews who tried to warn their friends of the truth were
>>persecuted by the Jewish leaders in charge of the local ‘rescue work’.
>>
>>The trust of the Jews in the misleading information and their lack of
>>knowledge that their wives, children and themselves were about to be
>>deported to the gas chambers of Auschwitz led the victims to remain
>>quiescent in their ghettos. It seduced them into not resisting or
>>hampering
>>the deportation orders.
>>
>>Dozens of thousands of Jews were guarded in their ghettos by a few
>>dozen
>>police. Yet even vigorous young Jews made no attempt to overpower
>>these few
>>guards and escape to nearby Rumania. No resistance activities to the
>>deportations were organized in these ghettos.
>>
>>And the Jewish leaders did everything in their power to soothe the
>>Jews in
>>the ghettos and to prevent such resistance activities.
>>
>>The same Jews who spread in Kluj and Nodvarod the false rumor of
>>Kenyermeze, or confirmed it, the same public leaders who did not warn
>>their
>>own people against the misleading statements, the same Jewish leaders
>>who
>>did not organize any resistance or any sabotage of
>>deportations…these
>>same leaders did not join the people of their community in their ride
>>to
>>Auschwitz, but were all included in the Rescue train.
>>
>>The Nazi organizers of extermination and the perpetrators of
>>extermination
>>permitted Rudolf Kastner and the members of the Jewish Council in
>>Budapest
>>to save themselves, their relatives, and friends. The Nazis did this
>>as a
>>means of making the local Jewish leaders, whom they favoured,
>>dependent on
>>the Nazi regime, dependent on its good will during the time of its
>>fatal
>>deportation schedule. In short, the Nazis succeeded in bringing the
>>Jewish
>>leaders into collaboration with the Nazis at the time of the
>>catastrophe.
>>
>>The Nazi chiefs knew that the Zionists were a most vital element in
>>Jewry
>>and the most trusted by the Jews.
>>
>>The personality of Rudolph Kastner made him a convenient catspaw for
>>Eichmann and his clique, to draw into collaboration and make their
>>task
>>easier.
>>
>>The question here is not, as stated by the Attorney General in his
>>summation, whether members of the Jewish Rescue Committee were or were
>>not capable of fulfilling their duty without the patronage of the S.S.
>>
>>chiefs.
>>It is obvious that without such S.S. Nazi patronage the Jewish Rescue
>>Committee could not have existed, and could have acted only as an
>>underground.
>>
>>The question is, as put by the lawyer for the defense, why were the
>>Nazis
>>interested in the existence of the Rescue Committee? Why did the S.S.
>>chiefs make every effort to encourage the existence of the Jewish
>>Rescue
>>Committee? Did the exterminators turn into rescuers?
>>
>>The same question rises concerning the rescue of prominent Jews by
>>these
>>German killers of Jews. Was the rescue of such Jews a part of the
>>extermination plan of the killers ?
>>
>>The support given by the extermination leaders to Kastner’s Rescue
>>Committee proves that indeed there was a place for Kastner and his
>>friends
>>in their Final Solution for the Jews of Hungary – their total
>>annihilation.
>>
>>The Nazi’s patronage of Kastner, and their agreement to let him save
>>six
>>hundred prominent Jews, were part of the plan to exterminate the Jews.
>>Kastner was given a chance to add a few more to that number. The bait
>>attracted him. The opportunity of rescuing prominent people appealed
>>to him
>>greatly. He considered the rescue of the most important Jews as a
>>great
>>personal success and a success for Zionism. It was a success that
>>would
>>also justify his conduct – his political negotiation with Nazis and
>>the
>>Nazi patronage of his committee.
>>
>>When Kastner received this present from the Nazis, Kastner sold his
>>soul to
>>the German Satan.
>>
>>The sacrifice of the vital interests of the majority of the Jews, in
>>order
>>to rescue the prominents, was the basic element in the agreement
>>between
>>Kastner and the Nazis. This agreement fixed the division of the nation
>>into
>>two unequal camps: a small fragment of prominents, whom the Nazis
>>promised
>>Kastner to save, on the one hand, and the great majority or Hungarian
>>Jews
>>whom the Nazis designated for death, on the other hand. An imperative
>>condition for the rescue of the first camp by the Nazis was that
>>Kastner
>>will not interfere in the action of the Nazis against the other camp
>>and
>>will not hamper them in its extermination. Kastner fulfilled this
>>condition. He concentrated his efforts in the rescue of the prominents
>>and
>>treated the camp of the doomed as if they had already been wiped out
>>from
>>the book of the living.
