Warm your heart

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
michael mills
Member
Posts: 8999
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 13:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Reply to Mr Kashner

#31

Post by michael mills » 28 May 2002, 11:12

First with regard to the admission to the United States after the Second World War of Displaced Persons and other persons originating from countries that had become Communist:

Are you able to give examples or statistics of Displaced Persons from the Soviet Union or other East European countries, or other persons from east European countries that had become Communist, who tried to enter the United States and were refused admission because the quotas for those countries had been used up ? Or for any other reason?

I have never heard of any persons claiming to be refugees from Communism, particularly in the early years of the Cold War, who were refused entry to the United States. Perhaps there were, and I would be glad to hear of those cases.

The fact is that, once the Cold War started, the United States posed as a place of refuge for people fleeing Communism, as did most Western countries, and the policy was to give asylum to those people.

Was the granting of asylum to refugees from Communism contained within national quotas, or was it additional?

My contention is that at some point, I think in the 70s, the policy of regarding people who had come from East Europe as refugees from Communism, and therefore entitled to refuge in the United States, changed, and was replaced by a policy of suspecting them as possible collaborators with the Germans and subject to investigation. Furthermore, claims by the Soviet Union that certain exiles living in the United States were now listened to and admitted in court proceedings, whereas previously such claims had been treated as Communist propaganda.

It is incontrovertible that the change was brought about by pressure from the Jewish Lobby, including from Jewish members of Congress. I do not know why you criticise that statment of fact as an example of prejudice. Do you think that the change in policy was brought about by pressure from some source other than the Jewish Lobby?

With regard to the deportation of refugees from East Europe suspected of having committed warcrimes during the War, to places with dubious legal systems, the fact that the Soviet Union has ceased to exist is irrelevant. I was referring to a time when the Soviet Union still existed. For example, a person called Fedorenko was deported to the Soviet Union in the early 1980s, where he was executed. That occurred at a time when the Jewish Lobby was shouting that Soviet courts could not be trusted to give a fair trial to Jewish dissidents, including Jews who had hijacked airliners. That cry was taken up by the United States Government, the same government that was prepared to deport persons the Jewish Lobby regarded as its enemies to face Soviet "justice". What hypocrisy!

With regard to the Demjanjuk case, the well-known Australian human-rights lawyer Geoffrey Robertson has called the trial by a Jewish-State court an absolute disgrace. Demjanjuk was eventually released by order of the Supreme Court of the Jewish State in order to save its legal system from total discrediting when research carried out by his Defence lawyer (NOT the Prosecution) in the Soviet Union proved that he had not been a guard at Treblinka, and that identifications by various survivors were all false. The interesting thing is that the Soviet Union had NEVER claimed that Demjanjuk had been a guard at Treblinka; its agents claimed only that he had been stationed at Sobibor. Furthermore, it placed no impediment in the way of anyone seeking that information. The disgraceful thing about the Demjanjuk case is that the (mainly Jewish) prosecutors in the United States did not bother to seek the data from the Soviet Union that would have shown that Demjanjuk had been at Sobibor, not at Treblinka; instead they chose to believe the Jewish survivors who falsely identified him.

The reason for the release of Demjanjuk was a desire to save face, not a desire to do justice.

The point I was making about trials in the United States was that. if the United States Government is truly concerned that alleged war criminals should be brought to justice, it should introduce laws that allow trials under the United States system of justice. Australia and the United Kingdom have introduced such laws and have held trials. If that were done, then the persons accused could receive a fair trial for acts alleged to have been committed by them, and found guilty only if proved beyond reasonable doubt to have committed them. Under the present system, individuals were in the past delivered to an uncertain fate purely on the basis of a finding that, on the balance of probabilities, NOT beyond reasonable doubt, that they had been a member of a proscribed organisation and had not declared that on their application for admission to the United States.

The whole reason why the Jewish Lobby pushed for the methodology of deporting these persons is that it wanted to AVOID fair trials in a Western country where the possibility of acquittal existed.

User avatar
MadJim
Member
Posts: 272
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 20:00
Location: The Old Line State USA

Re: Reply to Mr Kashner

#32

Post by MadJim » 28 May 2002, 11:48

Mike Mills said:
The whole reason why the Jewish Lobby pushed for the methodology of deporting these persons is that it wanted to AVOID fair trials in a Western country where the possibility of acquittal existed.

This is why the law was written for the Government to "sue" rather than bring the person to criminal court. As I said above - the victims rights are lessoned and the burden of proof needed by the plaintiff for a favorable outcome are greatly reduced.


Just ask Orenthal Simpson. :|


Ovidius
Member
Posts: 1414
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 20:04
Location: Romania

Re: Reply to Mr Kashner

#33

Post by Ovidius » 28 May 2002, 12:15

michael mills wrote:The point I was making about trials in the United States was that. if the United States Government is truly concerned that alleged war criminals should be brought to justice, it should introduce laws that allow trials under the United States system of justice. Australia and the United Kingdom have introduced such laws and have held trials. If that were done, then the persons accused could receive a fair trial for acts alleged to have been committed by them, and found guilty only if proved beyond reasonable doubt to have committed them. Under the present system, individuals were in the past delivered to an uncertain fate purely on the basis of a finding that, on the balance of probabilities, NOT beyond reasonable doubt, that they had been a member of a proscribed organisation and had not declared that on their application for admission to the United States.

