Dieter Wisliceny at Nuremberg and Mufti / Holocaust quote

[kiseli]

1. The Islamic leadership (vis-à-vis the Mufti) did in fact have a significant
relationship with the German governement during the era of the Holocaust.
2. Pro-Nazi sentiment often resulted in grave consequences against the Jews in Arab
countries during the Holocaust.
3. The Germans influenced the Arabs resulting in incitement that led to attacks
against Jews in Arab cities during the Holocaust.
4. The Mufti promoted the idea to the Nazis of destroying the Jews before they
could escape to Palestine.
5. The Axis powers persecuted Jews in North Africa during the Holocaust.

from:"A Backgrounder of the Nazi Activities in North Africa and the Middle East During the Era of the Holocaust"

http://www.paulbogdanor.com/holocaust/mideast.pdf

[michael mills]

If Kiseli will bestir himself to look more closely at the record of the meeting between Hitler and Al-Husayni on 30 November 1941, he will see that it shows quite clearly that the two men had no common purpose or goal.

Al-Husayni asked Hitler to issue a statement that Germany supported the aspirations of the Arabs of Palestine, Transjordan, Syria and Iraq to independence and unity. He said that there would be no opposition to such a declaration by France, since France had already conceded independence to Syria and agreed to the unification of that country and Iraq.

Hitler replied that he would like to issue such a declaration, and promised to do so at some undefined time in the future, but could not do so at present since it would upset France, being interpreted as an attempt to break up France's empire, and possibly create troubles in Western Europe that would tie down part of the German armed forces, making them unavailable for the conflict in the east against the Soviet Union.

It is clear that the aims of Al-Husayni and Hitler were totally opposed to each other. Al-Husayni's aim was the independence of Arab Palestine and other Arab countries from British control, for which he wanted German support. Hitler by contrast did not care about the independence of the Arabs, and was not going to divert German forces to assist them; his sole aim was the destruction of the Soviet Union.

From Hitler's point of view, the sole role of Al-Husayni was to recruit East European Muslims to assist Germany in its war against the Soviet Union and other enemies in the area, such as Tito's partisans. He would give nothing in return despite his promises.

Therefore, it is quite nonsensical to suggest that Al-Husayni had any influence at all upon Germany's policy and actions, whether in relation to the Jews or any other issue. He was being used by Hitler simply as a puppet. When he asked Hitler for something in return, namely support for the Arab cause, Hitler essentially turned him down, despite his bombastic promises.

Those essential facts cannot be refuted by Zionist propaganda, such as that posted by Kiseli.

1. The Islamic leadership (vis-à-vis the Mufti) did in fact have a significant
relationship with the German governement during the era of the Holocaust.

Nonsense. Al-Husayni was being used simply as a puppet, to gain the support of East European Muslims. Hitler was not prepared to give anything to the Arabs in return; for him the relationship with France was more important.

2. Pro-Nazi sentiment often resulted in grave consequences against the Jews in Arab
countries during the Holocaust.

Any "grave consequences" for Jews in Arab countries during the war was entirely due to the Arab-Jewish conflict in Palestine, and was not a result of any alleged pro-Nazi sentiment.

3. The Germans influenced the Arabs resulting in incitement that led to attacks
against Jews in Arab cities during the Holocaust.

Attacks against Jews in Arab cities was a result of the Arab-Jewish conflict in Palestine, and occurred quite independently of German influence. Such attacks had occurred in the 1920s, before Hitler came to power in Germany.

4. The Mufti promoted the idea to the Nazis of destroying the Jews before they
could escape to Palestine.

Al-Husayni did oppose German plans to release Jews and allow them to travel to Palestine. But it is nonsnese to suggest that idea of destroying the Jews came from him.

5. The Axis powers persecuted Jews in North Africa during the Holocaust.

Partly true. The main Axis power in North Africa, did not persecute the local Jews at all. The German forces under Rommel were too busy with fighting to undertake any actions against local Jews. In 1943, after the German occupation of Tunisia (a French protectorate), some local Jews were interned and used for labour. There was however no killing of North African Jews.

