{"id":108864,"date":"2016-07-02T21:59:30","date_gmt":"2016-07-02T21:59:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/footballagainstapartheid.wordpress.com\/?p=108864"},"modified":"2017-10-31T13:06:03","modified_gmt":"2017-10-31T13:06:03","slug":"a-glimpse-at-the-zionist-record-during-the-holocaust","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/footballagainstapartheid.org\/fr\/2016\/07\/02\/a-glimpse-at-the-zionist-record-during-the-holocaust\/","title":{"rendered":"A Glimpse at the Zionist Record During the Holocaust"},"content":{"rendered":"

Why Ken Livingstone was right<\/h1>\n

By Tony Greenstein\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 Socialist, anti-Zionist, anti-racist\u00a0 02 July 2016<\/em><\/strong><\/h4>\n

After the head of the Gestapo’s Jewish Desk – Baron von Mildenstein visited Jewish Palestine he wrote a series of 12 articles praising the Zionist settlement in Der Angriff\u00a0Goebbel’s paper<\/p>\n

\"Ken<\/p>\n

After Ken Livingstone stated that Hitler supported Zionism, there was an outbreak of synthetic outrage from the Zionists and rent-a-mouth MP John Mann.<\/strong><\/p>\n

The result was Livingstone\u2019s suspension from the Labour Party.\u00a0 One effect of Livingstone\u2019s remarks was to make people curious about the record of the Zionist movement during the Nazi era.\u00a0 Because of the Zionists use and abuse the memory of the Jews murdered in the Holocaust to justify Israel\u2019s racism, ethnic cleansing and murder of the Palestinians, people have naturally become interested in the actual Zionist record in the 1930\u2019s and 1940\u2019s.
\nThe Israeli propaganda organisation, BICOM<\/a> felt it necessary to publish an article in its on-line magazine Fathom attempting to rebut Livingstone\u2019s allegations. \u00a0Instead of a reputable holocaust historian, Fathom\u2019s far-right editor, Prof. Alan Johnson, chose Paul Bogdanor, a hasbarist who makes Senator Joe McCarthy seem dangerously subversive.\u00a0 Bogdanor is a pathological anti-communist who publishes red baiting articles like Chomsky\u2019s 200 lies <\/a>and Tony Greenstein and the Nazi Apologists<\/a><\/p>\n

\"Zionist
\nBehind Bogdanor\u2019s bluster about me being in a \u201cstate of panic\u201d, one thing is clear. Bogdanor is unable to even understand, still less defend, the critique of the Zionists\u2019 record during the holocaust.\u00a0 That is why the decision of Fathom to employ a propagandist is at first sight puzzling.\u00a0 However Johnson\u2019s decision makes sense precisely because the last thing that the Zionists want is a debate over the Zionists\u2019 prioritisation of building a \u2018Jewish\u2019 state over rescuing Jews during the Holocaust.
\nWhen Bogdanor\u2019s article An Antisemitic Hoax: Lenni Brenner on Zionist \u2018Collaboration\u2019 With the Nazis <\/a>appeared I wrote a response Why Ken Livingstone Got It Right Over Nazi Support for Zionism <\/a>which showed why Bogdanor\u2019s article was based on a series of lies and distortions.\u00a0 Bogdanor was stung into writing a rejoinder, Tony Greenstein\u2019s House of Cards,<\/a> which has been published on the pro-war and Islamaphobic Harry\u2019s Place, the Der Sturmer of the Internet, which specialises in demonising people on the Left like Livingstone and Galloway.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Judische Rundschau the Zionist paper carried the slogan ‘Wear the Yellow Start with Pride’
\nBogdanor\u2019s writing is reminiscent of the vitriol employed against Hannah Arendt, herself a Jewish refugee from Nazism and Ben Hecht. \u00a0Hecht was a Revisionist Zionist who was so appalled by Zionist collaboration with the Nazis in Hungary and the indifference of American Zionists to the Rescue of Jews, that he wrote a devastating book \u2018Perfidy\u2019 <\/a>about Israel\u2019s Kasztner\u2019s trial. [1]
\nArendt\u2019s Eichmann in Jerusalem \u2013 the Banality of Evil was based on a series of 5 articles in the New Yorker.[2]\u00a0 The book touched on subjects such as the relationship between the Zionist movement and the Nazis in Hungary, the record of Kasztner, the leader of Hungarian Zionism and the Jewish leadership under Nazi occupation, which the Eichmann trial had studiously avoided.
\n\u2026 the campaign, conducted with all the well-known means of image-making and opinion-manipulation, got much more attention than the controversy\u2026. (it was) as though the pieces written against the book (and more frequently against its author) came \u201cout of a mimeographing machine\u201d (Mary McCarthy)\u2026 the clamor centered on the \u201cimage\u201d of a book which was never written, and touched upon subjects that often had not only not been mentioned by me but had never occurred to me before.\u201d<\/p>\n

Shooting the messenger has always been the Zionist modus operandi. Apparently Arendt had claimed that \u2018the Jews had murdered themselves.\u2019 \u00a0Why had she told \u2018such a monstrously implausible lie? \u00a0Out of \u201cself-hatred\u201d of course.\u2019 \u00a0[3]
\nMarek Edelman, the commander of the Jewish Fighting Organisation in Warsaw, ZOB, was not invited to testify at the Eichmann trial because he was not a Zionist.\u00a0 He had been a member of the anti-Zionist Bund, which had led the resistance.\u00a0 Likewise Rudolf Vrba, the Jewish escapee from Auschwitz, whose Auschwitz Protocols had helped save 200,000 Hungarian Jews, was also not invited to testify because he too was not a Zionist.\u00a0 As Ruth Linn, a Professor at Haifa University, explained \u2018More than 35 years later\u2026 a prominent Israeli Holocaust historian explained to me that\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u201cVrba was probably not invited since the State of Israel had no money to sponsor the flight.\u2019 even though witnesses from further afield had their fares paid.[4] Even Andrew Biss, the friend of Rudolf Kasztner, the former head of Va’ada, the Zionist Rescue & Relief Committee in Budapest, was not invited to testify, because he intended to defend Kasztner.[5]\u00a0 Those stage managing the Eichmann trial were determined to keep the Kasztner saga out of the courtroom.
\nBogdanor\u2019s accusation that I deny \u2018Irving style that Zionists were victims in the Nazi concentration camps.\u2019 is a good example of his style and method. \u00a0Of course I said no such thing.\u00a0 What I did say was that after the arrest of thousands of Jews in the wake of the Kristallnacht pogrom (November 9-10 1938), the Nazis very quickly released Jews who were Zionists.\u00a0 As Israeli historian, Tom Segev wrote: \u201cIn Berlin and in Vienna, the SD ordered the release from jail of all Jews arrested during the Kristallnacht pogrom who were in any way connected with the Palastinaamt.\u2019 [6]
\nOf course when it came to murdering Jews, the Nazis didn\u2019t distinguish between Zionist, non-Zionist or anti-Zionist Jews, religious or secular.\u00a0 That is why the efforts of the Zionist movement to present itself as a movement that the Nazis could work with was so pathetic.\u00a0 When the Holocaust began, in June 1941, in the wake of the invasion of the Soviet Union, Operation Barbarossa, all Jews in the conquered Russian territories were targets of the Einsatzgruppen death squads.\u00a0 However that doesn\u2019t absolve the Zionist movement from accusations of collaboration.
\nZionist acceptance of Nazi ideas of racial separation reached ludicrous heights when Robert Weltsch\u2019s editorial in the German Zionist Federation [ZVfD] paper came out with the headline \u2018Wear it With Pride, the Yellow Badge\u2019 on 4th April 1933, eight years before the yellow star became compulsory.[7]
\nBogdanor\u2019s response is illustrative of his method.\u00a0 If you mention that the Zionists were given more favourable treatment than non-Zionists before the holocaust began, this immediately becomes an allegation that no Zionists died in the extermination camps.\u00a0 Despite his anti-Stalinism Bogdanor is a polished performer of their dark arts.<\/p>\n

NYT reports introduction of the Nuremburg Laws<\/p>\n

Background to Zionist Collaboration with the Nazis
\nThe behaviour of the Zionist movement during the Nazi period was neither exceptional nor an aberration.\u00a0 From its inception the Zionist movement differed from all other Jewish reactions to anti-Semitism.\u00a0 Zionism accepted that the Jews were strangers in other people\u2019s lands. Leo Pinsker, founder of the Lovers of Zion, held that \u2018Judaephobia is then a mental disease, and as a mental disease it is hereditary, and having been inherited for 2,000 years, it is incurable.\u2019 [8]\u00a0\u00a0 If anti-Semitism was incurable, there was no point combating it.
\nChaim Weizmann, the longest serving President of the Zionist Organisation and first President of the Israeli state wrote, \u2018Whenever the quantity of Jews in any country reaches the saturation point, that country reacts against them\u2026.The determining factor in this matter is not the solubility of the Jews but the solvent power of the country.\u00a0 England had reached the point when she could or would absorb so many Jews and no more\u2026. The reaction against this [Jewish immigration] cannot be looked upon as anti-Semitism in the ordinary or vulgar sense of that word.\u2019 \u00a0For Zionism anti-Semitism was a natural phenomenon and its cause was the Jews themselves. \u00a0Weizmann wrote of Sir William Evans-Gordon, the founder of the anti-Semitic British Brothers League, that he\u00a0had no particular anti-Semitic prejudices.\u00a0 He acted, as he thought, according to his best lights and in the most kindly way, in the interests of his country\u2026. he was sincerely ready to encourage any settlement of Jews almost anywhere in the British Empire, but he failed to see why the ghettos of London or Leeds or Whitechapel should be made into a branch of the ghettos of Warsaw and Pinsk.\u2019[9]
\nTheodor Herzl, the founder of Political Zionism, remarked that wherever the Jews went they would \u2018either introduce Anti-Semitism where it does not exist or intensify it where it does.\u2019\u00a0 Zionism hated Emancipation, because it led to assimilation.\u00a0 \u2018where Anti-Semitism prevails it does so as a result of\u00a0\u00a0 the emancipation of the Jews.\u2019\u00a0\u00a0 Herzl accepted that \u2018It might more reasonably be objected that I am giving a handle to Anti-Semitism when I say we are a people – one people;.[10]\u00a0 It was an anti-Semitic trope that the Jews formed a nation separate from those amongst whom they lived.
\nAcceptance of what the anti-Semites about Jews was widespread in the Zionist movement. Herzl observed that \u2018When we sink, we become a revolutionary proletariat\u2026 and at the same time, when we rise, there rises also our terrible power of the purse.\u2019[11]\u00a0 It is little wonder that Zionism saw anti-Semitism as its partner. \u2018Great exertions will hardly be necessary to spur on the movement. \u00a0Anti-Semites provide the requisite impetus.\u00a0 They need only do what they did before, and then they will create a desire to emigrate where it did not previously exist.\u2019\u2019 [12]
\nHerzl visited the rulers of Europe promising that the Zionist movement would help rid them of their unwanted Jews.\u00a0 In August 1903, in the wake of the Kishinev pogroms in April, which had killed 49 Jews and injured hundreds,[13] he travelled to Russia to meet the author of the pogroms, Interior Minister Count von Plehve. Herzl outlined his vision of a Jewish state, which he hoped would be sponsored by the Czar. He offered to rid Russia of its Jews who, he pointed out, were feeding the growing revolutionary movements. Plehve was all in favour, and when Herzl tried to convince him of the merits of Zionism, he interrupted him saying \u2018You don\u2019t have to justify the movement to me Vous prechez a un converti\u2019 [You are preaching to a convert].\u2019 [14] The result of this meeting was that alone of Jewish political movements, the Russian Zionist movement was legalised.\u00a0 Plehve wrote a letter pledging \u201cmoral and material assistance\u201d a letter which became \u201cHerzl’s most cherished asset.\u201d [15]
\nHerzl told Von Plehve: \u201cHelp us faster to land and the revolt will end. So will the defection to the socialist ranks.\u201d [16]\u00a0 Herzl boasted that Zionism would dissolve all revolutionary socialist elements among the Jews.[17] As Lacquer noted: \u201cHerzl’s critics maintained… that he made, a deal with Plehve promising that Jewish Socialists would no longer attack the tsarist government\u2026\u201d [18]
\nThe attitude of the Zionist movement to the Nazis was no different from its historic attitude to anti-Semitism.\u00a0 Alone amongst Jewish political movements it welcomed the ascent of the Nazis.\u00a0 Zionism felt vindicated.\u00a0 Hadn\u2019t it warned that anti-Semitism would triumph?\u00a0 The Zionist movement rushed to collaborate with the new Nazi government even whilst world Jewry understood that the Nazis and fascist anti-Semitism was different from anything that had gone before.\u00a0 Whereas world Jewry began a Boycott of Nazi Germany, the Zionists sought to work with the Nazi government to its best advantage.\u00a0 When Goering summoned the leaders of German Jewry to a meeting on March 25th 1933 to get them to have a massive Boycott rally in the USA called off, the ZVfD\u2019s Secretary Kurt Blumenfeld, alone amongst the representatives, eagerly promised to co-operate with the Nazis in fighting the Boycott.
\nBlumenfeld stepped forward on behalf of the Zionists, declaring that the German Zionist Federation was uniquely capable of conferring with Jewish leaders in other countries\u2026 Once uttered, the words forever changed the relationship between the Nazis and the Zionists. \u2018 [19]
\nBerl Katznelson, a founder of Mapai and editor of Labour Zionism\u2019s daily paper, Davar, saw the rise of Hitler as \u201can opportunity to build and flourish like none we have ever had or ever will have\u201d. [20]\u00a0 Ben-Gurion hoped the Nazi victory would become \u2018a fertile force for Zionism.\u2019 [21]
\nI will first recall the points I made in response<\/a> to Bogdanor\u2019s original article<\/a> which he fails to respond to at all.\u00a0 Anything which Bogdanor found inconvenient to the narrative of a heroic Zionist movement was consigned to a historical black hole.
\nParts of My Response which Bogdanor \u2018Forgot\u2019 to Mention
\n1.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 I gave examples of how the Zionist movement never hesitates to use the Holocaust in its ideological wars against its opponents, despite their own Working Definition on Anti-Semitism holding that \u2018Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis\u2019 is anti-Semitic. \u00a0Examples of the Zionist use of the Holocaust included dressing up ex-Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in Nazi uniform, Abba Eban\u2019s referring to the 1948 armistice lines (the Green Line) as Israel\u2019s \u2018Auschwitz border\u2019, Menachem Begin comparing Yasir Arafat in Beirut to Hitler in his bunker and Netanyahu\u2019s attempt to lay the blame for the Holocaust on the Mufti of Jerusalem rather than Hitler.[22]
\n2.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 I explained how historically Zionism had always seen anti-Semitism as having something of the \u2018divine will to good\u2019 in it. [23]\u00a0 I cited Theodor Herzl as saying, in the middle of the Dreyfuss Affair how \u2018In Paris…, I achieved a freer attitude towards anti-Semitism, which I now began to understand historically and to pardon. Above all, recognise the emptiness and futility of trying to ‘combat’ anti-Semitism.\u2019 [24]\u00a0 I noted that Zionism\u2019s attitude to anti-Semitism was that it was a completely normal, rational reaction by non-Jews to the abnormal, perverse presence of the Jewish stranger in their midst.\u00a0 In the words of Jacob Klatzkin, editor of the Zionist Organisation\u2019s Die Welt (1909-11) and co-founder of Encyclopedia Judaica:
\nIf we do not admit the rightfulness of anti-Semitism we deny the rightfulness of our own nationalism… Instead of establishing societies for defence against the anti-Semites who want to reduce our rights, we should establish societies for defence against our friends, who desire to defend our rights.[25]
\nBogdanor saw fit not to comment!
\n3.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 I explained how Bogdanor\u2019s article \u2018Tony Greenstein and the Nazi Apologists\u2019 <\/a>where he states that I \u2018defend(s) communist collaboration with the Nazis but denounce(s) Zionists as joint perpetrators of the Holocaust.\u2019 was a lie twice over.\u00a0 Bogdanor doesn\u2019t attempt to defend his lies but he does complain of the \u2018tone\u2019 of my reply.
\n4.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 I gave examples of Bogdanor\u2019s dishonest and error strewn description of the \u2018anti-Semitism\u2019 hysteria in the Labour Party.\u00a0 Bogdanor referred to Vicky Kirby\u2019s tweets about \u2018big (Jewish) noses\u2019 as examples of this anti-Semitism.\u00a0 I showed how these tweets were from the 2010 comedy film The Infidel<\/a>.[26]\u00a0 I gave as further proof the fact that the film\u2019s writer David Baddiel is Jewish.\u00a0 Bogdanor chose not to respond.
\n5.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Jackie Walker, who has now been reinstated, was accused by Bogdanor of having said that \u2018the Jews were behind the slave trade\u2019.\u00a0 This was a malicious lie.\u00a0 Jackie said no such thing.\u00a0 Bogdanor again chose not to comment.<\/p>\n