The whole reason why the Jewish Lobby pushed for the methodology of deporting these persons is that it wanted to AVOID fair trials in a Western country where the possibility of acquittal existed.
I doubt this particular intention of the Jewish Lobby, since the American legal system can commit even worse inequities when it has the interest to do it. :mrgreen:

~Regards,

Ovidius

tonyh
Member
Posts: 2911
Joined: 19 Mar 2002, 13:59
Location: Dublin, Ireland

re

#34

Post by tonyh » 28 May 2002, 13:37

>>The whole reason why the Jewish Lobby pushed for the methodology of deporting these persons is that it wanted to AVOID fair trials in a Western country where the possibility of acquittal existed.<<

So in a few years time there will be people who will "remember" these men as "nazis" who were "caught" and "punished". Quite ingenius really. Who ultimately benefits from this, the WJC? Those wonderful people at the Weisenthal centre?

It dentainly isn't society, or the true victims of the holocaust, thats for sure.

Tony

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 16:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

#35

Post by Roberto » 28 May 2002, 13:58

The whole reason why the Jewish Lobby pushed for the methodology of deporting these persons is that it wanted to AVOID fair trials in a Western country where the possibility of acquittal existed.
For whoever uttered the above accusation, here's my translation of an article on the Demjanjuk trial that appeared in the Berliner Zeitung on 07.12.1996:
“Prove to me that I was in Treblinka!”

Ten years ago the trial against John Demjanjuk began in Jerusalem. It ended with an acquittal and a defeat of the state of right.

It was meant to be a second “Eichmann Trial”: A quarter of a century after the death sentence against the “Desktop Criminal” a henchman of the Holocaust was to follow him to the gallows. Ten years ago the Jerusalem district court opened the trial against John Demjanjuk. It ended with a debacle for the state of right: The accused was acquitted in 1993 due to “founded doubts” and flew to the USA at state expense.

“Ivan the Terrible” Jews in Treblinka death camp called the Ukrainian “Master of the Gas Chambers”, one of their worst tormentors. He took part in the murder of 875,000 people, tortured and mutilated countless victims. In 1976, five survivors of Treblinka thought to have recognized the sadistic hangman on old photographs - the pictures showed John Demjanjuk. Thus began a trial that produced almost 20,000 pages of files but no final verdict.

At first it took ten years for the suspect to be delivered to Israel by the USA; the prosecutors took another six months for the indictment. They demanded the death penalty for the murder of many thousands of people in Treblinka.

The trial became a media event: For the first time television broadcast live from a Jerusalem courtroom; whole school classes visited the trial. Every morning Demjanjuk jovially saluted the observers in Hebrew, sometimes even lifting his arms into the air like a victorious boxes. Thus the native Ukrainian only increased the tense atmosphere in the room. An escalation came about when survivor Eliahu Rosenberg was to identify the accused: “Enough of this trial, hang him”, the witness screamed. Demjanjuk answered “Schalom” and offered his hand to Rosenberg, who beat it aside and shouted: “You murderer! How can you dare to give me your hand?”

Two indications

The depositions of the five survivors were one of the prosecutors’ indications, the other was Demjanjuk’s SS - service card. Although the defense kept maintaining that it was a KGB falsification, the judges followed the assessments by the Israeli police. In this the failed to see one thing: Demjanjuk’s working place mentioned in the document was Sobibor, an extermination camp 200 kilometers to the South West of Treblinka. Thus, while the voluntary activity of the accused in a murder camp had been established, his identification as “Ivan the Terrible” remained uncertain. The defense concentrated on this point.

Demjanjuk, however, almost talked himself to the gallows: during interrogation he became entangled in contradictions, even admitted to having been at the place Sobibor during the war - where there was not much beside a railway station and the camp. The weak point of the accusation - mass murder in Treblinka - he clearly recognized nevertheless: “Prove to me that I was in Treblinka. Where are the facts? My name is not on the lists of the guards because I was never there.” In this point, as it seems today, the accused was telling the truth - even though his other statements were lies.

The Jerusalem District Court still had no doubt as to Demjanjuk being identical with “Ivan the Terrible”: On 18 April 1988, after more than one hundred days of judgment, the three judges pronounced the accused guilty, a week later they announced the only penalty provided for in the law for National Socialist criminals: death by hanging. To this last session Demjanjuk had to be dragged by force.

In Israel every condemned has the right to appeal; the procedure was fair and not, as defender Yoram Sheftel complained, a “show trial to teach the young generation a lesson about the Holocaust”. Thus the case “Israel against John Demjanjuk” went in second and last instance to the Supreme Court

Unexpected Turnaround

Now the trial took an unexpected course: Documents and testimonials previously held back by Soviet and American authorities appeared, showing that the last name of “Ivan the Terrible” was Marchenko and that he had been killed at the revolt of the Treblinka inmates in 1943. Demjanjuk had indeed never been in Treblinka; his roll in Sobibor could no longer be clarified. Apparently he had also murdered in Flössenburg concentration camp. But of these crimes the prosecution had not accused him. Thus the court was not entitled to judge about them. The consequence: On 29 July 1993, the five highest judges of Israel acquitted Demjanjuk of the accusation of having murdered in Treblinka.

The survivors were shocked - Rosenberg said, his voice drowned by tears: “It burns inside me. He is a murderer. The judges know that I am right.”

Indeed the Supreme Court had concluded the following: “We have acquitted the SS-guard John Demjanjuk due to doubts only from the accusation of being “Ivan the Terrible. That is the proper decision for judges who cannot look into either the heart or the spirit of the accused. To find the whole truth is not the task of human judges.”

After a short while there was overwhelming praise for the Israeli court: Observers praised the acquittal as “proof that this is a constitutional state”.

That was all correct, but the applause for the court covered an important detail: The trial had gone wrong because the investigators had focused only on Treblinka. The prosecutors wanted to sentence “Ivan the Terrible” and failed to see that the had another murderer in front of them. A new indictment, however, the judges considered as disproportionate - after all Demjanjuk had spent eight years behind bars without a verdict. In view of this it was only consequent that an American court canceled his extradition at the end of 1993. John Demjanjuk, who was not “Ivan the Terrible” but had an unknown number of human lives on his conscience nevertheless, went into retirement in Cleveland/Ohio.


