The case of Ewald Mikson

Eistir · Post by **Eistir** » 01 Oct 2005 16:47

[This thread was split off from the discussion of Simon Wiesenthal at http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=86147 and recaptioned by the moderator - DT]

DXTR wrote:eistir wrote:
Another evil lier less,world was only winning by that.
could you please enlighten us as to why Wiesenthal was 'evil' and a 'lier'?

Simon Wiesenthal was starting campain against estonian businessman Evald Mikson who was living in Island.Many fauls accusations was launched,all lies.They didn't have any proofs,so they was just stoping.No apologizes was sayd,but man was allready pointed out has a warcriminal.All that nonsense was culminating with heart attack and death of mr Mikson.Wiesenthal was getting one more innocent man dead.

David Thompson · Post by **David Thompson** » 01 Oct 2005 17:37

Eistir -- You said:

Simon Wiesenthal was starting campain against estonian businessman Evald Mikson who was living in Island.Many fauls accusations was launched,all lies.They didn't have any proofs,so they was just stoping.No apologizes was sayd,but man was allready pointed out has a warcriminal.All that nonsense was culminating with heart attack and death of mr Mikson.Wiesenthal was getting one more innocent man dead.

Sources, please, so interested readers can find out more information, or read about this for themselves.

Pieter Kuiper · Post by **Pieter Kuiper** » 01 Oct 2005 18:35

Eistir wrote:Simon Wiesenthal was starting campain against estonian businessman Evald Mikson who was living in Island.

And why was this businessman living on Iceland?

Elisabet Andersson and Björn Hygstedt wrote an article in Svenska Dagbladet (May 2, 1998) based on Swedish court files. Mikson had come to Sweden as a refugee in 1944. He was interned, because several Estonian exiles declared that he had been a German agent in Tallinn, and that he had taken part in assaults against Jews. Mikson was described as especially brutal. Eik Varep, who had been Mikson's driver, told how Mikson had confiscated Jewish property in connection with the arrests. The police enquiry resulted in many accusations. The aliens' department continued the investigation. There was a hearing in closed court. Witnesses changed their stories. Mikson was ordered to leave the country in 1946.

According to an article in Aftonbladet, he was not extradited because he could have gotten the death penalty. He had been the (or a) chief of police and/or of Omakaitse.

Many fauls accusations was launched,all lies.They didn't have any proofs,so they was just stoping.No apologizes was sayd,but man was allready pointed out has a warcriminal.All that nonsense was culminating with heart attack and death of mr Mikson.Wiesenthal was getting one more innocent man dead.

Well, I do not think that Wiesenthal was the most guilty of the two.

DXTR · Post by **DXTR** » 01 Oct 2005 18:54

Pieter Kuiper

Well, I do not think that Wiesenthal was the most guilty of the two

this is why I love AHF.... great post Pieter!

michael mills · Post by **michael mills** » 02 Oct 2005 02:56

Were any actual crimes proved against Mikson?

If he had been extradited to the Soviet Union, he may well have received the death penalty from the Soviet Government.

For what crime?

If he had been an agent for the German occupiers, eg the chief of police in a particular place in Estonia, then he would have been regarded as a traitor by the Soviet Government, and therefore subject to the death penalty.

But there is no reason for anyone else to consider him a traitor, since Estonia was not legally part of the Soviet Union, the country having been invaded and incorporated by force and fraud. Accordingly, any Estonian citizen who took up arms against the Soviet Union was not a traitor by any reasonable assessment of the situation.

The only authority that had the legal power to declare Mikson a traitor would have been the pre-war government of Estonia, and it had been dissolved, with most of its leaders dragged off to imprisonment in the Soviet Union.

When German forces entered Estonia in 1941, they were not invading an independent country or overthrowing a legitimate government. They were taking occupation of a country that was already under the occupation of a third party, the Soviet Union. Thus, Estonian citizens who assisted the German occupation could in no sense be considered traitors to Estonia, neither could they be reasonably be considered traitors to the Soviet Union, the previous occupier.

In short, only the Estonian people has the right to decide whether Mikson was a traitor to his own country.

Thus, the fact that Mikson may have been subject to the death penalty in the Soviet Union does not of itself make him guilty of any real crime. Aiding the German occupiers was not in itself a crime.

