Russia: we’re bravely fighting those Jewish Nazis here, there, and everywhere
Hatred of Jews isn’t a new thing for Russia, which in addition to all the rest of its propaganda has specialized in anti-Jewish propaganda for a long time. The Tsarist-era fabrication “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” is the anti-Semitic gift that keeps on giving, with people quoting and believing it to this day:
The hoax was plagiarized from several earlier sources, some not antisemitic in nature. It was first published in Russia in 1903, translated into multiple languages, and disseminated internationally in the early part of the 20th century. It played a key part in popularizing belief in an international Jewish conspiracy.
Distillations of the work were assigned by some German teachers, as if factual, to be read by German schoolchildren after the Nazis came to power in 1933, despite having been exposed as fraudulent by the British newspaper The Times in 1921 and the German Frankfurter Zeitung in 1924. It remains widely available in numerous languages, in print and on the Internet…It has been described as “probably the most influential work of antisemitism ever written”.
The Russian Revolution was supported by many Jews who believed the revolutionaries’ promises of an end to anti-Semitism, but over time that promise became a cruel joke as the Soviets persecuted Jews. The Putin government now seems to think it’s a great idea to call the Jewish president of Ukraine a Nazi, and to say that Israel – a country that has tried to remain neutral during the Ukraine War although its sentiments lie with Ukraine – is pro neo-Nazi. Because the Putin propaganda machine rests on the idea that what it’s doing in Ukraine is an anti-Nazi cleanup, it must put out this sort of tripe:
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov extended an argument he made on Sunday that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s Jewish roots don’t preclude him from being a neo-Nazi. Israel was infuriated by the comments, saying the attack was “unforgivable.”…
In a statement on Tuesday, Russia said Israeli Foreign Minister Yair Lapid’s response was “anti-historical” and that Israel’s response “large explain why the current Israeli government supports the neo-Nazi regime in Kyiv.”
The statement went on to cite “examples of cooperation between Jews and the Nazis” during the Holocaust, according to the Times of Israel.
Those examples of “cooperation,” according to Russia, were coerced during the Holocaust, but Zelensky participates in crimes “quite consciously and quite voluntarily,” the statement continued.
Lavrov’s comments on Sunday were aimed at criticizing Ukraine but drew ire from Israel, a country that has maintained relative neutrality in the conflict between the two countries.
It’s ironic to note – as I’m sure Lavrov did not – that it was actually Russia (the USSR at the time) that allied itself with the Nazi regime and cooperated with it in invading Poland in order to gain territory. Funny that – and I don’t mean funny ha-ha. It was only when the Nazis turned on Russia itself that the Soviets broke off with the Nazis.
If your memory needs refreshing, speaking of territory:
Soon after the pact [between Germany and the USSR], Germany invaded Poland on 1 September 1939. Soviet leader Joseph Stalin ordered the Soviet invasion of Poland on 17 September, one day after a Soviet–Japanese ceasefire came into effect after the Battles of Khalkhin Gol. After the invasions, the new border between the two countries was confirmed by the supplementary protocol of the German–Soviet Frontier Treaty. In March 1940, parts of the Karelia and Salla regions, in Finland, were annexed by the Soviet Union after the Winter War. That was followed by the Soviet annexation of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and parts of Romania (Bessarabia, Northern Bukovina and the Hertsa region). Concern for ethnic Ukrainians and Belarusians had been used as pretexts for the Soviets’ invasion of Poland. Stalin’s invasion of Bukovina in 1940 violated the pact since it went beyond the Soviet sphere of influence that had been agreed with the Axis.
The territories of Poland annexed by the Soviet Union after the 1939 Soviet invasion east of the Curzon line remained in the Soviet Union after the war ended and are now in Ukraine and Belarus. Vilnius was given to Lithuania. Only Podlaskie and a small part of Galicia east of the San River, around Przemy?l, were returned to Poland. Of all the other territories annexed by the Soviet Union in 1939 to 1940, those detached from Finland (Western Karelia, Petsamo), Estonia (Estonian Ingria and Petseri County) and Latvia (Abrene) remain part of Russia, the successor state to the Russian SSR after the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. The territories annexed from Romania had also been integrated into the Soviet Union (as the Moldavian SSR or oblasts of the Ukrainian SSR). The core of Bessarabia now forms Moldova. Northern Bessarabia, Northern Bukovina and the Hertsa region now form the Chernivtsi Oblast of Ukraine. Southern Bessarabia is part of the Odessa Oblast, which is also in Ukraine.
The pact was terminated on 22 June 1941, when Germany launched Operation Barbarossa and invaded the Soviet Union, in pursuit of the ideological goal of Lebensraum.
So Russia still retains some of that territory gained from its alliance with the actual real-life Nazis.
NOTE: As far as coerced Jewish collaboration with the Nazis goes, I have written about that at length. Here’s a piece I wrote about kapos; I suggest you read it because most people don’t understand much about kapos and throw the word around in ignorance. I also have a draft about the Judenrat that I’ve never finished and published (here’s an article someone else wrote, however). Suffice to say that what people do for survival when plunged into a nightmare situation at the hands of others – and the fact that they sometimes were forced to make decisions in which some were sacrificed in order (they believed) to save a greater number – cannot be judged in the usual ways and constitute a moral “gray area” as Holocaust survivor and author Primo Levi wrote.
And while we’re at it, now may be as good a time as any to state that although George Soros is many abominable things, “Holocaust collaborator” isn’t one of them, although that’s often an accusation made against him. I dealt with that question and several others here, and in greater detail here and here.
Actually we’ll into but long way to go on Richard Pipes Russian Revolution, Russians are long opponents of Jews but the Nazi name calling is from 1941 since then every opponent of Russia is a Nazi.
Never believed the Nazi collaboration of Soros.
I firmly believe you should never trust George Soros about anything.
he was a teenager then, it was collaborate or let the arrow cross, have at you, so I give him some leeway then, the German army trained on Russian soil, even after the Nazi victory, remember Stalin thought the Social Democrats were the big obstacle to their takeover of Germany, it is said the purges of the army happened because the training officers were allegedly to be plotting against Stalin, but that was just Stalin clearing the decks,
and so was set the tableau of vassily grossmans love and fate, set mostly in the Russian steppes around Stalingrad, Stalin’s methods at least have their admirers in the Bureau and green badgers like nellie ohr, one of the stove pipers behind the steele dossier,
meanwhile ”were on the eve of destruction’ isn’t too far off the point, as we’re bragging to the Times and NBC how we’re killing Russian generals, and spending almost as much as the first appropriation of the Iraq War, but it’s totes fine,
There was a blog I used to read and enjoy, but after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, they started writing posts about the NAZI groups the Russians were trying to eliminate.
That ended my reading there. Throwing out the NAZI designation without providing any real evidence is enough to discredit them.
Conservatives have been (and is) unfairly saddled with the epithet, just because we don’t want to do what the Leftists, Liberals, Progressives want.
They actually ban books and have retailers and Amazon remove them from sale to everyone. They remove classics from schools. If we want sexually explicit books removed from grade schools, we are the book burners, not them.
They create Disinformation boards, “fact-checkers” who seem to only look at one party to find falsities, ban speech and people from social media. A libertarian wants to open speech up again and is compared to apartheid.
They say “free speech” is violence and decry people entering the Capitol Building as “insurrectionists” while they allowed protests in the same building against a Supreme Court nominee and excuse protests against the justices they don’t like who “rule the wrong way “.