Emphases are mine.

The original article can be found under the following link:

http://www.berlinonline.de/wissen/berli ... index.html

In case I should have misunderstood the quoted passage and its author should consider Israel a Western country where fair trials with the possibility of acquittal exist for Nazi criminals, I hereby ask said author to please disregard this notice.

michael mills
Member
Posts: 8999
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 13:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

#36

Post by michael mills » 28 May 2002, 14:37

John Demjanjuk, who was not &#8220;Ivan the Terrible&#8221; but had an unknown number of human lives on his conscience nevertheless, went into retirement in Cleveland/Ohio.
The above quote contains the nub of the issue. The ASSUMPTION is made that Demjanjuk had committed murder because he had served as a guard at Sobibor.

But has any witness come forward and claimed to have seen Demjanjuk committing murder? How can we know whether Demjanjuk killed anyone at all? It was quite possible to be assigned to duty at a killing centre like Sobibor and not actually participate in the killing.

Mr Muehlenkamp is obviously a highly trained and competent legal professional ( I now refrain from using the word "genius" which he apparently finds immodest) with an encyclopedic knowledge of the German trials of former staff of Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka. He would therefore know that some of the accused, who were not proved by witness testimony to have participated in the extermination process or to have killed or committed other acts of violence against inmates on their own initiative, were found not guilty. One such case was that of Heinrich Unverhau, who served at Sobibor in charge of a detail of Jews working in the camp; according to the Jewish survivor witnesses he had committed no acts of violence, so he was acquitted.

Acquittals such as that of Heinrich Unverhau demonstrate that the German court found that it was possible for a person to undertake duties at an extermination camp and still be legally not guilty of any crime. That being so, I find it intolerable that Demjanjuk should be automatically assumed to be guilty of murder simply because of his duty at Sobibor, a duty to which he was assigned after volunteering to serve as a German auxiliary as an alternative to starving in a POW camp, particularly when there is absolutely no evidence of his having personally committed any crimes.

In my opinion, persons who accuse Demjanjuk of murder without any proof are not acting as upholders of justice but rather as propagandists for the Jewish Lobby.

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 16:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

#37

Post by Roberto » 28 May 2002, 14:57

michael mills wrote:
John Demjanjuk, who was not &#8220;Ivan the Terrible&#8221; but had an unknown number of human lives on his conscience nevertheless, went into retirement in Cleveland/Ohio.
The above quote contains the nub of the issue. The ASSUMPTION is made that Demjanjuk had committed murder because he had served as a guard at Sobibor.

But has any witness come forward and claimed to have seen Demjanjuk committing murder? How can we know whether Demjanjuk killed anyone at all? It was quite possible to be assigned to duty at a killing centre like Sobibor and not actually participate in the killing.

Mr Muehlenkamp is obviously a highly trained and competent legal professional ( I now refrain from using the word "genius" which he apparently finds immodest) with an encyclopedic knowledge of the German trials of former staff of Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka. He would therefore know that some of the accused, who were not proved by witness testimony to have participated in the extermination process or to have killed or committed other acts of violence against inmates on their own initiative, were found not guilty. One such case was that of Heinrich Unverhau, who served at Sobibor in charge of a detail of Jews working in the camp; according to the Jewish survivor witnesses he had committed no acts of violence, so he was acquitted.

Acquittals such as that of Heinrich Unverhau demonstrate that the German court found that it was possible for a person to undertake duties at an extermination camp and still be legally not guilty of any crime. That being so, I find it intolerable that Demjanjuk should be automatically assumed to be guilty of murder simply because of his duty at Sobibor, a duty to which he was assigned after volunteering to serve as a German auxiliary as an alternative to starving in a POW camp, particularly when there is absolutely no evidence of his having personally committed any crimes.

In my opinion, persons who accuse Demjanjuk of murder without any proof are not acting as upholders of justice but rather as propagandists for the Jewish Lobby.
The quoted statement from the Berliner Zeitung article reflects the personal opinion of the journalist. While it is in fact not borne out by the results of any criminal investigation into the activities of Demjanjuk at Sobibor, I have some trouble labeling the author of the article as a "propagandist of the Jewish lobby" just because he considers whoever served at an extermination camp to have been necessarily a murderer.

The purpose of my transcribing the translation of the article was another, however. It was meant as a reminder that acquittal of someone accused of being a Nazi criminal was possible - and in fact happened - before the courts of Israel.

michael mills
Member
Posts: 8999
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 13:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

#38

Post by michael mills » 28 May 2002, 16:14

The purpose of my transcribing the translation of the article was another, however. It was meant as a reminder that acquittal of someone accused of being a Nazi criminal was possible - and in fact happened - before the courts of Israel.
I do not think the legal system of the Jewish State deserves any kudos for reluctantly letting Demjanjuk go. It had to be dragged kicking and screaming to that decision.

The fact is that it had shot itself in the foot. The Demjanjuk case was meant to be another Eichmann-type show trial, and ended up as a huge embarrassment when the extent to which Demjanjuk had been railroaded by clearly false testimony became clear. The best thing for the Jewish State to do was to get Demjanjuk out of the country and try to forget the whole thing, before observers started to ask questions about why so many survivors had told such blatant untruths.

The Jewish State, having been caught out perpetrating a massive miscarriage of justice, beats a hasty retreat, and immediately its band of bootlickers in other countries rushes to congratulate it on its "humanity". Tell us another one.

