|
Notify me of new HIR
pieces!
|
|
||||||||||||||||
|
THE NAZIS AND THE PALESTINIAN MOVEMENT Documentary and discussion Historical
and Investigative Research – 26 July 2013 Hajj Amin al Husseini is
the father of the Palestinian Movement. He created PLO/Fatah (now better
known as the ‘Palestinian Authority’), the organization that will govern any
future Palestinian state. And he was mentor to Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud
Abbas, the leaders of that organization. Husseini
was also, during World War II, a top Nazi leader who co-directed with Adolf
Eichmann the death camp system that murdered between 5 and 6 million European
Jews, also known as the Final Solution. These facts are not widely
known or understood. Neither has their implication for our understanding of
Israeli ruling elite behavior been properly appreciated. We present a short documentary and a discussion. Table
of Contents █ Introduction █ The Video █ Discussion █ Readings relevant
to this video For many
years now, almost every day, all over the world, the Arab-Israeli conflict is
headline news. And yet most people still don’t know that PLO/Fatah (now better known as the
‘Palestinian Authority’), the organization that will govern any future
Palestinian state, was created by a top leader of the German Nazi Final
Solution. In other words, the ‘Palestinian state’—to be carved out of
strategic territory of the Jewish state—will be governed by the spawn of the
man responsible for the Nazi murder of between 5 and 6 million European Jews. The short
documentary below explains PLO/Fatah’s
history. This
documentary is now on Vimeo, but it
was first uploaded to You Tube. In
the first two days, almost with no publicity, the You Tube webpage quickly logged more than 1,500 visits. Then, on
the third day, Israelis began reporting that You Tube was not allowing them to access the video. You Tube’s explanation is that when a
video is blocked in this manner it can be due to only one of two reasons: 1)
the
You Tube account-owner placed
country restrictions on the video; or else 2)
You Tube is complying with local laws We did not place
country restrictions on the video. That leaves us with the second
possibility. But what
local laws can You Tube be
complying with? To my knowledge, no laws have yet been passed by the Israeli
Knesset against the dissemination of historical facts. Some have
speculated that “we are complying with local laws” is a cover for “the
Israeli government told us to block it.” Others ask: “But why would the
Israeli government even want to
block this video?” Let us
consider the following: 1)
PLO/Fatah—created by a leader of the Final
Solution—was brought inside the Jewish state—created (supposedly) to protect
the Jewish people from Final Solutions—because the Israeli government signed the 1993-94 Oslo Accord. 2)
But
why? In 1982 Menachem Begin had already (essentially) destroyed PLO/Fatah and chased the remnant out of
Lebanon to its new base in Tunis. So in 1993-94 the Israeli government was
breathing new life into a defeated, moribund PLO/Fatah. 3)
In
doing so the Israeli government gifted PLO/Fatah with its most important victory: legitimacy on the world
stage, and lordship over the Arab Muslims in the strategic ‘disputed
territories’ of Judea and Samaria. 4)
The
Israeli government did all this this without informing ordinary Israelis
about the roots of PLO/Fatah in the
German Nazi Final Solution. Instead, it legitimized PLO/Fatah’s claim to have abandoned terrorism for ‘peace.’ 5)
With
PLO/Fatah’s entry, terrorism
against Israelis immediately quintupled,
and the security situation worsened for the long term because PLO/Fatah has been indoctrinating the Arab
Muslims in the disputed territories into its ecstatic genocidal ideology (not
precisely a secret). 6)
The
Israeli government is still trying to sell the Israeli people—and Jews
worldwide—on the idea that a sensible solution to Israel’s security woes is
to give the strategic high ground of Judea and Samaria (a.k.a. the ‘West
Bank’) to PLO/Fatah. 7)
There