Who is following the true NAZI path?
These leiderhosen chafe!
FWIW, the Times of Israel (from a post at Ann Althouse’s blog) is reporting that Putin called Bennett to apologize for Lavrov’s remarks.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/putin-apologizes-for-russian-envoys-hitler-comments-bennetts-office-says/
Christopher B:
Yes, it’s in Putin’s interest not to antagonize Bennett, who’s been helpful to him with diplomatic negotiations and has kept basically neutral – one of the only Western nations to do so. The damage is already done and the “Nazi” seed planted by Lavrov, so it costs Putin little to apologize.
We know now that FDR was surrounded by Soviet agents, possibly including Harry Hopkins. We shipped the Russians (and the Red Chinese) the weapons they needed to beat Hitler (and Chiang) as well as acquiescing to Soviet and Red Chinese territorial gains, much of which they never even spilled blood for.
FDR was warned. He ignored the warnings, and moved those who warned him to obscure posts.
Now we have a president with fading health and mental capacity who seems determined to give away the store. Funny, that.
We know now that FDR was surrounded by Soviet agents, possibly including Harry Hopkins.
The Soviet agents were Alger Hiss, Lawrence Duggan, Laughlin Currie, and Harry Dexter White. They were all subcabinet officers who likely spent very little time around the President.
Never believed the Nazi collaboration of Soros.
He admits it.
neo,
I don’t dispute that as a matter of survival Soros was forced to assist evil. George Soros however, in his 1998 interview on 60 minutes stated that he has no regrets over his actions assisting the Nazi’s confiscation of Jewish property.
That isn’t prima facie evidence of willing collaboration.
However, would not a normal reaction to being forced to participate in evil be to deplore the behavior that circumstance forced upon them?
I suspect that implies some degree of sociopathy.
As for Russian claims regarding the denazification of the Ukraine, it exagerates the presence of fascist elements in the Ukraine as a obvious propaganda tool.
Good thing we don’t engage in false and/or misleading propaganda. Besides, it’s OK when we do it.
Putin’s apology to Bennett may well be entirely self-serving.
But based on Putin’s history, I suspect it was sincere.
“Putin, who has effectively ruled Russia since 2000, is not known for anti-Semitism. At various points, he has instrumentalized xenophobia against ethnic minorities, in particular from the Caucasus, as well as homophobia, and he is notoriously politically incorrect in his public statements. Still, he has never targeted Jews.
On the contrary, Putin counts many Jews among his circle of wealthy friends, has a warm relationship with the controversial Chabad Lubavitch Rabbi Berel Lazar, and gets along famously with Israeli officials like Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman. He has always spoken of Jews in positive terms, and as his respected biographers Fiona Hill and Clifford Gady have noted, he has had close relationships with Jews dating back to his early childhood in Leningrad.”
https://forward.com/opinion/396337/no-putin-is-not-an-anti-semite/
You know who your master is by the ones you are not allowed to criticize. Who in this world is the people most protected by the media and politicians ?
There’s your answer.
Geoffrey, who sees into Vlad’s mind and motives now expands his powers to George Soros. And not stopping there, he reserects the famed authority Fiona Hill, any tool is usefull if it helps Vlad. Yes, that same Fiona, who was so useful to the left in their attacks on President Trump.
Who in this world is the people most protected by the media and politicians ?
The Biden family.
we get it putin is not a good guy, but trudeau macron and biden, or whoever is his handler, treats the opposition like internal enemies, and we know certain oligarchs like yevtushenko, and baturina are untouched by the sanctions, gazprom greased all the right palms, that shut the keystone and other pipelines, which enabled putin’s land grab,
That’s all interesting (Look! Squirrel!); can’t be bothered to stay focused on Ukraine it seems.
Comment: We are anti-Zionist Jews, we are not anti-semitic
I don’t dispute that as a matter of survival Soros was forced to assist evil.
a matter of survival ??
Let not giving them more excuses
Jewish businessman thought to be the person who betrayed Anne Frank to Nazis
Daily Telegraph UK
By David Millward
Geoffrey Britain; DF:
Did you actually read my links? Do you understand what Soros is alleged to have done? It is something very minor.
Here, I’ll help you out. Soros was fourteen years old. He was living in hiding under an assumed name, pretending to not be Jewish (nor had he had any Jewish religious upbringing, by the way; he was only ethnically Jewish, but that’s not relevant to this story). I’ll help you out, in case you didn’t follow the link, and for everyone else who didn’t follow it:
As I said before, Soros is an awful person in terms of many things he has done as an adult. Collaborating with Nazis as a 14-year-old is not one of them.
DF:
I notice you mention one person suspected of betraying Anne Frank, and that person happens to be Jewish. But there are many many other suspects, most of whom were not Jewish. Why choose that one? In fact, no one has a clue who actually betrayed Anne Frank’s family, and there have been many investigations involving many suspects.
Take a look.
Why Naftali Bennett Went to Moscow
Abramovich jet lands in Turkey after Russian oligarch seen in Israel
WHAT IS THE GOAL OF NAFTALI BENNETT’S RUSSIA MEDIATION?
DF:
Why would anyone on earth be interested in the irrelevant comments of two self-professed anti-Zionist Jews in New Zealand?
neo on May 6, 2022 at 7:56 pm,
Hitler’s European Holocaust Helpers
neo on May 6, 2022 at 8:08 pm said:
Why would anyone on earth be interested in the irrelevant comments of two self-professed anti-Zionist Jews in New Zealand?
Why do “anyone” like you care and promote your thought then?
Jewish Leaders and the Holocaust
Michael R. Marrus
French Historical Studies
Vol. 15, No. 2 (Autumn, 1987), pp. 316-331 (16 pages)
Published By: Duke University Press
two self-professed anti-Zionist Jews??
Jews against Zion: Israeli Jewish Anti-Zionism
Charles Glass
Journal of Palestine Studies
My Father, His Daughter by Yael Dayan
DF:
And now we have “Daddy Dearest” by Yael Dayan.
Professor Dershowitz is pissed off: https://www.algemeiner.com/2022/05/06/the-harvard-crimson-normalizes-growing-campus-antisemitism/
Omg charles glass, he never learned anything from his experience as a hostage
When did soros turn evil it seems to havd happened in the mid 90s he was working behind the iron curtain in the 80s
Terry andersons daughter turned into a total moonbat who trusts her fathers hezbollah kidnappers over the israelis
I skimmed through her memoir, of course had moshe devoted himself exclusively to fatherhood she wouldnt have the luxury of recriminations maybe
I read robert littells alternate history of the 67 war, it was disturbing
I dont think much positive about bennett the way he turned on bibi and gave the left a veto effectively.
Naftali Bennett is a skuzbucket, to be plain.
Well i was being more charitable, but not by much
Now i find lavrov is making a stupid argument hes a smoother character than that but in the den of the siloviki you have to make your bones or whatever the russian cognate is. Shoigu that crazy tuvan has crawled out from under his rock
I don’t think Glass is Jewish.
Glass may have learned nothing from his experience as a hostage. However, the article in question hit the press in 1976, about a decade before he was taken hostage. (The Journal of Palestine Studies is a pseudo-academic journal which last I checked had landed at the University of California Press; interesting that they commissioned work from reporters in that era and that ABC was willing to employ him in spite of he having placed work in partisan vehicles). Glass did have a reputation ca. 1985 for being an advocate for the Arabs.
