Paul Bogdanor and the Zionist three card trick – Why Ken Livingstone was Right (part 2)

Paul Bogdanor and the Zionist three card trick – Why Ken Livingstone was Right (part 2)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Post-Blog


 

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 Goebbel’s paper

A
fter Ken
Livingstone stated that Hitler
supported Zionism, there was an outbreak of synthetic outrage from the Zionists
and rent-a-mouth MP John Mann. The result was Livingstone’s suspension from the
Labour Party.  One effect of
Livingstone’s remarks was to make people curious about the record of the
Zionist movement during the Nazi era.  Because of the Zionists use and abuse the memory of the Jews murdered in the Holocaust to
justify Israel’s racism, ethnic cleansing and murder of the Palestinians,
people have naturally become interested in the actual Zionist record in the
1930’s and 1940’s.
Ken Livingstone – Suspended for Telling the Truth

The Israeli
propaganda organisation, BICOM felt it necessary to publish an article
in its on-line magazine Fathom
attempting to rebut Livingstone’s allegations.  Instead of a reputable
holocaust historian, Fathom’s far-right
editor, Prof. Alan Johnson, chose Paul Bogdanor, a
hasbarist who makes Senator Joe
McCarthy seem dangerously subversive. 
Bogdanor is a pathological anti-communist who publishes red baiting articles
like Chomsky’s 200 lies and Tony Greenstein
and the Nazi Apologists
Behind
Bogdanor’s bluster about me being in a “state of panic”, one thing is clear. Bogdanor
is unable to even understand, still less defend, the critique of the Zionists’
record during the holocaust.  That is why
the decision of Fathom to employ a
propagandist is at first sight puzzling. 
However Johnson’s decision makes sense precisely because the last thing
that the Zionists want is a debate over the Zionists’ prioritisation of building
a ‘Jewish’ state over rescuing Jews during the Holocaust.
When Bogdanor’s
article An Antisemitic
Hoax: Lenni Brenner on Zionist ‘Collaboration’ With the Nazis

appeared I wrote a response Why Ken Livingstone Got It Right Over Nazi
Support for Zionism

which showed why Bogdanor’s article was based on a series of lies and
distortions.  Bogdanor was stung into
writing a rejoinder, Tony Greenstein’s House of Cards, which has been published on the pro-war and
Islamaphobic Harry’s Place, the Der
Sturmer
of the Internet, which specialises in demonising people on the Left
like Livingstone and Galloway.
Judische Rundschau the Zionist paper carried the slogan ‘Wear the Yellow Start with Pride’
Bogdanor’s writing
is reminiscent of the vitriol employed against Hannah Arendt, herself a Jewish
refugee from Nazism and Ben Hecht.  Hecht
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 ‘Perfidyabout Israel’s Kasztner’s trial. [1]
Arendt’s Eichmann in Jerusalem – the Banality of Evil
was based on a series of 5 articles in the New Yorker.[2]  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. 


the campaign, conducted with all the well-known means of image-making and
opinion-manipulation, got much more attention than the controversy…. (it was)
as though the pieces written against the book (and more frequently against its
author) came “out of a mimeographing machine” (Mary McCarthy)… the clamor
centered on the “image” 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.”