So please let us have no more Zionist propaganda related to the current conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. Our aim is to arrive at historical truth; and that truth is that Al-Husayni, as a refugee entirely dependent on the goodwill of the German Government, had no influence on that government's policies and actions, and was used by it as a puppet, receiving no assistance for his own political goal of Arab independence.

[kiseli]

Husseini intervened on May 13, 1943, with the German Foreign Office to block possible transfers of Jews from Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania, after reports reached him that 4000 Jewish children accompanied by 500 adults had managed to reach Palestine. He asked that the Foreign Minister "to do his utmost" to block all such proposals and this request was complied with.
(Raul Hilberg, The Destruction of the European Jews, (1961) New Viewpoints, New York 1973 p. 504)

A year later, on the 25 July 1944, he wrote to the Hungarian foreign minister to register his objection to the release of certificates for 900 Jewish children and 100 adults for transfer from Hungary, fearing they might end up in Palestine. He suggested that if such transfers of population were deemed necessary, then:-

"it would be indispensable and infinitely preferable to send them to other countries where they would find themselves under active control, as for example Poland, thus avoiding danger and preventing damage."
(Joseph Schechtman, The Mufti and the Führer, pp. 154-155)

It has been proved to us that the Mufti, too, aimed at the implementation of the Final Solution, viz., the extermination of European Jewry, and there is no doubt that, had Hitler succeeded in conquering Palestine, the Jewish population of Palestine as well would have been subject to total extermination, with the support of the Mufti.
Memoranda sent by the Mufti to the German Foreign Ministry, Ribbentrop (T/1260,
T/1261), and to the satellite governments of Romania and Bulgaria (T/1263, T/1264),
have been submitted to us, containing the insistent demand that all Jewish immigration
into Palestine be prevented.
In the memorandum to the Bulgarian Foreign Minister, dated 6 May 1943 (T/1263, p. 3),
it says:
“I take the liberty of drawing your attention to the fact that it would be
indeed appropriate and advantageous if the Jews were to be prevented
from emigrating from your country, and if they were sent to a place where
they would be placed under strict control, as for example Poland.”
It is unnecessary to make any comment upon the phrase “strict control,” when the subject
under reference is Polish Jewry in the year 1943.
In his notes, exhibit T/89, dated 26 July 1946, Wisliceny quotes the Accused as saying
that the Mufti visited his office in Berlin at the end of 1941 or the beginning of 1942. The
Accused gave him an account of the Solution of the Jewish Question in Europe, and the
Mufti was duly impressed. The Mufti told the Accused that Himmler had agreed to his
request that a member of the Accused's Section should come to Jerusalem to serve as
personal adviser to him (the Mufti) upon the latter's return to Jerusalem after the victory
of the Axis Powers. The Accused asked Wisliceny if he would like to take this task upon
himself, and he, Wisliceny, declined to consider the suggestion.
In his Statement, the Accused admitted that he had met the Mufti, though not in his
office, but on the occasion of a more widely attended gathering, and continues (p. 564):
“But it is correct that those who accompanied the Grand Mufti visited me,
and certainly there was some discussion then, though I cannot remember
that I ever had a longer conversation with these Iraqi majors beyond
general greetings and receiving them and handing them over to the
members of my staff.”
Shortly afterwards (pp. 568-569), he speaks of a visit paid to his office by a nephew (or
other close relative) of the Mufti's.
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.

from Eichmann trial

According to above mentioned letters, Mufti has been involved in Final Solution

[kiseli]