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 16:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

#39

Post by Roberto » 28 May 2002, 16:26

I do not think the legal system of the Jewish State deserves any kudos for reluctantly letting Demjanjuk go. It had to be dragged kicking and screaming to that decision.
Why, did the Court of Appeal do anything other than follow defense evidence that only appeared at the second instance where it led and deciding accordingly? Is there any evidence to pressure exercised on the Court of Appeal having led to its decision?
The fact is that it had shot itself in the foot. The Demjanjuk case was meant to be another Eichmann-type show trial, and ended up as a huge embarrassment when the extent to which Demjanjuk had been railroaded by clearly false testimony became clear.
Was it so clear that the witnesses suffered from memory failures before evidence to “Ivan the Terrible” having been someone else surfaced?
The best thing for the Jewish State to do was to get Demjanjuk out of the country and try to forget the whole thing, before observers started to ask questions about why so many survivors had told such blatant untruths.
Hardly a way to avoid questions that would be asked anyway. But certainly a way to show that there was second instance to correct the faulty assessment of evidence by the Jerusalem district court.
The Jewish State, having been caught out perpetrating a massive miscarriage of justice, beats a hasty retreat, and immediately its band of bootlickers in other countries rushes to congratulate it on its "humanity". Tell us another one.
“Jewish State”, “hasty retreat”, “band of bootlickers” – I’m beginning to enjoy this. Mr. Mills shouldn’t let himself be carried away too much by his emotions, for he might reveal an aversion to Jews that goes far beyond the criticism warranted under the circumstances. I guess I'll open up a file with quotes from Michael Mills, where the above statement will be the first entry.

User avatar
Victor´s Justice?
Member
Posts: 149
Joined: 18 Apr 2002, 05:02
Location: Brasil

#40

Post by Victor´s Justice? » 28 May 2002, 23:42

I´m beginning to enjoy this. Mr. Mills shouldn´t let himself be carried away too much by his emotions, for he might reveal an aversion to Jews that goes far beyond the criticism warranted under the circumstances. I guess I'll open up a file with quotes from Michael Mills, where the above statement will be the first entry.
Maybe it´s not unsubstantiated aversion, but legitimate criticism, given the double standards. Have you ever heard about Jenin, Bethlehem or Sabra?

The Jewish State exists, therefore it can be criticised as any other country, especially when it´s filled with hypocrisy. But I´ve never heard your criticism about Israel, is there any?

walterkaschner
In memoriam
Posts: 1588
Joined: 13 Mar 2002, 02:17
Location: Houston, Texas

Reply to Mr. Mills

#41

Post by walterkaschner » 29 May 2002, 01:08

Mr. Mill asked:
Are you able to give examples or statistics of Displaced Persons from the Soviet Union or other East European countries, or other persons from east European countries that had become Communist, who tried to enter the United States and were refused admission because the quotas for those countries had been used up ? Or for any other reason?
I am far from a specialist in US Immigration, and in the early 1950s was occupied in the Korean War rather than in law school. That came later. So no, I have no such statistics at hand, but should think you could dig some up with a little effort. It's my understanding that in practice an applicant was not necessarily refused admission if the annual quota had been used up, but was put on a waiting list for admission when a place opened up in a following year. I have heard anecdotes over the years of displaced persons being required to wait for prolonged periods before an opening arose, but the only one I have personal knowledge of is that of a friend (Romanian incidentally) of my wife who in the mid or late 50s had to wait 3 or 4 years for her visa.
Was the granting of asylum to refugees from Communism contained within national quotas, or was it additional?
As I indicated in my prior post, the 205,000 refugees which were allowed entry during the 2-year period ending July 1, 1950 by the 1948 Displaced Persons Act were charged against individual national quotas. The additional 214,000 thousand allowed entry by the 1953 Refugee Relief Act were not charged against individual national quotas, but my understanding is that there were more applicants than the 214,000 available slots, although I have no means readily available to verify that. About 30 % of the immigrants admitted under this legislation were Italians, followed in lesser numbers by Germans, Yugoslavs and Greeks.

In 1957 Congress adopted the Refugee-Escapee Act, allowing some 29,000 additional immigrants, primarily from Hungary, Korea, Yugoslavia and China. My notes don't indicate whether or not these were charged against national quotas - my guess is that they were not.

In 1958 special legislation was passed to grant immigrant status to about 30,000 Hungarians, which I understand was far above the national quota.

In the early 1960s another 20,000 refugees were permitted special entry as part of an international effort to clean out the remaining European DP camps. The US agreed to absorb 1/4 of the problem. Again, I would guess, but am not sure, that these were outside of quotas.

In 1965 Congress passed the Immigration Reform Act, which abolished the old national quotas and established a new quota system, whereby aggregate annual immigration from the Eastern Hemisphere was limited to 175,000 with a per counrty limit of 20,000.

There have been several subsequent and material changes to US immigration laws, but I have failed to keep track of them. And frankly, the only reason I'm familiar with the above is that I had a personal matter in the mid-1960s which caused me to look into the applicable laws.
My contention is that at some point, I think in the 70s, the policy of regarding people who had come from East Europe as refugees from Communism, and therefore entitled to refuge in the United States, changed, and was replaced by a policy of suspecting them as possible collaborators with the Germans and subject to investigation. Furthermore, claims by the Soviet Union that certain exiles living in the United States were now listened to and admitted in court proceedings, whereas previously such claims had been treated as Communist propaganda.