The question is whether Mikson, in the course of aiding the German occupiers, committed any act that could legitimately be regarded as a crime. That is something that would need to be tested in a properly constituted court.

It appears that the Swedish authorities investigated Mikson immediately after the war, and found no reliable evidence against him, nothing sufficient to institute proceedings or extradite him.

I note that Pieter Kuiper and DXTR immediately jump to the conclusion that an Estonian who assisted the German forces against a power that had previously invaded and illegally annexed his country, namely the Soviet Union, and against elements within Estonia that had betrayed their country by collaborating with the illegal Soviet occupation, must necessarily be a criminal deserving of prosecution.

That may reflect their own ideological allegiance.

alf · Post by **alf** » 02 Oct 2005 08:21

I am back after a long absence, its good to see so many regulars still here and some new faces to

Poor Simon, is being vilifed again by the same folk who vilifed his wife's passing two years ago here, such is life and I'm sure Simon wouldn't care. He hunted monsters making them fear the world and the light of justice. He will be remembered and not consigned to the dustbin of history say like David Irving has rightly been.

I see Michael above has written superbly about Mikson being not guilty of being a traitor, all of it completely irrelevant and off topic and a brillant example of diversion. The orginal charges stem from war crimes if I read correctly.

Being a traitor is not stated in the charges as he fled Estonia and was not returned making Micheal's arguement completely spurious and irrelevant. Persercuting Jews and seizing property before fleeing are the charges he had to answer in Sweden and obviously lying to gain entry into a neutral country.

Yes he fled Estonia as he clearly backed the wrong side, he was found by Simon'd centre and his sordid war past was exposed to public scrunity. So a murderer and thief (and liar) found out that he was unwelcome by those he hid among and had a heart attack and died?

I see Fritz Stangel has got some mention, Stangel was commandant of two of the Reinherd Death Camps Soribor and Treblinka where close to 2 million jews were executed (Stangl was proud of doing his duty). His capture and trial in West German by Germans was a major step in bringing justice for the victims. Stangl to died of a heart attack in prison pending his appeal, he still maintained he was a soldier who murdered millions as his duty to Germany. I would recommend any serious student track down the film Shoah by Claude Lanzmann, there you can see film of Stangl himself in prison talking about his war crimes. I believe its on DVD now

If you do a google search you will see a "review" by one of the leading Holocaust deniers Robert Faurisson, it is a superb piece of denialism and misrepresenation. And a lesson in one of the primary techniques of denialism - to vilify then mislead and then divert. There are plenty of objective reviews to, it is brillant film making and a vivid reminder of what Simon stood for.

(edited once to correct my many typo's sorry everyone I am rusty in this )

Pieter Kuiper · Post by **Pieter Kuiper** » 02 Oct 2005 09:58

michael mills wrote:The only authority that had the legal power to declare Mikson a traitor would have been the pre-war government of Estonia, and it had been dissolved, with most of its leaders dragged off to imprisonment in the Soviet Union.

Treason is not relevant here.

According to Swedish law, Sweden would have had the power to prosecute Mikson for any crimes that had a maximum sentence exceeding 6 months. However, presented with conflicting evidence, the Swedish authorities decided not to investigate further, and ordered him to leave the country.

I note that Pieter Kuiper and DXTR immediately jump to the conclusion that an Estonian who assisted the German forces against a power that had previously invaded and illegally annexed his country, namely the Soviet Union, and against elements within Estonia that had betrayed their country by collaborating with the illegal Soviet occupation, must necessarily be a criminal deserving of prosecution.

That may reflect their own ideological allegiance.

What ideological allegiance would that be, Mr. Mills?

I did not jump to any conclusions, except to argue that Simon Wiesenthal had every right to try to create public opinion to investigate and prosecute war crimes.

As for Mikson, Peeter Puide (who had collaborated with the Icelandic journalist Tor Jonsson) wrote in Aftonbladet (02-13-2000) that Mikson was not significant, and not a chief for Omakaitse at all. He had been a police man, and had been arrested for theft from arrested people. (But it seems he had at least a driver, so he must have had some rank. PK)
Mikson had also been a selector of Jews spring 1944 in Tallinn's prison (according to an eyewitness that Puide interviewed), but this was not something he had ever been wanted for.