The Mufti and Eichmann
There also is direct evidence as to the Mufti's influence in the implementation of the physical destruction of European Jewry.
In June 1944, Dieter Wisliceny told Dr. Rudolf Kastner., representative of the Budapest rescue council, that he was convinced that the Mufti had "played a role in the decision to exterminate the European Jews." "The importance of this role," he insisted, "must not be disregarded. . . . The Mufti had repeatedly suggested to the various authorities with whom he was maintaining contact, above all to Hitler, Ribbentrop and Himrnler, the extermination
of European Jewry. He considered this as a comfortable solution of the Palestine problem.'»61
Wisliceny was even more explicit in his conversation with Engineer Endre Steiner of Bratislava:
The Mufti was one of the initiators of the systematic erterm­ination of European Jewry and had been a collaborator and advisor of Eichmann and Himrnler in the execution of this plan, . . .He was one of Eichmann's best friends and had constantly incited him to accelerate the extermination measures. I beard
him say that, accompanied by Eichmann, he had visited incognito the gas chamber of Auschwitz."62
Wisliceny elaborated on these private wartime revelations in a signed official depostion submitted on July 26, 1946, to the Nuremberg tribunal. He testified that after the Mufti's arrival in Germany he had paid a visit to Himmler and shortly afterward (late in 1941 or early in 1942) had visited Eichmann in his Berlin office at KurFiirstenstrasse 116- According to Wisliceny, Eichmann told him that he had brought the Mufti to a special room where he showed him maps illustrating the distribution of the Jewish population in various European countries and delivered a detailed report on the solution of the Jewish problem in Europe. The Mufti seemed to have been very much impressed; he told Eichmann, that he had requested Himmler—and received a promise to this effect—that when, after the victory of the Axis, he would return to Palestine, he would be accompanied, as his persona! adviser, by a trusted agent of Eichmann. The latter inquired whether Wisliceny himself would not be disposed to take such an assignment; the offer was declined. "Eichmann was strongly impressed by the personality of the Mufti," continued Wisliceny. "He told me then—and often repeated it later—that the Mufti had also made a strong impression on Himrnler and exerted considerable influence in Arabic-Jewish affairs."
A photostatic copy of Wisliceny deposition was shown to Eichmann by chief inspector Avner Less during pre-trial interrogation ( the full German test of the interrogator's questions and (he accused's answers was made available to this author). Eichmann recognized Wisliceny's signature under the deposition and did not question its authenticity. He insisted, however, then—and later before the Jerusalem District Court—that he had "met the Mufti only once, and never again; this was at a reception which was arranged by the S.D, [Security Service] in the Mufti's residence . . . most of the heads of departments in the Reich Security Head Office, including myself, were presented to him. . . We—neither my subordinates nor myself—never had any farther contact with the Mufti." He admitted that, once, "three Iraqi majors" (one of them, he heard, was the Mufti's nephew) had "spent ... on a study tour ... a day or two" in his department on the Kurfurstenatrasse. But that, he claimed, was all When interrogator Less asked why Wis­liceny would have distorted the facts, Eichmann suggested that this was done in the hope of finding favor in the eyes of the Nuremberg Judges, Dr. Robert Servatius, Eichmann's defense counsel at the Jerusalem court, put to his client the question: "Did anyone propose to you, on behalf of the Mufti, that you join him as an expert on Jewish affairs?" The answer was a firm "No, no, there was never any such proposal." One of the three judges, Benjamin Halevi, then asked: "But you were undoubtedly presented to the Mufti as an expert on Jewish affairs?" To this, the answer was more hesitant;
1 can't answer yes or no [at this point there was a burst of laughter in the courtroom]. I don't remember today what happened. But it is possible—I must make this reservation—that perhaps this was done by Department VI which arranged the reception.63
Eichmann was, however, unfailing in denying any close relation or cooperation with the Mufti The latter, on his part, even claimed not to have ever met or known Eich-mann, jet alone incited or advised him on mass killings of Jews. In reply to reports to this effect, he told a press conference in Beirut on May 4,1961:
The Nazis needed no persuasion or instigation either by me of anybody else to execute their program against the Jews.... I do not know Eichmann, I have never met him, and I had no, repeat, no occasion to observe his activities or for that matter to visit the Nazi extermination camps for Jews, as the Zionists so falsely claim. I also do not think that Eichmann could be the source of these fancies which can only be called the fantasies of the Machievelian imagination of the Zionists.64
The Mufti's sweeping assertion that he had "never met" Eichmann is easily disproved by the Tatter's acknowledgment of their having been introduced to each other. But the actual degree of their acquaintance and cooperation remains a moot point which was far from adequately elucidated by the Jerusalem trial.
Another question not cleared Up at the trial was that raised by a piece of evidence submitted by the prosecution: a page of the Mufti's diary, dated November 9,1944, and containing the words, in Arabic, "very rare diamond, the best savior of the Arabs," and immediately under-neath, inLatin letters, "Eichmann." Called to the witness stand, Chief Inspector Avraham Hagag, Arabic and hand­writing expert of the Israeli Police, testified that the sentence in Arabic was definitely in the handwriting of the Mufti. So were two other Arabic notations: "Before Tripoli is evacuated, the Jews should be cleaned out and their property confiscated," and "Bomb Tel Aviv, the Dead Sea [Works], Rutenberg and Haifa, and the military installations there." Yet, when Eichmann's defense counsel asked: "Was the word 'Eichmann' written by the Mufti?" Hagag answered: "I didn't have enough material [in Latin letters] to make a comparison and form an opinion." To the counsel's further question, "Arc the other two notations in German written in the same handwriting as the 'Eich-mann'," the reply was "No,"63
Whatever the precise degree of the Mufti's personal in­volvement with Eichmann's genocide activities, his broadcast from Berlin on September 21, 1944, bears witness that he was fully cognizant of the method and scope of Nazi extermination of the Jews. "Is it not in your power, O Arabs," he asked, "to repulse the jews who number not more than eleven million?"
Tins reference to "eleven million" waspuzzling at the time. It was common knowledge that before World War II, world Jewry numbered nearly seventeen million. The Mufti's figure was therefore disregarded as a slip of the tongue or a mere propaganda device. In 1944, nobody was as yet aware of the actual scale of Jewish extermination. But the Mufti obviously was. There was no error and no guessing in his arithmetic- As close associate, confidant, and collaborator of the top men involved in the Nazi "final solution of the Jewish problem," he knew precisely the extent of the annihilation: six million