It is incontrovertible that the change was brought about by pressure from the Jewish Lobby, including from Jewish members of Congress. I do not know why you criticise that statment of fact as an example of prejudice. Do you think that the change in policy was brought about by pressure from some source other than the Jewish Lobby?
First of all, I don't think US policies about immigration during the period in question were as crisply delineated as you seem to think. Certainly during the late 1940s and early 1950s the law was that membership in a long laundry list of Nazi and Fascist organizations had to be disclosed in an application for immigration. The 1950 McCarran Act was directed toward both Communist and other totalitarian adherents. If Demjanjuk and Schiffer had thought their SS affiliations were not a problem why bother to lie about them? Except for some ex-Nazis with special knowledge or talents whom US officialdom thought could be of vital benefit during the Cold War (e.g. Werner von Braun and his ilk) I don't believe it was ever the policy of the US to ignore Nazi-related affiliations in the immigration process. I vividly recall the problem experienced by my German wife when she applied for immigration after our marriage in 1957; she had joined (or been forced to join) the BdM ("Bund deutscher Mädchen) at the age of 12 a few months prior to the war's end and this resulted in a lengthy investigation by the INS which delayed her admission for many months, while I had to return to the US alone (leving my with no love for the INS!). So while I quite agree that the US has welcomed many of hundreds of thousands of refugees from Communism I do not believe it was ever the official policy to simply ignore past Nazi activities, although there may indeed have been a tendency to be somewhat less strict in the process.

In the second place, your notion attributing such a change in policy to pressure from the "Jewish Lobby" (whatever that is) has the musty odor of that old phony "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion". Certainly there were at least two or three Jewish members of Congress who managed through some parliamentary shenanigans in the late 1970s to get some anti-Nazi legislation passed, but there were a lot of non-Jewish Congresmen who voted for it as well. And one Elizabeth Holtzman, a Jewish Congresswoman from a heavily Jewish district in Brooklyn, managed to convince the US Department of Justice in 1979 to set up the Office of Special Investigation (OSI), the sole purpose of which was to root out old Nazis. I hold no brief for Ms. Holtzman whatsoever and think she was a political hack (and so do many of my Jewish friends). I also believe that the OSI (which prosecuted the Demjanjuk case) has been an absolute and utter disgrace. But to think that a "Jewish Lobby" exists in the US with the power to effect a major change in government policy is simply nonsense of the first order. Certainly there are Jewish (and Gentile) legislators that sponsor legislation designed to please their Jewish constituents. But in the vast majority of legislative districts, both State and Federal, there are not enough Jews to make a difference. (In the mid-Western town I grew up in, for example, there was not a Jew to be found). There are Jewish individuals, and Jewish organizations, who support individual pieces of legislation which they may deem to favor interests which they consider Jewish, but there are other Jewish individuals and organizations who may oppose the same legislation. It's the same with Christians. I simply see no monolithic Jewish Lobby insidiously at work in the US. Perhaps it looks different from Canberra than it does from Houston.

I have some more to add, but it can wait. I must run.

Regards, Kaschner

walterkaschner
In memoriam
Posts: 1588
Joined: 13 Mar 2002, 02:17
Location: Houston, Texas

Further reply to Mr. Mills

#42

Post by walterkaschner » 29 May 2002, 08:08

Mr. Mills, you stated:
With regard to the Demjanjuk case, the well-known Australian human-rights lawyer Geoffrey Robertson has called the trial by a Jewish-State court an absolute disgrace. Demjanjuk was eventually released by order of the Supreme Court of the Jewish State in order to save its legal system from total discrediting when research carried out by his Defence lawyer (NOT the Prosecution) in the Soviet Union proved that he had not been a guard at Treblinka, and that identifications by various survivors were all false. The interesting thing is that the Soviet Union had NEVER claimed that Demjanjuk had been a guard at Treblinka; its agents claimed only that he had been stationed at Sobibor. Furthermore, it placed no impediment in the way of anyone seeking that information. The disgraceful thing about the Demjanjuk case is that the (mainly Jewish) prosecutors in the United States did not bother to seek the data from the Soviet Union that would have shown that Demjanjuk had been at Sobibor, not at Treblinka; instead they chose to believe the Jewish survivors who falsely identified him.

The reason for the release of Demjanjuk was a desire to save face, not a desire to do justice.
I regret that I know nothing of Jeffrey Robertson, but I am aware of a tendency of "human-rights" lawyers in the US to believe that virtually every trial involving a conviction after a highly publicized case is "an absolute disgrace." I have read as much about the case as is available on the internet, which is quite a bit, including briefs of the actual transcript of the first portion of the proceedings in the Israeli court of first instance prepared on behalf of Demjanjuk's supporters and a lengthy and detailed description of the entire proceedings published by the Israeli government, both of which must be considered with care due to the obvious possible bias of the sources. That being said, however, I can nonetheless not agree with Mr. Robertson that the Israeli proceeding was a disgrace. Despite the fact that the trial engendered some extremely high emotions in Israel (I think I recall that an Israeli fanatic threw acid in the principal defense lawyer's face) the trial itself seemed to me fairly conducted and the decision on appeal well reasoned; in truth, the Israeli Supreme Court admitted and accepted for consideration a substantial quantity of new evidence not adduced at the trial, which is virtually unknown in US appelate practice. Whether or not one believes it was intended to be a "show trial" and whether or not the Supreme Court's reversal was "to save its legal system from total discrediting" depends, I suppose on one's bias and point of view. Each of you and I seem to have our own.