Shooting the messenger has always
been the Zionist modus operandi.
Apparently Arendt had claimed that ‘the
Jews had murdered themselves.’
 Why
had she told ‘such a monstrously
implausible lie?  Out of “self-hatred” of
course.’
 [3]
Marek 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.  He had been a member of the anti-Zionist Bund,
which had led the resistance.  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.  As Ruth Linn, a Professor
at Haifa University, explained ‘More than
35 years later… a prominent Israeli Holocaust historian explained to me
that    “Vrba was probably not invited
since the State of Israel had no money to sponsor the flight.’
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]  Those stage managing the Eichmann trial were
determined to keep the Kasztner saga out of the courtroom.
Bogdanor’s
accusation that I deny ‘Irving style that
Zionists were victims in the Nazi concentration camps.’
is a good example
of his style and method.  Of course I said
no such thing.  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.  As Israeli historian, Tom Segev wrote: “In 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
.’ [6]
Of course when
it came to murdering Jews, the Nazis didn’t distinguish between Zionist, non-Zionist
or anti-Zionist Jews, religious or secular. 
That is why the efforts of the Zionist movement to present itself as a
movement that the Nazis could work with was so pathetic.  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.  However that doesn’t absolve the
Zionist movement from accusations of collaboration.
Zionist
acceptance of Nazi ideas of racial separation reached ludicrous heights when Robert
Weltsch’s editorial in the German Zionist Federation [ZVfD] paper came out with
the headline ‘Wear it With Pride, the
Yellow Badge’
on 4th April 1933, eight years before the yellow
star became compulsory.[7] 
Bogdanor’s response
is illustrative of his method.  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.  Despite
his anti-Stalinism Bogdanor is a polished performer of their dark arts.
NYT reports introduction of the Nuremburg Laws
Background to Zionist
Collaboration with the Nazis
The behaviour of the Zionist
movement during the Nazi period was neither exceptional nor an aberration.  From its inception the Zionist movement differed
from all other Jewish reactions to anti-Semitism.  Zionism accepted that the Jews were strangers
in other people’s lands. Leo Pinsker, founder of the Lovers of Zion, held that ‘Judaephobia is then a mental disease, and
as a mental disease it is hereditary, and having been inherited for 2,000
years, it is incurable
.’ [8]   If anti-Semitism was incurable, there was no
point combating it. 
Chaim Weizmann, the longest serving President of the Zionist
Organisation and first President of the Israeli state wrote, ‘Whenever the quantity of Jews in any country
reaches the saturation point, that country reacts against them….The determining
factor in this matter is not the solubility of the Jews but the solvent power
of the country.  England had reached the
point when she could or would absorb so many Jews and no more…. The reaction against
this
[Jewish immigration] cannot be
looked upon as anti-Semitism in the ordinary or vulgar sense of that word.’  
For Zionism anti-Semitism was a natural
phenomenon and its cause was the Jews themselves.  Weizmann wrote of Sir William Evans-Gordon,
the founder of the anti-Semitic British Brothers League, that he had
no particular anti-Semitic prejudices. 
He acted, as he thought, according to his best lights and in the most
kindly way, in the interests of his country…. 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.’[9]
Theodor Herzl, the founder of
Political Zionism, remarked that wherever the Jews went they would ‘either introduce Anti-Semitism where it
does not exist or intensify it where it does.’
  Zionism hated Emancipation, because it led to
assimilation.  ‘where Anti-Semitism prevails it does so as a result of   the emancipation of the Jews.’   Herzl accepted that ‘It might more reasonably be objected that I am giving a handle to
Anti-Semitism when I say we are a people – one people;
.[10]  It was an anti-Semitic trope that the Jews
formed a nation separate from those amongst whom they lived. 
Acceptance of what the
anti-Semites about Jews was widespread in the Zionist movement. Herzl observed
that ‘When we sink, we become a
revolutionary proletariat… and at the same time, when we rise, there rises also
our terrible power of the purse.
[11]  It is little wonder that Zionism saw anti-Semitism
as its partner. ‘Great exertions will
hardly be necessary to spur on the movement.  Anti-Semites provide the requisite
impetus.  They need only do what they did
before, and then they will create a desire to emigrate where it did not
previously exist.’’
[12]
Herzl visited the rulers of
Europe promising that the Zionist movement would help rid them of their
unwanted Jews.  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 ‘You don’t have to justify the
movement to me Vous prechez a un converti’ [You are preaching to a convert].’ [14]
The result of this meeting was that alone of Jewish political movements, the
Russian Zionist movement was legalised.  Plehve
wrote a letter pledging “moral and
material assistance”
a letter
which became “Herzl’s most cherished
asset.”
[15]
Herzl told Von Plehve:
Help us faster to land and the revolt
will end. So will the defection to the socialist ranks.”
[16]  Herzl boasted that Zionism would dissolve all
revolutionary socialist elements among the Jews.[17] As Lacquer noted: “Herzl’s critics maintained… that he made,
a deal with Plehve promising that Jewish Socialists would no longer attack the
tsarist government…”
[18]
The attitude of the
Zionist movement to the Nazis was no different from its historic attitude to anti-Semitism.  Alone amongst Jewish political movements it
welcomed the ascent of the Nazis.  Zionism
felt vindicated.  Hadn’t it warned that
anti-Semitism would triumph?  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.  Whereas
world Jewry began a Boycott of Nazi Germany, the Zionists sought to work with
the Nazi government to its best advantage. 
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’s Secretary Kurt Blumenfeld, alone amongst the
representatives, eagerly promised to co-operate with the Nazis in fighting the
Boycott.
Blumenfeld
stepped forward on behalf of the Zionists, declaring that the German Zionist
Federation was uniquely capable of conferring with Jewish leaders in other
countries… Once uttered, the words forever changed the relationship between the
Nazis and the Zionists. ‘ [19]
Berl Katznelson, a founder of
Mapai and editor of Labour Zionism’s daily paper, Davar, saw the rise of Hitler
as “an opportunity to build and flourish
like none we have ever had or ever will have”.
[20]  Ben-Gurion hoped the Nazi victory would
become ‘a fertile force for Zionism.
[21]
I will first recall the points I
made in response to Bogdanor’s
original article
which he fails to respond to at all.  Anything
which Bogdanor found inconvenient to the narrative of a heroic Zionist movement
was consigned to a historical black hole.
Parts of My Response which Bogdanor ‘Forgot’
to Mention
1.            
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 ‘
Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to
that of the Nazis’
is anti-Semitic.  Examples
of the Zionist use of the Holocaust included dressing up ex-Prime Minister Yitzhak
Rabin in Nazi uniform, Abba Eban’s referring to the 1948 armistice lines (the
Green Line) as Israel’s ‘Auschwitz border’, Menachem Begin comparing Yasir
Arafat in Beirut to Hitler in his bunker and Netanyahu’s attempt to lay the
blame for the Holocaust on the Mufti of Jerusalem rather than Hitler.
[22]
2.            
I explained how historically Zionism had always seen
anti-Semitism as having something of the ‘divine will to good’ in it.
[23]  I cited Theodor Herzl as saying, in the
middle of the Dreyfuss Affair how In 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
.’
[24]  I noted that Zionism’s 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.  In the words of Jacob Klatzkin,
editor of the Zionist Organisation’s Die Welt (1909-11) and co-founder of
Encyclopedia Judaica:
If 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]
Bogdanor
saw fit not to comment!
3.            
I explained how Bogdanor’s article ‘Tony Greenstein
and the Nazi Apologists
’ where he states that I ‘defend(s) communist collaboration with the
Nazis but denounce(s) Zionists as joint perpetrators of the Holocaust.
’ was
a lie twice over.  Bogdanor doesn’t
attempt to defend his lies but he does complain of the ‘tone’ of my reply.
4.            
I gave examples of Bogdanor’s dishonest and error strewn
description of the ‘anti-Semitism’ hysteria in the Labour Party.  Bogdanor referred to
Vicky
Kirby’s tweets about ‘big (Jewish) noses’
as examples of this anti-Semitism.  I
showed how these tweets were from the 2010 comedy film The
Infidel
.[26]  I gave as further proof the fact that the
film’s writer David Baddiel is Jewish. 
Bogdanor chose not to respond.
5.            
Jackie Walker, who has now been reinstated, was accused by
Bogdanor of having said that ‘
the
Jews were behind the slave trade’

This was a malicious lie.  Jackie
said no such thing.  Bogdanor again chose
not to comment.
Frontpage.com – the racist Islamaphobic site to which Bogdanor contributes  as a columnist
6.            
Bogdanor said that Lenni Brenner’s book Zionism
in the Age of the Dictators was
a
favourite amongst those who believe that ‘Zionists’ are to blame for all evil
in the world.  I suggested that this was
a McCarthyite guilt by association.  Bogdanor
however took exception to me pointing out that he wrote several articles for
the racist anti-Islamic Frontpage.com and
its Jihad Watch offshoot.  Bogdanor’s response
was I have never contributed to this site’, it ‘merely re-posted three
articles’
which Bogdanor had published elsewhere.  Frontpage.com
however describes him as a columnist.  Even
if Frontpage.com merely reprinted his
articles, Bogdanor is a racist Islamaphobe according to his own logic!  David Horowitz who runs Frontpage.com, wrote a book to which Bogdanor contributed.
7.            
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.  Bogdanor’s response
is that silence is the better part of valour!

8.            
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 ‘
perpetrating the Holocaust in
collaboration with the Nazis’
. This is yet another lie.  Bogdanor cannot provide any quote to
substantiate his allegation.
9.            
I pointed out that those who alleged Nazi-Zionist collaboration
in the Kasztner trial in Israel weren’t far leftist apologists for Hitler but
survivors of the Hungarian holocaust.  Again
Bogdanor prefers to hold his tongue.