is a real possibility that the Israeli government will make this strategic
territory judenrein (this is a
German Nazi term meaning ‘cleansed of Jews’) for PLO/Fatah. They already did it in Gaza. 8)
During
the long years since the so-called Oslo ‘Peace’ Process began, the Israeli
government still hasn’t informed
the Israelis about PLO/Fatah’s
origins in the German Nazi Final Solution. But perhaps
the most important points are the following: 9)
This
Oslo ‘Peace’ Process could have been quickly killed in its tracks if, when
the US government first began bullying for it, the prime minister of Israel
had simply called an international press conference to explain the origins of
PLO/Fatah in the German Nazi Final
Solution. 10) At any point
since 1993-94, by holding such a press conference, the Israeli government
could have scored a major propaganda victory in favor of Israeli Jews, and in
favor of ejecting PLO/Fatah from
Israel. But no such press conference has yet been called. On the
basis of the above 10 points one may conclude that, if the information in
this video becomes widely known, those running the Israeli government will
have some egg on their faces. In fact, this information raises the sharpest
questions about them, and about their intentions. Here then is a plausible motive for the Israeli government to
block the video: to stop Israelis from asking such questions. But in fact
questions must be asked not merely about the Israeli government (in the
narrow bureaucratic sense) but also about the Israeli ruling elite more broadly. For none of the major
politicians who declare themselves opponents of the Oslo ‘Peace’ Process and
its ‘Two State Solution’ have educated Israelis about the German Nazi Roots
of PLO/Fatah. Why? The video
follows below. And below the video is a discussion
about the evidence it presents, and how this evidence has been either ignored
or lied about for many years.
The Video
|
|||||||||||||||||
Immediately
after the war, Husseini’s Nazi activities were well understood, as the
article from The Nation (1947)
which I have posted to the right of this column attests. But then a
tremendous silence about Husseini and his Nazi years developed. Certainly the
media, which displays always the latest news on the Arab-Israeli conflict in
its front pages, has had nothing to
say about the Nazi origins of PLO/Fatah
ever since PLO/Fatah was created in
the 1960s. The silence in academia has been equally deafening.
Historian
Rafael Medoff, in an article from 1996, wrote the following:
“Early scholarship on the Mufti, such as the work of Maurice
Pearlman and Joseph Schechtman, while hampered by the inaccessibility of some
key documents, at least succeeded in conveying the basic facts of the Mufti’s
career as a Nazi collaborator. One would have expected the next generation of
historians, with greater access to relevant archival materials (not to
mention the broader perspective that the passage of time may afford) to
improve upon the work of their predecessors. Instead, however, a number of
recent histories of the Arab-Israeli conflict have played fast and loose with
the evidence, producing accounts that minimize or even justify the Mufti’s
Nazi activity.”[1]
What Medoff
refers to above as “early scholarship on the Mufti” is early indeed. The work
of Pearlman and Schechtman that he cites is from 1947 and 1965:
Pearlman, M. (1947). Mufti
of Jerusalem: The story of Haj Amin el Husseini. London: V Gollancz.
Joseph B. Schechtman, The
Mufti and the Fuehrer, New York, 1965.
After this
ensued a tremendous academic silence on the Mufti Husseini. In fact, Medoff
can refer us to no academic work on Husseini before 1990. His article,
recall, is from 1996. The few academic mentions of Husseini that he could find from 1990 to 1996 were
either completely silent on the
Mufti’s Nazi years—as if they had never happened—or else they relegated a
‘summary’ of those years to a single paragraph (or even just a sentence) that left almost everything out. Some
authors even claimed (entirely in passing) that Husseini’s Nazi activities
had been supposedly imagined by “Zionist propagandists.”