BTW, the exculpatory evidence showing that someone other than Demjanjuk was the notorious "Ivan the Terrible" at Treblinka which was admitted into evidence on appeal and clinched the Supreme Court's reversal was discovered by the prosecution and NOT the defense as you seem to believe. It was submitted into evidence by the defense after it had been furnished them by the prosecution (which the prosecution was ethically obliged to do).The prosecution lawyers had gotten hold of it after some years of attempting through diplomatic and other channels to obtain further information from the Soviet files, which attempts finally became successful after the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s. The defense was offered an opportunity to come to Moscow to inspect the same files, but never showed up. In fairness, however, it is clear at least to me that in this process the Israeli prosecution was not looking for exculpatory evidence, but rather for convincing evidence that Demjanjuk had been an SS Wachman at Sobibor and Flossenberg, which they hoped would convince the Supreme Court that the lower court's conviction should stand, regardless of the error about his service at Treblinka. This the Israeli Supreme Court refused to do, in effect on the grounds that the crime he had been charged with and the basis of his extradition from the US ( ie, SS Wachman service at Treblinka) had not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and that proof of some other crime elsewhere was beside the point. To my mind the correct outcome. Subsequently, the Israeli Attorney General determined, on what I think was probably purely political grounds, not to recharge Demjanjuk for his activities at Sobibor and Flossenberg, and this decision received a hail of political flak in Israel but was upheld by the Supreme Court as a matter of prosecutorial discretion. Sorry to be so long winded on all this, but I'm a lawyer after all and believe that the Devil (or God) is in the details.

As to the conduct of the Demjanjuk case in the US, I wholeheartedly agree with you that it was a completely disgraceful -indeed shameful!-performance on the part of the Department of Justice's Office of Special Investigation. Indeed, a US Court of Appeals severely criticized the OSI for withholding exculpatory evidence from the defense tending to show that Demjanjuk was not the Treblinka "Ivan the Terrible". Frankly, I tend to feel that the initial trial in the US probably had more questionable political motives surrounding it than had the one in Israel. IMHO, the truth is that the OSI division needed to win a high profile case to sustain its credibility and to continue to justify its existence as a separate division of the Department of Justice. So they attempted to turn the Demjanjuk case into a high profile one (which it obviously was not at all) and seriously breached ehtical boundaries in their conduct of it. In the high frofile attempt they were ironically aided and abetted by protagonists of the far right of the political spectrum, as well as Congressman James Traficant, who also sought to gain political notoriety from opposing the case. The result was that a case of essentially little intrinsic interest became transformed into a spectacular side show, which ultimately did no one involved much good.

Certainly several of the attorneys in the OSI division were Jewish, but several were not, including one Ryan, the head of the division, who I would guess from his name was probably Roman Catholic. I do not believe that the conduct of the prosecution in the case reflected a Jewish conspiracy of some sort, as you appear to believe, but rather a concerted effort on the part of those concerned to validate their supposed mission and, perhaps unconsiously, to earn enough praise and acclaim to insure that their jobs continued to be secure. Doubtless a more mundane motive than that to which you would ascribe, but in my experience not entirely untypical of the federal (or indeed any other) bureaucracy. Witness the numerous and preposterously self-congratulatory press releases which emminated from the OSI during the course of the proceeding.

Lastly, you said:
The point I was making about trials in the United States was that. if the United States Government is truly concerned that alleged war criminals should be brought to justice, it should introduce laws that allow trials under the United States system of justice. Australia and the United Kingdom have introduced such laws and have held trials. If that were done, then the persons accused could receive a fair trial for acts alleged to have been committed by them, and found guilty only if proved beyond reasonable doubt to have committed them. Under the present system, individuals were in the past delivered to an uncertain fate purely on the basis of a finding that, on the balance of probabilities, NOT beyond reasonable doubt, that they had been a member of a proscribed organisation and had not declared that on their application for admission to the United States.

The whole reason why the Jewish Lobby pushed for the methodology of deporting these persons is that it wanted to AVOID fair trials in a Western country where the possibility of acquittal existed.
Well, in the first place it is doubtful in my mind that the law you recommend could withstand an attack under the US Constitution, which guarantees that no one shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. To somewhat oversimplify, "due process of law" has traditionally embraced concepts of jurisdiction, that is, may a court legitimately assume the right to adjudicate matters over which it has no legitimate interest ? - or, as some emminent jurist whose name I have forgotten put it: "Can the Courts of Tobago rule the world?" As I have indicated elsewhere on this site, the basic rule in the US is that US courts have no legitimate interest and thereby no jurisdiction over activities which are not engaged in within the territory of the United States and have no effect upon US citizens, residents or interests. This would obviously seem to dismiss any jurisdiction over the sort of crimes which may have been committed by Messrs. Demjanjuk and Schiffer during WWII. If I am correct in my analysis, and I think I am, then to introduce the laws which you suggest, even if proposed by Congress, would require an amendment to the US Constitution, which requires ratification by 2/3 of the individual States before becoming effective. And frankly IMHO, although you may find it hard to believe, even the "Jewish Lobby" with all the power you profess to endow it, has not the strength to get such a measure over its first hurdle in Congress. Perhaps if you and I were King of the World we could ordain it otherwise, but under the hard facts of US politics the notion is a nonstarter.

In the second place, if the "Jewish Lobby" is as all powerfull as you think, why would it not prefer to hold the trials in the US, where it could control the outcome and reap the benefits of the resulting publicity?

With all respect, Mr. Mills (and I mean that sincerely) IMHO that particular dog of yours just won't hunt.

Regards, Kaschner

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:17
Location: Arizona
Contact:

THAT DRAGON WON'T HUNT...

#43

Post by Scott Smith » 29 May 2002, 10:08

Michael Mills wrote:The reason for the release of Demjanjuk was a desire to save face, not a desire to do justice.
I made this point about a year ago and it elicited the comment (which Roberto loves to cite) that I was some kind of a smart idiot with ideological blinders on (or something like that) from Mr. Stephen Sharpley, attorney from Australia. But perhaps I’m not so off-the-wall after all.