Frontpage.com – the racist Islamaphobic site to which Bogdanor contributes \u00a0as a columnist<\/p>\n

6.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Bogdanor said that Lenni Brenner\u2019s book Zionism in the Age of the Dictators was a favourite amongst those who believe that \u2018Zionists\u2019 are to blame for all evil in the world.\u00a0 I suggested that this was a McCarthyite guilt by association. \u00a0Bogdanor however took exception to me pointing out that he wrote several articles for the racist anti-Islamic Frontpage.com and its Jihad Watch offshoot.\u00a0 Bogdanor\u2019s response was \u2018I have never contributed to this site\u2019, it \u2018merely re-posted three articles\u2019 which Bogdanor had published elsewhere.\u00a0 Frontpage.com however describes him as a columnist. \u00a0Even if Frontpage.com merely reprinted his articles, Bogdanor is a racist Islamaphobe according to his own logic!\u00a0 David Horowitz who runs Frontpage.com, wrote a book to which Bogdanor contributed.<\/a>
\n7.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 I pointed out that the attribution to Brenner of the belief that the Zionists had caused the collapse of the Weimar Republic was absurd and lacked any source.\u00a0 Bogdanor\u2019s response is that silence is the better part of valour!
\n8.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 I took Bogdanor to task for his lie that the far left and those who allege Nazi-Zionist collaboration were accusing the Zionist movement of \u2018perpetrating the Holocaust in collaboration with the Nazis\u2019. This is yet another lie.\u00a0 Bogdanor cannot provide any quote to substantiate his allegation.
\n9.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 I pointed out that those who alleged Nazi-Zionist collaboration in the Kasztner trial in Israel weren\u2019t far leftist apologists for Hitler but survivors of the Hungarian holocaust.\u00a0 Again Bogdanor prefers to hold his tongue.
\n10.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 I explained to Bogdanor how the dissident Zionists Merlin and Bergson of the Emergency Committee to Save the Jews of Europe had, in the face of the resistance of US Zionists Nahum Goldmann and Stephen Wise, successfully pushed the Roosevelt Administration to set up the War Refugee Board which had saved between 100,000 and 200,000 Jews.\u00a0 \u2018What about Palestine\u2019 was Wise\u2019s response before the Senate when a Rescue Bill was proposed.\u00a0 Wise was wrong footed when asked if he was prepared to jeopardize saving Jews for the sake of Palestine.\u00a0 In a memo of a conversation between John Pehle of the War Refugee Board and Wise, the latter had said he considered Bergson as equally as great an enemy of the Jews as Hitler and threatened that the Jewish community would not support the WRB if it didn\u2019t disavow Bergson and his committee.[27]\u00a0 Again Bogdanor chose not to comment.<\/p>\n