>>
>>One cannot estimate the damage caused by Kastner’s collaboration and
>>put
>>down the number of victims which it cost Hungarian Jews. These are not
>>only
>>the thousands of Jews in Nodvarod or any other community in the border
>>area, Jews who could escape through the border, had the chief of their
>>rescue committee fulfilled his duty toward them.
>>
>>All of Kastner’s answers in his final testimony were a constant effort
>>to
>>evade this truth.
>>
>>Kastner has tried to escape through every crack he could find in the
>>wall
>>of evidence. When one crack was sealed in his face, he darted quickly
>>to
>>another. (Judgement of Judge Benjamin Halevi, Criminal Case 124/53;
>>Attorney General v. Malchiel Greenwald, District Court, Jerusalem,
>>June 22,
>>1955).
>>
>>Judge Halevi reverts to the meeting of Kastner with the S.S. officers
>>Becher and Rudolf Hoess, commandant of Auschwitz at the time when the
>>’new
>>line’ of rescuing Jews was revealed by Hoess. He says:
>>
>>From this gathering in Budapest, it is obvious that the ‘new line’
>>stretched from Himmler to Hoess, from Jutner to Becher and Krumey.
>>
>>According to Kastner, however, these Nazis were all active in rescuing
>>Jews.
>>
>>This meeting of these important German guests in Budapest exposes the
>>’rescue’ work of Becher in its true light. It reveals also the extent
>>of
>>Kastner’s involvement in the inner circle of the chief German war
>>criminals.
>>
>>Just as the Nazi war criminals knew they needed an alibi and hoped to
>>achieve it by the rescue of a few Jews at the eleventh hour, so
>>Kastner
>>also needed an alibi for himself.
>>
>>Collaboration between the Jewish Agency Rescue Committee and the
>>Exterminators of the Jews was solidified in Budapest and Vienna.
>>Kastner’s
>>duties were part and parcel of the general duties of the S.S.
>>
>>In addition to its Extermination Department and Looting Department,
>>the
>>Nazi S.S. opened a Rescue Department headed by Kastner.
>>
>>All these extermination, robbery and rescue activities of the S.S.
>>were
>>coordinated under the management of Heinrich Himmler”.
>>
>>Judge Halevi continues:
>>
>>Kastner perjured himself knowingly in his testimony before this court
>>when
>>he denied he had interceded in Becher’s behalf. Moreover, he concealed
>>the
>>important fact that he interceded for Becher in the name of the Jewish
>>Agency and the Jewish World Congress.
>>
>>As to the contents of Kastner’s affidavit, it was enough for the
>>defense to
>>provide Becher was a war criminal. It was up to the prosecution to
>>remove
>>Becher from this status, if they wished to negate the affidavit.
>>
>>The Attorney General admitted in his summation that Becher was a war
>>criminal.
>>
>>The lies in the contents of Kastner’s affidavit, the lies in his
>>testimony
>>concerning the document, and Kastner’s knowing participation in the
>>activities of Nazi war criminals, and his participation in the last
>>minute
>>fake rescue activities – all these combine to show one overwhelming
>>truth –
>>that this affidavit was not given in good faith.
>>
>>Kastner knew well, as he himself testified, that Becher had never
>>stood up
>>against the stream of Jewish extermination, as Kastner has declared in
>>the
>>affidavit.
>>
>>The aims of Becher and his superior, Himmler, were not to save Jews
>>but to
>>serve the Nazi regime with full compliance. These is not truth and no
>>good
>>faith in Kastner’s testimony, ‘I never doubted for one moment the good
>>intention of good Becher’.
