The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem-- A role in the Holocaust?

[The Black Rabbit of Inlé]

On Dieter Wisliceny's frequently quoted statement:

In my opinion, the Grand Mufti, who has been in Berlin since 1941, played a role in the decision of the German government to exterminate the European Jews,

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=181493

Which is usually claimed to originate from "testimony" Wisliceny gave at Nuremberg, actually appears in a statement Rudolf Katsner made in January 1946, in which he attributes this quote to Wisliceny, claiming he had said it to him in Budapest during June 1944!

COPY
(E 1984/515/31)


STATEMENT.

I, the undersigned Dr. Rudolf Kasztner, at present Geneva, Pension Sergy, 16, Chemin Krieg, herewith make the following statement:

As the leader of the Jewish Rescue and Relief Committee in Budapest, I requested the competent German authorities to grant the emigration to Palestine of a group of Hungarian Jews.

In the course of these negotiations, which are the subject of my testimony deposed in the minutes of the Nuremberg trial, the high Gestapo official Adolf Aichmann [sic] declared he would be willing to recommend the emigration of a group of 1681 Hungarian Jews, on condition that the group should not go to Palestine.

"They may get to any country but Palestine" - I was told by Aichmann, who, as the leader of the Department IV.B. of the "Reichssicherheitshauptam" [sic] was personally responsible for the execution of the deportation and extermination of the European Jews. At first, his argument for his negative attitude towards the emigration to Palestine was that he did not want to rouse the Arabs against the Reich. At last he said to me literally:

"I am a personal friend of the Grand-Mufti. We have promised him that no European Jew would enter Palestine any more. Do you understand now?!"

Some days later, SS Hauptsturmführer Dieter von Wisliczeny [sic], a close collaborator of Aichmann, confidentially confirmed to me the above statement of his chief and added:

"According to my opinion, the Grand-Mufti who has been in Berlin since 1941 played a role in the decision le the German Government to exterminate the European Jews, the importance of which must not be disregarded. He has repeatedly suggested to the various authorities with whom he has been in contact, above all before Hitler, Ribbentrop and Himmler, the extermination of the European Jewry. He considered this as a comfortable solution for the Palestine problem. In his messages broadcast from Berlin, he surpassed us in anti-Jewish attacks. He was one of Aichmann's best friends and has constantly incited him to accelerate the extermination measures. I heard say that, accompanied by Aichmann, he has visited incognito the gas chamber in Auschwitz."

According to my information, Wisliczeny has made similar statements in 1942 before Engineer E. Steiner and M.B. Weissmandel, members of the Jewish Rescue and Relief Committee in Bratislava.

I wish to mention that Aichmann made the above statement in his office in Budapest on June 4, 1944.

The confirmation by Wisliczeny was given some days later, also in Budapest.

Wisliczeny was inquired in the Nuremberg trial as a witness for the prosecution.

Geneva, January 3, 1946.

- UK NA, FO 371/52585, p.28 (E1984)


I don't know whether this statement also appears in a Wisliceny Nuremberg affidavit as claimed, although it would be bizarre if it did.

Below is a letter found amongst Wisliceny's Nuremberg interrogation documents, which states that Wisliceny did make an affidavit for the Zionist Gideon Rafael (Ruffer) which claimed the Mufti "wholeheartedly shared in and even stimulated the Nazi ideas for the extermination of the Jewish people of Europe."


https://www.fold3.com/document/231903760/

[michael mills]

Pardon my ignorance, but what is OVRA?

[UMachine]

Pardon my ignorance, but what is OVRA?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizat ... ti_Fascism.


As I understand this,a huge tarp was thrown over these archives and not much has been answered.They organized a battalion in Albania to further their and the Mufti's desire for a Muslim nation.A hunter battalion.

iLjuboteni.

http://www.serbianna.com/columns/savich/020.shtml

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=218749

[michael mills]

Which is usually claimed to originate from "testimony" Wisliceny gave at Nuremberg, actually appears in a statement Rudolf Katsner made in January 1946, in which he attributes this quote to Wisliceny, claiming he had said it to him in Budapest during June 1944!

Any statement made by Rudolf Kasztner about events in Hungary in 1944 need to be taken with a rather large grain of salt, given the extremely dubious nature of his own dealings with Eichmann at that time.