But recent
scholars who have studied Hajj Amin al Husseini in depth, such as Rafael
Medoff, have confirmed what his early biographers had already established:
1)
that
Husseini traveled to Berlin in late 1941, met with Hitler, and discussed with
him the extermination of the Middle Eastern Jews (whom Husseini had already
been killing for some 20 years);
2)
that
Husseini spent the entire war in Nazi-controlled Europe as a Nazi
collaborator;
3)
that
Husseini helped spread Nazi propaganda to Muslims worldwide (one of his
famous exhortations goes like this: “Arabs, rise as one man and fight for
your sacred rights. Kill the Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God,
history, and religion. This saves your honor. God is with you.”[2]);
4)
that
Husseini recruited thousands of Bosnian and Kosovo Muslims to Heinrich
Himmler’s SS, who went on to kill hundreds of thousands of Serbs, and tens of
thousands of Jews and Roma (‘Gypsies’).
It is beyond dispute that Husseini did all that. And in fact photographic evidence
of Husseini’s Nazi collaboration abounds on the internet.
But there
has been quite an effort to whitewash Husseini’s responsibility in the German
Nazi death camp system specifically—in
other words, his responsibility in the
Holocaust, or as the Jews more properly say, in the Shoah (‘Catastrophe’). One example of this whitewashing effort is
Wikipedia’s page on Husseini.
Because of
its emblematic nature, I shall now quote from the Wikipedia article
on Hajj Amin al Husseini as I found it on 14 July, 2013 and then comment.
[Quote from Wikipedia begins here]
Al-Husseini
settled in Berlin in late 1941 and resided there for most of the war. Various sources have repeated
allegations, mostly ungrounded in documentary evidence, that he visited the
death camps of Auschwitz, Majdanek, Treblinka
and Mauthausen. At the Nuremberg
trials, one of Adolf
Eichmann's deputies, Dieter
Wisliceny, stated that al-Husseini had
actively encouraged the extermination of European Jews, and that he had had
an elaborate meeting with Eichmann at his office, during which Eichmann gave
him an intensive look at the current state of the “Solution of the Jewish
Question in Europe” by the Third
Reich. Most of these allegations are
completely unfounded.
[Quote from Wikipedia ends here]
Consider
first the phrase “completely unfounded” as it attaches to any part of Wisliceny’s Nuremberg
testimony.
|
|
|
Is
this article useful? Help us do more with a donation . |
|
|
As part of the legal proceedings at the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, two independent witnesses (Andrej or Endre Steiner and Rudolf Kasztner)—both of whom had had personal contact with Dieter Wisliceny during the war—reported to the Tribunal that in wartime conversations with Wisliceny he had said certain things about Husseini’s role in the Final Solution (the genocidal enterprise in which Wisliceny was not just anybody but a highly-placed administrator). The Steiner and Kasztner testimonies are quite similar to each other. Before his execution for crimes against humanity, Nuremberg Tribunal investigators called on Wisliceny to either confirm or deny what these two independent witnesses had said. Wisliceny did correct them on minor points but he confirmed what they had both stated concerning Husseini’s central and originating role in the extermination program (consult footnote [3] to read the Steiner and Kasztner testimonies).
So are
these “completely unfounded” allegations? If so, that would mean:
1)
that
in light of other, better established evidence, what Wisliceny stated is
impossible; and/or
2)
that
Wisliceny is less credible as a witness than witnesses who contradicted his
statements.
So I ask: On the basis of what
evidence do the Wikipedia editors argue that “most of these allegations are
completely unfounded”?
At first it
seems as though Wikipedia editors have provided three sources but on closer
inspection it is the same footnote, repeated three times (in the space of
four sentences). The footnote contains this:
Gerhard
Höpp (2004). “In the Shadow of the Moon.” In Wolfgang G. Schwanitz. Germany
and the Middle East 1871–1945. Markus Wiener, Princeton.
pp. 217–221.
The title
is incomplete. Gerhard Höpp’s article is: “In the Shadow of the Moon: Arab
Inmates in Nazi Concentration Camps.” The full title makes it obvious that
this article is not about Husseini, something that readers who see only the
truncated title in the Wikipedia reference will not realize.