As for Yael Dayan, her send up of her father was published in 1985, about four years after her father’s death. Hers was evidently the third book by an intimate slicing him to pieces, the first having been written by her mother and the second by her brother.
Yael Dayan has been a member of Meretz, which is not ‘anti-Zionist’.
Prof. Dershowitz overstated certain points. The general charge – that The Crimson editorial board make a claque of Pecksniffs – is true.
}}} It was only when the Nazis turned on Russia itself that the Soviets broke off with the Nazis.
Well, yes, but, TBH, Stalin had a plan underway to betray Hitler, too… Stalin was most dismayed that he’d misread Hitler’s “friendly” overtures, that Hitler was as good at backstabbing and dissemination as Stalin was.
The Soviet and the NatSoc types are both, after all, varieties of Marxist collectivism. And they innately operate by Highlander Rules — in the end, only one will survive.
}}} I firmly believe you should never trust George Soros about anything.
I trust him to be a lying, conniving, evil little backstabbing weasel of an excuse for a human being.
I trust him to actually be an ambulatory, prevaricating humaniform container of excreta in everything he does.
So, yes, you can trust Soros, you just have to trust him to be what he is: the kind of pond scum that even pond scum is ashamed to be.
}}} The results of a painstaking investigation, using 21st-century detection techniques, were revealed by CBS in its flagship documentary series, 60 Minutes, naming Arnold van den Bergh, who died in 1950 as the individual most likely to have been responsible for the betrayal.
60 Minutes? That’s like asking Putin about Zelensky.
I once believed that 60m was an actual investigative program. They aren’t. And never have been, as far as I can tell. While he was not technically associated with 60 Minutes at the time, Rathergate was an eye-opening revelation about the real validity to be expected from the Merdia. He was at one time, a leader of the organization, and if you think he didn’t do the same kind of Rathergate crap when he was, you’re naive.
60m is better used as a demonstration of what Michael Crichton referred to as the “Murray Gell-Mann Effect”:
http://puttincologneontherickshaw.com/authors-blog/the-murray-gell-mann-amnesia-effect/
I once believed that 60m was an actual investigative program. They aren’t. And never have been, as far as I can tell. While he was not technically associated with 60 Minutes at the time, Rathergate was an eye-opening revelation about the real validity to be expected from the Merdia. He was at one time, a leader of the organization, and if you think he didn’t do the same kind of Rathergate crap when he was, you’re naive.
I think exasperated subjects of 60 Minutes profiles have made the case that the program and its imitators made use of dirty pool tactics. Rather was a regular correspondent for 60 minutes from 1975 to 1979 then appeared on the program occasionally (about 1 episode per year) from 1980 until CBS ejected him in 2006. 60 Minutes II was the sister program of 60 Minutes broadcast on Wednesdays from 1999 to 2005; he appeared on about 11% of the episodes of that program produced; it was on that program that the Killian documents fraud was propagated.
The founding hosts of 60 Minutes were Mike Wallace, Morley Safer, and Harry Reasoner and the producer was a man named Don Hewitt. You can blame them for the show’s seminal culture. Unlike Rather, I don’t think any of these men were ever identified as politically aligned.
I suspect Rather had gotten away with murder in his work for CBS Reports and 60 Minutes, and figured he could just ride it out. The fraud Mary Mapes was peddling in the fall of 2004 was blatant enough that the rest of the media thought it prudent to refrain from carrying any water for them. Richard Thornburgh et al. manufactured a face-saving way out for the network and Rather, while Mapes and a couple of her minions were terminated publicly. You can never figure out if these types are sociopathic liars of if they’re ICNBW narcissists.
@Neo
Sorry Neo, but I can’t agree.
Daniel Greenfield pointed out that 14 years old is more than enough to assess the merits and rights or wrongs of what was going on and to have moral agency, even if not legal culpability. Considering he had an ancestor of about that age in WWII who had to go in to the forests to fight for his life and the lives of others, I find it hard to disagree, especially given my studies.
https://www.danielgreenfield.org/2020/03/ice-should-deport-george-soros-as-nazi.html
And this is before we get into how reliant your resources are on pro-Soros accounts that- while possibly true- are about as hard to confirm or deny as the anti-Soros ones. So I do think the label of “Nazi Collaborator” fits, with the caveat that far from all Nazi Collaborators were alike and certainly not all had any kind of legal responsibility.
In any case, young “George” had far from the most impeccable or honorable conduct in the Holocaust, but he also had far, far, Far from the worst. And most of all, I think that what he did would be forgivable or atonable.
The issue, of course, is that does anybody really think “Soros” and “Atonement” belong in the same parallel?
Even if you go beyond the kind of surface level gut issues I have- like, who the fuck would consider Budapest in 1944 during the leadup to the siege, when the Nazis have staged no less than two violent coups in Hungary, the Arrow Cross are going door to door rounding up dissidents, Allied bombings are becoming more and more common, and hunger stalks, as the “happiest” of their lives? That points to something like a profound lack of empathy-, you have the fact that in his adulthood Soros immigrated to the US on questionable premises (as Greenfield pointed out regarding the immigration questions) and has continued to advocate things such as a political purge of the US military, the demonization of Israel, and a host of other problems.
That I think is the reason people keep coming back to his record as a Nazi Collaborator, even given how relatively tame and inoffensive it was. Sort of like how those in glass houses should not throw stones, it seems to indicate that Soros learnt nothing from the experience- particularly on moral or ethical levels- beyond how to position himself to save his own skin, and didn’t disavow his family and his own “youthful” anti-Jewish sentiment even in the face of the greatest mass murder of Jews.
I’m not one of those who advocates hanging him from the lamppost over what he did and didn’t do when he was 14, but I think a part of Greenfield’s critiques bear out. The idea that we’re not supposed to criticize him for it strikes me as off, and in particular his testimonies about his experiences in Budapest just stink given my own comparisons to other survivor accounts.
It’s also worth noting that from the records I’ve found, Baumbach was no minor player in the drama but apparently was marked as a collaborator for interrogation and/or death by both the non-Communist and Communist Hungarian resistance movements. Which I think adds color to what this entailed (though mercifully none of the groups seem to have taken notice of a young Soros).
TL:DR, I think people are less disturbed about his Nazi Collaboration because of what he did as a collaborator (which wasn’t much) than because of what it seems to say about his character as a whole and what he’d do now. Particularly the lack of empathy or remorse.
And this, of course, is assuming that what we publicly have heard about his career as Baumbach’s “son” is more or less all there is. Which of course is hard if not impossible to know, and given how provably conniving, dishonest, and backstabbing Soros is, I can’t fault anybody for questioning it.
He certainly wasn’t a member of the SS working at Auschwitz (pace a dumb and dishonest claim that this one photo of an SS man was him), but he also is no saint. It’s not hard at all to consider that he was probably no saint back in Budapest. Especially if he somehow found the hell that was 1944 in that city to be the happiest time in his life.
I guess dark humor allowed him ti get through this ukraine is like bosnia was in the 90s there was a darker agenda the advance of islamists like al queda that earned skills they used to target us with qatar and turkey doing similar things now
Turtler:
My defense of Soros during the war doesn’t depend on his being 14. Being 14 is part of it, though, but it wouldn’t have absolved him if he’d really done something bad.
He didn’t do anything bad. He was placed with Baumbach for a couple of weeks at the age of 14, to save his life. We cannot expect him to have known Baumbach’s history or even his current activities.