Kasztner was head of the Labour Zionist Organisation in Hungary, and as such had extensive dealings with Eichmann in 1944. After the war, he emigrated to Palestine and became a senior official in the Labour Government of Israel.

In 1953, Kasztner was accused by Malchiel Gruenwald, a journalist with connections to the Right-Wing opposition to the Labour Government, of having been a collaborator with Eichmann in that he had assisted the latter to carry out the deportations by not warning the Hungarian Jewish community of what was about to happen, thereby undercutting any resistance. Kasztner, at the urging of the Labour Government, sued Gruenwald for libel, but the court, presided over by Judge Benjamin Halevi, also connected to the Right-Wing opposition, and later one of the judges at the Eichmann trial, found that Malchiel's accusation was justified; it was at that trial that Judge Halevi made his famous comment that Kasztner had "sold his soul to the devil".

As a result of the accusation of collaboration and the result of the trial, Kasztner was assassinated in March 1957by Israeli Rightists, former members of Lechi, also known as the "Stern gang".

Gruenwald's accusation was confirmed by Eichmann himself, who in his interviews with the journalist Sassen in Argentina (before his capture by the Israelis), claim that he had made a deal with Kasztner whereby the latter would do nothing to interfere with the deportations, in return for his allowing about 10,000 members of Labour Zionist youth organisations to secretly cross the border to Romania, from where they could proceed to Palestine.

Eichmann's claim is supported by statements by Moshe Krausz, another Labour Zionist leader in Hungary, that he and other Zionist activists had managed to save around 10,000 members of Labour Zionist youth organisations from deportation by smuggling them across the border into Romania. Of course, Krausz did not say that that smuggling operation had been agreed to by Eichmann, under the deal with Kasztner; rather, he gave the impression that it was done in opposition to the German occupiers.

It may be that Krausz did not know about the deal between Eichmann and Kasztner, but it is more likely that he did know, and kept silent about it so as not to embarrass the Labour Zionist Party to which he belonged, and not to give ammunition to the Right-Wing opposition.

Given the above events, it is clear that Kasztner had a lot to hide about his activities in Hungary in 1944. Accordingly, it is likely that any claim he made about that period, such as the alleged statements by Wisliceny, were intended to serve the purpose of concealing his own role in the dealings with Eichmann, and hence cannot be regarded as trustworthy sources of historical truth.

[Von Schadewald]

As a result of the accusation of collaboration and the result of the trial, Kasztner was assassinated in March 1944 by Israeli Rightists, former members of Lechi, also known as the "Stern gang".

Kasztner was killed in March 1957.
http://www.barrychamish.com/Newsletters ... ation.html

[little grey rabbit]

Given the above events, it is clear that Kasztner had a lot to hide about his activities in Hungary in 1944. Accordingly, it is likely that any claim he made about that period, such as the alleged statements by Wisliceny, were intended to serve the purpose of concealing his own role in the dealings with Eichmann, and hence cannot be regarded as trustworthy sources of historical truth.

My understanding (and I accept people may differ), but Rudolf Kasztner has largely been rehabilitated, at least as far as American Jewish opinion (maybe in Israel it is still different?)

Below is a letter found amongst Wisliceny's Nuremberg interrogation documents, which states that Wisliceny did make an affidavit for the Zionist Gideon Rafael (Ruffer) which claimed the Mufti "wholeheartedly shared in and even stimulated the Nazi ideas for the extermination of the Jewish people of Europe."

Zionist or not, he is a member of the UNWCC, so it was a statement taken in an official capacity. General when a Nuremberg prisoner has made a statement once, he will repeat it if he is ever asked the question again; having made a statement to Kasztner, it would be unusual to repudiate it at a later stage. The affidavits were prepared out of long interviews, that were all transcribed, and the affidavits didn't necessarily contain all the details in the interview. Have you read all interrogation transcripts? Did anyone ask Wislency about the Mufti - or rather - anyone whose political orientation you found acceptable?
Basically there is no real incentive for Wislency not to tell interrogators what he thinks they want to hear if it doesn't specifically relate to his culpability.
If Joseph Maier states that Wislency had signed an affidavit in relation to "point 4", namely the involvement of the Mufti, it is incredibly unlikely that Maier is lying. How much value should be put on such an affidavit is a separate matter.

It is highly regrettable, but the Nazi war criminals in the immediate post war period often didn't place a high premium on the needs of historians

[little grey rabbit]

And this is what I meant although I should have written in in a clearer way. Hitler did not commit to the Mufti on anything especially the independence of Palestine.