Ha’avara broke the Jewish Boycott of Nazi Germany
\n11.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 I quoted from a Review by Elie Wiesel of Tom Segev\u2019s pioneering book, The Seventh Million, on Zionism\u2019s record during the Holocaust.\u00a0 Wiesel is an ardent Zionist who has never hesitated to attack the Palestinians and who is a flag bearer for the idea that the Holocaust is unique and not to be compared with any other act of genocide.\u00a0 Yet because Wiesel is an Auschwitz survivor, he is a bitter critic of some aspects of Zionist collaboration and indifference to the Jewish victims of the Holocaust.\u00a0 He said of Ha’avara, the Transfer agreement negotiated between Nazi Germany, that
\n\u2018There developed a growing perception that instead of supporting and strengthening the boycott, Palestine was, in fact, sabotaging it.\u2019
\nWiesel described how Itzhak Gruenbaum, Chairman of the Jewish Agency\u2019s Rescue Committee, \u2018considered creating new settlements more urgent than saving Jews from being sent to Treblinka and Birkenau.\u2019\u00a0 Wiesel described how \u2018There were dramatic rescue operations such as the flight across the Pyrenees from France to Spain and the convoys of Jews that sailed from Denmark to Sweden. Only a few survivors owed their lives to the efforts of the Zionist movement.” [28]\u00a0 What was Bogdanor\u2019s response?\u00a0 Nothing, not a word.
\n12.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The evidence concerning Ha’avara, is clear.\u00a0 \u2018The Ha’avara agreement would in the end shore up the Jewish Agency \u2013 then almost bankrupt \u2013 and grant it renewed momentum\u2019 which is why \u2018two months after Hitler came to power the Jewish Agency executive in Jerusalem had sent a telegram straight to the Fuhrer in Berlin, assuring him that the Yishuv had not declared a boycott against his country.\u2019[29]
\nEdwin Black notes that by June 1933 \u2018the spectre of collapse was hovering over the Third Reich.\u2019\u00a0 The Reichsbank had only RM 280m in gold and foreign-exchange reserves, less than half that of 1932.\u00a0 In the first quarter of 1933 Germany\u2019s export surplus was down from RM 94 million to RM 44 million.
\nOn July 2nd, the Conference of Institutions in Palestine, including Histadrut , the Manufacturer\u2019s Association and other Zionist groups, met to discuss how best to co-ordinate opposition to the Boycott.[30]\u00a0 Goebbels at the annual NSDAP conference in September 1933 described the Boycott as \u2018causing us much concern.\u00a0 It hangs over us like a cloud.\u2019\u2019 [31]
\nBlack, a Zionist historian noted: \u2018the Nazi party and the Zionist Organization shared a common stake in the recovery of Germany.\u00a0 If the Hitler economy fell, both sides would be ruined.\u2019 [32]\u00a0\u00a0 Ha\u2019avara was directly responsible for preventing the anti-Nazi crusade succeeding.[33]\u00a0 The actions of the ZO had allowed Hitler to drive a wedge into the world-wide boycott of German goods.[34]
\n\u2018The leaders of Germany realized that the anti-Hitler boycott was threatening to kill the Third Reich in its infancy, either through utter bankruptcy or by promoting an imminent invasion of Germany\u2026\u2019 [35]
\nBogdanor\u2019s response was to say that Ha\u2019avara
\nwas the subject of acrimonious debate within the Zionist movement as well as within world Jewry. My own opinion is that its critics were right and that it was naive to conclude any agreement with the Nazis. But the arrangement did save thousands of German Jews, as well as a fraction of German Jewry\u2019s assets, from the clutches of the Nazis. Contrary to Greenstein, the boycott of Germany did not save anyone.
\nBogdanor can\u2019t quite bring himself to defend Ha’avara but he makes the best possible case for it.\u00a0 The Boycott led to the Nazis clamping down on anti-Jewish violence and to calling off the April 1st siege of Jewish shops after one day.\u00a0 The Boycott had a chance of toppling Hitler when he was weak.\u00a0 20,000 German Jews used Ha’avara\u2019s provisions to emigrate to Palestine but they were rich Jews who would have found little difficulty in emigrating to other destinations.\u00a0 Ha’avara gave the Nazi government breathing space with which to consolidate.
\nBlack wrote that:
\nThe leaders of Germany realized that the anti-Hitler boycott was threatening to kill the Third Reich in its infancy, either through utter bankruptcy or by promoting an imminent invasion of Germany\u2026\u2019 [36]
\nWhat was Bogdanor\u2019s response?\u00a0 There wasn\u2019t one.
\n13.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 I cited the fact that the ZVfD had lobbied the Nazi government to ensure that Jewish emigrants went only to Palestine and the fact that the Gestapo reciprocated doing \u201ceverything in those days to promote emigration, particularly to Palestine.\u201d [37]\u00a0 What was Bogdanor\u2019s response?\u00a0 Nothing.
\n14.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 I quoted an article by Joachim Doron which stated that
\nIt cannot be denied that the Jewish self-criticism so widespread among the German Zionist intelligentsia often seemed dangerously similar to the plaints of the German anti-Semites. The Zionists were keenly aware of this problem but they were not deterred by it.
\nI also cited the letter of Kurt Blumenfeld of the ZVfD to Germany\u2019s Foreign Minister Walter Rathenau, who was assassinated in 1922, saying that \u2018Under no circumstance does a Jew have the right to represent the affairs of another people.\u2019 [38]\u00a0 What was Bogdanor\u2019s response?\u00a0 Nothing.
\n15.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Bogdanor failed to comment on my response to his attempt to gloss over what Joachim Prinz, another prominent German Zionist leader had said about the Zionists being the favourite children of the Nazis.\u00a0 Brenner quoted Prinz:
\n\u2018Everyone in Germany knew that only the Zionists could responsibly represent the Jews in dealing with the Nazi government.\u00a0 We all felt sure that one day the government would arrange a round table conference with the Jews\u2026 there was no country in the world which tried to solve the Jewish problem as seriously as did Germany\u2026 It was our Zionist dream!\u2026 Dissimilation?\u00a0 It was our own appeal!\u2026\u2019 [39]
\nBogdanor believes that Prinz\u2019s complaints that the Zionists were \u2018miserably treated\u2019, and not very politely at that, cancels out the above.
\n16.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Bogdanor argued that Ben-Gurion engaged in a secret rescue campaign based in Turkey, a campaign so secret that no one apart from Ben-Gurion\u2019s archivist at Ben-Gurion University in the Negev knew or heard of it.
\n17.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 I cited two Zionist historians \u2013 Noah Lucas and Christopher Sykes \u2013 who like many other historians concluded that the Zionist movement intended to use the Holocaust to secure political advantages in terms of building their state.\u00a0 Even Ben-Gurion\u2019s own, official biographer, Shabtai Teveth concluded that :
\n\u2018Ben-Gurion did not put the rescue effort above Zionist politics and he did not regard it as a principal task demanding his personal leadership; he never saw fit to explain why, then or later.\u2019\u00a0 .[40]
\nBogdanor chose not to comment when I cited Teveth\u2019s conclusion that \u2018\u2018\u2018If there was a line in Ben-Gurion\u2019s mind between the beneficial disaster and an all-destroying catastrophe, it must have been a very fine one.\u2019
\n18.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 One might have expected Bogdanor to have at least attempted to explain why the Palestinian press, in addition to denying or minimising the holocaust, went to the lengths of quoting from Nazi papers to the effect that there was no holocaust.\u00a0 I cited Shabtai Beit-Zvi on how
\nOn March 23, 1943, Davar was reprimanded by Yosef Gravitzky, the managing editor of the Jewish Agency\u2019s Palcor news agency, for copying from a Nazi paper, Ostland, a \u201creport\u201d that two million Jews remained in Poland, after the paper had reported one day earlier, on the same page, that no more than two hundred thousand Jews were still alive in all of Poland.[41]
\nPorter notes how \u2018the Jewish press in Palestine treated the extermination of Hungarian Jews with silence\u2019. [42]
\nDavar and the Zionist press were not alone.\u00a0 Berl Katznelson\u2019s \u2018silence concerning the Holocaust was almost complete, his biographer noted.\u2019[43]\u00a0 The agenda of the May 1943 meeting of the Histadrut Executive Committee listed \u2018rescue efforts\u2019 as 6th of 8 items on the agenda.\u00a0 Dead Sea developments and May Day celebrations took priority.[44]\u00a0 At the Mapai meeting of December 1938, shortly after Kristallnacht, Ben-Gurion confessed that \u2018In these terrible days of the beginning of the disaster that threatens European Jewry, I am still more worried about the elections at the (Mapai) branch in Tel-Aviv.\u2019 [45]
\nBogdanor chose not to comment on the above or the copious evidence of Shabtai Beit Zvi that the Zionist press chose to downplay the holocaust.
\n119.\u00a0 Bogdanor prefers not to comment on the fact that Rudolf Kasztner, in his capacity of representative of the Jewish Agency in Palestine and the World Jewish Congress, in the name of both organisations, exonerated and provided favourable testimony for 7 leading Nazis, including Hermann Krumey and Dieter Wisliceny, the butchers of Polish, Slovakian and Hungarian Jewry.\u00a0 I can only assume that Bogdanor choses not to comment because it is impossible to defend Kasztner\u2019s behaviour.\u00a0 Since Bogdanor\u2019s first loyalty is to Zionism, not to Jews, he prefers to remain silent.
\nBogdanor\u2019s Other Half Truths and Deceptions
\nRescue Only to Palestine
\nAccording to Bogdanor it is a \u2018blatant falsehood that the Zionists opposed saving Jews unless they went to Palestine.\u2019
\nBogdanor dismisses all evidence to the contrary.\u00a0 The letter from Rabbi Solomon Schonfeld is dismissed as \u2018a letter in the press from an anti-Zionist rabbi.\u2019 [46] Schonfeld, was Chairman of the Chief Rabbi\u2019s Rescue Committee.\u00a0 He was appointed by the Chief Rabbi Joseph Hertz, who was a Zionist.\u00a0 To Bogdanor\u00a0 the mere fact of being an anti-Zionist is enough to dismiss his letter.\u00a0 Who was this \u2018anti-Zionist rabbi\u2019?\u00a0 According to Wikipedia:<\/a>
\n\u2018Schonfeld personally rescued thousands of Jews. He was a very charismatic, dedicated, innovative and dynamic young man. His rescue efforts were inspired by his teacher at the Nitra Yeshiva, Rabbi Michael Ber Weissmandel<\/a>. This explains, in part, some of his daring and innovative rescue style. His rescue activities were under auspices of the Chief Rabbi\u2019s Religious Emergency Council, which he created with approval of Chief Rabbi Joseph H. Hertz,<\/a> his father-in-law.\u2019
\nRabbi Schonfeld wrote regarding a Parliamentary resolution calling for the rescuing of Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany that \u2018
\nAt the Parliamentary meeting held on January 27, 1943, \u2026. a spokesman for the Zionists announced that the Jews would oppose the motion on the grounds of its omitting to refer to Palestine. Some voices were raised in support of the Zionist view, there was considerable debate, and thereafter the motion was dead. Even the promoters exclaimed in desperation: If the Jews cannot agree among themselves, how can we help?\u2019
\nMost decent people would condemn this policy of the Zionists, which is confirmed even by historians.\u00a0 Bogdanor however cannot tolerate any criticism of the Zionist policy which preferred that if Palestine could not receive the refugees then no one should.\u00a0 Bogdanor cannot explain why Schonfeld should falsely allege the sabotage of a rescue initiative by the Zionists other than that he was an anti-Zionist.
\nBogdanor refers to a letter published 2 days later in The Times that mentions a Zionist programme for refugees which was composed merely as a historical alibi.\u00a0 Words are cheap, but the actions of the Zionist movement in 1943 in opposing emigration to anywhere but Palestine were what counted.
\nSimilarly Bogdanor cites a statement from Ben-Gurion that called for the rescue of Jewish children regardless of the destination.\u00a0 However when concrete initiatives such as the Evian conference arose, the Zionists opposed such initiatives.
\nAccording to Bogdanor I \u2018repeat(s) the blatant falsehood that the Zionists opposed saving Jews unless they went to Palestine.\u2019\u00a0 Yet he fails to refer to Ben-Gurion\u2019s comment regarding the Kindertransport which saved 10,000 German Jewish children.
\nIf I knew that it would be possible to save all the children in Germany by bringing them over to England, and only half of them by transporting them to Eretz Yisrael, then I would opt for the second alternative. For we must weigh not only the life of these children, but also the history of the People of Israel.[47]
\nIn this one statement Ben-Gurion summed up the Zionist policy towards Rescue.
\nThe only time that the Jewish Agency spent money on rescue was when it brought prestige to the Zionist movement: \u2018The fact that the Jews of Palestine stand at the fore of a rescue front is an important Zionist asset.\u2019\u00a0 In October 1944, when Auschwitz was on the verge of finishing its murderous work, Ben-Gurion asked Chaim Barlas, who had just come from Istanbul, \u2018Do they know there that the help comes from Palestine?\u2019\u00a0 This money however was only for those who could come to Palestine.\u00a0 Ben-Gurion \u2018laid down the guidelines that JAE funds be used only for rescue by immigration to Palestine, whereas rescue by assisting Jews to survive elsewhere was to be funded solely by private and organizational donations.\u2019 [48]
\nBuilding the Jewish State takes priority over Rescue
\nBogdanor doesn\u2019t comment on Ben-Gurion\u2019s statement that \u2018the disaster facing European Jewry is not directly my business\u2026.Although I was then chairman of the Jewish Agency executive, the enlistment of the Jewish people in the demand for a Jewish state was at the center of my activity.\u2019
\nBogdanor puts forward the preposterous theory citing Tuvia Friling that \u2018Gruenbaum\u2019s committee was never meant to be anything but a political lightning rod\u2019 and that \u2018the real Zionist rescue work was assigned to the Zionist network in Turkey, since (in Ben-Gurion\u2019s view) it had to be done covertly.\u2019
\nIt is strange that no one else seems to have heard of this rescue work.\u00a0 The rescue work in Turkey concerned Aliyah Bet, the secret Zionist immigration to Palestine –\u00a0 nothing more.\u00a0 At most it saved 6,000 Zionist activists.\u00a0 If the Zionist movement had been serious about rescue work it would have established bases in Spain\/Portugal and Sweden, which were nearer to the Jewish communities facing extermination.
\nIt took until February 1943 before the Jewish Agency financed a trip by Shlomo Adler\u2013Rudely to Sweden, a key neutral country adjacent to Norway, Denmark and the Baltic Republics.\u00a0 In the short time he was there, before the Jewish Agency cut the finance, useful work was done prior to the evacuation of the Danish Jewish community to Sweden.\u00a0 In Portugal in April 1943 there was a half-hearted sending of an emissary, Wilfrid Israel to coordinate and expand rescue work.\u00a0 When he was killed in June it took a further 3 months to send Fritz Lichtenstein.\u00a0 The Iberian Peninsula was a crucial destination for thousands of French Jews who travelled with the Armee Juif over the Pyrenees yet it took until April 1944 before the Jewish Agency established an office in the Iberian Peninsula.\u00a0 Dina Porat commented that \u2018Istanbul was made the centre of the Yishuv\u2019s rescue operations in the neutral countries.\u00a0 Was this because its location facilitated rescue operations and the extension of help, or because it could serve as an immigration route to Palestine?\u00a0 In other words was the primary consideration rescue or Zionism?\u2019 [49]
\nShabtai Beit Zvi, who Bogdanor cites when it is convenient, noted how, in almost all his speeches, Ben-Gurion \u2018speaks about the prospects the Holocaust may open up for Zionism.\u2019\u00a0 Ben-Gurion in 1941 stated that \u2018all the significant steps in the progress of Zionism were always related to the intensification of Jewish distress.\u2019 [50]
\nBogdanor portrays Yitzhak Gruenbaum as being isolated on the JAE but doesn\u2019t explain why he was not replaced.
\nBogdanor says nothing about the suppression of the Auschwitz Protocols by Kasztner and Schwalb.\u00a0 The Protocols helped save the Jews of Budapest and could have saved a large proportion of Hungarian Jewry living outside the capital if the Jews of Hungary had known that they were being sent to Auschwitz.\u00a0 As Yad Vashem\u2019s Professor Yisrael Gutman admitted, the Protocols were suppressed to ensure the safety of the train of the Prominents (Kasztner\u2019s words) out of Hungary.