I didn’t fault anyone for questioning what he did. I faulted them and continue to fault them for lying about what he did. And I have never seen any evidence to contradict his story.
The quote that it was “the happiest time of his life” is elucidated in the material I gave as well, and the way it was explained was this:
It is perfectly understandable and not pernicious, in my opinion. It is similar to the British movie “Hope and Glory” (if you’ve ever seen it) only more so in the case of Soros. He was a young teenager, times were exciting, he trusted and admired his father and believed they were evading evil forces.
DF has an obvious agenda.
But…freedom of speech, I guess, is a value higher than truth…so SMEAR away!
Still, one ought to at least try not to make a fool of oneself.
IOW if one’s goal is to smear “discreetly”, then one ought not paint with too broad a brush…
Nuance, shaded hints and subdued innuendo is the name of the game…if one wishes to be somewhat effective….
And so, regarding…
“Jewish businessman thought to be the person who betrayed Anne Frank to Nazis” (yes, that is indeed rather CUTE… Sorta like Zelensky’s a Jewish Nazi…!, etc.)…
…woopsie! The following seems to be a bit, um, inconvenient…
“Dutch publisher pulls disputed Anne Frank book”—
https://www.dw.com/en/dutch-publisher-pulls-disputed-anne-frank-book/a-61234578
Opening graf:
“Ambo Anthos is withdrawing “The Betrayal of Anne Frank: A Cold Case Investigation” after six Dutch experts complained the book was based on hypotheses and an incorrect interpretation of sources….”
Don’t let it deter you though. Keep up the good work!! Never give up!!!
@Neo
This is where I think it is important to differentiate between two kinds of possibilities when it comes to the past. One being a specific explanation to try and explain the past or rather what happened in it, and which may well be true or false (with the due knowledge that admixtures of the two are false, but to varying degrees), and the second being the range of possibilities.
I freely admit that Soros’s explanations of the past may be true- especially when we factor in for the effects of the unreliability of memory and such distorting effects as nostalgia, reverence for a father figure, and so forth- and regardless of my personal biases and perceptions of the man (which I think are plenty obvious) are worth considering. However, they are still one explanation of the possible past, and I think that while most of the material in them either jives with the evidence we have or is neither contradicted nor supported, others have heavy amounts of doubt cast on them, even if in many cases that doubt is indirect. Which is why alternative explanations of the past- within the realms of sanity and the evidence (IE no, Soros did not magically age more than a decade and join the SS to work as an Auschwitz guard)- are also worth investigating and for serious consideration.
I understand that, and I largely agree with it (though not everybody is quite as forgiving or moderate in temper as even I, as I already talked about Daniel Greenfield’s beef with the man and his conduct in WWII). In any case, we agree that the degree of his culpability and collaboration was not enough to warrant serious punishment and probably wouldn’t even have wanted some kind of judicial system. So regardless of the murkier issues of moral or ethical culpability, the record regarding his legal culpability is fairly clear.
(His adoptive “father” on the other hand…well, we’ll get to him..)
That we can prove. That’s an important distinction to make, especially if we do not- as I do not- accept his narrative of his past life at face value or otherwise do not think his recollections are worth the benefit of the doubt (as he has been particularly harsh in demanding that the same benefit of the doubt not be extended to others over mere political or civic disputes of much less infamy).
Which I think goes back to the raw issue I have. While we both agree about Soros’s evil character today in Current Year, his lack of culpability or overall responsibility for what happened and what he did/didn’t do in ’44-45, and that Soros’s recollection of his childhood and the complementary work of his paid biographer are useful reference points to understand the man and his past, we seem to disagree on how much of it we should accept or trust.
For reasons I hope to explain, I am willing to accept much less of it sight unseen, in part due to my own research on the matter.
This is true, and I agree.
I must register a qualified disagreement. Baumbach was a government bureaucrat collaborating with the occupying Germans and the new Arrow Cross \party as well as a rather infamous (at least as far as the Underground went) war profiteer. Indeed, these traits were the exact reasons why Soros’s hereditary family placed him as a faux-son of Baumbach. Moreover, the way that he made his living was hardly a secret, even if I must assume for the benefit of the doubt that a young Soros could not have known the full magnitude of what going around overseeing the use of terror and force to steal property and register it with the National Socialist state(s) (while embezzling some for himself0 entailed.
But while I agree he could not have known of his adoptive father’s full history or the full details of his actions, I have no reason to believe he was completely unaware of said history or actions. Especially since- again- they were one reason he was placed where he was, and acting out the charade of being the man’s son would have by necessity involved understanding a decent chunk of the man’s history and his career path (as well as benefitting from his role as a ruthless war profiteer and NSDAP/NYKP collaborator).
I will, however, grant that these considerations- which should rightfully weigh heavily on us today and those tasked with trying to stop it- simply wouldn’t matter much to him. He came to Baumbach to save his life, and that relied on collaborating with him.
Which is- again- why I do not judge Soros particularly harshly for his actions (as far as we can tell them) here.
That said, if relatively unguarded explanations are often telling, I am still endlessly disturbed by his reverence for Baumbach as not merely the man who saved his life or a father figure who he professes to have been deeply shaped by. And I admit in my laxer and less rigorous moments (even as a layman) I do wonder if any other person had as profound an effect on Soros as Baumbach did.
On this much I absolutely agree. While I do believe that Soros’s proven actions are enough to regard him as a Nazi Collaborator and I will continue to refer to him as this, it was a level of collaboration well below the grudging one of the Kapos or Sonderkommandos, and certainly does not hold a candle to his adoptive father, let alone to true ogres of collaboration, such as the likes of Chaim Rumkowski, Avraham Stern, or the more familiar names of Petain, Laval, Szalasi, and so forth.
It is also why I will continue to be among the first to denounce the libels that he was a member of the SS or worked at Auschwitz. Because if there is one thing I owe Soros, it is the truth. That is a double edged sword that cuts both ways, and demands I discuss the unsavory and evil aspects of his personality and actions, but also the good (relatively speaking) and that I not merely shun dishonesty about him, but do so publicly.
However, while I agree that I have not seen any evidence to SUBSTANTIALLY contradict his story, (which is of course the relevant thing from a LEGAL point of view), that is of scant comfort to myself as not merely a historian, but one with a bias who is not only motivated to feel negatively towards Soros over his actions in the now and those he seems to have done by his own admission then, but also with the knowledge that the NSDAP and Arrow Cross (as well as those trying to hide the full magnitude of their prior history) often destroyed relevant documents to try and erase a paper trail. Which is also why I consistently argue that while Soros’s explanation of what he did in his past life IS possible, it is not one I entirely trust.
It certainly might be the unalloyed truth, or (at least given some things like what I will discuss with Baumbach) close to it. Certainly, stranger things happen today, and happened in the charnel houses of WWII Eurasia.
But it might also be a substantially glossed over and whitewashed account of his actions, crafted by a master manipulator and thoroughly ruthless- if not downright evil- man. Such an invention certainly strikes me as being within the capacity of Soros’s skills and resources.
It might also be something in between those two poles, a mostly-true narrative distorted unintentionally by the effects of time, age, and perspective and intentionally so by either substantial concerns (such as a wish to downplay the level of collaboration) or petty ones (such as a willingness to avoid something innocuous like an early crush on someone).