10.        
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.  ‘What
about Palestine’ was Wise’s response before the Senate when a Rescue Bill was
proposed.  Wise was wrong footed when
asked if he was prepared to jeopardize saving Jews for the sake of
Palestine.  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’t
disavow Bergson and his committee.
[27]  Again Bogdanor chose not to comment.
Ha’avara broke the Jewish Boycott of Nazi Germany
11.        
I quoted from a Review by Elie Wiesel of Tom Segev’s pioneering
book, The Seventh Million, on Zionism’s record during the Holocaust.  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.  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.  He said of Ha’avara, the Transfer agreement
negotiated between Nazi Germany, that

There developed a
growing perception that instead of supporting and strengthening the boycott,
Palestine was, in fact, sabotaging it.’ 
Wiesel described how Itzhak Gruenbaum, Chairman
of the Jewish Agency’s Rescue Committee, ‘considered
creating new settlements more urgent than saving Jews from being sent to
Treblinka and Birkenau
.’  Wiesel
described how ‘There 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]  What was Bogdanor’s response?  Nothing, not a word.
12.        
The evidence concerning Ha’avara, is clear.  ‘The Ha’avara agreement would in the end shore
up the Jewish Agency – then almost bankrupt – and grant it renewed momentum’
which is why ‘two 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.’
[29] 

Edwin Black notes that by June 1933 ‘the spectre of collapse was hovering over
the Third Reich.
’  The Reichsbank had
only RM 280m in gold and foreign-exchange reserves, less than half that of
1932.  In the first quarter of 1933
Germany’s export surplus was down from RM 94 million to RM 44 million.
On July 2nd, the Conference of
Institutions in Palestine, including Histadrut , the Manufacturer’s Association
and other Zionist groups, met to discuss how best to co-ordinate opposition to
the Boycott.[30]  Goebbels at the annual NSDAP conference in
September 1933 described the Boycott as ‘causing
us much concern.  It hangs over us like a
cloud.
’’ [31]
Black, a Zionist historian noted: ‘the Nazi party and the Zionist Organization
shared a common stake in the recovery of Germany.  If the Hitler economy fell, both sides would
be ruined.’
[32]   Ha’avara was directly responsible for
preventing the anti-Nazi crusade succeeding.[33]  The actions of the ZO had allowed Hitler to
drive a wedge into the world-wide boycott of German goods.[34]
‘The 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…’ [35]
Bogdanor’s
response was to say that Ha’avara 
was 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’s assets, from the clutches of the Nazis. Contrary to
Greenstein, the boycott of Germany did not save anyone.
Bogdanor can’t quite bring himself to
defend Ha’avara but he makes the best possible case for it.  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.  The Boycott
had a chance of toppling Hitler when he was weak.  20,000 German Jews used Ha’avara’s provisions
to emigrate to Palestine but they were rich Jews who would have found little
difficulty in emigrating to other destinations. 
Ha’avara gave the Nazi government breathing space with which to
consolidate.

Black wrote that:

The
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…’ [36]

What was Bogdanor’s response?  There wasn’t one.

13.        
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
everything
in those days to promote emigration, particularly to Palestine.”
[37]  What was Bogdanor’s response?  Nothing.

14.        
I quoted an article by Joachim Doron which stated that

It 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.

I also cited the letter of Kurt Blumenfeld of the ZVfD to Germany’s
Foreign Minister Walter Rathenau, who was assassinated in 1922, saying that ‘Under no circumstance does a Jew have
the right to represent the affairs of another people.’
[38]  What was Bogdanor’s response?  Nothing.
15.        
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.  Brenner quoted Prinz:
‘Everyone in
Germany knew that only the Zionists could responsibly represent the Jews in
dealing with the Nazi government.  We all
felt sure that one day the government would arrange a round table conference
with the Jews… there was no country in the world which tried to solve the
Jewish problem as seriously as did Germany… It was our Zionist dream!…
Dissimilation?  It was our own appeal!…’ [39]
Bogdanor
believes that Prinz’s complaints that the Zionists were ‘miserably treated’,
and not very politely at that, cancels out the above.
16.        
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’s archivist at Ben-Gurion University in the Negev knew or
heard of it.
17.        
I cited two
Zionist historians – Noah Lucas and Christopher Sykes – 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.  Even Ben-Gurion’s own, official biographer,
Shabtai Teveth concluded that :
‘Ben-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.’  .[40]
Bogdanor
chose not to comment when I cited Teveth’s conclusion that ‘‘‘If
there was a line in Ben-Gurion’s mind between the beneficial disaster and an
all-destroying catastrophe, it must have been a very fine one.’
  
18.        
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.  I cited Shabtai Beit-Zvi on
how
On March 23, 1943, Davar was
reprimanded by Yosef Gravitzky, the managing editor of the Jewish Agency’s
Palcor news agency, for copying from a Nazi paper, Ostland, a “report” 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]   
Porter
notes how ‘the Jewish press in Palestine
treated the extermination of Hungarian Jews with silence’.
[42]
Davar
and the Zionist press were not alone. 
Berl Katznelson’s ‘silence
concerning the Holocaust was almost complete, his biographer noted
.’[43]  The agenda of the May 1943 meeting of the
Histadrut Executive Committee listed ‘rescue efforts’ as 6th of 8
items on the agenda.  Dead Sea
developments and May Day celebrations took priority.[44]  At the Mapai meeting of December 1938,
shortly after Kristallnacht, Ben-Gurion confessed that ‘In 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.’
[45]
Bogdanor chose not to comment on the above or the
copious evidence of Shabtai Beit Zvi that the Zionist press chose to downplay
the holocaust.
119.  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.  I can only assume that
Bogdanor choses not to comment because it is impossible to defend Kasztner’s
behaviour.  Since Bogdanor’s first
loyalty is to Zionism, not to Jews, he prefers to remain silent.
Bogdanor’s
Other Half Truths and Deceptions
Rescue Only to
Palestine
According to Bogdanor it is ablatant falsehood that the Zionists opposed
saving Jews unless they went to Palestine.’
Bogdanor dismisses all evidence to the contrary.  The letter from Rabbi Solomon Schonfeld is
dismissed as ‘a letter in the press from
an anti-Zionist rabbi
.’ [46] Schonfeld,
was Chairman of the Chief Rabbi’s Rescue Committee.  He was appointed by the Chief Rabbi Joseph
Hertz, who was a Zionist.  To
Bogdanor  the mere fact of being an
anti-Zionist is enough to dismiss his letter. 
Who was this ‘anti-Zionist rabbi’?  According to Wikipedia:
‘Schonfeld 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.
This explains, in part, some of his daring and innovative rescue style. His
rescue activities were under auspices of the Chief Rabbi’s Religious Emergency
Council, which he created with approval of Chief
Rabbi
Joseph
H. Hertz
, his father-in-law.’  