But, anyway,
what does Höpp say—entirely in passing—about
Wisliceny’s testimony concerning Husseini? He says this (and only this):
“Al-Husaini… is said not only to have had knowledge of the
concentration camps but also to have visited them. Various authors speak of
the camps at Auschwitz, Majdanek, Treblinka, and Mauthausen. While the
assumption that he visited the Auschwitz camp in the company of Adolf
Eichmann is supported by an affidavit of Rudolf Kasztner, referring to a note
by the Eichmann collaborator Dieter Wisliceny, the other allegations are
entirely unfounded.” (p.221)
Recall that
Höpp is Wikipedia’s thrice-cited source to ‘support’ that “most” of the
following three allegations are “completely unfounded”:
1)
that
Husseini visited death camps
2)
that
Husseini encouraged the extermination of the Jews;
3)
that
Husseini met with Eichmann to discuss said extermination.
But notice
that Höpp says absolutely nothing about
allegations 2 and 3.
And notice
that, concerning allegation 1, Höpp uses the phrase “entirely unfounded” in a
manner exactly opposite to the
Wikipedia editors who invoke him. For the Wikipedia editors, “most” of what
Wisliceny says is “completely unfounded,” whereas for Höpp it is those
allegations not backed by
Wisliceny’s testimony that he considers “entirely unfounded.”
Moreover,
Höpp states:
“Speculation on this and other misdeeds by the Mufti appear
unnecessary in view of his undisputed collaboration with the Nazis…” (p.221)
In other words,
since we already know that Husseini was a rabid anti-Semite who himself
organized mass killings of Jews before
he met the Nazis, and then also with
the Nazis, and discussed with Hitler the extermination of the Middle Eastern
Jews, and shouted on the Nazi radio “Kill the Jews wherever you find them,”
is it not a waste of time to argue back and forth whether Husseini did or did
not visit this or that death camp with Eichmann?
But, I
might add, why doubt it? And why doubt that such a man encouraged the Nazis
to exterminate the European Jews and also met with Eichmann to discuss this
program? (Unless, of course, such expressions of doubt are intended as an
apology for the Mufti…)
Let us now
continue with the Wikipedia article:
[Quote from Wikipedia continues here]
A single affidavit by Rudolf
Kastner reported that Wisliceny told him that
he had overheard Husseini say he had visited Auschwitz incognito in
Eichmann's company. Eichmann denied this
at his trial in Jerusalem in 1961. ...Eichmann stated that he had only been
introduced to al-Husseini during an official reception, along with all other
department heads. In the final judgement [sic], the Jerusalem court stated:
“In the light of this partial admission by the Accused, we accept as correct
Wisliceny's statement about this conversation between the Mufti and the
Accused. In our view it is not important whether this conversation took place
in the Accused's office or elsewhere. On the other hand, we cannot determine
decisive findings with regard to the Accused on the basis of the notes
appearing in the Mufti's diary which were submitted to us.” Hannah
Arendt, who attended the complete Eichmann
trial, concluded in her book Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality
of Evil that, “The trial revealed only that
all rumours about Eichmann's connection with Haj Amin el Husseini, the former
Mufti of Jerusalem, were unfounded.”
[Quote from Wikipedia ends here]
I am
confounded by Wikipedia’s choice of reliable experts. The Jerusalem court
that tried Eichmann for Crimes Against Humanity concluded that “we accept as
correct Wisliceny’s statement about this conversation between the Mufti
[Husseini] and the Accused [Eichmann]” (the topic of which was to discuss how
to exterminate the European Jews); but Wikipedia editors prefer the contrary
opinion of philosopher Hannah Arendt, according to whom any claim of a
relationship between Husseini and Eichmann is “unfounded.” And why do they
prefer Arendt? Because she “attended the complete Eichmann trial.”
Didn’t the
judges also attend?