The Mufti was only seeking a formal announcement in relation to his Arab nationalism ideals - which I believe went beyond Palestinian independence. The sticking point for Hitler was he didn't want to upset Vichy over Syria. It is a completely separate issue to whatever was discussed in regards to the "solution to the Jewish problem". The Mufti made it clear he didn't see a future for Jews in Palestine, Hitler made it clear he envisaged Jews outside Europe being subjected to his solution when the situation allowed. The Mufti wasn't seeking a written agreement on this point, to suggest otherwise is a perverse reading of the document.

Rabbit, if your point is that militaries tend to document cases of their enemy planning chemical or biological warfare, you are absolutely correct. If your point is that Israel was actually doing so in May, 1948, I'd say that an account from the Egyptian military of something that two Israeli POWs allegedly confessed to and for which there is no other evidence isn't terribly compelling. I wouldn't say that Israel wouldn't do such thing (and I wouldn't be surprised if they did), I would say that, as with the various allegations made about the Mufti, I'd want a little more than the assorted rumors and concoctions swirling around assorted websites on the subject.

But your first point, as noted, is valid--were the Palmach (or the British, for that matter) to have some evidence of biological warfare on the part of their enemies, chances are they would have done a better job of publicizing it at some point, which is why I'd love Umachine to provide some narrative details.

Fair enough, Benny Morris appears to accept the story
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=CC ... za&f=false
There also appears to be a paper trail to execution of the two agents. The Egyptians made a protest to London over it. Ben Gurion received an intercept of the cable announcing the capture, the threat to water supplies and warning units to avoid drinking the local water and made a note in his diary . So if it was a hoax, it was a hoax that was manufactured in real time creating communications that were intercepted by the Israelis.

If you accept this research
http://www.marxist.com/israel-biologica ... ns1948.htm
It was not the only outbreak of typhoid at the time, which also affected British soldiers: 'Brigadier Beveridge told de Meuron that this was "the first time this happened in Palestine"."
Again if you accept the research of a Lithuanian-Israeli journalist, the were no outright denials by the Israeli military, only no comments (same link)

In 1993, Sara tried to interview the commander who was responsible for the Acre poisoning. He refused to talk. "Why do you look for troubles that took place 45 years ago?" he asked. "I know nothing about this. What would you gain by publishing?"
Again, Sara interviewed the officer responsible for the Gaza poisoning. He refused to respond, "You will not get answers on these questions. Not from me and not from anyone." Sara was persistent. She asked Colonel Shlomo Gur, former HEMED chief, whether he was aware of the secret operations in 1948. "We heard about the typhoid epidemics in Acre and about the Gaza operations. There were many rumours but I did not know whether they were true or not," he responded.
Sara published her findings in Hadashot under the title "Microbes in State Service", on 13 August, 1993, pp6-10. Sara, who now moved to Ha'aretz, concluded with the following comment: "What was done then with deep conviction and zealotry is now concealed with shame."

I guess in the absence of a confession from the Israeli military there will always be room for some doubt, but at least with the Gaza incident it would have to be quite an elaborate hoax.

I simply raise the issue to contrast the willingness of Israelis to believe extraordinary things of the Mufti on the basis of virtually no evidence, with an absolute reluctance to accept the possibility of their own misdeeds in the face of considerable evidence.
Perhaps the Mufti represents the Shadow for Israel, the figure which they can place all their unresolved guilt that they feel unable to acknowledge. The Gollum to their Frodo?

[The Black Rabbit of Inlé]

Have you read all interrogation transcripts? Did anyone ask Wislency about the Mufti - or rather - anyone whose political orientation you found acceptable?

Yes, I have read them all, but I don't know what you're getting at by the final part of the question. The only mention of the Mufti in the 181 pages of Wislency's interrogation file (aside from the mention in Maier's March 5, 46 memo above) is the following one from the typed-up transcript of his April 2, 1946 interrogation by Sender Jaari:




The interrogations transcripts in the file are as follows:

14 November 1945 1430-1630 by S. W. Brookhart (19 pages)
15 November 1945 1435-1740 by S. W. Brookhart & S. Jaari (30 pages)
15 November 1945 1030-1230 by S. W. Brookhart (12 pages)
17 November 1945 1550-1750 by S. W. Brookhart & S. Jaari (13 pages)
23 November 1945 1430-1710 by S. W. Brookhart & S. Jaari (25 pages)
24 November 1945 1040-1155 by S. W. Brookhart & S. Jaari (13 pages)
24 November 1945 1630-1730 by S. W. Brookhart & S. Jaari (16 pages)
29 November 1945 1110-1230 by S. W. Brookhart & S. Jaari (16 pages)
10 January 1946 1610-1625 by S. W. Brookhart (1 page)
14 January 1946 1530-1630 by S. W. Brookhart (7 pages)
02 April 1946 1515-1600 by S. Jaari (9 pages)

The rest of the file consists of memos or interrogation reports summarising one of the above interrogations.

[The Black Rabbit of Inlé]

Michael A. Sells writes in his recent paper "Holocaust Abuse: The Case of Hajj Muhammad Amin al-Husayni", that on March 5, 1946, in Nuremberg, Ruffer did get Wisliceny to sign a copy of Andre Steiner's affidavit, "attesting that, with some minor exceptions, it accurately reflected what he had told Steiner during the war":

“The Mufti was a bitter arch-enemy of the Jews and had always been the protagonist of the idea of their annihilation,” [...] “The Mufti was also one of the initiators of the systematic extermination of European Jewry by the Germans and had been the permanent collaborator and adviser of Eichmann and Himmler in the execution of the plan.”

("In later conversations, Wisliceny gave me more details of the collaboration of Eichmann and the Mufti. The Mufti was a bitter arch-enemy of the Jews and had always been a champion of the idea of the annihilation of the Jews. ... This idea the Mufti had always pushed in his conversations with Eichmann. ... The Mufti was also one of the authors of the systematic extermination of European Jewry by the Germans and in the execution of this plan has been a permanent collaborator [Mitarbeiter] and adviser of Eichmann and Himmler."
- This version from: "The Case Against the Mufti by Joseph Kalmer", The Central European Observer, July 5, 1946, p.213)

But Sells mentions nothing about Wisliceny signing a copy of Kasztner's affidavit. Therefore it seems the popular claim that Wisliceny testified that:

According to my opinion, the Grand Mufti, who has been in Berlin since 1941, played a role in the decision of the German Government to exterminate the European Jews, the importance of which must not be disregarded. He had repeatedly suggested to the various authorities with whom he has been in contact, above all before Hitler, Ribbentrop and Himmler, the extermination of European Jewry. He considered this as a comfortable solution of the Palestine problem. In his messages broadcast from Berlin, he surpassed us in anti-Jewish attacks. He was one of Eichmann's best friends and has constantly incited him to accelerate the extermination measures. I heard say that, accompanied by Eichmann, he has visited incognito the gas chamber at Auschwitz.

is not true.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... -note-0005

[UMachine]

And this is what I meant although I should have written in in a clearer way. Hitler did not commit to the Mufti on anything especially the independence of Palestine.

The Mufti was only seeking a formal announcement in relation to his Arab nationalism ideals - which I believe went beyond Palestinian independence. The sticking point for Hitler was he didn't want to upset Vichy over Syria. It is a completely separate issue to whatever was discussed in regards to the "solution to the Jewish problem". The Mufti made it clear he didn't see a future for Jews in Palestine, Hitler made it clear he envisaged Jews outside Europe being subjected to his solution when the situation allowed. The Mufti wasn't seeking a written agreement on this point, to suggest otherwise is a perverse reading of the document.

Rabbit, if your point is that militaries tend to document cases of their enemy planning chemical or biological warfare, you are absolutely correct. If your point is that Israel was actually doing so in May, 1948, I'd say that an account from the Egyptian military of something that two Israeli POWs allegedly confessed to and for which there is no other evidence isn't terribly compelling. I wouldn't say that Israel wouldn't do such thing (and I wouldn't be surprised if they did), I would say that, as with the various allegations made about the Mufti, I'd want a little more than the assorted rumors and concoctions swirling around assorted websites on the subject.

But your first point, as noted, is valid--were the Palmach (or the British, for that matter) to have some evidence of biological warfare on the part of their enemies, chances are they would have done a better job of publicizing it at some point, which is why I'd love Umachine to provide some narrative details.