Rabbi
Schonfeld wrote regarding a Parliamentary resolution calling for the rescuing
of Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany that
At
the Parliamentary meeting held on January 27, 1943, …. 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?’
Most
decent people would condemn this policy of the Zionists, which is confirmed
even by historians.  Bogdanor however
cannot tolerate any criticism of the Zionist policy which preferred that if
Palestine could not receive the refugees then no one should.  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.
Bogdanor
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.  Words are cheap, but the actions of the
Zionist movement in 1943 in opposing emigration to anywhere but Palestine were
what counted.
Similarly
Bogdanor cites a statement from Ben-Gurion that called for the rescue of Jewish children regardless of the destination.  However when concrete initiatives such as the
Evian conference arose, the Zionists opposed such initiatives.
According to Bogdanor I ‘repeat(s) the blatant
falsehood that the Zionists opposed saving Jews unless they went to Palestine
.’  Yet he fails to refer to Ben-Gurion’s comment
regarding the Kindertransport which saved 10,000 German Jewish children. 

If 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]

In this one statement Ben-Gurion summed up the Zionist policy towards
Rescue.
The only time that the Jewish Agency spent money on rescue was when it
brought prestige to the Zionist movement: ‘The
fact that the Jews of Palestine stand at the fore of a rescue front is an
important Zionist asset.
’  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, ‘Do they know there that the help comes from
Palestine?
’  This money however was
only for those who could come to Palestine. 
Ben-Gurion ‘laid 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.’
[48]
Building the
Jewish State takes priority over Rescue
Bogdanor
doesn’t comment on Ben-Gurion’s statement that ‘the disaster facing European Jewry is not directly my
business….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.’   
Bogdanor puts forward the preposterous theory citing
Tuvia Friling that ‘Gruenbaum’s
committee was never meant to be anything but a political lightning rod’
and
that ‘the real Zionist rescue work was
assigned to the Zionist network in Turkey, since (in Ben-Gurion’s view) it had to
be done covertly.’

It is strange that no one else seems to have
heard of this rescue work.  The rescue
work in Turkey concerned Aliyah Bet, the secret Zionist immigration to
Palestine –  nothing more.  At most it saved 6,000 Zionist
activists.  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. 
It took until February 1943 before the Jewish
Agency financed a trip by Shlomo Adler–Rudely to Sweden, a key neutral country
adjacent to Norway, Denmark and the Baltic Republics.  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. 
In Portugal in April 1943 there was a half-hearted sending of an
emissary, Wilfrid Israel to coordinate and expand rescue work.  When he was killed in June it took a further
3 months to send Fritz Lichtenstein.  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.  Dina Porat commented that ‘Istanbul was made the centre of the
Yishuv’s rescue operations in the neutral countries.  Was this because its location facilitated
rescue operations and the extension of help, or because it could serve as an
immigration route to Palestine?  In other
words was the primary consideration rescue or Zionism?
[49]
Shabtai
Beit Zvi, who Bogdanor cites when it is convenient, noted how, in almost all
his speeches, Ben-Gurion ‘speaks about
the prospects the Holocaust may open up for Zionism.’
  Ben-Gurion in 1941 stated that ‘all the significant steps in the progress of
Zionism were always related to the intensification of Jewish distress.’
[50]
Bogdanor portrays Yitzhak Gruenbaum as being
isolated on the JAE but doesn’t explain why he was not replaced.
Bogdanor says nothing about the suppression of the
Auschwitz Protocols by Kasztner and Schwalb. 
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.  As Yad Vashem’s Professor Yisrael Gutman
admitted, the Protocols were suppressed to ensure the safety of the train of
the Prominents (Kasztner’s words) out of Hungary.
The Judenrat and Zionist collaborators in Nazi Occupied Europe
Citing Isaiah Trunk’s book on the Judenrat (Jewish Councils) in Eastern
Europe, I stated that ‘Over two-thirds of the Judenrat (67.1%)
consisted of Zionist supporters of all factions.’
[51]  Bogdanor
disputes this. 
Bogdanor doesn’t try his normal trick of trying to discredit Trunk’s
study.  Instead he writes
that:  ‘Jewish Council members who not
only survived the Holocaust but also agreed to answer Trunk’s questions were
hardly representative of the whole.’
Bogdanor gives no reason for making
this statement.
Trunk based his conclusions on the replies he received to a
Questionnaire from former Judenrat members. 
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.  Trunk had no hesitation in
drawing statistical conclusions from the questionnaires he received so why,
apart from the fact that he doesn’t like the conclusions, does Bogdanor try to
discredit Trunk’s findings? 
Bogdanor states regarding the Judenrat Chairman of the Lodz Ghetto,
Chaim Rumkowski, that Greenstein
asserts, without quotations or page references, that he was readmitted to the
Zionist movement after his expulsion from it.’
  Perhaps Bogdanor’s failed to see the
reference to Michael Ungar’s book, Reassessment of the Image of Mordechai Chaim Rumkowski, p.12. 
It is true that I
didn’t 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’s youth organisation SKIF which
picketed outside the Judenrat’s office, declaring “Rumkowski, you are our misfortune.” [52] 
The Judenrat and
Jewish Police in the Polish ghettos were the object of ‘rage… and contempt… universal loathing.’ [53]  In the summer of 1940 in Lodz, there were ‘stormy street demonstrations’ against
Rumkowski and the Lodz Judenrat.  The
same was true in Lublin, Czestochowa and other ghettos.[54]  In February 1943 ‘a general strike swept the
Lodz Ghetto because of the launching of mass-executions by the Nazis.  The strike was successful; the executions
were halted.’ [55] 
(ix) The Slovakia and Europa Plans
Bogdanor states that I am ‘compelled’
to agree with him, ‘against Brenner’
in respect of the Slovakia/Europa Plans. 
I know it must be a distressing concept to Bogdanor but he isn’t at the
centre of holocaust research!  In fact I
agreed with Rudolf Vrba and Anna Porter’s Kasztner’s Train not Bogdanor’s
worthless scribblings!