\nThe Judenrat and Zionist collaborators in Nazi Occupied Europe
\nCiting Isaiah Trunk\u2019s book on the Judenrat (Jewish Councils) in Eastern Europe, I stated that \u2018Over two-thirds of the Judenrat (67.1%) consisted of Zionist supporters of all factions.\u2019 [51]\u00a0 Bogdanor disputes this.
\nBogdanor doesn\u2019t try his normal trick of trying to discredit Trunk\u2019s study.\u00a0 Instead he writes that:\u00a0 \u2018Jewish Council members who not only survived the Holocaust but also agreed to answer Trunk\u2019s questions were hardly representative of the whole.\u2019 Bogdanor gives no reason for making this statement.
\nTrunk based his conclusions on the replies he received to a Questionnaire from former Judenrat members.\u00a0 Unless Bogdanor is asserting that a higher percentage of Zionist members of the Judenrat survived than non-Zionist members, then one can assume that those who replied were representative of those Judenrat members who were murdered.\u00a0 Trunk had no hesitation in drawing statistical conclusions from the questionnaires he received so why, apart from the fact that he doesn\u2019t like the conclusions, does Bogdanor try to discredit Trunk\u2019s findings?
\nBogdanor states regarding the Judenrat Chairman of the Lodz Ghetto, Chaim Rumkowski, that \u2018Greenstein asserts, without quotations or page references, that he was readmitted to the Zionist movement after his expulsion from it.\u2019\u00a0 Perhaps Bogdanor\u2019s failed to see the reference to Michael Ungar\u2019s book, Reassessment of the Image of Mordechai Chaim Rumkowski, p.12.
\nIt is true that I didn\u2019t refer to the alleged Zionist coalition against Rumkowski, because there is no evidence that this amounted to anything. There was though real resistance against Rumkowski from the Bund\u2019s youth organisation SKIF which picketed outside the Judenrat’s office, declaring \u201cRumkowski, you are our misfortune.\u201d [52]
\nThe Judenrat and Jewish Police in the Polish ghettos were the object of \u2018rage\u2026 and contempt… universal loathing.\u2019 [53]\u00a0 In the summer of 1940 in Lodz, there were \u2018stormy street demonstrations\u2019 against Rumkowski and the Lodz Judenrat.\u00a0 The same was true in Lublin, Czestochowa and other ghettos.[54]\u00a0 In February 1943 \u2018a general strike swept the Lodz Ghetto because of the launching of mass-executions by the Nazis.\u00a0 The strike was successful; the executions were halted.\u2019 [55]
\n(ix) The Slovakia and Europa Plans
\nBogdanor states that I am \u2018compelled\u2019 to agree with him, \u2018against Brenner\u2019 in respect of the Slovakia\/Europa Plans.\u00a0 I know it must be a distressing concept to Bogdanor but he isn\u2019t at the centre of holocaust research!\u00a0 In fact I agreed with Rudolf Vrba and Anna Porter\u2019s Kasztner\u2019s Train not Bogdanor\u2019s worthless scribblings!
\n(x) The Brand Mission
\nBogdanor is correct that I disagree with Lenni Brenner re Brand\u2019s Blood for Trucks mission.\u00a0 The Brand mission went hand in hand with Zionist collaboration in Hungary.\u00a0 It is absurd to suggest that the Jewish Agency in Palestine took the Brand mission seriously because \u2018they were so desperate to take advantage of any opportunity\u2019 to save Jews.\u00a0 If this had been the case then they would not have done their best to destroy the offer by Rafael Trujillo at the Evian Conference to take 100,000 Jewish refugees or fought similar possibilities.[56]
\nThere is no contradiction between the Zionist policy of Selectivity in relation to the Train of the Prominents, which entailed suppressing the Auschwitz Protocols and the Blood for Trucks offer.\u00a0 The latter was a Nazi proposal.\u00a0 Clearly the Jewish Agency wasn\u2019t going to say no they didn\u2019t want 10,000 rather than a million Jews.\u00a0 However this offer was wholly abstract.\u00a0 The fact that the deportations to Auschwitz began two days before Kasztner\u2019s deputy, Joel Brand, flew to Turkey, demonstrates the unreality of the offer.\u00a0 The real mission was not Brand\u2019s but the person who accompanied him, Gestapo agent Bandi Grosz.[57]
\nDiplomatic negotiations were something the Zionist leaders were accustomed to.\u00a0 Resistance was something they foreswore.\u00a0 What the Jewish Agency and the Zionist leaders in Palestine did not do was to publicise the extermination of Jews in Hungary and campaign for the bombardment of the railway lines to Auschwitz.\u00a0 As the war drew to an end, the Jewish Agency was very aware of the fact that it had done nothing to help the Jews of Europe. \u00a0Segev described the feelings of guilt and self-recriminations of the Zionist leadership.\u00a0 \u2018One Mapai leader said, \u2018We heard and knew about the atrocities\u2026 but we paid no attention.\u2019\u00a0 A member of the Mapai executive committee predicted that the Jewish Agency would find itself in the dock after the war.\u00a0\u00a0 \u2018Shame on us\u2019 said Golda Meir.\u2019 [58]
\nThe Brand proposals were about the Jewish Agency creating an alibi for its previous indifference to the situation of the Jews in Europe.
\nThe Kasztner Train
\nAccording to Bogdanor it is a \u2018triple falsehood\u2019 that the [Hungarian] Zionists organised a train of 1,684 Jews, with hundreds of Kasztner\u2019s relatives, the Jewish bourgeoisie and the Zionists. \u00a0The train out of Hungary involved \u2018all streams\u2019 of the Hungarian Jewish leadership and it included \u2018Jews from all walks of life\u2019.
\nKasztner himself referred to the \u2018Train of the Prominents\u2019 in his \u2018Report Of The Jewish Rescue Committee From Budapest 1942-1945\u2019.\u00a0 Kasztner writes:
\n\u2018I again claimed the Prominent people from the Province, and this time Eichmann seemed to yield. He declared, he would send a telegram, ordering that the persons in question were to be brought out of the still existing Ghettos in Transylvania\u2019 [59]
\nLadislau Lob, a child passenger on the train admitted that \u2018it cannot be denied that the group was top-heavy with the elite of Hungarian Jewry.\u2019 and he cites Peretz Revesz who stated that most of those on the train were Zionists.[60]\u00a0 Ben Hecht wrote that
\n\u2018Instead of picking Jews from any \u201coutlying towns,\u201d he picks three hundred and eighty-eight Jews from Kluj alone. They are the \u201cbest,\u201d the most important members of Kluj Jewry\u2014mainly Zionists. He includes also his own family.\u2019 [61]
\nShmuel Tamir, defense counsel for Malchiel Greenwald in the libel action that Kasztner brought but effectively the prosecutor of Kasztner alleged that
\n\u2018a community of twenty thousand Jews, one of the finest in Hungary, of which a great part could have been rescued, was sacrificed in order to save 380 of his own friends and relatives. \u201cWe charge that these 380 people (we are all happy they remained alive) were not an achievement but the price for sacrificing the many thousands.\u2019 [62]
\nJudge Halevi found that:
\n\u2018The Nazi organizers of extermination\u2026 permitted Rudolf Kasztner and the members of the Jewish Council in Budapest to save themselves, their relatives, and friends. The Nazis did this as a means of making the local Jewish leaders, whom they favoured, dependent on the Nazi regime\u2026 during the time of its fatal deportation schedule\u2026. In short, the Nazis succeeded in bringing the Jewish leaders into collaboration with the Nazis at the time of the catastrophe.\u2019 [63]
\nHalevi found that \u2018The possibility of saving the prominents of the provincial towns and Budapest appealed to him also from the public aspect.\u00a0 The rescue of the important people in the community due to the activity of the Rescue Committee appeared to him as a personal and Zionist success\u2026\u2019 [64]
\nRudolph Vrba, one of five Jewish escapees from Auschwitz, wrote in February 1961, in the London Daily Herald:
\nI am a Jew. In spite of that\u2014indeed because of that\u2014I accuse certain Jewish leaders of one of the most ghastly deeds of the war.\u00a0 This small group of quislings knew what was happening to their brethren in Hitler\u2019s gas chambers and bought their own lives with the price of silence. Among them was Dr. Kastner, leader of the council which spoke for all Jews in Hungary.
\nWhile I was prisoner number 44070 at Auschwitz\u2014the number is still on my arm\u2014I compiled careful statistics of the exterminations . . . I took these terrible statistics with me when I escaped in 1944 and I was able to give Hungarian Zionist leaders three weeks notice that Eichmann planned to send a million of their Jews to his gas chambers. Kastner went to Eichmann and told him, \u2018I know of your plans; spare some Jews of my choice and I shall keep quiet.’
\nThe Jewish Agency of which Kasztner was a representative was fully aware of what happened and yet it dismissed the complaint made against Kasztner in 1946 by Moshe Krausz of the Budapest Palestine office.[65]
\nBogdanor says that his paper \u2018did not express any view\u2019 on whether Kasztner was a collaborator.\u00a0 Why?\u00a0 Is it painful to admit that the leader of the Zionist movement in Hungary was a collaborator?\u00a0 He wasn\u2019t the only Zionist collaborator, albeit the best known.\u00a0 There was Asscher and Cohen of the Dutch Judenrat, Lowenhertz in Austria, Dr Loewenstein-Lavi of the Rumanian Jewish Centre, to name but a few.\u00a0 Perhaps Bogdanor would inform us why is it that to this day the Jewish Agency has not distanced itself from the testimony that Kasztner gave on behalf of Nazi war criminals in Nuremberg?
\nBogdanor believes that the fact that \u2018the Zionist leaders in Palestine repeatedly called for a Hungarian Jewish revolt against the Nazi occupiers, not collaboration with them\u2019 excuses what they actually did.\u00a0 Words are cheap.\u00a0 As Shabtai Beit Zvi shows, the Zionist movements in Palestine called on their comrades in Europe not to rise up in revolt and sacrifice their lives.\u00a0 Shabtai Beit-Zvi recalled how Melech Neustadt, of the Jewish Agency Executive and Poalei Zion pointed out that \u2018Zionist movement activists in the countries of the Holocaust are angry and embittered that no help is forthcoming.\u2019
\nNeustadt revealed the full content of a letter from Tussia Altman, written in April 1942 and published–with numerous omissions–in Hashomer Hatsair in December 1942. One of the deleted passages was the letter\u2019s conclusion\u2026 \u201cSend regards to no one. I don\u2019t want to know about them.\u201d Neustadt admits: \u201cDo not think that this is characteristic of just one movement. This is the opinion of all the haverim in all the movements.\u201d \u2026 \u201cIf I knew they were not right, I would think\u2014they are bitter, their situation is hard, they have the right to write these things; but when I am convinced in my heart that they are right, and the help that was forthcoming from us and from the entire Zionist movement was so miniscule, how is it possible to read these letters and find consolation and expiation?\u201d [66]
\nEichmann
\nBogdanor defends Kasztner by suggesting that Eichmann\u2019s interview with Dutch Nazi journalist William Sassen, which described his relationship with Kasztner, cannot be trusted.\u00a0 \u00a0Eichmann boasted of his role in the Holocaust.\u00a0 Bogdanor asks \u2018Is he unaware that Nazi mass murderers \u2013 and Eichmann above all \u2013 were pathological liars?\u2019\u00a0 Is it a principle that one never quotes or cites what Nazis or mass murderers say?\u00a0 Maybe one should not quote Nazi documents too?\u00a0 Sometimes even liars tell the truth.\u00a0 Or maybe Bogdanor is an exception to the rule?
\nRandolph Braham, the historian of the Hungarian Holocaust is obviously unaware of Bogdanor\u2019s maxim.\u00a0 In footnote 108, p.720 in his 2 volume \u2018Politics of Genocide\u2019 Braham quotes from Eichmann\u2019s interview in Life Magazine.\u00a0 Perhaps Braham should have paid heed to that great historian Paul Bogdanor?
\nThe Nizkor Project<\/a>, run by B’nai Brith Canada, which is dedicated to countering Holocaust denial carries the Eichmann\u2019s interview as reprinted in Life Magazine <\/a>of 28\/11\/60 and 5\/12\/60. It is powerful evidence against those who would deny the Holocaust.\u00a0 There is no principle that everything a war criminal says is untrue.\u00a0 It should be evaluated like any other evidence.
\nSelectivity
\nKasztner\u2019s Defence Counsel, Attorney General Chaim Cohen stated that:
\nIf in Kastner’s opinion, rightly or wrongly, he believed that one million Jews were hopelessly doomed, he was allowed not to inform them of their fate; and to concentrate on the saving of the few. He was entitled to make a deal with the Nazis for the saving of a few hundred and entitled not to warn the millions … It has always been our Zionist tradition to select the few out of many in arranging the immigration to Palestine … Are we to be called traitors?\u009d\u00a0[67]
\nBogdanor denies that there was a Zionist policy of \u201cSelectivity\u201d, yet he had no response to the quote from Chaim Cohen (above) other than that his \u2018remit was to defend the Kasztner Train.\u2019 which was the price that Kasztner extracted in return for co-operating in the round up for deportation of half a million Hungarian Jews.
\nBy suppressing the Auschwitz Protocols and then reassuring the Hungarian Jews that they were being \u2018resettled\u2019 and not exterminated Kasztner and the Jewish Agency were complicit in their extermination.\u00a0 Joseph Katz, a lawyer from the town of Nodvarod, four miles from the Rumania border, testified that \u2018the 20,000 Jews of Nodvarod knew nothing of the extermination program.\u2019 \u00a0He had been told the Jews were being resettled, for their own good, in Kenyermeze. Tamir: \u2018Did you know how to use arms?\u2019 Katz: \u2018Yes. It was easy to escape into Rumania. Jews were safe in Rumania at that time. Some sceptics did escape\u2014because they didn\u2019t like the Nodvarod atmosphere.\u2019 [68]
\nIn his Judgment Judge Halevi found that
\nThe trust of the Jews in the misleading information and their lack of knowledge that their wives, children and themselves were about to be deported to the gas chambers of Auschwitz led the victims to remain quiescent in their ghettos. It seduced them into not resisting or hampering the deportation orders.
\nThousands of Jews were guarded in their ghettos by a few dozen police. Yet even vigorous young Jews made no attempt to overpower these few guards and escape to nearby Rumania. The Jewish leaders did everything in their power to calm the Jews in the ghettos and prevent resistance. \u2018The same public leaders spread in Kluj and Nodvarod the false rumour of Kenyermeze \u2018these same leaders did not join the people of their community in their ride to Auschwitz, but were all included in the Rescue train.\u2019 [69]
\nBogdanor says that it is a \u2018falsehood\u2019 that \u201cSaving Jews for the Zionists was conditional on those Jews going to Palestine.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0 He cites an official demand from American Zionist and non-Zionist organisations in 1943 that the UN should designate and establish a number of sanctuaries in Allied and neutral countries to accommodate substantial numbers of Hitler\u2019s victims.\u2019
\nBogdanor believes that ritual declarations, prove his case.\u00a0 One judges people by their actions not by their words.\u00a0 The Zionists were proud of ritual declarations but their record was at variance with their words.
\nOn 17 December 1938 Ben-Gurion, in a private memo to the Zionist Executive (as opposed to a public declaration) said that:
\n\u2018The fate of Jews in Germany is not an end but a beginning.\u00a0 Other anti-Semitic states will learn from Hitler.\u00a0 Millions of Jews face annihilation, the refugee problem has assumed worldwide proportions, and urgency.\u00a0 Britain is trying to separate the issue of the refugees from that of Palestine\u2026.\u00a0 If Jews will have to choose between the refugees, saving Jews from concentration camps, and assisting a national museum in Palestine, mercy will have the upper hand and the whole energy of the people will be channelled into saving Jews from various countries. Zionism will be struck off the agenda not only in world public opinion, in Britain and the United States, but elsewhere in Jewish public opinion. If we allow a separation between the refugee problem and the Palestinian problem, we are risking the existence of Zionism.\u2019 [70]
\nAnother Zionist historian, Robert Silverberg noted that
\n\u2018The accusation that Zionists were cool toward any but a Zionist solution of the refugee problem has frequently been dismissed as a calumny invented by anti-Zionist Jews or anti-Semitic Gentiles.\u00a0 Yet ample evidence exists that the Zionist movement valued the pressure created by Europe\u2019s mass of refugees and that many Zionists did not want that pressure dissipated by emigration to lands outside Palestine.\u00a0 One wartime ZOA [Zionist Organisation of America] president [Rabbi Abba Hillel Silver, President (1945-1947)] had declared that:
\nI am happy that our movement has finally veered around to the point where we are all, or nearly all, talking about a Jewish state.. But I ask… are we again, in moments of desperation going to confuse Zionism with refugeeism which is likely to defeat Zionism… Zionism is not a refugee movement. It is not a product of the Second World War, nor of the first. Were there no displaced Jews in Europe…? Zionism would still be an imperative necessity.\u201d [71]
\nWhen the United States convened the Evian Conference in July 1938 to discuss the Jewish refugee question, the Zionists were implacably hostile to a conference where Palestine was not on the agenda.\u00a0 At a meeting of the Jewish Agency Executive of 26.6.38. Yitzhak Gruenbaum spoke of the
\nImmense dangers loom from the Evian Conference: (1) It could mark the end of Palestine as a land of immigration. \u2026 (4) A danger exists, namely, that in the course of their search for a way out, they will find some new territory to which they will want to direct Jewish emigration. We must defend our principle–that Jewish settlement can succeed only in Eretz-Israel, and therefore no other [place of] settlement can be considered.
\nBeit Zvi\u00a0\u00a0 wrote that although Gruenbaum vigorously opposes the diversion of two-thirds of the refugee flow to locations other than Palestine, he does not ignore the situation in the country
\nHe only wants to point out that he finds Dr. Landauer\u2019s proposal unacceptable. What kind of work will we give these people? After all, there are [already] people here who are out of work and we do not have even a day of work to offer them. And what will we do with huge camps of additional workers?
\nIn other words even though Palestine was incapable of absorbing many refugees, the Zionist leaders still opposed emigration to other countries.\u00a0 Menachem Ussishkin, of the JAE Executive was
\nvery much concerned by the Evian Conference… Mr. Gruenbaum is right in saying that there is a danger that Eretz-Israel will be dropped from the agenda of the Jewish people, and we must view this as a terrible danger for us. \u2026 none of the other countries of immigration interest him… Dr. Ruppin told us that he was ready to propose to the conference that one-third of the emigrants from Germany should go to Palestine, In his (Ussishkin\u2019s) opinion, that proposal should be left to others. It is possible that after we propose one-third, others will come up with a proposal of only 10 percent. The greatest danger is that they will try to find a territory for Jewish immigration…\u2019 [72]
\nChristopher Sykes, the son of Sir Mark Sykes of Sykes-Picot fame, and very pro-Zionist, described the Zionists\u2019 attitude to the Evian Conference:
\nThe Zionists who played no part in the (Evian) Conference were not worried by its failure… From the start they regarded the whole enterprise with hostile indifference. Zionist writers scarcely mentioned it…
\nIf the 31 nations had done their duty and shown hospitality to those in dire need, then the pressure on the National Home and the heightened enthusiasm of Jews with Palestine would both have been relaxed. THIS WAS THE LAST THING THE ZIONIST LEADERS WISHED FOR… If their policy entailed suffering, then that was the price that had to be paid for the rescue of the Jewish soul. It is hard, perhaps impossible to find a parallel in history to this particular Zionist idea.\u00a0 That such was the basic Zionist idea is not a matter of opinion but a fact abundantly provable by evidence… There can be no doubt that here again one is confronted with an idea which even if judged as morally wrong is such as could only be conceived by a great people. As time went on it grew rather than diminished in strength. It formed another crossroads.[73]
\nBogdanor\u2019s allegation that \u2018Brenner argued, Germany\u2019s Jews should have been left to their fate.\u2019 is simply untrue.\u00a0 What Brenner opposed was attempt by the Zionists to ensure that Jewish refugees could only go to Palestine.
\nIntroduction to the Nuremberg Laws
\nBogdanor claims that my quote from \u201cthe Introduction to the Nuremberg Laws,\u201d is a \u2018total fabrication: no \u201cintroduction\u201d to the Nuremberg Laws stated anything of the kind.\u2019\u00a0\u00a0 My sins are compounded because I am \u2018reduced to citing the communist journal Khamsin\u2019.\u00a0 Khamsin, which was indeed an excellent publication, described itself as \u2018a journal published by revolutionary socialists of the Middle East\u2026 it is part of the struggles for social liberation and against nationalist and religious mystifications.\u2019\u00a0 Bogdanor is more interested in his red-baiting, McCarthyist smears than the content of Khamsin.\u00a0 Only someone with a fascist mentality would consider describing his opponents as \u2018communists\u2019 as a clinching argument.
\nIf Bogdanor cannot locate the quotation perhaps he should ask his father Vernon to show him how to use Oxford University\u2019s library search facilities.
\nThe English translation of the Introduction to the Nuremberg Laws is:
\n\u2018If the Jews had a state of their own in which the bulk of their people were at home, the Jewish question could already be considered solved today, even for the Jews themselves. The ardent Zionists of all people have objected least of all to the basic ideas of the Nuremberg Laws, because they know that these laws are the only correct solution for the Jewish people too.\u2019 [74]
\nThe original German is:
\nH\u00e4tten die Juden bereits einen eigenen Staat indem die Masse ihres Volkes\u00a0zuhause w\u00e4re, so k\u00f6nnte die Judenfrage schon heute als gel\u00f6st gelten, auch\u00a0f\u00fcr die Juden selbst. Gerade von den \u00fcberzeugten Zionisten ist deshalb am\u00a0wenigsten Widerspruch gegen die Grundgedanken der N\u00fcrnberger Gesetze\u00a0erhoben worden, weil sie einmal wissen, da\u00df diese gesetze auch f\u00fcr das\u00a0j\u00fcdische Volk die einzig richtige L\u00f6sung darstellen
\nThis is quoted directly from N\u00fcrnberger Gesetze 5 Auflage (5th edition),\u00a0Berlin, 1939, pp 13-14.
\nBogdanor provides us with a footnote which states:
\n\u2018There was a similar statement by an official in the German Interior Ministry: see Francis R. Nicosia, The Third Reich and the Palestine Question (I. B. Tauris, 1985), p. 53. Greenstein\u2019s communist source mangled the quotation.\u2019
\nBogdanor\u2019s arrogance is matched only by his ignorance.\u00a0 The official in question was Bernhard Losener, the Jewish Expert at the Ministry of Interior who was responsible for drafting the Nuremberg Laws together with Wilhelm Stuckart.\u00a0 The quote, slightly amended, can be found in both Nicosia\u2019s The Third Reich and the Palestine Question (p.53) and Zionism and Anti-Semitism in Nazi Germany (p.108).\u00a0 Not surprisingly it is consistent with the Introduction to the Nuremberg Laws.
\nBut regardless of the sources, Losener clearly understood that the Zionists had least objection to the laws.
\nThe German Volk and Poppel
\nA good example of Bogdanor\u2019s attempts to elide two different things into one is his treatment of Brenner\u2019s citation of Stephen Poppel.\u00a0 Bogdanor writes that \u2018According to Brenner, \u2018the German Zionists agreed with two fundamental elements in Nazi ideology,\u2019 namely \u2018that the Jews would never be part of the German volk and, therefore, they did not belong on German soil\u2019. This being the case, \u2018it was inevitable that some Zionists would believe an accommodation possible.\u2019 (Brenner 1983: 35)
\nBogdanor then proceeds to argue that Brenner \u2018substantiate(d) these assertions\u2019 by invoking Poppel, \u2018who in fact wrote the exact opposite on the very page he cited.\u2019 \u00a0Bogdanor quotes Poppel as saying that the \u2018Zionists were unanimous in condemning Nazi brutality and racism.\u2019 (Poppel 1976: 161)\u00a0 Further Poppel quoted from an official declaration of the ZVfD that stated that: \u2018Zionism condemns a nationalism whose foundations include the conviction of the inferiority of other national groups\u2026. Zionism\u2026 demand(s) the protection of full equality and freedom, and of the development of our own nature.\u2019 (Poppel 1976: 161-2)
\nApparently this \u2018disposed of Brenner\u2019s fiction about Zionists agreeing with Nazis \u2018that the Jews would never be part of the German volk and, therefore, they did not belong on German soil\u2019.\u00a0\u00a0 It did nothing of the sort.
\nNothing that Bogdanor quotes from Poppel contradicts Zionist\u2019s belief that Jews could not be part of the German volk.\u00a0 What the Zionists complained about was a nationalism that believed in the inferiority of other national groups and which indulged in violence and brutality.\u00a0 The clue, though Bogdanor obviously doesn\u2019t understand it, is in the very phrase he himself cites \u2018Zionism\u2026 demand(s)\u2026 the development of our own nature.\u2019\u00a0 The Zionists certainly accepted that they were a national group apart from Germans but that while they were on German soil, they wanted full national equality and freedom from violence.\u2019
\nUnfortunately for the Zionists the Nazis German nationalism was based on racial supremacy and racial hierarchies.\u00a0 Zionism behaved in a similar way towards the Arabs in Palestine.\u00a0\u00a0 Arthur Ruppin, a member of the Jewish Agency Executive and the Father of Land Settlement in Palestine, was a fervent believer in the racial sciences. Amos Morris-Reich refers to an article \u201cSelection of the Fittest\u201d [75]\u00a0 where Ruppin supported
\n\u2018a selective policy for immigration to Eretz Israel. The article opens with a discussion on the importance of the selection of human material\u2026. The framework of the entire article \u2026evokes eugenics.\u2019 [76]
\nRuppin described in his diary how, on August 11, he had travelled to Jenna:
\nto meet Prof. Hans F.K. G\u00fcnther, the founder of National-Socialist race theory. The conversation lasted two hours. G\u00fcnther was most congenial but refused to accept credit for coining the Aryan-concept, and agreed with me that the Jews are not inferior but different, and that the Jewish Question has to be solved justly.[77]
\nEitan Bloom writes of how
\nThe idea of segregation was central to Ruppin\u2019s eugenic planning\u2026 in order to produce a culture of their own, the Jews had to live\u2026 separated from any other culture\u2026 the Jew needed to be segregated in a space that would enable him to be among his like; only such \u201ckinship of race\u201d would encourage him to be healthy and creative.\u2019[78]
\nHans G\u00fcnther, a member of the Nazi party from 1929, was Himmler\u2019s ideological mentor and \u2018the highest scientific authority concerning racial theory.\u2019[79].\u00a0 In May 1930 he was appointed Professor to the Chair in Racial Anthropology at Jena University, after the intervention of Wilhelm Frick, the first National Socialist state minister and later Nazi Minister of the Interior.\u00a0 Gunther praised Zionism \u2018for recognizing the genuine racial consciousness (Volkstum) of the Jews.\u2019 [80]
\nRuppin saw in G\u00fcnther\u2019s writings \u2018a treasure chest of material.\u2019[81]\u00a0 Amos Morris-Reich, asked why, even in the privacy of his diary, Ruppin described the conversation as a \u2018pleasant encounter\u2019?\u2019 [82]
\nEitan Bloom suggested that this was because \u2018both of them had published, at almost the same time, their anthropological-racial studies concerning the Jews, both very similar in method and content.\u2019 [83]\u00a0 Ruppin published his \u2018Sociology of the Jews\u2019, \u2018which incorporated many of G\u00fcnther\u2019s ideas and theories in the text.\u2019
\nThe encounter between G\u00fcnther and Ruppin had also important practical implications, and, from this aspect, must be seen as part of Ruppin\u2019s series of \u201cfriendly\u201d meetings with the Nazi Foreign Office and Treasury Office as well as with Jewish and Zionists leaders and functionaries, in which he promoted a plan for the immigration of the German Jews to Palestine, the US and other countries..[84]
\nBloom suggests that Ruppin\u2019s meetings were \u2018preliminary discussions for the Transfer Agreement\u2019 \u00a0and that \u2018Ruppin wanted to send, via G\u00fcnther, a direct message to the top levels of the Nazi regime and, possibly, that he wanted to reassure the Nazis as to the Zionist movement\u2019s deep understanding of the therapeutic and eugenic dimension of such an agreement.\u2019 [85]\u00a0 The reference to suitable \u2018human material\u2019 in respect of Jewish immigration to Palestine was a common one.\u00a0 The fact that Ruppin was a prominent member of the Jewish Agency Executive speaks volumes.
\nThe Memo that the German Zionist Federation Sent to Hitler
\nBogdanor has some difficulty defending the memo that the ZVfD sent to Hitler on 21st June 1933.\u00a0 He does this by telling us what it didn\u2019t contain! But even Bogdanor would have found it difficult to support what it did contain.\u00a0 He wrote:
\nNowhere in this memo is there any hint of Zionist support for the Nazi doctrines of Aryan racial supremacy, racial war against Jews and other groups, and racial extermination of Jews and other groups.
\nPerhaps we are expected to be grateful that the Zionists didn\u2019t support Aryan racial supremacy or a war against the Jews, including extermination!\u00a0 Of course the declaration that the Zionists were also opposed to mixed marriages and in favour of \u2018maintaining the purity of the Jewish group\u2019 is a bit embarrassing.\u00a0 The memo clearly demonstrated the ideological agreement between the Zionists and the Hitlerites.\u00a0 The memo read:
\nOn the foundation of the new state, which has established the principle of race… fruitful activity for the fatherland is possible. Our acknowledgement of Jewish nationality provides for a clear and sincere relationship to the German people and its national and racial realities. Precisely because we don\u2019t wish to falsify these fundamentals, because we too, are against mixed marriages and are for maintaining the purity of the Jewish group\u2026. For its practical aims, Zionism hopes to be able to win the collaboration even of a government fundamentally hostile to the Jews…. The realisation of Zionism could only be hurt by resentment of Jews abroad against the German development. Boycott propaganda\u2026 is in essence fundamentally unZionist, because Zionism wants not to do battle but to convince and to build.[86]
\nIn an interview with Lenni Brenner many years later, Rabbi Prinz acknowledged that
\nWe thought that, after all, they are nationalists, we are also, Jewish nationalists, and therefore we had something in common\u2026. We were mistaken. It was a romantic notion. We thought now, listen, there\u2019s a German government now, based upon a German nationalism. Well, let\u2019s sit down together and talk to them. But it never happened. [87]
\nPrinz hoped that through discussions with \u2018intellectuals in the SS movement\u201d that the Nazis would say, \u201cYes, you live in Germany, you are Jewish people, you are different from us, but we will not kill you, we will permit you to live your own cultural life, and develop your own national capacities and dreams.\u201d [88] This was the height of self-deception. It omitted the fact that the Nazis were fascists for whom anti-Semitism served as an ideological glue. The removal of the Jews was the only subject on the Nazi agenda, be it by emigration or annihilation.
\nZionists \u2013 the favourite children of the Nazis
\nIn response to my citation from Lucy Dawidowicz\u2019s book War on the Jews, that the Zionists were the Nazis favourite Jews, Bogdanor denies that she was a \u201cZionist historian\u201d \u2013 apparently she was \u2018a supporter of the anti-Zionist Bund\u2019.\u00a0 I doubt that Dawidowicz supported the Bund, although in Poland many Zionists and Agudists voted for the Bund since they were the only ones who organised Jewish self-defence against the anti-Semites.\u00a0 There is though no doubt that Dawidowicz was an ardent Zionist.\u00a0 As Wikipedia states:
\nA passionate Zionist<\/a>, Dawidowicz believed that had the Mandate for Palestine<\/a> been implemented as intended, establishing the Jewish State of Israel <\/a>prior to the Holocaust<\/a>, “the terrible story of six million dead might have had another outcome”.[7] \u2026
\nDawidowicz defended Joan Peter\u2019s forgery \u2018From Time Immemorial\u2019 which argued that the Palestinians weren\u2019t the indigenous population of Palestine.\u00a0 David Remnick called<\/a> the book \u201can ideological tract disguised as history”, “propaganda” and “pseudo-scholarship”.\u00a0 It \u2018won plaudits from Saul Bellow, Barbara Tuchman, Martin Peretz, Theodore H. White, Lucy Dawidowicz, Arthur Goldberg, and Elie Wiesel. For a time, it was wielded as a means to dismiss Palestinian claims on the land, and a means to be dismissive of Palestinians entirely. The book was thoroughly discredited by an Israeli historian, Yehoshua Porath,<\/a> and many others who dismantled its pseudo-scholarship. Even some right-wing critics, like Daniel Pipes, who initially reviewed the book positively, later admitted<\/a> that Peters\u2019s work was shoddy and \u201cignores inconvenient facts.\u201d [89]