>>
>>It is clear that the positive recommendation by Kastner, not only in
>>his
>>own name but also in the name of the Jewish Agency and the Jewish
>>World
>>Congress was of decisive importance for Becher. Kastner did not
>>exaggerate
>>when he said that Becher was released by the Allies because of his
>>personal
>>intervention. The lies in the affidavit of Kastner and the
>>contradictions
>>and various pretexts, which were proven to be lies, were sufficient to
>>annul the value of his statements and to prove that there was no good
>>faith
>>in his testimony in favor of this German war criminal. Kastner’s
>>affidavit
>>in favor of Becher was a wilfully false affidavit given in favor of a
>>war
>>criminal to save him from trial and punishment in Nuremberg.
>>
>>Therefore, the defendant, Malchiel Greenwald, was correct in his
>>accusations against Rudolf Kastner in the first, second and fourth of
>>his
>>statements.”
>>
>>Judge Halevi’s verdict found Malchiel Greenwald generally innocent of
>>libel
>>against Kastner, but fined him one Israeli pound for the one unproved
>>accusation – that Kastner had actually collected money from his Nazi
>>partners for his aide to their slaughter program. The judge also
>>ordered
>>the Government of Israel to pay Greenwald two hundred Israeli pounds
>>as
>>court costs.
>>
>>If the story ended there, it would only prove conclusively that the
>>individual Kastner was a collaborator and the Israeli Government had
>>attempted to defend him, although facts brought out in the trial
>>pointed to
>>much more than that.
>>
>>But the story does not end there.
>>
>>The Reaction
>>The Communist Party newspaper Kol Ha’am (Voice of the People) wrote:
>>
>>All those whose relatives were butchered by the Germans in Hungary
>>know now
>>clearly that Jewish hands helped the mass murder” (23 June 1955)
>>
>>But public opinion was not quite unanimous. The problem with bringing
>>Kastner and his associates to trial was that his associates were the
>>Government of Israel.
>>
>>As the evening paper *Yedi’ot Aharonot* said:
>>
>>If Kastner is brought to trial the entire government faces a total
>>political and national collapse – as a result of what such a trial may
>>disclose.” (23 June 1955)
>>
>>Accordingly, the Government of Israel did not put Kastner on trial,
>>instead
>>it filed an appeal against the acquittal of Greenwald for criminal
>>libel.
>>
>>At 11 P.M. the verdict was given. At 11 A.M. next morning the
>>government
>>announces the defense of Kastner will be renewed – an appeal filed.
>>What
>>exemplary expediency! Since when does this government possess such
>>lawyer-genius who can weigh in one night the legal chances of an
>>appeal on
>>a detailed, complex verdict of three hundred pages?
>>
>>At the appeal hearings before the Supreme Court, the Attorney General
>>of
>>Israel, Chaim Cohen, explained clearly why the Government of Israel
>>was
>>defending Kastner so strongly:
>>
>>The man Kastner does not stand here as a private individual. He was a
>>recognized representative, official or non-official of the Jewish
>>National
>>Institutes in Palestine and of the Zionist Executive; and I come here
>>in
>>this court to defend the representative of our national institutions.”
>>(Hecht, p. 268)
>>
>>The truth of this statement cannot be denied. Kastner’s collaboration
>>was
>>not that of an individual. It was the collaboration of the Zionist
>>leadership.
>>
>>So far, it has only been established that the Government of Israel
>>continued to support a Nazi collaborator after the facts about his
>>collaboration had been conclusively established in an Israeli court.
>>But
>>the story gets worse.
>>
>>The Supreme Court of Israel unanimously found that Becher was indeed a
>>
>>Nazi war criminal and that Kastner had without justification, and in
>>the
>>name
>>of the Jewish Agency, helped Becher to escape justice. On this point
>>Greenwald was acquitted of libel and Kastner was not ‘fully
>>rehabilitated’.
>>
>>The Supreme Court also accepted the facts established in the lower
>>court –
>>that Kastner deliberately concealed the truth about Auschwitz from the
>>majority of Hungarian Jews in exchange for Nazi permission to take a
>>thousand or so to Palestine. Again, Kastner was far from being ‘fully
>>rehabilitated’.
>>
>>
>>But now comes the really nasty bit. After unanimously acknowledging
>>these
>>facts, the Supreme Court of Israel, by a majority of three to two,
>>found
>>that Kastner’s actions were morally justifiable and convicted
>>Greenwald of
>>criminal libel for calling this ‘collaboration’.