I do not know, and I resign myself to never knowing the full truth in this case, with the Truth of the matter- like all things- being with God while we have to work from the relatively scant and often questionable evidence. It is also why I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge and consider that Soros’s explanation is real- as I have- but would also be remiss if I uncritically accepted it.
I saw this quote the first time, but I stand by my statement. In particular because there are a few things that stand out to me.
A: Who is “we”? Did it include the Soros family specifically, or Baumbach? Because it certainly seems from what records I have from my Magyar speaking friends and what they have gotten from those actually on the side of the Angels- or at a minimum, not on the side of the NSDAP and the Arrow Cross- that Baumbach was far from being on the side of the angels and was indeed marked out for elimination due to his status as both a collaborator and brutal profiteer who happily strung out others (including people like the Soros family) in order to obtain maximum profit for himself.
Of course, that is what we know (or at least can be fairly sure we know as a result of the serious research of the assorted resistance groups), and I’ll freely admit that the clear idealization that Soros displays for “father’ (as he refers to Baumbach in this passage) as well as the inherent unreliability in one’s perspective and the nature of memory would help paint the memories of a man who helped save his life in much glossier and more angelic colors than seem warranted to his other contemporaries or in hindsight. And again, the sanction(s) for death specifically refer to Baumbach and his actions, not those of “his son”, so they are best read as a reflect of the milieu Soros was immersed in during his time playacting as Baumbach’s son rather than a direct reflection of what he might or might have done under his direction.
Let it not be said that my personal, ideological, and moral hostility to Soros now is so profound I will let those things turn me into a Javert ignoring all possible innocuous explanations or mitigating factors.
B: “What more could a fourteen-year-old want?” Perhaps a hometown that isn’t being bombarded as heavily was Budapest was, a lack of pursuit by said evil forces, and- this I think is crucial- a time when others will not depend on you for their survival?
This entire passage and the way it was framed struck me as off, even considering that it was a live interview by an old man. It is a major reason why I reiterate that this disturbs me.
I recognize that a good part of this is a personal reaction that is semi-rational at best, but I stand by it. I also would be willing to argue that almost every member of a random selection of psychologist and psychiatric institution staff- if presented with this narrative as well as some basic background information of what happened and who Baumbach was (without specifying that this was about George Soros) would also be disturbed about it.
While my level of expertise and training were nowhere NEAR enough to make a diagnosis even when I was active as an orderly and dealing with subjects personally- let alone at several years and thousands of miles remove, pace the Goldwater Rule- I was trained to detect actions and phrasings that indicated low empathy for others and a distinct amount of egocentrism (among others) so I could better forewarn the people with actual credentials. And both jump out from me. Not only does Soros feel at apparent peace in a truly nasty, exploitative, precarious environment in the company of a “father” who he knew was a war profiteer (and an environment where he was in no small amount of danger and wishes to indicate he felt “hunted”), but he also seems to LIKE the feeling of other people not merely asking him for help, but being dependent on him.
All of this pricks my (admittedly far from infallible) nose for lack of empathy towards others, a manipulative and egotistical personality, and an interest in having leverage and power over others (even if it is framed in this context- and perhaps was legitimately meant- to help them; see: Mencken’s statement about the urge to save humanity being a false-face on the urge to rule it, and Daniel’s Webster’s about “Good Masters”),
Of course, even being a psychopath acting as a menial collaborator for a major Nazi Collaborator isn’t a crime and shouldn’t be in the absence of actual criminal conduct, and my crude training years ago and gut feelings neither are evidence of judicial caliber nor should they be. I fully accept and openly concede these facts, as well as the fact that there is scant evidence to substantially discredit his claims, even if there is ample evidence to cast doubt on some, mostly supplemental parts of it (such as “being on the side of angels” when working with Baumbach).
However, one does not need judicial caliber proof in order to doubt an account or narrative, or to be put on alert about the future actions of a person. And I think Soros’s words in that interview are worrying enough, let alone when paired with his later actions.
And I would agree with minor caveats, IF I more or less accepted Soros’s narrative as stated. However, for various reasons I do not, and I hope I make it clear why I am not prepared to extend large amounts of the benefit of the doubt onto Soros’s unprovable or unproven actions in my personal life (even if I recognize the need to do so on a legal level). That does not mean I will suffer people lying about him or acting as if his level of known collaboration was particularly evil or even criminal (it was not), let alone ignore exculpatory information like the SS blood libel (and yes, I do call it a blood libel).
But I also see no reason to give him the benefit of the doubt where there is serious question and lack of evidence. After all, if there is one person who has shown they do not deserve the benefit of the doubt, Soros would be at least a serious contender for the title.
The difference is that Hope and Glory did not take part in a totalitarian society that intentionally tried to permeate life with the ideals of war as a positive aspect of existence, national and racial cleansing as an imperative, the complete socialization and collectivization of all life into the public sphere, and the all-encompassing nature of the State and Politics in society. Hungary in 1944 was absolutely such a society.
Churchill and Atlee might periodically spy in your cupboard due to wartime laws and the like, but they did not intend to take permanent residence there. Szalasi and Hitler absolutely did, and this fact was obviously not lost on the Soros family, since it was one reason for the actions they took and particularly the person they placed “George” with. Of course none of this means that “George” understood perfectly what all of this meant or entailed, sort of like Life is Beautiful (if you’ve seen that), which is also why I give some benefit of the doubt and Devil’s Advocacy. But I do not believe he was a complete babe in the woods who understood none of it when his own accounts show the opposite.
I do not believe his account or perspective was quite as innocent or non-criminal as he wishes us to believe.
But EVEN IF I DID, and uncritically accepted his narrative- which I assume is probably the best possible slant on his life- it would point to a young boy who appreciated the level of power he had as adopted son of a Nazi Collaborator and bit Collaborator, who seems to have used saving people both for its own right and to feed his ego, and who in later life did not extend many of the same things he demands be applied to his own actions or life to others, like his Guilt by Association attacks on the US and his political enemies. At a minimum, Soros has learned precious little from the Holocaust beyond how to act as a fish swimming through the water of politics and the grey market as well as how to leverage both the market and power over people. In particular, he seems utterly untroubled by the plight of others such as Jews in the face of Islamists, Neo-Fascists (and mixtures thereof, such as the Balestinian Authority and Hamas, both of whom gladly trace their lineages back to Amin al-Husseini, an Arch-Ally of the Nazis and key Genocidaire), and his own globalist socialists.
And if this is probably the best possible spin we can put on the man’s past, it should raise the question of what the other possibilities are. Because I don’t know about you, but I am disinclined to believe the best possible past for Soros is the one that happened, and while I acknowledge this is very much a gut feeling motivated in no small part by personal and political animus, I think it is also hard to refute that it is based on very concrete concerns about his track record and actions as well, along with some gaps or odd phrasings of the past.
NYPost: https://nypost.com/2022/05/07/jewish-gangsters-once-took-on-nazis-in-the-streets-of-nyc/
Word count: 3,169
“Russia: we’re bravely fighting those Jewish Nazis here, there, and everywhere” …
… and raping and massacring our way across the Central African Republic as opportunities arise: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10792779/Mercenaries-Putins-private-army-Wagner-Group-accused-raping-maternity-ward-women.html
Turtler:
I try to look at everyone objectively, and that’s what I’ve done with Soros. That’s why I can see him as guilty now but not as guilty then, until I see something valid that contradicts his story.