Anyway,
let’s look at Arendt more closely. To her, two independent testimonies at
Nuremberg concerning Husseini’s relationship with Eichmann, later
corroborated by Wisliceny, a highly-placed eyewitness, are “rumours.” This is
strange. And, against this, Arendt simply accepts Eichmann’s denial. Doubly
strange. Why has Eichmann earned so much respect from Hannah Arendt?
But more to
the point: Do we have reasons to consider Eichmann a more credible witness
than Wisliceny?
Arendt shouldn’t think so. She wrote Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil so that she could extend herself in deep ruminations about the human soul based on (odd choice) Eichmann’s strange behavior at trial, which led her to call him a “clown.” Wisliceny, by contrast, was universally considered by prosecutors as a very careful witness, who was painstaking in correcting the smallest details in the testimony he was asked to comment on.[4]
(And
Eichmann most certainly had motive to
lie. Husseini was still at large and busy organizing the ‘Palestinian’
movement, so better not to say anything that could support a manhunt plus
extradition procedures, for that might derail Husseini’s ongoing effort to
exterminate the Jews in Israel, a project certainly dear to Eichmann’s
putrefacient heart, a project that, as he sat in the witness box, no doubt
swam before his mind’s eye as a pleasant future outcome to engulf those
sitting in judgment of him, or their children.)
Let us
continue:
[Quote from Wikipedia continues here]
Rafael
Medoff concludes that “actually there is no
evidence that the Mufti's presence was a factor at all; the Wisliceny hearsay
is not merely uncorroborated, but conflicts with everything else that is
known about the origins of the Final Solution.”
[Quote from Wikipedia ends here]
Rafael
Medoff is expressing an opinion. Is it reasonable? Here is the full passage
in Medoff’s article:
“With regard to the crucial question of what the Mufti knew and when he knew it, the evidence requires especially careful sifting, and earlier scholars did not always take sufficient care. Pearlman, for example, accepted as fact the unfounded postwar claim by Wisliceny that the Mufti was “one of the initiators” of the genocide. Of course, Pearlman was writing in 1946-1947, when the genesis of the annihilation process was not yet fully understood. Other accounts at that time, such as a 1947 book written by Bartley Crum, a member of the Anglo-American Commission of Inquiry on Palestine, likewise accepted Wisliceny’s claim. Schechtman, writing in 1964-1965, should have known better. He made much of the fact that the Mufti first arrived in Berlin shortly before the Wannsee conference, as if the decision to slaughter the Jews was made at Wannsee, when in fact the mass murder began in Western Russia the previous summer (at a time when the Mufti was still deeply embroiled in the pro-Nazi coup in Baghdad). Schechtman eventually conceded that ‘it would be both wrong and misleading to assume that the presence of Haj Amin el-Husseini was the sole, or even the major factor in the shaping and intensification of the Nazi ‘final solution of the Jewish problem,’ which supplanted forced emigration by wholesale extermination.’ Actually, there is no evidence that the Mufti's presence was a factor at all; the Wisliceny hearsay is not merely uncorroborated, but conflicts with everything else that is known about the origins of the Final Solution.”[5]
Medoff’s
argument turns on a semantic point. If we agree with him that the mass
killings of Jews on the Nazi Eastern front, which began before Husseini
arrived in Berlin, are part of the ‘Final Solution,’ then Husseini is not
“one of the originators” of the ‘Final Solution.’ But the question here is
not one’s definition of what the term ‘Final Solution’ should cover. The
question is whether the Nazis had yet decided, before Husseini alighted in Berlin, to create a death camp system
to kill all of the European Jews.
They had not. And that decision was formalized at Wannsee, indeed
shortly after Husseini arrived in
Berlin.
Now
consider what historians say about the established chronology of changes in
Nazi policy on the so-called ‘Jewish Question.’