Zuroff (SWC) also wrote in Aftonbladet (23-02-2000), but does not give further details about Mikson (who was dead anyway).

michael mills · Post by **michael mills** » 02 Oct 2005 12:59

Aha, so this Mikson was not a war criminal at all, just a corrupt policeman.

So why did Wiesenthal make a fuss about him?

It seems that Wiesenthal was scraping the bottom of the barrel in his attempts to create publicity for himself, and make it sappear that he was still hunting "Nazis".

Pieter Kuiper · Post by **Pieter Kuiper** » 02 Oct 2005 13:33

michael mills wrote:Aha, so this Mikson was not a war criminal at all, just a corrupt policeman.

Mr. Mills is jumping to conclusions.

So why did Wiesenthal make a fuss about him?

Maybe this was sparked by Mikson's autobiography where he also talked about his role in WWII in Estonia. The autobiography was published in 1988 in Einar Sanden, Úr eldinum til Ísland (From the Fire to Iceland) (Reykjavík: Almenna Bókafélagið).

Reigo · Post by **Reigo** » 02 Oct 2005 14:41

A summary of Mikson's biography (I haven't read it):

http://www.eesti.ca/main.php?op=article&articleid=7521

Summary of the summary:

Born in 1911. Father a policeman. E. Mikson entered Police School 1935. Played also football, was in the national team.
From 1936 worked in Political Police. In 1940 escaped arrest and hid himself. After the start of the war led a group of partisans against the Soviets. Then worked in SD. Because during an interrogation he had not given the full report to superiors he was arrested and spent nearly 2 years in prison. Autumn 1944 escaped to Sweden. Was nearly given out to the Soviets because of talebearing of some compatriots. Then a sailor. Ended up in Island. Got citizenship, married. Sporting trainer.Under the attention of Soviet authorities.

-----
An article about Wiesenthals actions concerning Estonians:
http://luup.postimees.ee/luup/98/12/pdf/juudid.pdf

In this article there it is quoted Peeter Puide. From these quotes it is clear for me that Puide is a sensationalist rubbish-writer.

For example one quote from Puide (my loose translation): "It was the Estonians themesleves who arrested and then killed Jews in the Estonian Police's and Omakaitse's own concentration camps which only in Northern-Estonia there was 30 of them, all of them extremely cruel and savage."

The article claims that the only "crime" which can be proved is that Mikson has given orders to arrest those who were suspected to be Communists. The investigation by Icelandic authorities found Zuroff's accusations baseless.

In this article it is also quoted Mart Laar, who was the Estonian prime minister during the hunt for Mikson.
Laar claims that when he met Zuroff, the latter agreed that it is impossible to accuse Mikson in killing Jews. However Zuroff proposed that Mikson should be accused in killing the citizens of Estonian SSR. Laar said that the Estonian government will not punish anybody for killing deportators, destroying battalion members and Communists. Zuroff was upset.

Here is a different view on Mikson:
http://www.historycommission.ee/temp/co ... _frame.htm

The Commission particularly singles out the roles of Ain-Ervin Mere; Julius Ennok; Ervin Viks and Ewald Mikson, who signed numerous death warrants

DXTR · Post by **DXTR** » 02 Oct 2005 22:25

michael mills wrote:

I note that Pieter Kuiper and DXTR immediately jump to the conclusion that an Estonian who assisted the German forces against a power that had previously invaded and illegally annexed his country, namely the Soviet Union, and against elements within Estonia that had betrayed their country by collaborating with the illegal Soviet occupation, must necessarily be a criminal deserving of prosecution.

Who is jumping to what conclusions, Mr. Mills? From what in my post in response to Kuipers post could you destille that I had any opinion on Miksons guilt? What I oppose and the reason why I cheered Pieter Kuiper was that Eistir posted this unsourced and rather emotional claim :

'Many fauls accusations was launched,all lies.They didn't have any proofs,so they was just stoping.No apologizes was sayd,but man was allready pointed out has a warcriminal.All that nonsense was culminating with heart attack and death of mr Mikson.Wiesenthal was getting one more innocent man dead'

and now we have Pieter Kuiper digging out information that does not paint this rosery image of Mikson. This is why I love AHF... a fact or sourced based discussion instead of all these emotional unsourced claims - I have no particular insight into the guilt of Mr. Mikson

michael mills · Post by **michael mills** » 03 Oct 2005 01:24

What rosy image?