I’ve read so much about the Holocaust (as I imagine you have as well) and so many survivor stories, and it was nearly impossible to avoid some sort of moral compromise and survive. I don’t know whether you followed the link I posted about kapos, but here it is again in case you’re interested.
I am pretty sure that by “we” Soros meant Soros himself and his father. At Soros’ Wiki page, it mentions that Soros’ father saved “many other Hungarian Jews,” and I am fairly certain that this is what Soros junior was referring to as his father’s heroism and the good work “we” were doing.
As for “Hope and Glory” the movie, I certainly was not meaning to parallel Hungary and the UK. I brought it up because it conveys the excitement an adolescent (or pre-adolescent; not sure how old the kid in the movie is) can feel during wartime when many things are going on that are frightening but exhilarating.
As far as Baumbach goes, that Wiki page also mentions that Baumbach, who was indeed a collaborator, had a Jewish wife who was in hiding at the time. Probably Soros senior and junior both knew that, or at least the father did, and that’s probably one of the reasons they trusted him to keep the Soros secret and one of the reasons he agreed to do it. It’s not like they had all the choices in the world for who was going to hide young Soros, and I cannot blame them for placing him with this particular man. What’s more, the property being inventoried had already been confiscated and the owners had left the country. So no one in that group was involved at that time in confiscating anything.
Turtler:
Call Chaim Rumkowski an “ogre of collaboration” – I understand the argument. I don’t exactly share it. I’d call him an extremely flawed person put in a terrible terrible situation. You probably are familiar with this argument and perhaps have rejected it, but I find it at least somewhat persuasive:
Primo Levi, in my opinion the greatest chronicler of the Holocaust, had this to say about him:
I’ll go with what Levi has said.
In my post about kapos, I think it’s also instructive to take a look at the case of Jacob Tannenbaum. It points out many of the moral ambiguities involved, and the terrible choices available to people who were victimized by the Germans and decided to collaborate to one extent or another in order to survive and in the process believed they were helping others to survive.
Soros isn’t even remotely in their league – and I believe you agree. I think one of the many things that bothers me about the criticism of him as some sort of terrible Nazi collaborator (and I’m not referring to your much more reasonable point of view, but to those who exaggerate what he did) is that they pretend they would occupy some lofty moral high ground of purity if faced with similar circumstances, when I doubt that one in a million would be capable of that – and that one in a million would probably end up dead in very short order.
Off topic, except that Vlad’s Roosian adventures are involved:
https://redstate.com/streiff/2022/05/07/ukraines-attacks-on-snake-island-hint-that-russias-black-sea-fleets-influence-on-the-war-may-be-over-n561530
Time will tell, fog of war.
May 9, 2022 Victory Parade may need color commemyary from someone as talented as Raggedy Ann, aka, Jen Psaki? Is she available now?
Not sure it’s our place to judge these people, placed in a totally impossible situation by monsters.
Rudolf Kastner/Kasztner would also fall into this category.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rezs%C5%91_Kasztner
It’s a “Sophie’s Choice” predicament/dilemma/hideous decision, presented by the oh-so-reasonable Nazi officer in a nutshell: One of your young children will have to be killed, but one will be saved. Choose which one it will be.
Now multiply this “choice” by hundreds. By thousands. By tens of thousands. By hundreds of thousands.
What would you do?
No, we have no right to judge them.
Soros’s “problem” it seems to me—in a nutshell—is that he’s concluded that the New Nazis are the USA, Israel, the West, Nationalism generally (or at least western nationalism), etc.; and that these foul and toxic political emanations—relics of an evil past—must be fixed, transformed, replaced by something else. Essentially expunged and destroyed.
To this “glorious”, “virtuous”—PERVERSE—end, he’s decided to use his immense wealth to create wonderful-sounding if Orwellian, Bolshevik organizations (“pro-democracy”, “pro-transparency”, “pro-humanity”, “anti-racist”, etc.) to SAVE THE WORLD, in other words, to effect the destruction of the west.
He’s not the only one with this perverted idee fixe, certainly; but it seems to be his obsession, and he’s using his Anti-Nazi youth as a template for the current campaign against what he believes fervently to be a new incarnation of an old EVIL, which deserves obliteration…or, if one finds that a bit over the top, then TRANSFORMATION.
@neo
“Extremely flawed” is being indirect on a level I think is monumentally too generous. The man was a totalitarian pedophile who was already abusing his power and trust in the community Before the NSDAP came in. Power only made him far worse, as he essentially leveraged his power and ties with the Nazis to create a Totalitarian Dictatorship-within-the-Totalitarian Dictatorship in which he purged his domestic opponents and tried to rule with absolute power as “both a Fascist and a Communist” while carrying on his own twisted habits.
To what little credit I will give him, he did hope to find a way to convince the Nazis to spare the Jews of Lodz. But most Judenrat officials did, and most did not murder or persecute their domestic opposition half as hardly as he did. And of course, most were not pedophiles.
https://faculty.wagner.edu/lori-weintrob/helen-gens/
The extenuating circumstances that Levi mentioned are true, but they are monumentally less relevant in his case than in that of almost any of his peers. Rumkowski sought out power far more actively than most, and used and abused it more tyrannically than most others. And moreover, had the Nazis never came, he almost certainly would have continued his old habits of molesting children and abusing whatever power and trust he had been let into. I do not think that can be said of many Kapos or Judenrat members.
That not even he deserved what happened to him is less of a testament to any particular extenuating circumstances in his case and more a manifestation of the utterly cruel the Nazis were towards those they deserved unworthy of life, and a manifestation of their ruthlessness and ingratitude towards one of their most slavish servants and devoted students.
The argument is quite fitting for many other collaborators (including I think Soros, and for those whose crimes were unquestionably more serious and prolific than Soros’s), but I find it rings utterly hollow for Rumkowshi, even moreso than for some arch-collaborators like Laval and Petain, who at least seemed to have less of a maniacal hunger for power for its own sake (regardless of their own not-very-subtle ambitions) and certainly did not abuse it in QUITE as visceral or petty a way. And I would be hard-pressed to argue that Laval and Petain did not richly deserve their punishments if not worse.
Most card carrying Nazi Party Members and Collaborators were better people than Rumkowski, and I do not say that lightly.
Which is quite understandable, and I think is the proper path, especially on a legal level.
I have, and indeed I understand some vague ghosts about moral compromises and the devilish arguments involved. Which is one reason I try to err on the side of generosity, even with people who I think are by and large unworthy of it (like Soros now). Because I certainly cannot honestly look myself in the mirror and say what I would do in their circumstances, and I cannot honestly say I know that Soros did not, in fact, do the best he could.
I have significant reasons to suspect otherwise, but ultimately they are just suspicions, in contrast with the likes of Rumkowski whose atrocities and crimes are many, multifaceted, and cannot merely be blamed on the Nazis or pressure from them given his rapes prior to the invasion.
Which is a fair point, but also goes back to the issue that Baumbach does not seem to have been doing so out of the goodness of his heart- or at least not primarily doing so (certainly, the resistance organizations did not think he was)- but as a means of enriching himself using human misery. There are certainly worse ways to act during the Holocaust, but if being on the side of angels merely means one is less heinous than the alternative we might need to reassess the term.
Which is a fair point, and something I tried to consider in Soros’s accounts, as well as other things such as over-idealization of Baumbach (helped by the personal ties and gratitude one might expect someone to feel for someone who saved their life regardless of their actual conduct; certainly others felt such gratitude for less reasons, like Mr. Frank and Tonny Ahlers). Just because I do not claim objectivity does not mean I cannot be mindful of that lack of objectivity and try to compensate for it.