(x) The Brand Mission
 Bogdanor is correct that I disagree with Lenni
Brenner re Brand’s Blood for Trucks mission. 
The Brand mission went hand in hand with Zionist collaboration in
Hungary.  It is absurd to suggest that
the Jewish Agency in Palestine took the Brand mission seriously because ‘
they were so
desperate to take advantage of any opportunity’
to save Jews.  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]
There 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. 
The latter was a Nazi proposal. 
Clearly the Jewish Agency wasn’t going to say no they didn’t want 10,000
rather than a million Jews.  However this
offer was wholly abstract.  The fact that
the deportations to Auschwitz began two days before Kasztner’s deputy, Joel
Brand, flew to Turkey, demonstrates the unreality of the offer.  The real mission was not Brand’s but the person
who accompanied him, Gestapo agent Bandi Grosz.[57]
Diplomatic negotiations were something the Zionist leaders were
accustomed to.  Resistance was something
they foreswore.  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. 
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.  Segev described the feelings of guilt and self-recriminations
of the Zionist leadership.  ‘One Mapai leader said, ‘We heard and knew
about the atrocities… but we paid no attention.
’  A member of the Mapai executive committee
predicted that the Jewish Agency would find itself in the dock after the
war.   ‘Shame on us’ said Golda Meir.’ [58]
The Brand proposals were about the Jewish Agency creating an alibi for its
previous indifference to the situation of the Jews in Europe.

The Kasztner Train
According to Bogdanor it is a ‘triple falsehood’ that the [Hungarian]
Zionists organised a train of 1,684 Jews, with hundreds of Kasztner’s relatives,
the Jewish bourgeoisie and the Zionists.  The train out of Hungary involved ‘all streams’ of the Hungarian Jewish leadership
and it included ‘Jews from all walks of
life’.
Kasztner himself referred to the ‘Train of the Prominents’ in his ‘Report
Of The Jewish Rescue Committee From Budapest 1942-1945’Kasztner writes:

I 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’
[59]

Ladislau Lob, a
child passenger on the train admitted that ‘it
cannot be denied that the group was top-heavy with the elite of Hungarian
Jewry.’
and he cites Peretz Revesz who stated that most of those on the
train were Zionists.[60]  Ben Hecht wrote that

‘Instead of picking Jews from any “outlying towns,”
he picks three hundred and eighty-eight Jews from Kluj alone. They are the
“best,” the most important members of Kluj Jewry—mainly Zionists. He includes
also his own family.’ [61]

Shmuel Tamir, defense counsel for Malchiel Greenwald in the libel action
that Kasztner brought but effectively the prosecutor of Kasztner alleged that

‘a 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. “We charge
that these 380 people (we are all happy they remained alive) were not an
achievement but the price for sacrificing the many thousands.’ [62]

Judge Halevi found that:

‘The Nazi organizers of extermination… 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… during the time of its fatal deportation schedule…. In short, the Nazis
succeeded in bringing the Jewish leaders into collaboration with the Nazis at
the time of the catastrophe.’ [63]

 Halevi found that ‘The possibility of saving the prominents of
the provincial towns and Budapest appealed to him also from the public
aspect.  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…’
[64]
Rudolph Vrba, one of five Jewish escapees from Auschwitz, wrote in February
1961, in the London Daily Herald:

I am a Jew. In spite of that—indeed because of
that—I accuse certain Jewish leaders of one of the most ghastly deeds of the
war.  This small group of quislings knew
what was happening to their brethren in Hitler’s 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.

While I was prisoner number 44070 at
Auschwitz—the number is still on my arm—I 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, ‘I know of your plans; spare some Jews of my
choice and I shall keep quiet.’

The 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]
Bogdanor says that his paper ‘did
not express any view’
on whether Kasztner was a collaborator.  Why? 
Is it painful to admit that the leader of the Zionist movement in
Hungary was a collaborator?  He wasn’t
the only Zionist collaborator, albeit the best known.  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.  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? 
Bogdanor believes that the fact that ‘the
Zionist leaders in Palestine repeatedly called for a Hungarian Jewish revolt
against the Nazi occupiers, not collaboration with them’
excuses what they
actually did.  Words are cheap.  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.  Shabtai
Beit-Zvi recalled how Melech Neustadt, of the Jewish Agency Executive and
Poalei Zion pointed out that ‘Zionist
movement activists in the countries of the Holocaust are angry and embittered
that no help is forthcoming.’

Neustadt 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’s
conclusion… “Send regards to no one. I
don’t want to know about them.”
Neustadt admits: “Do not think that this is characteristic of just one movement. This is
the opinion of all the haverim in
all the movements.” … “If I knew they were not right, I would think—they 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?”
[66]
Eichmann
Bogdanor defends Kasztner by suggesting that Eichmann’s interview with Dutch
Nazi journalist William Sassen, which described his relationship with Kasztner,
cannot be trusted.   Eichmann boasted of his role in the Holocaust.  Bogdanor asks ‘Is he unaware that Nazi mass murderers – and Eichmann above all – were
pathological liars?’
  Is it a
principle that one never quotes or cites what Nazis or mass murderers say?  Maybe one should not quote Nazi documents too?  Sometimes even liars tell the truth.  Or maybe Bogdanor is an exception to the rule?
Randolph Braham, the historian of the Hungarian Holocaust is obviously unaware
of Bogdanor’s maxim.  In footnote 108,
p.720 in his 2 volume ‘Politics of Genocide’ Braham quotes from Eichmann’s
interview in Life Magazine.  Perhaps Braham should have paid heed to that
great historian Paul Bogdanor?
The Nizkor Project, run
by B’nai Brith Canada, which is dedicated to countering Holocaust denial
carries the Eichmann’s interview as reprinted in
Life Magazine of 28/11/60 and 5/12/60. It is powerful evidence against those
who would deny the Holocaust.  There is
no principle that everything a war criminal says is untrue.  It should be evaluated like any other
evidence. 
Selectivity
Kasztner’s Defence Counsel, Attorney General Chaim
Cohen stated that:

If
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? [67] 

Bogdanor denies that there was a Zionist policy of “Selectivity”, yet he
had no response to the quote from Chaim Cohen (above) other than that his ‘remit
was to defend the Kasztner Train.’ which was the price that Kasztner extracted
in return for co-operating in the round up for deportation of half a million Hungarian
Jews. 
By suppressing the Auschwitz Protocols and then reassuring the Hungarian
Jews that they were being ‘resettled’ and not exterminated Kasztner and the
Jewish Agency were complicit in their extermination.  Joseph Katz, a lawyer from the town of
Nodvarod, four miles from the Rumania border, testified that ‘the 20,000 Jews of Nodvarod knew nothing of
the extermination program.’
 He had
been told the Jews were being resettled, for their own good, in Kenyermeze.
Tamir: ‘Did you know how to use arms?’
Katz: ‘Yes. It was easy to escape into
Rumania. Jews were safe in Rumania at that time. Some sceptics did
escape—because they didn’t like the Nodvarod atmosphere.’
[68]
In his Judgment Judge Halevi found that

The 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. 