It is clear from the material posted by Reigo that Mikso was an Estonian patriot, leading resistance fighters against the brutal Soviet occupation.

It is perfectly obvious to me why Jewish activists and malevolent philosemites would consider an anti-Soviet patriot as ipso facto a war criminal. After all he was fighting against a power ruled by malevolent philosemites.

DXTR · Post by **DXTR** » 03 Oct 2005 07:41

michael mills wrote:What rosy image?

It is clear from the material posted by Reigo that Mikso was an Estonian patriot, leading resistance fighters against the brutal Soviet occupation.

It is perfectly obvious to me why Jewish activists and malevolent philosemites would consider an anti-Soviet patriot as ipso facto a war criminal. After all he was fighting against a power ruled by malevolent philosemites.

Would you like to elaborate on this idea that the soviet union was ruled by philosemites?

Secondly regarding the rosy image, as you will notice eistir posted an image on mikson that can only be labelled as a unsupported defense of mikson then, as i wrote, did Pieter Kuiper come up with information that countered this claim, and unlike eistir he had sources to back up his claim. Subsequent posting by others as to Miksons guilt are of no relevance to this little debate on my opinions since they came after my 1. october post. And neither does it have anything to do with my opinions as I said I have no deeper insights into Miksons guilt or lack of guilt for that matter.

Pieter Kuiper · Post by **Pieter Kuiper** » 03 Oct 2005 08:28

When someone starts ranting about communist niggerlovers or philosemite governments or things like that, information and rational arguments are of no use against them. But I do not think think such rants strengthen the case for Mikson's innocence in any way.

Reigo wrote:A summary of Mikson's biography (I haven't read it):

http://www.eesti.ca/main.php?op=article&articleid=7521

Summary of the summary:

Born in 1911. Father a policeman. E. Mikson entered Police School 1935. Played also football, was in the national team.
From 1936 worked in Political Police. In 1940 escaped arrest and hid himself. After the start of the war led a group of partisans against the Soviets. Then worked in SD. Because during an interrogation he had not given the full report to superiors he was arrested and spent nearly 2 years in prison. Autumn 1944 escaped to Sweden. Was nearly given out to the Soviets because of talebearing of some compatriots. Then a sailor. Ended up in Island. Got citizenship, married. Sporting trainer.Under the attention of Soviet authorities.
-----

I cannot read Estonian, but it seems clear that this info is from Ur Eldinum til Islands, Mikson's own autobiography.

If Wiesenthal was triggered by such revision of history, I can fully understand that. In such cases, criminal proceedings can serve to establish the truth.

Mikson's claim that he was imprisoned by the Germans seems to be correct. The reason for this was theft of Jewish property (which of course the Germans regarded as theirs). A Swedish government report about possible Jewish property in Sweden says that Mikson was said to have been arrested together with police chief Leppick in December 1941. His driver witnessed in Sweden that Mikson had come out of a Jewish jewelry shop with 28 kg of gold. He said that this was for the Germans. But that he took a piece of gold weighing 0.5 kg for himself. The 1999 report says that Mikson was allegedly released in September 1943, and that he then continued to work for the Germans. When he came to Sweden one year later he had, in addition to several currencies, "one piece of gold" with him, according to a Swedish inventory.

Source: SOU 1999:20, page 289.

michael mills · Post by **michael mills** » 03 Oct 2005 14:35

Pieter Kuiper has made a telling freudian slip with his reference to "the case for Mikson's innocence".

It is not for Mikson to prove his innocence, it is for those Jewish activists and malevolent philosemites who accuse him to prove him guilty of a real war-crime.

Pieter Kuiper's slip bears out the point I made about malevolent philosemites assuming a priori the guilt of an Estonian who fought against the philosemitic Soviet occupiers.

Philosemites also assume that the autobiography of an Estonian policeman who fought against the philosemitic Soviet occupiers must necessarily be a "revision" of history.

As for testing through criminal proceedings, I note that Wiesenthal's account of his activities while working for the Gestapo was never tested through criminal proceedings, even though he was accused of being a collaborator, so we will probably never know the truth.