Indeed, and I agreed with that here.
I’d have to double-check what role he had, but I know the Nazis and Arrow Cross kept confiscations going pretty much until the Soviets finished clearing the Pannonian Basin, albeit on ever pettier reasons (since most of the “priority” targets like Budapest’s Jews had their property inventoried and confiscated early on in the campaign).
In any case, with both Rumkowski and Soros and all of us, I do not deny they had reasons for doing what they did, especially under such grave circumstances. But that does not change the question of whether or not the circumstances or peril justified their actions.
Honestly, I find the conditions more or less convincing and even justifying in Soros’s case, though not so in Rumkowski’s for the reasons I mention. But I think this is such a sore point in part due to the carpet-bombing of the right as “Fascists” and “Nazis” by people receiving Soros’s funding, as well as the apparent lack of self-reflection, awareness, or remorse from Soros. That- as well as his personal record of being manipulative- I think casts a deeper shadow over his WWII track record than anything he can be proved to be done.
Is that unobjective or even unfair? Perhaps. But it is certainly not more unfair than demonizing people who oppose him as “anti-semitic” or attempts to argue there was no moral compromise in this collaboration.
But I’ll certainly be the first to admit he was not even a Kapo, let alone a real monster like Rumkowski (who again, revealed much of his evil even before the Nazi invasion).
@Barry Meislin One of the best and most in-depth looks I’ve had at Kasztner was from Paul Bogdanor (who alas seems to have had much of their superb online writing like The Chomsky Hoax disappear from the internet). His conclusion is quite scathing, which I find remarkable because he started out seeking to defend Kasztner.
http://www.paulbogdanor.com/
Turtler:
As I said before, I’m with Levi on Rumkowski.
I believe, however, that blaming Holocaust victims for the compromises they made when placed in a nightmare situation through no fault of their own detracts from the much more direct and far more pernicious culpability of the people who placed them there. Blaming Jews for their own efforts – however misguided – to save themselves and other Jews by making moral compromises of a horrible nature is a often way for many people to say “See, Jews are no better than Nazis.”
The book Sophie’s Choice is an interesting example of an attempt to explore such moral choices. It was criticized by some people because it told the story of the choice a non-Jew, a Polish woman, had to make, but I think that criticism was very short-sighted. When subject to a system such as Nazism, pretty much everyone (except babies, tiny children, and saints) had to make difficult and morally compromising choices.
@Neo
And I think he gets a lot right, and in particular the bit about what might have been had the Soviets liberated Lodz early (though the cynic in me is reminded that the Nazis placed a high premium on exterminating or deporting KZ inmates, as their forced marches later show, so I am not sure how much of a chance there was for that. But still, better to be given a chance than none). But I do think he is too generous to the man for the reasons I have mentioned. The sexual abuse of children will always be a heinous crime, and one that even the Nazis viewed with a certain amount of disgust- though by no means the proper amount- hence their quasi-ostracism of Herman Esser for a similar atrocity (though not half as much as they should have such as persecuting him).
Likewise, so will be relishing in totalitarian power over one’s fellow man and seeking to abuse said power for one’s own edification. Rumkowski was guilty of both major sins, and egregiously so. That indicates to me that he cannot merely be dismissed with Levi’s argument that the “moral” framework he had was “fragile”; evil is often a choice, particularly on this level. And Rumkowski makes the likes of King Saul and a host of other Iron Age Biblical villains look better.
I dislike placing too much of an emphasis on it (for much the same reason I dislike emphasizing Soviet atrocities during WWII too heavily in contrast to those of the “Clean Wehrmacht” and the SS, who among other things committed even more egregious amounts of rape and murder than even the Soviets did during the war on the Eastern Front), but I think it is worth remembering. Moreover, I think that it is worth it to remember that “Freedom is what you do with what’s been done to you.” As a Christian I believe we are judged for what we do to others (and I am under no illusions that I am somehow the most righteous among the living, far from it!), and while one can plead extenuating circumstances to a degree, that is what it is: to a degree.
Moreover, as I pointed out, Rumkowski was already a monster before the Nazis ever came in. So I think focusing too much on the Nazis as an explanatory factor for what he did is misguided, at least in part. It also I think dishonors the stances of others in similar or worse circumstances who never sank so low (such as pretty much every other Judenrat leader). Biebow certainly did not require him to molest little girls, and even if he had he couldn’t have broken the time-space continuum to have been responsible for Rumkowski’s pre-war misadventures. While his attempts to pre-empt and cater to the Nazis can be justified to a large degree by his role of responsibility and his unique vision to try and save the Jews of Lodz (albeit in his own twisted fashion), others made similarly monumental efforts without trying to become a totalitarian Jewish Fuhrer or taking such personal gratification in his power, including with the most vulnerable. His “give me your children”- already grim and horrible- certainly has a new complexion when you realize he was a pedophile. long before the first German Jackboot marched into Lodz.
He is a secondary villain in the tragedy of Lodz Ghetto compared to the National Socialists, but a villain I think it is clear he is, as Levi acknowledges. The And I think understanding this touches on a more important point: That one being a victim does not make one good, and while it is perversion to claim that Jews (as a religion and a nation) are no better than Nazis (a totalitarian political movement dedicated to oppression and mass murder), I have little reason to believe that Jews are much better than Germans. Likewise with my fellow Protestant Christians. We are all God’s misbegotten Children, and loved as we are we are also deeply flawed and prone to sin, often egregious sins, with all quarters of us having our fair share of saints and demons.
Agreed, and I think focusing too much on the crimes against the Jews- literally Biblical in nature as they were, and singled out for particular hatred and extermination by the Nazis and their allies- on some level detracts from the Holocaust and understanding the Nazis. That National Socialism was a holistic, purifying, totalitarian world view that sought to violently sweep away and annihilate all opposition to its ideal Peoples’ Community. Jews, Slavs, Roma, Political Dissidents, the “Improper” Religions, etc.
I think it is reasonable to argue that Jews deserve special standing as the most prominent among the NSDAP etc. al.’s victims, but I think to focus too much on them like the criticism of Sophie’s Choice for having a non-Jewish main character misses the point (and in similar fashion to the Jew Haters coming up with their lists of “lists of nations Jews were expelled from” do). The Nazis outlined why they persecuted and tried to exterminate Jews and the other targeted groups. On a deep level it was always about the visions of Hitler and his colleagues.
Yeah, yeah, yeah except that the Nazis placed extermination of the Jews above survival of their Reich. That would seem to be significanant and not require the splitting of too many hairs (not hares).
Regarding “the clean Wehrmacht” Bernard on YouTube “Military History Not Visualized” has a good 20 min. (approximately) episode showing how deeply involved and complicit the Wehrmacht was in the atrocities and genocide.
“…disappear from the Internet…”
Hmm. Looks like someone planted it deep in a “404” crevasse…
Seems this will have to do in the meantime:
From http://paulbogdanor.com/ —
http://www.paulbogdanor.com/250chomskylies.pdf
http://www.algemeiner.com/2013/01/17/chomsky-and-the-terror-masters/
https://www.city-journal.org/html/america%E2%80%99s-dumbest-intellectual-12361.html
…plus much, much more…but I’m pretty sure there’s better ways to spend one’s time.