>>
>>Kastner’s actions only proved that he was a Nazi collaborator. It is
>>the
>>defense of these actions by the Government and Courts of Israel that
>>prove
>>conclusively that Zionism approves of Nazi collaboration.
>>
>>The majority of the Supreme Court of Israel did not rehabilitate
>>Kastner.
>>They joined him.
>>
>>Let us read from the majority judgement of Supreme Court Judge Shlomo
>>Chesin:
>>
>>….What point was there in telling the people boarding the trains in
>>Kluj,
>>people struck by fate and persecuted, as to what awaits them at the
>>end of
>>their journey…Kastner spoke in detail of the situation, saying, ‘The
>>Hungarian Jew was a branch which long ago dried up on the tree’. This
>>vivid
>>description coincides with the testimony of another witness about the
>>Hungarian Jews, ‘This was a big Jewish community in Hungary, without
>>any
>>ideological Jewish backbone’ (Moshe Shweiger, a Kastner aide in
>>Budapest,
>>protocol 465).
>>
>>I fully agree with my friend, Judge Agranot, when he states that, ‘The
>>Jews
>>of Hungary, including those in the countryside, were not capable,
>>neither
>>physically nor mentally, to carry out resistance operations with force
>>against the deportation scheme’…From this point of view no rescue
>>achievement could have resulted by disclosing the Auschwitz news to
>>the
>>Jewish leaders there, and this is a consideration which on can
>>properly
>>conclude that Kastner had in front of his eyes.
>>
>>….And I take one more step. I am certain that the silence of Kastner
>>when
>>he arrived in Kluj was premeditated and calculated and did not result
>>from
>>his great despair because of the helplessness of the Jewish community.
>>Even
>>then, I say, this is still not considered wilful collaboration and
>>assistance in the extermination, because all the signs indicate that
>>Kastner’s efforts were aimed at rescue and rescue on a big scale…And
>>towards the end I take one last step. In doing so I go very far and
>>say
>>that even if Kastner ordered himself to keep silent knowingly, in
>>submission to the strong will of the Nazis, in order to save a few
>>Jews
>>from Hell – this is still no proof that he stained his hands by
>>collaborating with the enemies of his people and carrying out their
>>plan to
>>exterminate most of the Jewish community in Hungary.
>>
>>Even if, through these activities of his – or rather, his omission –
>>the
>>extermination became easier. And as to the moral issue, the question
>>is not
>>whether a man is allowed to kill many in order to save a few, or
>>vice-versa. The question is altogether in another sphere and should be
>>defined as follows: A man is aware that a whole community is awaiting
>>its
>>doom. He is allowed to make efforts to save a few, although part of
>>his
>>efforts involve concealment of truth from the many or should he
>>disclose
>>the truth to many though it is his best opinion that this way
>>everybody
>>will perish. I think that the answer is clear. What good will the
>>blood of
>>the few bring if everybody is to perish?…As I said, I am not arguing
>>with
>>the basic factual findings of the learned President of the Jewish
>>District
>>Court (Judge Halevi) but it seems to me, with all due respect, that
>>his
>>findings do not, as of necessity, demand the conclusion he has arrived
>>at.
>>That is to say, collaboration on the part of Kastner in the
>>extermination
>>of the Jews. And that they better coincide with bad leadership both
>>from a
>>moral and public point of view…
>>
>>In my opinion, one can say outright that if you find out that Kastner
>>collaborated with the enemy because he did not disclose to the people
>>who
>>boarded the trains in Kluj that they were being led to extermination,
>>one
>>has to put on trial today Danzig, Herman, Hanzi, Brand, Revis and
>>Marton,
>>and many more leaders and half-leaders who gagged themselves in an
>>hour of
>>crisis and did not inform others of what was known to them and did not
>>warn
>>and did not cry out of the coming danger….