The Holocaust is the “Founding Myth” of modern Israel. As I think any reasonable person will admit, Israel trying “Nazi War criminals” is like the fox guarding the henhouse.
Michael Mills wrote:The whole reason why the Jewish Lobby pushed for the methodology of deporting these persons is that it wanted to AVOID fair trials in a Western country where the possibility of acquittal existed.
I agree.
Walter Kaschner wrote:In the second place, if the "Jewish Lobby" is as all powerful as you think, why would it not prefer to hold the trials in the US, where it could control the outcome and reap the benefits of the resulting publicity?
No, that would be a PR disaster for the Holo-Lobby! The last thing they want to do is put "the Holocaust on trial," especially in the media.

And even with a kangaroo court that took judicial notice of "witchcraft," the publicity would only encourage debate, which would cost them political capital. Some of the more pious Believers don’t even like the "academicization" of the Holocaust among the annointed faithful. For the Holo-Cult, the Shoah is beyond human understanding, something merely that all must prostrate themselves before.
Walter Kaschner wrote: I simply see no monolithic Jewish Lobby insidiously at work in the US.
That's because no such a thing exists.

But it is very politically-correct to chase "Nazis." They are safe targets. Distractions. Monsters that when rooted out and slain warm the hearts of all and make us forget about REAL problems and real leadership.
8O

Image

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 16:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

#44

Post by Roberto » 29 May 2002, 11:18

Michael Mills wrote:
The reason for the release of Demjanjuk was a desire to save face, not a desire to do justice.

I made this point about a year ago and it elicited the comment (which Roberto loves to cite) that I was some kind of a smart idiot with ideological blinders on (or something like that) from Mr. Stephen Sharpley, attorney from Australia. But perhaps I’m not so off-the-wall after all.
Maybe the reason for this comment was Smith’s inability to produce any backup for his “point”, thus conveying the impression that he was just shooting off his mouth?
The Holocaust is the “Founding Myth” of modern Israel. As I think any reasonable person will admit, Israel trying “Nazi War criminals” is like the fox guarding the henhouse.
Sure. That’s why Demjanjuk was eventually acquitted by the Israeli Court of Appeal, wasn’t it?
Michael Mills wrote:
The whole reason why the Jewish Lobby pushed for the methodology of deporting these persons is that it wanted to AVOID fair trials in a Western country where the possibility of acquittal existed.

I agree.
Birds of a feather fly together.
Walter Kaschner wrote:
In the second place, if the "Jewish Lobby" is as all powerful as you think, why would it not prefer to hold the trials in the US, where it could control the outcome and reap the benefits of the resulting publicity?

No, that would be a PR disaster for the Holo-Lobby! The last thing they want to do is put "the Holocaust on trial," especially in the media.
Why so? Last time the Holocaust was “on trial” (Irving-Lipstadt) the “Holo-Lobby” scored a resounding victory.
And even with a kangaroo court that took judicial notice of "witchcraft,"
Where do you find such a court in this world? Not in the US or Germany, for sure. And not in Israel either, as it seems.
the publicity would only encourage debate, which would cost them political capital.
Debate is only disadvantageous for those who claim to be looking for it and retreat with their tails between their legs or hide behind walls of nonsense and forum censorship when someone takes them by their word. The opponents of these people only benefit from debate in that it makes a greater number of people interested in the findings of serious scholarship. The information available on Nizkor and THHP wouldn’t be online, for instance, if it wasn’t for the “Revisionist” howlers – who instructively refrain from cross-linking their own sites to these. Who would have heard of Pressac, van Pelt, Zimmerman and Green if it wasn’t for those whose propaganda nonsense they undertook to take apart? Who would have heard of Deborah Lipstadt if it wasn’t for David Irving?
Some of the more pious Believers don’t even like the "academicization" of the Holocaust among the annointed faithful. For the Holo-Cult, the Shoah is beyond human understanding, something merely that all must prostrate themselves before.
Is that so? Who are these people, and from what statements of theirs do such attitudes become apparent?
Walter Kaschner wrote:
I simply see no monolithic Jewish Lobby insidiously at work in the US.

That's because no such a thing exists.
A surprising demonstration of intellectual flexibility on the part of a True Believer. Congratulations.
But it is very politically-correct to chase "Nazis." They are safe targets. Distractions. Monsters that when rooted out and slain warm the hearts of all and make us forget about REAL problems and real leadership.
If that’s how you see it, Mr. Smith, then how about cutting out your persistent pro-Nazi stance on this forum so that we may focus a little more on the “REAL problems and real leadership” of our days?

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:17
Location: Arizona
Contact:

IGNORANCE IS TRUTH...

#45

Post by Scott Smith » 29 May 2002, 13:38

Roberto wrote:
Scott wrote:Michael Mills wrote:
The reason for the release of Demjanjuk was a desire to save face, not a desire to do justice.

I made this point about a year ago and it elicited the comment (which Roberto loves to cite) that I was some kind of a smart idiot with ideological blinders on (or something like that) from Mr. Stephen Sharpley, attorney from Australia. But perhaps I’m not so off-the-wall after all.
Maybe the reason for this comment was Smith’s inability to produce any backup for his “point”, thus conveying the impression that he was just shooting off his mouth?
No, it was an ad hominem attack from people who disagree with my opinions and are afraid that they might learn something disturbing.
Roberto wrote:
Scott wrote:The Holocaust is the “Founding Myth” of modern Israel. As I think any reasonable person will admit, Israel trying “Nazi War criminals” is like the fox guarding the henhouse.
Sure. That’s why Demjanjuk was eventually acquitted by the Israeli Court of Appeal, wasn’t it?
No, it was long-obvious that he was not Ivan the Terrible, yet Demjanjuk was held for years. Finally, he was cut-loose to save face in the Eichmann II-trial that fizzled. I don't suspect any real evidence of crimes will be found regarding Sobibor either, or else the Israelis would have kept him for sure, to "save face."
Roberto wrote:
Scott wrote:Michael Mills wrote:
The whole reason why the Jewish Lobby pushed for the methodology of deporting these persons is that it wanted to AVOID fair trials in a Western country where the possibility of acquittal existed.