\nInstead of accepting the undisputed evidence that the Zionists were favoured by the Nazis, Bogdanor tries to divert attention from the argument by resorting to ad-hominems, alleging that Dawidowicz supported the Bund.
\nDawidowicz described how on 28 January 1935 Reinhardt Heydrich, the deputy head of the RHSA, which combined the German state police and SS, issued a directive that:
\nthe activity of the Zionist-oriented youth organizations that are engaged in the occupational restructuring of the Jews for agriculture and manual trades prior to their emigration to Palestine lies in the interest of the National Socialist state\u2019s leadership.\u2019\u00a0 These organisations therefore \u2018are not to be treated with that strictness that it is necessary to apply to the members of the so-called German-Jewish organizations (assimilationists).\u2019 [90]
\nIn May 1935 Schwarze Korps, paper of the SS, wrote in a similar vein:
\nthe Zionists adhere to a strict racial position and by emigrating to Palestine they are helping to build their own Jewish state…. The assimilation-minded Jews deny their race and insist on their loyalty to Germany or claim to be Christians because they have been baptised in order to subvert National Socialist principles.\u00a0 [91]
\nThere is no doubt that the Zionists were the favoured children of the Nazis.\u00a0 In 1933 the first head of the Gestapo\u2019s Jewish desk, Baron von Mildenstein made a 6 month trip to Palestine whereas:
\nNon-Zionist or anti-Zionist Jewish\u00a0 organizations\u2026 were specifically targeted and closely scrutinized for any indication that they might seem to promote assimilationist or deutschnationale \u00a0agendas\u2026
\nIn November 1934 the Gestapo explained that:\u00a0 \u2018The state police intends to promote Zionism as much as possible, and to support its emigration efforts.\u00a0 The Germans (assimilationist Jews) will be stifled in all of their activities as much as possible, in order to force them to join the Zionist camp.\u2019 \u00a0The same quotes that Dawidowicz used were also used by Francis Nicosia, Professor of Holocaust Studies at Vermont University.
\nNicosia ascribed the statement that \u2018the members of the Zionist groups are not to be treated with the same strictness as may be necessary for those of the so-called German-Jewish organizations [Assimilationists.\u2019 to the Political Police in Bavaria, the Gestapo, whereas Dawidowicz located it as part of Heydrich\u2019s January directive.. [92]
\nFeivel Polkes
\n\u2018as the [SS] report makes clear, Polkes was offering to become a Nazi spy against his fellow Jews, not for the Haganah.\u2019\u00a0 Bogdanor 1<\/a>
\nNowhere did I even hint that the offer by Polkes was in any way \u201cacceptable.\u201d Bogdanor 2<\/a>
\nWhy then did Bogdanor make the absurd distinction between spying for Haganah and spying against fellow Jews?
\n\u2018the Haganah member in question, Feivel Polkes, was acting on his own. Greenstein is unable to provide any evidence at all of Haganah support for the Polkes initiative; Bogdanor 2<\/a>
\nBogdanor cites Nicosia when it suits him Bogdanor 1<\/a> and ignores him when it is inconvenient.\u00a0 \u2018The Haganah encouraged Polkes to stay in close contact with Reichert [of the DNB news agency] and to track his moves.\u2019\u00a0 \u2018In the spring of 1936\u2026 the Haganah\u2026 instructed Polkes to convince Reichert that the Arabs were not worth Germany\u2019s support\u2026. Reichert helped to arrange for Polkes to visit Germany for a meeting with SD and Gestapo officials in Berlin from 26 February to 2 March 1937.\u2019 [93]
\nReichert even covered the cost of the Berlin leg of Polkes European trip.
\n\u2018In Berlin,, Polkes told Eichmann and other members of the SD of the Haganah\u2019s anti-English, anti-Arab and anti-communist position and of his desire to work with Germany in order to secure the rapid and orderly emigration of Jews from Germany to Palestine.\u00a0 He promised to help promote German interests in the Middle East, and even claimed that he could help secure petroleum resources for Germany in the region and more\u2026 He claimed to hold an important position in the Haganah\u00a0 The SD and Gestapo were certainly receptive to Polkes\u2019s overtures, concluding that he might be an important source of information for the SD\u2019s intelligence work.\u2019 [94]
\n\u2018Eichmann\u2026 was authorized to accept an invitation from Polkes to visit Palestine later that year.\u2019\u00a0\u00a0 Nicosia says Eichmann and Herbert Hagen, who accompanied him, didn\u2019t meet Polkes in Palestine whereas Brenner says they did meet and that Polkes followed them to Alexandria after Eichmann was expelled from Palestine.\u00a0 As Nicosia observes
\nclearly Nazi authorities thought the Polkes connection important enough to go along with Reichert\u2019s invitation to Polkes to visit Berlin and for Eichmann to accept Polkes\u2019s invitation to visit Palestine for follow up discussions\u2026. The SD hoped to obtain information through the Polkes contact on several issues that it thought important at the time.\u00a0 For instance, it believed the Haganah possessed reliable information on alleged Jewish plans to assassinate German officials, including Hitler
\nNicosia says it isn\u2019t \u2018entirely clear what role Polkes played within the Haganah at that particular time, making it difficult to ascertain whether he was a credible bargaining partner for the Germans.\u2019\u00a0 In an interview on 24.10.63. Polkes maintained he was authorised by Haganah to cultivate his relationship with Reichert but that they did not favour his trip to Berlin.[95]
\n\u2018nor can he deny that the Haganah dismissed Polkes upon learning of his conduct.\u2019 Bogdanor 2<\/a>
\nAccording to Nicosia, Polkes \u2018was eventually relieved of his responsibilities\u2019 however it is clear that Haganah did indeed run Polkes and encourage his contacts with Reichert, Eichmann\u2019s visit to Palestine and Polkes\u2019s subsequent visit to Germany.\u00a0 Bogdanor\u2019s attempts to suggest that Polkes was a free agent is not credible.\u00a0 However Polkes file in Israel has not been opened to researchers.
\n(v) Lehi\u2019s \u201ccollusion with the Fascists and the Nazis\u201d \u2013 Jewish Army
\nBogdanor states that \u2018there was never any collaboration between Lehi and the Nazis; the aim of Lehi\u2019s 1941 offer was to achieve the emigration of millions of Jews from Nazi-occupied Europe\u2019.
\nAlthough you wouldn\u2019t know it from Bogdanor\u2019s apologia, twice during 1941 Lehi attempted to contact the Nazis. A concrete proposal for an alliance with the Nazis was unanimously approved by the Lehi command and Naftali Lubenchik met a senior representative of the German Foreign Ministry, Otto von Hentig and Alfred Roser, a Military Intelligence agent, in Beirut on 11 January 1941.
\nAccording to Bogdanor there was no collaboration.\u00a0 Offering a military pact to the Nazis would count as collaboration in most peoples\u2019 minds.\u00a0 Bogdanor is like the 3\u00a0 wise monkeys \u2013 he can neither see, hear nor speak evil when Zionism is involved.\u00a0 He tells us that Lehi offered a military pact with the Nazis in order to save Jews!
\nSegev wrote that Lehi offered to help Nazi Germany in its war against the British.\u00a0 The rationale was that the Nazis were \u2018the enemy of our enemy \u2013 the British.\u2019\u00a0 [96]\u00a0 Apparently helping the Nazis militarily would have aided millions of Jews!
\nBogdanor suggests that the \u2018whole purpose of a Jewish army was to fight the Nazis\u2019.\u00a0 This is nonsense.\u00a0 If Jews wished to fight the Nazis then all they needed to do was join the British Army, as both Jews and the Palestinians did.\u00a0 The Jewish Brigade had a political not military purpose.\u00a0 \u2018The leaders of the Yishuv made a great effort to convince the British to establish a Jewish Brigade.\u00a0 The goal was to win the Yishuv recognition as a belligerent, thus ensuring the Zionist movement a role in the shaping of post-war Europe.\u2019 [97]
\n(vii) The Gruenbaum speech
\nWriggle as he might, Bogdanor cannot deny that the Chairman of the Jewish Agency\u2019s Rescue Committee, Yitzhak Gruenbaum, stated that
\nwhen some asked me: Can\u2019t you give money from the Keren Hayesod to save Jews in the Diaspora? I said: no! And again I say no. I know that people wonder, why I had to say it. Friends tell me, that even if these things are right, there is no need to reveal them in public, in time of sorrow and concern. I disagree. I think we have to stand before this wave that is putting Zionist activity into the second row. Have I said this to glorify my own tenets? And because of this, people called me an anti-Semite, and concluded that I am guilty, because we do not give priority to rescue actions.\u2019
\nAccording to Bogdanor I am \u2018forced to admit (that) the Zionist leaders in Palestine vehemently opposed Gruenbaum\u2019s refusal to prioritise the rescue work.\u2019\u00a0 Not true.\u00a0 I accepted that the majority of the JAE opposed Gruenbaum. Bogdanor however indulges in selective quotation.
\nI cited Shabtai Beit Zvi\u2019s conclusion that this opposition was purely verbal.\u00a0 The opposition to Gruenbaum did not follow up their words with actions.
\nBogdanor deliberately did not quote Shabtai beit Zvi\u2019s conclusions, because they contradicted his thesis.\u00a0 If the Zionist opposition in the JAE had indeed been \u2018vehement\u2019 then surely they would have sacked Gruenbaum from his position as Chairman of the Rescue Committee?\u00a0 Beit Zvi wrote that:
\n\u2018\u2018Gruenbaum did not backtrack one iota from his opinion regarding the subordinate place of the rescue enterprise as compared with the \u201cwar of redemption.\u201d \u2026 \u00a0the Zionist leadership was confronted with a choice: to disqualify Gruenbaum as a candidate for the head of the Rescue Committee because of this abhorrent outlook, or to accept his ideological deficiency and let him remain as chairman. As we know, the latter option won the day.\u2019 [98] (my emphasis)
\nGruenbaum\u2019s position of prioritising Zionist work over rescue work won out.\u00a0 Since Bogdanor\u2019s eyesight is clearly failing I have emboldened the relevant sentence!
\nHehalutz \u2013 Zionist Youth
\nBogdanor claims that \u2018Another flagrant falsification\u2019 is the claim that \u201cHehalutz are believed to have saved 5,000 of their own cadres but that was not rescue of Hungarian Jews in general.\u201d Bogdanor claims that Hehalutz \u2018saved the lives of tens of thousands of Jews \u2013 as many as 100,000, according to one estimate.\u2019\u00a0 No doubt Bogdanor can find some Zionist writer who will claim that a million Hungarian Jews were saved, however this is not serious history.
\nRandolph Braham, the most authoritative historian of the Hungarian holocaust and himself a survivor of the labour service wrote of the HeHalutz that:
\n\u2018Their rescue and relief operations, however relatively modest, were real. The myths lie in the leaders’ basically self-aggrandizing postwar accounts that exaggerate both the scope and accomplishments of these operations.\u2019\u00a0 In a footnote Braham notes that Yehuda Bauer, the Zionist holocaust historian of Yad Vashem, \u2018states that Joszef (Joshko) Meir, a member of Ha-Shomer ha-Za’ir, was also involved “in sabotage and the derailing of trains”; Bauer, Jews for Sale?, p. 235. No corroboration for this claim has been found to date.\u2019
\n(xii) The Zionist paratroopers
\nBogdanor asks whether Brenner and myself are \u2018admitting here that the paratroopers were sent to Hungary to arrange resistance to the Nazis at the instigation of the Zionist movement? And if so, what does this do to his and Brenner\u2019s position that the Zionist movement collaborated with the Nazis?\u2019
\nBogdanor does not get it.\u00a0 Certainly the Zionist movement, towards the end of the war, sent a few dozen paratroopers to Europe courtesy of the British.\u00a0 The bravery of the participants notwithstanding, it was an utterly futile, symbolic exercise with no chance of succeeding.\u00a0 The Zionist leadership in Palestine decided on a symbolic show of support which was a hindrance to the Jewish resistance groups in Europe.\u00a0 The motives behind the sending of the parachutists included trying to establish a Haganah network in Europe and creating a myth of Zionist heroism and help from Palestine to those fighting in Europe.\u00a0 But that was all it was, a symbol of Zionist nationalist heroism rather than a concrete contribution to those who were resisting the Nazis.\u00a0 At the same time as 3 Zionist paratroopers arrived in Hungary, ironically to be betrayed by Kasztner, the Zionist leadership were misleading the Jews of Hungary towards the gas chambers in Auschwitz.
\nAs Shabtai Beit Zvi noted, \u2018Surprisingly, objections to the parachutists project came from those who were meant to benefit from it. When the Jewish community officials in Budapest learned of the plan to send parachutist-emissaries to Hungary, they were quick to register their opposition with the Jewish Agency mission in Istanbul. \u00a0And when the four parachutists arrived in Banska Bitrica, members of youth movements were unabashedly dismayed to see them. The leader of the outraged group, Eugen Roth, one of the heads of Hashomer Hatzair in Czechoslovakia, did not mince his words in this regard:\u00a0 \u2018Really, why did you come? \u2026 Did all of you, Haviva too, you three also, think it was a kids\u2019 game here?\u00a0 You wanted to be heroes? Spies? Why?… \u00a0I know what you\u2019ll say: you want to help, to represent the Yishuv in Eretz-Israel\u2026. Who summoned you? Who needs you?… You came here to play at soldiering… You\u2019re proud and you show off your independence, as though you came to us as representatives of some kind of Eretz-Israel master race.\u2019 \u2026 And suddenly a few \u2018heroes\u2019 sit themselves in a plane and jump into the open grave. Millions are rotting here and they come to add another victim and another victim… Only to march with us to Hitler\u2019s slaughterhouse… Excuse me, but I must say that you have done an irresponsible act. \u2026 You should never have come from there to here. And didn\u2019t you consider the responsibility you were imposing on us? Until now we have been responsible for our lives alone, and now you also weigh on our conscience. Get out! Get on the first plane and go back to the Holy Land!\u2019 [99]
\nAuschwitz Protocols Reach the West
\nBogdanor suggests that I \u2018minimise(s) the role of Moshe Krausz, head of the Jewish Agency\u2019s Palestine Office in Budapest, in smuggling the Auschwitz Protocols to the free world.\u2019\u00a0 Not at all.\u00a0 Krausz was a dissident Zionist, a member of Mizrahi.\u00a0 Krausz detested Kasztner\u2019s relationship with the SS.\u00a0 Bogdanor states that \u2018the facts are well established:\u2019\u00a0 Unfortunately they are not.
\nAnna Porter tells how the instigator was not Krausz but Carl Lutz, the Swiss Consul from whose base Krausz was operating.\u00a0 When Lutz pressurised Krausz to send the Protocols via Florian Manoliu, a member of the Romanian Legation in Berne, \u2018Krausz, ever the stickler for\u00a0 formalities, resisted.\u00a0 He could not send anything to a Salvadoran Consulate, because he had not been authorized to deal with foreign governments.\u00a0 Krausz was not going to jeopardize his own job.\u2019 [100] In the end Lutz prevailed and that was how the Protocols ended up with Georges Mantello, first secretary of the El Salvador consulate in Geneva and a Hungarian Jew, who sent it to politicians, academics and journalists resulting in the world press publicising the exterminations in Auschwitz thus triggering the events that ended the mass deportations.[101]
\nWhat is certain is that Tel Aviv did nothing whatever to publicise the Protocols despite having received a copy in mid-June.\u00a0 An alternative explanation is that Krasniansky, of the Slovakian Judenrat sent a copy to Switzerland which was received by Dr Jaromir Kopecky, the Geneva representative of the Czech government-in-exile.[102]\u00a0 Whatever the route and multiple copies of the Protocols were copied into different languages, two copies reached the Vatican resulting in Pius XII making an open appeal to Horthy\u00a0 to halt the deportations, it was the Protocols of Vrba and Wetzler which were responsible for saving Hungary\u2019s Jewish community in Budapest.\u00a0 \u00a0Most of Hungary\u2019s provincial Jewish communities had been liquidated in a lightning operation between May 15 and July 7th, thanks to the silence and suppression of the Jewish Agency and its representatives in Budapest and the Judenrat under\u00a0 Samu Stern and Otto Komoly.
\nFinally Bogdanor claims that his references to Lenni Brenner spending time in prison because of his civil rights activities were supposed to be a point in his favour!\u00a0 This in a paragraph that cites one detractor as claiming Brenner was \u2018\u201ccertifiably crazy\u201d, a \u201cMarxist agitator\u201d.\u00a0 Perhaps after all Bogdanor possesses a sense of humor.
\nTony Greenstein<\/p>\n