Fair enough, Benny Morris appears to accept the story
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=CC ... za&f=false
There also appears to be a paper trail to execution of the two agents. The Egyptians made a protest to London over it. Ben Gurion received an intercept of the cable announcing the capture, the threat to water supplies and warning units to avoid drinking the local water and made a note in his diary . So if it was a hoax, it was a hoax that was manufactured in real time creating communications that were intercepted by the Israelis.

If you accept this research
http://www.marxist.com/israel-biologica ... ns1948.htm
It was not the only outbreak of typhoid at the time, which also affected British soldiers: 'Brigadier Beveridge told de Meuron that this was "the first time this happened in Palestine"."
Again if you accept the research of a Lithuanian-Israeli journalist, the were no outright denials by the Israeli military, only no comments (same link)

In 1993, Sara tried to interview the commander who was responsible for the Acre poisoning. He refused to talk. "Why do you look for troubles that took place 45 years ago?" he asked. "I know nothing about this. What would you gain by publishing?"
Again, Sara interviewed the officer responsible for the Gaza poisoning. He refused to respond, "You will not get answers on these questions. Not from me and not from anyone." Sara was persistent. She asked Colonel Shlomo Gur, former HEMED chief, whether he was aware of the secret operations in 1948. "We heard about the typhoid epidemics in Acre and about the Gaza operations. There were many rumours but I did not know whether they were true or not," he responded.
Sara published her findings in Hadashot under the title "Microbes in State Service", on 13 August, 1993, pp6-10. Sara, who now moved to Ha'aretz, concluded with the following comment: "What was done then with deep conviction and zealotry is now concealed with shame."

I guess in the absence of a confession from the Israeli military there will always be room for some doubt, but at least with the Gaza incident it would have to be quite an elaborate hoax.

I simply raise the issue to contrast the willingness of Israelis to believe extraordinary things of the Mufti on the basis of virtually no evidence, with an absolute reluctance to accept the possibility of their own misdeeds in the face of considerable evidence.
Perhaps the Mufti represents the Shadow for Israel, the figure which they can place all their unresolved guilt that they feel unable to acknowledge. The Gollum to their Frodo?

Why would the Palmach broadcast taking these chemicals if they realized the power in their hands?If they will not admit to Acre why would they admit to anything related?

My bet is Porton Down got a little taste of this around 1946 or 1947.

[little grey rabbit]

The interrogations transcripts in the file are as follows:

14 November 1945 1430-1630 by S. W. Brookhart (19 pages)
15 November 1945 1435-1740 by S. W. Brookhart & S. Jaari (30 pages)
15 November 1945 1030-1230 by S. W. Brookhart (12 pages)
17 November 1945 1550-1750 by S. W. Brookhart & S. Jaari (13 pages)
23 November 1945 1430-1710 by S. W. Brookhart & S. Jaari (25 pages)
24 November 1945 1040-1155 by S. W. Brookhart & S. Jaari (13 pages)
24 November 1945 1630-1730 by S. W. Brookhart & S. Jaari (16 pages)
29 November 1945 1110-1230 by S. W. Brookhart & S. Jaari (16 pages)
10 January 1946 1610-1625 by S. W. Brookhart (1 page)
14 January 1946 1530-1630 by S. W. Brookhart (7 pages)
02 April 1946 1515-1600 by S. Jaari (9 pages)

The rest of the file consists of memos or interrogation reports summarising one of the above interrogations.

I skimmed through this file and it appears that since the British and Americans never asked him about the attitude of the Mufti, we don't have the benefit of his views during this discussions. Almost without exception the material that is disclosed is dependent on what the interrogators want to know.
Given that the British particularly were in 1946 strongly antagonistic to the Zionist movement it is not particularly surprising that they didn't see discrediting the Mufti necessarily a priority. Doubtless they weren't his greatest fan, but real-politik might dictate that the enemy of your enemy could prove politically useful in the future.
When he was questioned by interrogators who had an interest in damaging the Mufti, Wisliceny did not seem resistant to endorsing damaging testimony. Of course, it is open to question to how reliable this endorsement this was. My own view if had the Allied investigators WANTED to the presented Kastner's claims, Wisliceny would have endorsed them. They simply showed no curiosity on the issue.

It seems to me that if you wish to claim that his testimony to Zionist interrogators was just telling them what they wanted to hear, why is his testimony to British and American interrogators not just telling them what they want to hear? Why a double standard that accepts testimony given in response to an Allied political agenda, but rejecting that in response to a Zionist political agenda?