Gunnar
Paulsson explains that “expulsion”—not extermination—“had initially been the
general policy of the Nazis towards the Jews.”[6]
Tobias Jersak writes: “Since the 1995 publication of Michael Wildt’s
documentation on the SS’s Security Service (Sicherheitsdienst SD) and the ‘Jewish Question,’ it has been
undisputed that from 1933 Nazi policy concerning the ‘Jewish Question’ aimed
at the emigration of all Jews, preferably to Palestine.”[7] Even after the conquest of Poland,
writes Paulsson, “Jewish emigration continued to be permitted and even
encouraged, while other expulsion plans were considered.”[8] Christopher Simpson points out that, though many Jews were
being murdered, and people such as Reinhard Heydrich of the SS pushed for
wholesale extermination, “other ministries” disagreed, and these favored
“deportation and resettlement,” though they disagreed about where to put the
Jews and how much terror to apply to them.[9] And so, “until the autumn of 1941,” conclude Marrus &
Paxton, “no one defined the final solution with precision, but all signs
pointed toward some vast and as yet unspecified project of mass emigration.”[10]
Hajj Amin
al Husseini arrived in Berlin in “the autumn of 1941”—to be precise, on 9
November 1941. So yes, there had already been mass killings of Jews on the
Eastern front, but for the hypothesis that Husseini had something to do with
the Nazi decision to set up the death
camp system in order to kill every
last living European Jew (instead of sending most to ‘Palestine’),
Husseini arrived right on time.
The last
part of Medoff’s passage—the one that Wikipedia quotes—is especially problematic.
He writes:
“Actually, there is no evidence that the Mufti’s presence was
a factor at all; the Wisliceny hearsay is not merely uncorroborated, but
conflicts with everything else that is known about the origins of the Final
Solution.”
Medoff disparages
the evidence we have as “hearsay.” Is it?
Wikipedia
explains the legal definition of ‘hearsay’:
“information gathered by one person from another person concerning
some event, condition, or thing of which the first person had no direct
experience.”[11]
In US law
there is a famous “hearsay rule,” which says that if an eyewitness cannot
present his or her testimony in court, then another’s report of the supposed testimony is inadmissible.[11a] Medoff is turning this legal
tradition into a historiographical principle in order to do away with the
evidence from Wisliceny. Is this a proper maneuver?
A historian
is not subject to the caution of a court of law, which must err on the side
of presumption of innocence in order to safeguard a person’s rights. But even
if a historian were so constrained
Medoff’s reasoning does not apply. We have two independent
testimonies before the Nuremberg Tribunal, by Andrej (Endre) Steiner and
Rudolf Kasztner, about their wartime conversations with Wisliceny, the topic
of which was Husseini’s key role in 1) the decision to exterminate all of the European Jews and, 2) the
administration of the death-camp system with Adolf Eichmann. These two
testimonies, by themselves, count as ‘hearsay.’ But are they inadmissible?
Actually the hearsay rule has
exceptions that a judge may invoke, and having two consistent and independent
testimonies could favor such an exception. But this is not even necessary.
Both testimonies were corroborated by
Wisliceny, whose “direct experience” of the relationship between Husseini
and Eichmann is well established, since Wisliceny was Eichmann’s right-hand
man. Wisliceny is an eyewitness.
This is not hearsay. Medoff is wrong.
So:
1)
we
do have evidence that the Mufti’s
presence was a factor;
2)
this
evidence is not hearsay because it
comes from Wisliceny; and
3)
given
what we know about Husseini’s character, deeds, and timely arrival in Berlin,
Wisliceny’s claims certainly do not conflict “with everything else that is
known about the origins of the Final Solution.”
So every
word in the Medoff passage that Wikipedia quotes is false.
We
continue:
[Quote from Wikipedia continues here]
Bernard
Lewis also called Wisliceny’s testimony into
doubt: “There is no independent documentary confirmation of Wisliceny’s
statements, and it seems unlikely that the Nazis needed any such additional
encouragement from the outside.”