[1] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 One example of these attacks was \u2018Ben Hechts\u2019 Kampf by Shlomo Katz, whose title suggested that Perfidy was the equivlanet of Mein Kampf, Midstream Winter 1962.
\n[2] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Eichmann in Jerusalem\u2014I , February 16, 1963.
\n[3] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Arendt, pp. 283-284.
\n[4] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Ruth Linn, Escaping Auschwitz – A Culture of Forgetting, p.13, Cornell University Press, 2004.
\n[5] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Bass, Andre, A Million Jews to Save, p.191, Thomas Hutchinson, London, 1975.
\n[6] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Tom Segev, The Seventh Million, p.140.
\n[7] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Judische Rundschau, No. 27, April 4, 1933 Wear it With Pride, the Yellow Badge.\u00a0 In fairness Weltsch, who turned his back on Zionism, bitterly regretted this headline
\n[8] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Pinsker, Autoemanzipation, ein Mahnrufan seine Stammesgenossen, von einem russischen Juden Berlin 1882 p.5.
\n[9] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Chaim Weizmann, Trial and Error, p. 90.
\n[10] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Theodor Herzl, A Jewish State, pp. 19, 25, 17.
\n[11] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Herzl, p.26.
\n[12] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Herzl, p.57.
\n[13] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 From Haven to Home: The Kishinev Massacre
\n[14] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Diaries of Theodor Herzl, p.1525, Ed. Raphael Patai.
\n[15] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Moshe Menhuin, “Decadence of Judaism in Our Time’ (Institute of Palestine Studies), 1969 p. 46.
\n[16] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Ibid. p.l24.
\n[17] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Menuhin op. cit., pp. 46\/7.
\n[18] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Lacquer op. cit. p.l25.
\n[19] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Edwin Black, p.36, Ha\u2019avara \u2013 The Transfer Agreement, Brookline Books, 1999.
\n[20] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Nicosia, ZANG, p.91.\u00a0 Tom Segev, p.18 attributes this to a report from Moshe Beilinson to Kaznelson.
\n[21] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Segev, p.\u00a0 18.
\n[22] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 See Tony Greenstein Rewriting the Holocaust
\n[23] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Ibid. p. 231.
\n[24] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Diaries of Theodore Herzl, Gollancz, London 1958 p.6.
\n[25] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 B. Matovu, \u201cThe Zionist Wish and the Nazi Deed\u2019 Issue, Winter 1966-7. Uri Davies, \u2018Utopia Incorporated\u2019 p. 17.
\n[26] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 How Israel lobby manufactured UK Labour Party\u2019s anti-Semitism crisis, Asa Winstanley 28.4.16.
\n[27] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Brenner 51 Documents, p.200.\u00a0 Department of State Memorandum of Conversation, 19.5.44.
\n[28] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Elie Wiesel, The Land That Broke Its Promise Review of Tom Segev\u2019s: The Seventh Million: The Israelis and the Holocaust,
\n[29] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Segev, p.29.
\n[30] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Black pp. 130, 188, 191.
\n[31] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Black p.269, Jewish Chronicle 8.9.33. \u2018Hitler Reaffirms Jew murder policy\u2019.
\n[32] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Black, p. 253.
\n[33] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Black, pp. xiii, 181-2.
\n[34] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Nicosia, Zionism in National Socialist Jewish Policy, D1263, The Journal of Modern History, Vol. 50, 1978.
\n[35] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Black pp. xix, 110, 130.
\n[36] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Ibid.
\n[37] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Nicosia, TRPQ, p.57.
\n[38] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 N. Weinstock p. 135.
\n[39]\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Joachim Prinz, \u2018Zionism under the Nazi Government\u2019, Young Zionist, London Nov. 1937 p.18.
\n[40] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Shabtai Teveth, The Burning Ground 1886-1948, p.848, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 1987.
\n[41] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 S. Beit-Zvi, pp. 78-79.
\n[42] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Porter, Kasztner\u2019s Train, p. 205.
\n[43] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Segev, p.99.
\n[44] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Segev, p. 108.
\n[45] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Segev, p. 105.
\n[46] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The Times 6.6.61.
\n[47] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Zionism and the Holocaust, https:\/\/www.cpgb.org.uk\/home\/weekly-worker\/631\/zionism-and-the-holocaust, Yoav Gelber, \u2018Zionist policy, p.199, Segev, p.28.\u00a0 Ben-Gurion at the Mapai CC, 7.12.38, Labour Party Archives, Bet Berl Tsofit., 22\/38, Teveth, p.855, Piterberg, p.99.
\n[48] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Shabtai Teveth, The Burning Ground, pp. 858-9.
\n[49] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u2018The Blue & Yellow Stars of Zion \u2013 The Zionist Leadership in Palestine and the holocaust 1939-1945\u2019 Harvard University Press, pp. 135, 111-118 1990\u2019
\n[50] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Shabtai Beit Zvi p. 115..
\n[51] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 I. Trunk, p.32 Judenrat: the Jewish councils in eastern Europe under Nazi occupation, New York 1972.
\n[52] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Dawidowicz p.336.
\n[53] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 S Beit Zvi, p.331 see also Trunk, Patterns of Jewish Leadership in Nazi Europe 1933-1945,Typology of the Judenrate, p.27.
\n[54] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Patterns of Jewish Leadership in Nazi Europe 1933-1945, Yad Vashem \u2018Typology of the Judenrate, p.\u00a0 28, Isaiah Trunk.
\n[55] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Edelman, p.99 citing Second report from the Jewish workers\u2019 underground movement, 15.11.43.\u2019
\n[56] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 S Beit Zvi, pp. 211-240., Post-Ugandan Zionism On Trial
\n[57] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Anna Porter, Kasztner\u2019s Train, pp. 186, 200.
\n[58] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Segev, p.103.
\n[59] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 II-28 Der Kasztner-Bericht.
\n[60] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Ladislau Lob, A Survivor\u2019s Tale \u2013 Dealing with Satan\u2019, p.270 .
\n[61] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Ben Hecht, Perfidy, p. 87.
\n[62] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Ben Hecht, p.151.
\n[63] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Ben Hecht, p.158.
\n[64] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Perdition, p.87. \u2018The Kasztner Case \u2013 a note by Akiva Orr\u2019.
\n[65] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Porter, Kasztner\u2019s Train, p. 371.
\n[66] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Shabtai Beit Zvi p.107.
\n[67] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Ben Hecht, p.195.
\n[68] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Hecht, p.94.
\n[69] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Hecht, Perfidy, p.158.
\n[70] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Ari Bober (ed.), The Other Israel, p.171 and Doug Lorimer, The\u00a0 Palestinian Struggle, Zionism and anti-Semitism, p.44.
\n[71] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Rabbi Hillel Silver to 49th Annual Convention of the Zionist Organisation of America, New York Times, 27.10.46.\u00a0 (quote should be \u201cmoments of desperation\u201d). Robert Silverberg, If I Forget Thee O Jerusalem, p. 335, Pyramid Books, NY, 1972. Canadian JC 10.8.45.\u00a0 Eliezer Livneh declared during a symposium organised by \u2018Maariv\u2019 in 1966 \u201cthat for the Zionist leadership, the rescue of Jews was not an aim in itself, but only a means.\u201d (Information Bulletin, Communist Party of Israel, 1969, pl97).
\n[72] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Shabtai beit Zvi, pp. 154-155.
\n[73] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Christopher Sykes, Crossroads to Israel, p. 188-191.
\n[74] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Khamsin 6, Zionism and its Scarecrows, Mosh\u00e9 Machover and Mario Offenberg https:\/\/libcom.org\/library\/zionism-its-scarecrows
\n[75] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Arthur Ruppin, \u201cThe Selection of the Fittest,\u201d in Three Decades of Palestine: Speeches and Papers on the Upbuilding of the Jewish National Home. Trans. n\/a (Tel-Aviv 1936) 66\u201380.
\n[76] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Amos Morris-Reich\u00a0 Arthur Ruppin\u2019s Concept of Race\u2019, Israel Studies, Vol. 11, No. 3, Fall 2006, pp. 8-9.
\n[77] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Amos Morris-Reich, Arthur Ruppin\u2019s Concept of Race, Israel Studies, Volume 11 , number 3, p.1. citing CZA A107\/954.
\n[78] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Eitan Bloom, Arthur Ruppin and the Production of the Modern Hebrew Culture, Ph. D. thesis, Tel Aviv University, December 2008,citing Ruppin The Jews of Today, London: G. Bell and Sons, p.266.
\n[79] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Bloom, p.405-6, See e.g., Der Volks-Brockhaus, [popular lexicon], Leipzig, 1937.
\n[80] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Bloom, op. cit. p.408.
\n[81] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Bloom, p. 409, Arthur Ruppin, Briefe, Tagebucher, Erinnerungen, (ed.) Schlomo Krolik, Leo Baeck Instituts, K\u00f6nigstein: Leo Baeck Instituts & J\u00fcdischer Verlag Athenau, 1985.p.422
\n[82] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Amos Morris-Reich, Arthur Ruppin\u2019s Concept of Race, Israel Studies, Volume 11 , number 3
\n[83] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Bloom, pp. 409-410.
\n[84] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Eitan Bloom, Ph.D. thesis, Arthur Ruppin and the Production of the Modern Hebrew Culture, Tel Aviv University, December 2008, p.414 citing Bein, Vol. III, pp. 222-223.
\n[85] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Bloom, p.414.
\n[86] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Zionism in the Age of the Dictators \u2013 A Reappraisal, Lenni Brenner, pp. 48-9, Croom Helm, 1983.
\n[87] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 51 Documents: Zionist Collaboration with the Nazis, Lenni Brenner, pp.\u00a0109-110, Barricade Books, NW, 2002.
\n[88] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Ibid., pp. 104-5.
\n[89] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Newt, the Jews, and an \u201cInvented\u201d People, 11.12.11.
\n[90] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Lucy Dawidowicz, War Against the Jews, pp.118, citing Mommsen ‘Der Nationalsozialistische Polizeistaat pp.78\/9 and Nicosia, Anti-Semitism, p.119.\u00a0 Nicosia attributes the second sentence to the Gestapo rather than Heydrich\u2019s directive.
\n[91]\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 5 May 1935, L. Dawidowicz, p.118, citing Karl Schleunes, The twisted road to Auschwitz \u2013 Nazi policy towards the Jews 1933-39, 1970.\u00a0 Dawidowic
\n[92] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Nicosia,\u00a0 ZANG, p.118-119.
\n[93] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Nicosia, ZANG, p.124.
\n[94] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Nicosia, ZANG pp. 123-124
\n[95] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Nicosia, ZANG, pp. 125-126.
\n[96] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Segev, p.33.
\n[97] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Segev, p.84.
\n[98] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Op. cit.\u00a0 p.100.
\n[99] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 S. Beit Zvi, p. 57 see also Segev p.88.
\n[100] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Anna Porter, Kasztner\u2019s Train, pp. 204-5, Constable, London, 2007.
\n[101] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Braham p. 1120.
\n[102] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Martin Gilbert, Auschwitz and the Allies, p.232.<\/p>\n