from:Joseph Schechtman, The Mufti and the Führer

[michael mills]

Eichmann's statements at his interrogation and trial totally refute the claims made by Wisliceny in 1946 about Al-Husayni's alleged decisive influence on German policy and actions toward the Jewish population under German control.

Bear in mind that Eichmann's defence at his trial is that he was a relatively powerless subordinate simply obeying the orders of his more powerful superiors, who were the ones who decided on the physical extermination of the Jews. He therefore had no motive to exculpate any person who was accused of contributing to the decision to exterminate the Jews, but rather to agree with such an assusation, since that would aid his defence that other people had made the decisioin and he was merely following orders.

Accordingly, when Wisliceny's 1946 claims about the decisive role of Al-Husayni were put to Eichmann in his interrogation and at his trial, he had every motive to confirm them, since that would help his defence. However, he denied Wisliceny's claims, saying that he had met Al-Husayni only once at a reception, ie he had not had one-on-one discussions with him.

Since Eichmann's denial did not help his defence but rather harmed it, we must conclude that his denial represented the truth, ie he had met Al-Husayni only once, at a reception, and he had not had working discussions with him or been influenced by him. We must also conclude that all the claims made by Wisliceny about Al-Husayni's decisive role in influencing the decision to exterminate the Jews, which he did not attribute to personal knowledge but to information allegedly gained from Eichmann, were entirely false.

The bottom line must be that Al-Husayni had no influence on German policy in relation to the Jews, and that he was simply a German puppet being used to support the German war effort by making propaganda among East European Muslims, and receiving nothing return except empty promises.

Al-Husayni's statement on 4 May 1961 that "The Nazis needed no persuasion or instigation either by me of anybody else to execute their program against the Jews" is self-evidently historically true. Furthermore, his statement that he did not know Eichmann and had never met him is almost certainly not a deliberate falsehood; he was probably introduced to several German officials at the reception at which he was introduced to Eichmann, and simply did not remember all of them.

Al-Husayni's statement that he had no occasion to observe Eichmann's activities or to visit the extermination camps is consistent with the historical reality that the German Government had no reason to reveal to him a matter that was such a high-level secret, since he had no need to know that secret, it being irrelevant to his assigned function of making pro-German propaganda addressed to Muslims.