Thousands 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. ‘The same public leaders spread
in Kluj and Nodvarod the false rumour of Kenyermeze ‘these same leaders did not
join the people of their community in their ride to Auschwitz, but were all
included in the Rescue train.’ [69]
Bogdanor
says that it is a ‘falsehood’ that “Saving Jews for the Zionists
was conditional on those Jews going to Palestine.”  
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’s victims.’
Bogdanor believes that ritual declarations, prove his case.  One judges people by their actions not by
their words.  The Zionists were proud of
ritual declarations but their record was at variance with their words. 
On 17 December 1938 Ben-Gurion, in a private memo to
the Zionist Executive (as opposed to a public declaration) said that: 

‘The fate of Jews in Germany is not an end but a
beginning.  Other anti-Semitic states
will learn from Hitler.  Millions of Jews
face annihilation, the refugee problem has assumed worldwide proportions, and
urgency.  Britain is trying to separate
the issue of the refugees from that of Palestine….  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.’
[70]

Another Zionist historian, Robert Silverberg noted that 

The 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.  Yet ample evidence exists that
the Zionist movement valued the pressure created by Europe’s mass of refugees
and that many Zionists did not want that pressure dissipated by emigration to
lands outside Palestine.  One wartime ZOA
[Zionist Organisation of America] president
[Rabbi Abba Hillel Silver,
President (1945-1947)] had declared that:

I 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.” [71]

When 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.  At a meeting of the Jewish Agency Executive
of 26.6.38. Yitzhak Gruenbaum spoke of the
Immense dangers loom from the Evian Conference:
(1) It could mark the end of Palestine as a land of immigration. … (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.
Beit Zvi  
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
He only wants to point out that he finds Dr. Landauer’s 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?
In other words even
though Palestine was incapable of absorbing many refugees, the Zionist leaders
still opposed emigration to other countries. 
Menachem Ussishkin, of the JAE Executive was
very 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. … 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’s) 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…’ [72]
Christopher Sykes, the son of Sir Mark Sykes of Sykes-Picot fame, and
very pro-Zionist, described the Zionists’ attitude to the Evian Conference:
The
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…
If
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.  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]
Bogdanor’s
allegation that Brenner argued,
Germany’s Jews should have been left to their fate.’
is simply untrue.  What Brenner
opposed was attempt by the Zionists to ensure that Jewish refugees could only
go to Palestine.
Introduction to the Nuremberg Laws
Bogdanor claims
that my quote from “the Introduction to the Nuremberg
Laws,” is a ‘total fabrication: no
“introduction” to the Nuremberg Laws stated anything of the kind.’
   My sins are compounded because I am ‘reduced to citing the communist journal
Khamsin’
.  Khamsin, which was indeed an
excellent publication, described itself as ‘a
journal published by revolutionary socialists of the Middle East… it is part of
the struggles for social liberation and against nationalist and religious
mystifications
.’  Bogdanor is more
interested in his red-baiting, McCarthyist smears than the content of Khamsin.  Only someone with a fascist mentality would consider
describing his opponents as ‘communists’
as a clinching argument.
If Bogdanor cannot locate the quotation perhaps he should ask his father
Vernon to show him how to use Oxford University’s library search facilities. 
The English translation of the Introduction to the Nuremberg Laws is:

‘If
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.’ [74]

The original German is:

Hätten
die Juden bereits einen eigenen Staat indem die Masse ihres Volkes zuhause
wäre, so könnte die Judenfrage schon heute als gelöst gelten, auch für die
Juden selbst. Gerade von den überzeugten Zionisten ist deshalb
am wenigsten Widerspruch gegen die Grundgedanken der Nürnberger
Gesetze erhoben worden, weil sie einmal wissen, daß diese gesetze auch für
das jüdische Volk die einzig richtige Lösung darstellen

This is quoted directly from Nürnberger Gesetze 5
Auflage (5th edition), Berlin, 1939, pp 13-14.
Bogdanor provides us with a footnote which states:
‘There 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’s communist source mangled
the quotation.’ 
Bogdanor’s arrogance is matched only by his
ignorance.  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.  The quote, slightly amended, can be found in
both Nicosia’s The Third Reich and the Palestine Question (p.53) and Zionism
and Anti-Semitism in Nazi Germany (p.108). 
Not surprisingly it is consistent with the Introduction to the Nuremberg
Laws.
But regardless of the sources, Losener clearly
understood that the Zionists had least objection to the laws.

The German Volk and
Poppel

A good example of Bogdanor’s
attempts to elide two different things into one is his treatment of Brenner’s
citation of Stephen Poppel.  Bogdanor
writes that ‘
According to Brenner, ‘the German Zionists agreed with two
fundamental elements in Nazi ideology,’ namely ‘that the Jews would never be
part of the German volk and, therefore, they did not belong on German
soil’. This being the case, ‘it was inevitable that some Zionists would believe
an accommodation possible.’
(Brenner 1983: 35)
Bogdanor then proceeds to argue that Brenner ‘substantiate(d) these
assertions’ by invoking Poppel, ‘who in
fact wrote the exact opposite on the very page he cited.’
 Bogdanor quotes Poppel as saying that the ‘Zionists were unanimous in condemning Nazi
brutality and racism.’
(Poppel 1976: 161) 
Further Poppel quoted from an official declaration of the ZVfD that
stated that: ‘Zionism condemns a
nationalism whose foundations include the conviction of the inferiority of
other national groups…. Zionism… demand(s) the protection of full equality and
freedom, and of the development of our own nature.
’ (Poppel 1976: 161-2)
Apparently
this ‘disposed of Brenner’s fiction about
Zionists agreeing with Nazis ‘that the Jews would never be part of the German volk
and, therefore, they did not belong on German soil’
.   It did nothing of the sort. 
Nothing
that Bogdanor quotes from Poppel contradicts Zionist’s belief that Jews could
not be part of the German volk.  What the
Zionists complained about was a nationalism that believed in the inferiority of
other national groups and which indulged in violence and brutality.  The clue, though Bogdanor obviously doesn’t
understand it, is in the very phrase he himself cites ‘Zionism… demand(s)… the development of our own nature.’  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.’ 
Unfortunately
for the Zionists the Nazis German nationalism was based on racial supremacy and
racial hierarchies.  Zionism behaved in a
similar way towards the Arabs in Palestine.  
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 “Selection of the
Fittest” [75]  where Ruppin supported