Posted by Tony Greenstein at 06:32 0 Comments
\nLabels: anti-Semitism, Bogdanor, Chaim Weizmann, David Ben-Gurion, Herzl, Ken Livingstone, Marek Edelman, Rudolf Vrba, Sir William Evans-Gordon, Zionist-Nazi Collaboration<\/p>\n

Older Post Home<\/p>\n

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)<\/p>\n

The Fight Against Fascism in Brighton & the South Coast
\nA new book by Tony Greenstein<\/p>\n

Purchase your copy for \u00a38.99 including P&P<\/p>\n

Followers<\/p>\n

Against the Monarchy
\nAnarchy and Love
\nAsa Winstanley’s Blog
\nAuschwitz tour guide and other camps
\nCiF comment should be free
\nHaim Bresheeth’s Blog on Gaza
\nHarry Feldman’s Blog
\nIsrael – ‘The only democracy in the Middle East!’
\nIsraeli Occupation Archive
\nJewssansfrontieres
\nMarxist Radical Forum
\nOrganised Rage
\nRadical Anthropology
\nSocialist Unity
\nhttps:\/\/www.fuggingmonarchy.co.uk<\/p>\n

Against all racism!<\/p>\n

About Me
\nTony Greenstein<\/p>\n

Judge me by what I write and say!
\nView my complete profile<\/p>\n

Blog Archive
\n\u25bc\u00a0 2016 (170) \u25bc\u00a0 July (1)Paul Bogdanor and the Zionist three card trick – W…
\n\u25ba\u00a0 June (15)
\n\u25ba\u00a0 May (30)
\n\u25ba\u00a0 April (35)
\n\u25ba\u00a0 March (27)
\n\u25ba\u00a0 February (30)
\n\u25ba\u00a0 January (32)
\n\u25ba\u00a0 2015 (317)
\n\u25ba\u00a0 2014 (85)
\n\u25ba\u00a0 2013 (163)
\n\u25ba\u00a0 2012 (329)
\n\u25ba\u00a0 2011 (220)
\n\u25ba\u00a0 2010 (237)
\n\u25ba\u00a0 2009 (223)
\n\u25ba\u00a0 2008 (110)<\/p>\n

Simple template. Powered by Blogger.<\/p>\n

This site uses cookies from Google to deliver its services, to personalise ads and to analyse traffic. Information about your use of this site is shared with Google. By using this site, you agree to its use of cookies.Learn moreGot it<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Why Ken Livingstone was right By Tony Greenstein\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 Socialist, anti-Zionist, anti-racist\u00a0 02 July 2016 After the head of the Gestapo’s Jewish Desk – Baron von Mildenstein visited Jewish Palestine he wrote a series of 12 articles praising the Zionist settlement in Der Angriff\u00a0Goebbel’s paper After Ken Livingstone stated that Hitler supported Zionism, there […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":108884,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4,8],"tags":[19],"class_list":["post-108864","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-history","category-politics","tag-english"],"translation":{"provider":"WPGlobus","version":"2.12.2","language":"fr","enabled_languages":["gb","es","fr","pt","ru","no","ar"],"languages":{"gb":{"title":true,"content":true,"excerpt":false},"es":{"title":false,"content":false,"excerpt":false},"fr":{"title":false,"content":false,"excerpt":false},"pt":{"title":false,"content":false,"excerpt":false},"ru":{"title":false,"content":false,"excerpt":false},"no":{"title":false,"content":false,"excerpt":false},"ar":{"title":false,"content":false,"excerpt":false}}},"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/footballagainstapartheid.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/108864"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/footballagainstapartheid.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/footballagainstapartheid.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/footballagainstapartheid.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/footballagainstapartheid.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=108864"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/footballagainstapartheid.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/108864\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/footballagainstapartheid.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/108884"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/footballagainstapartheid.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=108864"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/footballagainstapartheid.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=108864"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/footballagainstapartheid.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=108864"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}