[Quote from Wikipedia ends here]
The full
passage from Bernard Lewis’s work is the following:
“According to Wisliceny, the Mufti was a friend of Eichmann
and had, in his company, gone incognito to visit the gas chamber at
Auschwitz. Wisliceny even names the Mufti as being the ‘initiator’ of the
policy of extermination. This was denied, both by Eichmann at his trial in
Jerusalem in 1961, and by the Mufti in a press conference at about the same
time. There is no independent documentary confirmation of Wisliceny’s statements,
and it seems unlikely that the Nazis needed any such additional encouragement
from outside.” [12]
So Eichmann
and Husseini deny it and this is enough for Lewis… If we apply his standards
to any ordinary criminal investigation we will be forced to let the main
suspect go the minute he himself and/or his alleged accomplice deny the
charges. Presto! This will save a lot of unnecessary police work.
The same
can be said for his curious insistence that without “independent documentary
confirmation” the testimony of witnesses can be dispensed with. But,
naturally, a great many things that happen in the world are not recorded in a
document. Eyewitness testimony must be considered carefully, but saying that
“there is no independent documentary confirmation” of a particular piece of
testimony is not the same thing as producing good reasons to doubt it. And to
say, in the absence of conflicting
evidence, that our null hypothesis will be to consider as true the opposite of what was testified to, why
that is simply absurd.
The above
is obvious but Lewis’s last argument—“it seems unlikely that the Nazis needed
any such additional encouragement from outside”—will appeal to many as
reasonable, so it deserves a more extended comment.
What Lewis
is saying is that the Nazis decided on total extermination for reasons that
were ‘endogenous’ to their ideological program. But though killing lots of
Jews as part of a campaign of terror and to make lebensraum for deserving Aryan specimens on the Eastern front was
certainly part of general Nazi policy, the ‘Final Solution,’ as pointed out
above, was initially and for a long time a program of mass expulsion, and did not contemplate
(yet) exterminating the entire
European Jewish population. Getting to that point required some ‘exogenous’
prodding (“from outside”); it was not an ideological requirement.
Historian
Thomas Marrus writes: “After the riots of Kristallnacht in November 1938, SS
police boss Heydrich was ordered to accelerate emigration, and Jews were
literally driven out of the country. The problem was, of course, that there
was practically no place for them to go.”[13] The
reason there was no place for them to go is that no country would receive
them. As historian James Carroll points out:
“The same leaders, notably Neville Chamberlain and Franklin D.
Roosevelt, who had denounced the anti-Jewish violence of the Nazis declined
to receive Jews as refugees. …Crucial to its building to a point of no return
was Hitler’s discovery (late) of the political indifference of the
democracies to the fate of the Jews…”[14] Though one may argue that this was
not really “indifference” on the part of Roosevelt et al. but a very special interest
(in their doom).[15]
The main point here is that, as
historian Gunnar Paulsson points out: “Expulsion had initially been the
general policy of the Nazis towards the Jews, and had been abandoned largely
for practical, not ideological, reasons” (my emphasis).[16]
|
|
|
Is
this article useful? Help us do more with a donation . |
|
|
The Nazis
were right bastards. No disagreement. But they did need some
encouragement to go that far. They
needed to be told, first, that they would not get rid of any Jews by pushing
them out to the ‘Free World.’ And then they needed to be told, by British
creation Hajj Amin al Husseini, that neither could they push them out to
‘Palestine.’ Bernard Lewis is wrong.
Perhaps
Wikipedia would like to try again with a new set of ‘supporting’ sources? We
will be waiting to examine them.
_____________________________________________________
Readings
Relevant to this Video
_____________________________________________________
Leaders
Lied, Jews died.
about the PLO/Fatah?
How did the
'Palestinian movement'
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/pal_mov4.htm
The CIA protected
Adolf Eichmann, architect of the Holocaust
Has the US ruling elite been pushing a pro-Nazi
policy?