>>
>>Because of all this I cannot confirm the conclusion of the District
>>Court
>>with regard to the accusation that Greenwald has thrown on Kastner of
>>collaboration with the Nazis in exterminating the Jewish people in
>>Hungary
>>during the last war.” (Hecht, ibid., pp.270-2)
>>
>>In other words, the Court approved of Kastner’s contempt for the
>>Hungarian
>>Jews and could not allow him to be condemned for doing exactly what
>>many
>>other Zionist leaders had half-leaders did – concealing their
>>knowledge of
>>the Nazi extermination plans so that Jews would board the trains to
>>Auschwitz peacefully while their Zionist ‘leaders’ boarded a different
>>train for Palestine.
>>
>>The most precise answer to this sickening judgement of Judge Chesin is
>>
>>provided in the minority judgement of Supreme Court Judge Moshe
>>Silberg:
>>
>>I do not say that he was the only man who possessed information among
>>the
>>leaders. It is quite possible that somebody else as well does not have
>>a
>>clear conscience with regards to this concealment. But we are dealing
>>here
>>with the guilt of Kastner and we do not have to make judgements on the
>>guilt of others….
>>
>>The declaration of the learned Attorney General therefore shrinks into
>>an
>>opinion….’Kastner was convinced and believed that there was no ray
>>of
>>hope for the Jews of Hungary, almost for none of them, and as he, as a
>>result of his personal despair, did not disclose the secret of the
>>extermination in order not to endanger or frustrate the rescue of the
>>few –
>>therefore he acted in good faith and should not be accused of
>>collaborating
>>with the Nazis in expediting the extermination of the Jews, even
>>though, in
>>fact, he brought about its result.’
>>
>>I am compelled to state that it is very difficult for me to conceive
>>such
>>an intention. Is this good faith? Can a single man, even in
>>cooperation
>>with some of his friends, yield to despair on behalf and without the
>>knowledge of 800,000 other people? This is, in my opinion, the
>>decisive
>>consideration in the problem facing us. The charge emanating from the
>>testimony of the witnesses against Kastner is that had they known of
>>the
>>Auschwitz secret, then thousands or tens of thousands would have been
>>able
>>to save their lives by local, partial, specific or indirect rescue
>>operations like local revolts, resistance, escapes, hidings,
>>concealment of
>>children with Gentiles, forging of documents, ransom money, bribery,
>>etc. –
>>and when this is the case and when one deals with many hundreds of
>>thousands, how does a human being, a mortal, reject with complete
>>certainty
>>and with an extreme ‘no’ the efficiency of all the many and varied
>>rescue
>>ways? How can he examine the tens of thousands of possibilities? Does
>>he
>>decide instead of God? Indeed, he who can act with such a usurpation
>>of the
>>last hope of hundreds of thousands is not entitled to claim good faith
>>as
>>his defense. The penetrating question quo warrento is a good answer to
>>a
>>claim of such good faith…
>>
>>If the superintendent of a big hospital lets thousands of sick people
>>die
>>so that he may devote himself to the sure rescue of one soul, he will
>>come
>>out guilty, at least morally, even if it is proven that he as an
>>individual
>>erroneously thought that there was no hope of saving the other
>>patients. He
>>is a collaborator with the angel of death.
>>
>>Either a complete atrophy of the soul or a blind involvement with
>>complete
>>loss of senses and proportion in his small but personal rescue
>>operation
>>could bring a man to such a gigantic, hazardous play.
>>
>>And if all this is not enough to annul the claim of good faith which
>>was
>>put before us on behalf of Kastner by the Attorney General, then
>>Kastner
>>himself comes and annuls it altogether. Not only did he never make
>>this
>>claim, but his own words prove the contrary. He writes in his report
>>to the
>>Jewish Agency that the Committee sent emissaries to many ghettos in
>>the
>>countryside and pleaded with them to organize escapes and to refuse to
>>board the trains. And though the story of these pleadings is untrue,
>>and
>>the silence of Kastner in Kluj is proven, the very uttering of these
>>statements entirely contradicts the claim that Kastner had concealed
>>the
>>news about the fate of the ghetto inmates in good faith and only as a
>>result of his complete despairing of the chances of escaping or
>>resisting
>>the Germans. You can not claim at the same time helplessness and
>>activity.