Regarding Bogdaner on Kasztner, the latter was, apparently, not the easiest personality on the planet but he did work indefatigably to save lives, and not just those of his family, some friends and some of the leadership.
But no, he was not perfect. And yes, he made pacts with the Devil.
Apparently Bogdaner believes that he can pass judgement….
when empires collapse, because of loss in a war, the social schisms are deep, in austria hungary’s case, this was followed by the bela kun revolution and then their version of plebiscitary nationalism in admiral horthy, who was not as venomous as szalazi, this is the world that gyorgi schwartz grew up at least one of the manhattan project scientists teller, szilard came from that world, one went left and won world acclaim, one went right, and was mostly looked down upon even though he was the one behind the h bomb and contributed to the strategic defense initiative, he won some awards but you can’t turn on a leading light like oppenheimer
hitler’s evil genius was in harnessing these nationalisms in places like antonescu’s romania, pavelic’s (sic) croatia, and the ukraine of stepan bandera, the latter two were strongly focused on race and explicitly antisemitic elements, so was the moslem nationalisms fostered in bosnia by the
likes of haj amin husseini’s (arafats uncle) who worked with waldheim’s superior,
general lohr in forming the handchar battalion, which included in a small capacity, a young alia izebovic, the chetniks were a mixed bag against this crew,
and tito was the most affirmative, the former worked with mi 6 operatives like fitzroy mclean, who decades later would found haklyut security, the outfit involved in the false flag operation against trump, the communists, nursing their injuries from 1920, positioned themselves as the most anti fascists, and they came with the Soviet Army, it was an inconvenient fact that mindzenty was antifascist but anticommunist, but that was rapidly dispensed with, schwartz realized that economics, was a way to break out of the cycles of servitude outlined above, and became quite wealthy, he developed a certain critique of liberal society based on karl popper, who had anatomized kant quite effectively, before, he saw the failures of the 56 revolution, he used his fortune in part to seed the liberal movement including a young protege victor orban, who would be the youngest of the crew of 1989 reformers, but what is that line from dark knight ‘you die a hero, or you live long to become a villain’
somewhere along the way, they had a falling out probably sometime in the 90s,
a predator himself as the collapse of the pound and later the whole basket of asian currencies proved, he appears to have been a critic of the liquidation strategy of Russian infrastructure that created the oligarchs, his Open Society at some point turned against the pillars of the West, that proved to archaic to his view, his promotion of drug legalization was certainly part of this, he seems to have absorbed the ethos of enforcement as repression, which explains what is happening in places like los angeles and san francisco, certainly under the machine he put in motion,
in the ukraine the crushing of the UPA which had also earned some US intelligence support, like the Forest brothers in Poland like the Bali Kombetar in Albania, largely compromised by the likes of Philby, led to a generation of colorless nameless apparatchiks, who denied the subject language, among other injustices, unlike with Walesa, or Orban there wasn’t much of a liberal rising, so another apparatchik took the reigns in 1990, kuchma, and the shock treatment that worked so poorly above, had similar but smaller scale results,
back in the states however, some elements of the old guard still kept the flame alive, this is where swoboda came from. in part,
in the 90s, the Russians were not only afflicted by what they considered a cruel and/or indifferent economic system, that the ruling class was firmly accepting but injuries against their slavic brothers in the balkans, bosnia and later kosovo, this was the toxic brew that putin took advantage off, that discredited the liberal element among large blocs of the Russian populace, NATO expansion wrongly or rightly factored into that, about halfway through that era, Yeltsin’s generals saw the conquest of the remote Chechen province, as an easy mark to obscure the social schisms that had arisen, it didn’t work out, terribly well considering it took some 30 years to conquer the Caucasus, under General Yermolov, there were oligarchs who tried to bridge the gap like berezovsky and patrikarski (sic)
they are dead btw, just fast forwarding to 2013, the islamists elements like soros had learned they could make an empire bleed, and they chose chechnya as their test case, it had mixed results,
Poland had a smaller dose of the toxin, this led them to entertain some supposed opposition figure like kwasnieski, the former communist, he ended up on the board of burisma, the kazinski brothers arose as a critique of the Walesa era, one can reasonably surmise putin had one of them deposed along with most of the cabinet, thats one grave offense that often escapes the bill of indictment, back in 2009,
@om
Indeed, that is why I mentioned the cynic in me responding to Levi’s remark about if Lodz was liberated with most of its population alive Rumkowski would be viewed in a different light, because (besides how Rumkowski repulses me) had the Soviet offensives continued the Nazis would probably have expedited the liquidation and/or deportation of Lodz Ghetto much as they did in other Concentration Camps and Ghettos on the brink of being reached by Allied forces.
Sure, maybe they wouldn’t be able to finish the process and that is better than most had, but it still makes me think it’s unlikely.
Indeed, hence why I used the “Clean Wehrmacht” sarcastically. We in the West often have a very sanitized view of how the Regular German Military in the 19th century and World Wars behaved, particularly since the atrocities of the Prussian Era and WWI have fallen into obscurity and those of WWII are often portrayed as “just” being those of the Party and the SS. Not helped by how much of our early historiography was reliant upon German sources (who often lied to make themselves look better both morally and performance wise), to the point where we allowed an incompetent war criminal like Halder to write the US Army’s official history of the Eastern Front.
It’s one thing that I think drives many Eastern Europeans and especially Russians up a wall, and I find it hard to disagree with them on this.
And gehlen who ran intelligence for the eastern front, and seeded the successor western agency but that was dulles choice
Turtler:
I mentioned the Military History Not Visualized as a short introduction that takes down that myth of the clean German Army in WWII. As for the Russian viewpoint, there seems to have been a lot of misbehavin’ in the Soviet Army as they liberated Eastern Europe that gets ignored? Totatilarians, baked into the systems.
@om
I certainly don’t want to exclude or exonerate the Soviet military of its misbehaving. Far from it; their conduct is justifiably infamous and has cast decades long scars on the memories and landscape of the region, and since it went back well before 1941 the “trauma from da evul Nazis” narrative doesn’t come anywhere near close to explaining- let alone excusing- it (even if it probably played SOME role in things like the Sack/Rape of Berlin and the genocide of Eastern Europe’s Germans).
Turtler:
Rumkowski’s more “ordinary” crime of child molestation – for which society would have and should have sentenced and imprisoned him, are not what I was talking about. I was talking about his culpability as a Nazi collaborator and what he did in that regard. And yes, he was certainly one of the most culpable on that score of all the Judenrat members who were placed in impossible positions. He seems to have gone at it with some relish. But I think that is what Primo Levi is referring to by saying his underpinnings were “fragile” – meaning that he was already morally compromised.
The question of whether the German people of the war generation had some special moral failings that meant they were more amenable to Nazism and its horrific impulses than other people would have been is a question many people have discussed (and differed on) ever since WWII. I think the jury is still out on that. I’ve read tons on the subject and I find merit in certain arguments on both sides. But as far as Germans and Jews and relative morality goes – let’s just say that the Germans were periodically massacring Jews for a millennium, and Jews weren’t massacring Germans.
That said, the Nazis were merely starting their genocides with the Jews, who were their top priority to kill. The Nazis did indeed have plans to kill huge numbers of other groups, especially the Slavs, once they won the war. Fortunately, the Nazis didn’t win the war. Unfortunately for the Jews of Europe, the Nazis pretty much succeeded in ridding Europe of its Jews. There is no other group for which the murderous Nazi impulse was so successful.