A good overview (similar to the article you posted) is this one
http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-an ... i-genocide
This lists 3 affidavits re the Mufti
1. Kastner on Wisliceny - not presented to Wisliceny
2. Steiner on Wisliceny - endorsed on Wisliceny
3 The so-called Map Room affidavit
You can find the following here - handwritten in Wisliceny's handwriting
index.justice.gov.il/DataGov/Adolf-Eichmann-Records/t37_11.pdf

It describes a briefing the Mufti received from Eichmann at the end of 1941/beginning 1942. While I accept that it is difficult to know how reliable Wisliceny is, there is a lot of detail and I don't find it surprising that something like that would have taken place.
Obviously the Mufti wanted to stop Jewish immigration to the Palestine - as any rational Palestinian Arab actor would - since the lived experience has demonstrated the result of unrestricted Jewish immigration was the land being dispossessed to them and Palestinians being moved into peripheral refugee camps for what seems in perpetuity (leaving aside claims that the behavior of the Palestinians meant they fully deserved this). I think the historical record will show the Mufti also wanted to roll back recent Jewish immigration also and perhaps the Jewish population in entirety. As such he clearly would have a strong interest in German plans and therefore quite plausible he would seek a briefing. Since I expect the Mufti never disclosed what was such a (hypothetical) briefing, we can't really be sure what was in the briefing. The fact that it was in a Map Room might suggest they were still discussing non-euphemistic resettlement. Did Eichmann shed any light on this?

Buried within those 180 pages of transcript, Wisliceny claims he assisted Kastner in the production of deportation figures in mid 1944. It is not explicit but I think he was claiming that he was the source of the figures in the Vrba-Westzler report. That might seem surprising, but I doubt he would have claimed it if it wasn't true. Later I will try and find the exact passage again.

There is other evidence that Wisliceny had good relations with Kastner going back as far as 1943. Here he seems to after money
http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/Eichmann ... _1943.html

http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/Eichmann ... _1944.html
He appears to be known as Willi, the Interceder", or "The Adviser"
This passage

To extent Willi's suggestions serious and likely to facilitate rescue shall try to satisfy his demands. Do we understand correctly that he desires be assured housing with Stephen

While it could mean anything, one possibility is he hoping to be allowed to live in America after the war: Stephen = Stephen Wise. I wonder how that worked out for him?

Anyway, there seems to be some suggestions he had good relations with Kastner both during and after the war

[UMachine]

JTA Archive.
Washington,Dec 31,1947

U.S Will Not Publish Mufti Links with Nazis Before Clearing with British

Good luck to anybody searching for the truth in the National Archives or NARA.


http://www.jta.org/1947/12/31/archive/u ... th-british

[PF]

https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q ... +the+Nazis
https://www.google.com/search?q=Grand+M ... gws_rd=ssl

[Skyderick]

The National Library of Israel just published a telegram sent by Himmler to the Mufti for the first time (official blog)

My very loose translation:
The national socialist movement in Greater Germany has written the fight against world Jewry on its banner. Ever has it followed with great sympathy the struggle of freedom-loving Arabs, particularly those in Palestine, against the Jewish invaders. The knowledge of this enemy and the joint fight against him establish the strong basis for the natural bond between Greater Germany and the freedom-loving Mohammedans of the world. To this effect, I extend to you on the anniversary of the Balfour declaration my hearty greetings and wishes for the glorious undertaking of your battle to the certain victory.
Undersigned Reichsfuehrer-SS Heinrich Himmler



Source: http://primo.nli.org.il/primo_library/l ... L003531299

[michael mills]

The National Library of Israel just published a telegram sent by Himmler to the Mufti for the first time (official blog)

So what?

The topic of this thread is "Grand Mufti of Jerusalem's role in the Holocaust". What does Himmler's telegram tell us about any such alleged role? Nothing, so far as I can see.

All Himmler is doing is wishing the Arabs of Palestine success in their struggle against "Jewish invaders", by which he obviously means the Zionist Jewish settlers in British-ruled Palestine. It is apparent from his reference to a "common struggle" against World Jewry that he sees a link between the Arab struggle against Jewish settlers in Palestine and the German anti-Jewish measures.

But the fact that Himmler saw such a link does not mean that it actually existed, or that Husseini had any role in the German anti-Jewish measures. The only active role that Husseini played on behalf of Germany was to encourage Muslims in Bosnia-Hercegovina and Albania to join military units fighting on the German side.