Schechtman's claim that Al-Husayni must have had precise knowledge of the exact number of Jews who perished at German hands, based on the arithmetical calculation that the 11 million figure quoted by Al-Husayni in September 1944 equals 17 million less 6 million is quite absurd.

The 11 million figure was probably in circulation at the German Foreign Office with which Al-Husayni was in contact, since it had been quoted in the minutes of the Wannsee Conference as the total Jewish population of Europe. Al-Husayni most probably picked up the 11 million million figure from the German Foreign Office.

There is no good reason to believe that Al-Husayni made the sort of arithmetical calculation postulated by Schechtman, since there is no reason to believe that he had precise knowledge of the total World Jewish population, on which such a calculation was allegedly based. Furthermore, it was by no means "common knowledge" that the total World Jewish population before the war was 17 million; in fact, there was no precise knowledge of that figure by anyone, and there existed a wide range of estimates of the size of the World Jewish population in 1939, ranging from 14 million upwards.

[David Thompson]

An off-topic post on forum administration by Michael Mills was given its own thread, "He leaves it to the readers," at http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=181860 - DT.

[michael mills]

I would like to address the newspaper articles of 15 September 1947 linked by Black Rabbit of Inle in the first message on this thread.

The article was by Drew Pearson, and was produced in the lead-up to the UN vote on the partition of Palestine, which occurred in November 1947.

The article begins:

As the United Nations tomorrow endeavors to solve, among other things, the long-festering problem of tragic Palestine, the grand mufti of Jerusalem has carefully coached a delegation of Arabs to come to New York to defeat that settlement.

Ever since the war's end, when the allies captured certain Nazi documents and witnesses the state department has had sensational evidence of the part which the grand mufti played in the cold-blooded Nazi murder of five million Jews.

Deliberately and carefully, the grand mufti plotted to exterminate completely all Jews from Europe. No wonder they are now bitter!

Thge article ends:

Such is the record of the man who now plots to block the United Nations settlement of Palestine.

It is blindingly obvious that in writing that article, Drew Pearson was acting as a propagandist for the Zionist cause in the lead-up to the United Nations vote on the future of Palestine. The aim of the article is manifestly to delegitimise the Palestinian Arab opposition to the plan to create a Jewish state in their land by alleging that the Palestinian Arab leadership had been complicit in the destruction of European Jewry, and also to justify the war being waged against the Palestinian Arabs by the Jewish settlers on the basis that the Jews were justly angry about that alleged complicity.

Given the obvious use of the statements made by Wisliceny in 1946 for Zionist propaganda, one is left wondering whether those statements were in fact suborned for the very purpose of that propaganda.

What is significant is that the claims about the alleged role of Al-Husayni in the destruction of European Jewry were first made by Jewish operatives, naming Wisliceny as the source of their allegations. Wisliceny's postwar statements all have the function of confirming those Jewish allegations, although Wisliceny is always careful to disclaim personal knowledge of the alleged role, saying that he was told about it by Eichmann.

The only hard evidence about any anti-Jewish actions by Al-Husayni during the war consists of his documented opposition to German plans to allow groups of Jews to emigrate to Palestine.

But in voicing his opposition, Al-Husayni was doing no more than the British Government did during the war, when it also tried to prevent Jews reaching Palestine. In fact, the British Government was afraid that the German Government might suddenly release all the Jews in its power, thereby deluging the Allies with millions of Jews crossing the front lines and bogging down Allied military operations.

Of course, no sane person would interpret the British Government's opposition to Jewish emigration from German-occupied Europe as a conspiratorial support for the German massacre of the Jews (except a few Jewish crazies such as William Perl, in his book "The Holocaust Conspiracy: An International Policy of Genocide").

[The Black Rabbit of Inlé]

Great stuff Michael.

[Jonathan Harrison]

Wisliceny's statement, which I believe was handwritten in Bratislava prison, is Eichmann trial exhibit T/89

http://www.justice.gov.il/mojheb/Eichman/t89.pdf

He also wrote a testimony on 18/11/46:

http://www.justice.gov.il/mojheb/Eichman/t85.pdf

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/e/ ... f-Exhibits

Here's a photo:

http://collections.yadvashem.org/photos ... 16137.html