I agree.
Birds of a feather fly together.
So far I'm impressed with his scholarship. If you disagree with some of his views, remember that disagreement is necessary to think outside of the box, which is why he really scares you.
Roberto wrote:
Scott wrote:Walter Kaschner wrote:
In the second place, if the "Jewish Lobby" is as all powerful as you think, why would it not prefer to hold the trials in the US, where it could control the outcome and reap the benefits of the resulting publicity?

No, that would be a PR disaster for the Holo-Lobby! The last thing they want to do is put "the Holocaust on trial," especially in the media.
Why so? Last time the Holocaust was “on trial” (Irving-Lipstadt) the “Holo-Lobby” scored a resounding victory.
Yeah, Irving lost. But it was a big loss of the WAR for Lipstadt and the notion that you cannot debate the Holocaust. We are doing it right here! Even the Zündel trials did not accomplish so much.
Roberto wrote:
Scott wrote:And even with a kangaroo court that took judicial notice of "witchcraft,"
Where do you find such a court in this world? Not in the US or Germany, for sure. And not in Israel either, as it seems.
Nonsense. The Holocaust is given judicial notice as a monolithic FACT, so if you are charged with "Denial," rather like witchcraft you cannot defend yourself with facts on the truth of your assertions. You are guilty of speaking Thoughtcrime, or "publishing false news" (which need not be proved false) as in the case of Zündel. Even if I don't agree with Zündel, I very much support his right to free-speech, denied him in Canada and Germany and many other places except for the USA.
Roberto wrote:
Scott wrote:the publicity would only encourage debate, which would cost them political capital.
Debate is only disadvantageous for those who claim to be looking for it and retreat with their tails between their legs or hide behind walls of nonsense and forum censorship when someone takes them by their word. The opponents of these people only benefit from debate in that it makes a greater number of people interested in the findings of serious scholarship. The information available on Nizkor and THHP wouldn’t be online, for instance, if it wasn’t for the “Revisionist” howlers – who instructively refrain from cross-linking their own sites to these. Who would have heard of Pressac, van Pelt, Zimmerman and Green if it wasn’t for those whose propaganda nonsense they undertook to take apart?
Well, my impression of anti-Deniers is that they mostly can't discuss things rationally and must use insult and invective to clutter the thought-processes with SPAM. The poor student is overwhelmed and doesn't look at their stuff critically. But big deal. I don't care if weak-minded people are incapable of critical-thinking or not as long as there is free-speech.
Who would have heard of Deborah Lipstadt if it wasn’t for David Irving?
Who cares? Except that her anti-intellectual stance is incompatible with the art and science of historiography. And for an academic to have such medieval views is more appropriate to theology. Shocking. But many establishment types were jumping on the bandwagon. Not any more. Lipstadt is no more.
Roberto wrote:
Scott wrote:Some of the more pious Believers don’t even like the "academicization" of the Holocaust among the annointed faithful. For the Holo-Cult, the Shoah is beyond human understanding, something merely that all must prostrate themselves before.
Is that so? Who are these people, and from what statements of theirs do such attitudes become apparent?
There was an article in Commentary, a Jewish intellectual periodical that I read regularly, lamenting the "academicization" of the Holocaust, which was the unintended consequence of the promotion of Holocaust Studies in the universities. He evidently viewed the Shoah much like the Passover, or the way Christians view Easter. I've forgotten the author now but I can find it. Of course you have to ask nicely!
Roberto wrote:
Scott wrote:Walter Kaschner wrote:
I simply see no monolithic Jewish Lobby insidiously at work in the US.

That's because no such a thing exists.
A surprising demonstration of intellectual flexibility on the part of a True Believer. Congratulations.
I've always said that there is no monolithic Jewish (or any other) conspiracy. For this I am usually regarded a hypocrite according to Roberto--except now. Perhaps that is progress.
Roberto wrote:
Scott wrote:But it is very politically-correct to chase "Nazis." They are safe targets. Distractions. Monsters that when rooted out and slain warm the hearts of all and make us forget about REAL problems and real leadership.
If that’s how you see it, Mr. Smith, then how about cutting out your persistent pro-Nazi stance on this forum so that we may focus a little more on the “REAL problems and real leadership” of our days?
I've always been an advocate of trying to relate history to our own lives. But the "pro-Nazi stance" on this forum is in your own mind. Observe how much Ovidius (a self-described Romanian National Socialist) finds me frustrating at times--especially when I once said that even though I did not always agree with Tovarich (a self-described American Communist), I greatly respected him. And I consider Jews no better or worse than anyone else.

I don't respect totalitarian-liberals like Lipstadt and Holtzman, or professional Victims like Wiesel and Wiesenthal. And I despise mental prostitutes like George Will. I still support their right to free-speech, however.

I have stated over and over again that even if I were a Nazi (oops, National Socialist, sorry, Ovidius :wink: ) that Hitler is dead and there is no such thing today as National Socialism--at least not without a viable Party and Führer, and 21st century issues of no less import than the Versailles Treaty. You see, progress requires learning from the past and learning from mistakes, and the Third Reich was certainly not without these. I do think that we need to start learning how to think outside of the classical-liberal, "Bourgeois," Democracy-Capitalist box, however.

I have stated that I am an Isolationist (for want of a better word) and I am very Progressive. On some things I am downright liberal. On others I am quite conservative. I am an atheist or agnostic who thinks that on balance religion is harmful to mankind. I support free-thought and to worship or not.

I post under my own name from Scottsdale, Arizona.

I have always been upfront and open with my views.

I'm sure that is disappointing for some.
:)

Image

Post Reply

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”