‘a
selective policy for immigration to Eretz Israel. The article opens with a
discussion on the importance of the selection of human material…. The framework
of the entire article …evokes eugenics.’ [76]

Ruppin described in his diary how, on August 11, he had travelled to
Jenna:

to meet Prof. Hans F.K. Günther, the founder of
National-Socialist race theory. The conversation lasted two hours. Günther 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]

Eitan Bloom writes of how

The idea of segregation was central to Ruppin’s eugenic
planning… in order to produce a culture of their own, the Jews had to live…
separated from any other culture… the Jew needed to be segregated in a space
that would enable him to be among his like; only such “kinship of race” would
encourage him to be healthy and creative.’[78]

Hans Günther, a
member of the Nazi party from 1929, was Himmler’s ideological mentor and ‘the highest scientific authority concerning
racial theory.
[79].  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.  Gunther
praised Zionism ‘for recognizing the
genuine racial consciousness (Volkstum) of the Jews.
[80] 
Ruppin saw in
Günther’s writings ‘a treasure chest of
material.’
[81]  Amos Morris-Reich, asked why, even in the
privacy of his diary, Ruppin described the conversation as a ‘pleasant encounter’?’ [82]  
Eitan Bloom suggested that this was because ‘both of them had published, at almost the
same time, their anthropological-racial studies concerning the Jews, both very
similar in method and content
.’ [83]  Ruppin published his ‘Sociology of the Jews’,
‘which incorporated many of Günther’s
ideas and theories in the text.’
The encounter between Günther and Ruppin had also
important practical implications, and, from this aspect, must be seen as part
of Ruppin’s series of “friendly” 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] 
Bloom suggests that Ruppin’s meetings were ‘preliminary discussions for the Transfer
Agreement’
 and that ‘Ruppin wanted to send, via Günther, 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’s deep understanding of
the therapeutic and eugenic dimension of such an agreement.
[85]  The reference to suitable ‘human material’ in respect of Jewish
immigration to Palestine was a common one. 
The fact that Ruppin was a prominent member of the Jewish Agency
Executive speaks volumes.

The Memo that
the German Zionist Federation Sent to Hitler
Bogdanor
has some difficulty defending the memo that the ZVfD sent to Hitler on 21st
June 1933.  He does this by telling us
what it didn’t contain! But even Bogdanor would have found it difficult to
support what it did contain.  He wrote:
Nowhere
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.
Perhaps
we are expected to be grateful that the Zionists didn’t support Aryan racial
supremacy or a war against the Jews, including extermination!  Of course the declaration that the Zionists
were also opposed to mixed marriages and in favour of ‘maintaining the purity
of the Jewish group’ is a bit embarrassing. 
The memo clearly demonstrated the ideological agreement between the
Zionists and the Hitlerites.  The memo read:
On 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’t wish to falsify these
fundamentals, because we too, are against mixed marriages and are for
maintaining the purity of the Jewish group…. 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…
is in essence fundamentally unZionist, because Zionism wants not to do battle
but to convince and to build.[86]
In an interview with Lenni
Brenner many years later, Rabbi Prinz acknowledged that
We
thought that, after all, they are nationalists, we are also, Jewish
nationalists, and therefore we had something in common…. We were mistaken. It
was a romantic notion. We thought now, listen, there’s a German government now,
based upon a German nationalism. Well, let’s sit down together and talk to
them. But it never happened. [87]
Prinz hoped that through
discussions with ‘intellectuals in the SS
movement”
that the Nazis would say, “Yes,
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.”
[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.
Zionists – the
favourite children of the Nazis
In response to my citation from Lucy Dawidowicz’s book War on the Jews, that the Zionists were
the Nazis favourite Jews, Bogdanor denies that she was a “Zionist historian” –
apparently she was ‘a supporter of the anti-Zionist Bund’.  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.  There is though no doubt that Dawidowicz was
an ardent Zionist.  As Wikipedia states:
A passionate Zionist,
Dawidowicz believed that had the Mandate for Palestine
been implemented as intended, establishing the Jewish State of Israel
prior to the Holocaust,
“the terrible story of six million dead might have had another
outcome”
.[7]
Dawidowicz
defended Joan Peter’s forgery ‘From Time
Immemorial’
which argued that the Palestinians weren’t the indigenous
population of Palestine.  David
Remnick called the
book “an ideological tract disguised as
history”, “propaganda”
and “pseudo-scholarship”. 
It ‘won 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, and many others who dismantled its
pseudo-scholarship. Even some right-wing critics, like Daniel Pipes, who
initially reviewed the book positively,
later admitted that Peters’s work was shoddy and
“ignores inconvenient facts.
[89]
Instead 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.  
Dawidowicz 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:
the 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’s
leadership.’  These organisations
therefore ‘are not to be treated with that strictness that it is necessary to
apply to the members of the so-called German-Jewish organizations
(assimilationists).’ [90]
In
May 1935 Schwarze Korps, paper of the SS, wrote in a similar vein:
the 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.  [91]
There is no
doubt that the Zionists were the favoured children of the Nazis.  In 1933 the first head of the Gestapo’s
Jewish desk, Baron von Mildenstein made a 6 month trip to Palestine whereas:   
Non-Zionist
or anti-Zionist Jewish  organizations…
were specifically targeted and closely scrutinized for any indication that they
might seem to promote assimilationist or deutschnationale  agendas…
In November 1934
the Gestapo explained that:  ‘The state police intends to promote Zionism
as much as possible, and to support its emigration efforts.  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.’
 The same
quotes that Dawidowicz used were also used by Francis Nicosia, Professor of
Holocaust Studies at Vermont University.  
Nicosia ascribed
the statement that ‘the 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.’
to the Political Police in Bavaria, the Gestapo,
whereas Dawidowicz located it as part of Heydrich’s January directive.. [92]

Feivel Polkes

‘as
the [SS] report makes clear, Polkes was offering to become a Nazi spy against
his fellow Jews, not for the Haganah.’ 
Bogdanor 1
Nowhere did I even hint that the offer by Polkes was in any way
“acceptable.” Bogdanor 2

Why then did Bogdanor make the absurd distinction between spying
for Haganah and spying against fellow Jews?
‘the 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 
Bogdanor cites Nicosia when it suits him Bogdanor 1 and ignores him when it is inconvenient.  ‘The
Haganah encouraged Polkes to stay in close contact with Reichert
[of the
DNB news agency] and to track his moves.’  ‘In the
spring of 1936… the Haganah… instructed Polkes to convince Reichert that the
Arabs were not worth Germany’s support…. 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.’
[93]
Reichert even covered the cost of the Berlin leg of Polkes European
trip. 