>>Anyway, such a claim is not convincing…
>>
>>We can sum up with three facts:
>>
>>A. That the Nazis didn’t want to have a great revolt – nor small
>>revolts,
>>and their passion was to have the extermination machine working
>>smoothly without resistance. This fact was known to Kastner from
>>the best source – from Eichmann himself – And he had additional proofs
>>of
>>that when he witnessed all the illusionary and misleading tactics
>>which
>>were being taken by the Nazis from the first moment of occupation.
>>
>>B. That the most efficient means to paralyze the resistance with – or
>>the
>>escape of a victim is to conceal from him the plot of the coming
>>murder.
>>This fact is known to every man and one does not need any proof of
>>evidence for this.
>>
>>C. That he, Kastner, in order to carry out the rescue plan for the few
>>prominents, fulfilled knowingly and without good faith the said desire
>>of
>>the Nazis, thus expediting the work of exterminating the masses.
>>
>>And also the rescue of Becher by Kastner…He who is capable of
>>rescuing
>>this Becher from hanging proves that the atrocities of this great war
>>criminal were not so horrifying or despicable in his eyes…I couldn’t
>>base
>>the main guilt of Kastner on this fact had it been alone, but when it
>>is
>>attached even from afar to the whole scene of events it throws
>>retroactive
>>light on the whole affair and serves as a dozen proofs of our
>>conclusion.”(Supreme Court Judge, Moshe Silberg, 1957)
>>
>>
>>If that had been the majority judgement, one could say that whatever
>>their
>>attitudes to the Arabs, and whatever their past behaviour might have
>>been
>>under pressure, the Zionist leadership today did not advocate
>>collaboration
>>with the Nazis.
>>
>>But Judge Silberg’s judgement was that of a minority.
>>
>>The Kastner case is therefore not an alleged episode in past history.
>>
>>It is a continuing controversy in which the top Zionist leadership of
>>Israel stand indicted of continuing to publicly defend collaboration
>>with
>>the Nazis in the extermination of Jews.
>>
>>Despite the unanimous finding of the Supreme Court of Israel that Kurt
>>Becher was a major war criminal, the Jewish Agency (World Zionist
>>Organization) refused to withdraw the fraudulent certificate Kastner
>>gave
>>on their behalf, which saved Becher from hanging, and allowed him to
>>remain
>>a free man in West Germany, the head of several corporations and with
>>an
>>estimated personal worth of $30 million.
>>
>>Becher has even used his certification as a ‘good’ SS officer to give
>>evidence in support of his associates at other war crimes trials in
>>West
>>Germany.
>>
>>Since the prosecution, representing the Israeli Government agreed with
>>the
>>Supreme Court that Becher was a major war criminal, one can only
>>pressure
>>that the Israeli Government did not want him put on trial for fear of
>>what
>>might come out.
>>
>>Likewise, none of Kastner’s associates on the Zionist Relief and
>>Rescue
>>Committee or his bosses in the Jewish Agency have ever been put on
>>trial .
>>Let alone the hundreds of ‘prominents’ who helped Kastner to reassure
>>the
>>Hungarian Jews that they were going to Kenyermeze and not Auschwitz,
>>in exchange for tickets on the one train that took them eventually to
>>Palestine.
>>
>>As for Kastner himself, he will cause no further embarrassment to the
>>Zionist leadership with his undisputed claims that everything he did
>>was
>>approved by the Jewish Agency (World Zionist Organization) leadership
>>in
>>Palestine. He is ‘now dead’. Or putting it less delicately, on 3 March
>>1957
>>he was shot by Zeev Eckstein – immediately after the appeal hearings
>>were
>>concluded, and before the judgement ‘rehabilitating’ him was
>>delivered.
>>Eckstein was not a Hungarian avenger. He was a paid undercover agent
>>of the
>>Israeli secret service. (Hecht, ibid., p.208). Another ‘fantastic
>>allegation’ no doubt; but admitted in court during the murder trial).
sven88
On Thu, 15 Oct 1998 12:39:09, [email protected] wrote:
>Readers are reminded that there is in fact no such
>organization as the “American Fascist Union”. All
>posts claiming to be from the “American Fascist Union”
>are in fact posted to Usenet by the same individual who
>was for some time using the name “Karl Zimmer”. This
>individual is most likely an operative of Nizkor.