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/eichmann.htm
PLO/Fatah's
Nazi training was CIA-sponsored
The Collapse
of the West: The Next Holocaust and its Consequences
http://www.hirhome.com/colapso/colapso.htm
_____________________________________________________
Footnotes
and Further Reading
_____________________________________________________
[1] Medoff, R. (1996). The Mufti's Nazi years re-examined. Journal of Israeli History: Politics, Society, Culture, 17(3), 317-333. (p.318)
[2] Pearlman, M. (1947). Mufti of
Jerusalem: The story of Haj Amin el Husseini. London: V Gollancz. (p.51)
[3] The Steiner testimony—plus
corroboration from Wisliceny—was presented again at the trial of Adolf
Eichmann in 1961. The transcription of the trial may be read online. The
Steiner testimony appears in Session #50, part 7.
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/e/eichmann-adolf/transcripts/Sessions/Session-050-07.html
Both
the Steiner and Kasztner testimonies were reproduced here:
Pearlman, M. (1947). Mufti of Jerusalem: The story
of Haj Amin el Husseini. London: V Gollancz. (p.73)
We
provide the relevant pages:
[4] Notice the opinion of State Attorney
Bach at the Eichmann trial:
State Attorney Bach: May I add, in addition to the point
that His Honour, Judge Halevi, made, also important is the fact that from the
document we see that Wisliceny does not just accept anything that is
submitted to him because he might think that it is perhaps convenient for
those who tender a document to him; he does not accept everything; and when
he has reservations about a certain detail, he says that that detail is not
accurate.
SOURCE: Transcript of the Eichmann
Trial, Session 50, Part 6.
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/e/eichmann-adolf/transcripts/Sessions/Session-050-06.html
[5] Medoff, R. (1996). The Mufti's Nazi years re-examined. Journal of Israeli History: Politics, Society, Culture, 17(3), 317-333. (p.318)
[6] Paulsson, G. S. (1995). The 'Bridge
over the Oresund': The Historiography on the Expulsion of the Jews from
Nazi-Occupied Denmark. Journal of Contemporary History, 30(3),
431-464. (p.442)
[7] Jersak, T. (2000). Blitzkrieg revisited: A new look at nazi war and extermination planning. The historical journal, 43(2), 565-582 (p.571)
[8]
Paulsson, G. S. (1995). The 'Bridge
over the Oresund': The Historiography on the Expulsion of the Jews from
Nazi-Occupied Denmark. Journal of Contemporary History, 30(3),
431-464. (p.442)
[9] Simpson, C. (1995). The Splendid Blond Beast: Money, Law, and Genocide in the Twentieth Century. Monroe, ME: Common Courage Press. (p.77)
[10] Marrus, M. R., & Paxton, R. O. (1982). The Nazis and the Jews in occupied Western Europe, 1940-1944. Journal of modern history, 54, 687-714. (p.687)
[11] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay
[11a] http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=859
[12] Lewis, Bernard (1999). Semites and Anti-Semites: An Inquiry into Conflict and Prejudice. W.W. Norton & Company (p.156)
[13] Marrus, M. R. (1987). The History of the Holocaust: A Survey of Recent Literature. The Journal of Modern History, 59(1), 114-160. (p.126)
[14] Carroll, J. (2001). Constantine's Sword: The Church and the Jews. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. (p.522)
[15]
“1930s: The US Establishment
helped sponsor the rise of the German Nazi movement”; from IS THE US AN ALLY
OF ISRAEL? A CHRONOLOGICAL LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE; Historical and Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hirally.htm#1930
“1939-1945:
US policy towards the Jewish people during WWII”; from IS THE US AN ALLY OF
ISRAEL? A CHRONOLOGICAL LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE; Historical and Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hirally.htm#1939
[16]
Paulsson, G. S. (1995). The
'Bridge over the Oresund': The Historiography on the Expulsion of the Jews
from Nazi-Occupied Denmark. Journal of Contemporary History, 30(3),
431-464. (p.442)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Notify me of new HIR pieces!