‘In Berlin,, Polkes told Eichmann and other
members of the SD of the Haganah’s 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.  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… He claimed to hold an important
position in the Haganah  The SD and
Gestapo were certainly receptive to Polkes’s overtures, concluding that he
might be an important source of information for the SD’s intelligence work.’ [94]

‘Eichmann… was authorized to accept an
invitation from Polkes to visit Palestine later that year.’
   Nicosia says Eichmann and
Herbert Hagen, who accompanied him, didn’t meet Polkes in Palestine whereas
Brenner says they did meet and that Polkes followed them to Alexandria after
Eichmann was expelled from Palestine.  As
Nicosia observes
clearly Nazi authorities thought the Polkes
connection important enough to go along with Reichert’s invitation to Polkes to
visit Berlin and for Eichmann to accept Polkes’s invitation to visit Palestine
for follow up discussions…. The SD hoped to obtain information through the
Polkes contact on several issues that it thought important at the time.  For instance, it believed the Haganah
possessed reliable information on alleged Jewish plans to assassinate German
officials, including Hitler
Nicosia says it isn’t ‘entirely 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.’ 
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]
‘nor can he deny that the Haganah dismissed
Polkes upon learning of his conduct.’
Bogdanor 2
According to Nicosia, Polkes ‘was
eventually relieved of his responsibilities’
however it is clear that
Haganah did indeed run Polkes and encourage his contacts with Reichert,
Eichmann’s visit to Palestine and Polkes’s subsequent visit to Germany.  Bogdanor’s attempts to suggest that Polkes
was a free agent is not credible. 
However Polkes file in Israel has not been opened to researchers.

(v) Lehi’s
“collusion with the Fascists and the Nazis” – Jewish Army
Bogdanor states that ‘there was
never any collaboration between Lehi and the Nazis; the aim of Lehi’s 1941
offer was to achieve the emigration of millions of Jews from Nazi-occupied
Europe’.
 
Although you wouldn’t know it from Bogdanor’s 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.
According to
Bogdanor there was no collaboration. 
Offering a military pact to the Nazis would count as collaboration in
most peoples’ minds.  Bogdanor is like
the 3  wise monkeys – he can neither see,
hear nor speak evil when Zionism is involved. 
He tells us that Lehi offered a military pact with the Nazis in order to
save Jews! 
Segev wrote that
Lehi offered to help Nazi Germany in its war against the British.  The rationale was that the Nazis were ‘the enemy of our enemy – the British.’  [96]  Apparently helping the Nazis militarily would
have aided millions of Jews!
Bogdanor suggests that the ‘whole
purpose of a Jewish army was to fight the Nazis’
.  This is nonsense.  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.  The Jewish Brigade had a political
not military purpose.  ‘The leaders of the Yishuv made a great
effort to convince the British to establish a Jewish Brigade.  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.’
[97] 

(vii) The
Gruenbaum speech
Wriggle as he might, Bogdanor cannot deny that the Chairman of the
Jewish Agency’s Rescue Committee, Yitzhak Gruenbaum, stated that

when some asked me: Can’t 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.’

According to Bogdanor I am ‘forced
to admit (that) the Zionist leaders in Palestine vehemently opposed Gruenbaum’s
refusal to prioritise the rescue work.
’ 
Not true.  I accepted that the
majority of the JAE opposed Gruenbaum. Bogdanor however indulges in selective
quotation. 
I cited Shabtai Beit Zvi’s conclusion that this opposition was purely
verbal.  The opposition to Gruenbaum did
not follow up their words with actions. 
Bogdanor deliberately did not quote Shabtai beit Zvi’s conclusions,
because they contradicted his thesis.  If
the Zionist opposition in the JAE had indeed been ‘vehement’ then surely they would have sacked Gruenbaum from his
position as Chairman of the Rescue Committee? 
Beit Zvi wrote that:
‘‘Gruenbaum did not backtrack one iota from his
opinion regarding the subordinate place of the rescue enterprise as compared
with the “war of redemption.” …  the
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
.’ [98] (my emphasis)
Gruenbaum’s position of prioritising Zionist work over rescue work won
out.  Since Bogdanor’s eyesight is
clearly failing I have emboldened the relevant sentence!

Hehalutz – Zionist
Youth
Bogdanor claims that ‘Another
flagrant falsification’
is the claim that “Hehalutz are believed to
have saved 5,000 of their own cadres
but
that was not rescue of Hungarian Jews in general.
” Bogdanor claims that
Hehalutz ‘saved the lives of tens of
thousands of Jews – as many as 100,000, according to one estimate.
’  No doubt Bogdanor can find some Zionist
writer who will claim that a million Hungarian Jews were saved, however this is
not serious history.
Randolph Braham,
the most authoritative historian of the Hungarian holocaust and himself a
survivor of the labour service wrote of the HeHalutz that:

‘Their
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.’
  In a footnote Braham notes that Yehuda Bauer,
the Zionist holocaust historian of Yad Vashem, ‘states 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.’

(xii) The Zionist
paratroopers
Bogdanor asks whether Brenner and myself are ‘admitting 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’s position that the Zionist movement
collaborated with the Nazis?’
Bogdanor does not get it. 
Certainly the Zionist movement, towards the end of the war, sent a few
dozen paratroopers to Europe courtesy of the British.  The bravery of the participants
notwithstanding, it was an utterly futile, symbolic exercise with no chance of
succeeding.  The Zionist leadership in
Palestine decided on a symbolic show of support which was a hindrance to the
Jewish resistance groups in Europe.  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. 
But that was all it was, a symbol of Zionist nationalist heroism rather
than a concrete contribution to those who were resisting the Nazis.  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. 
As Shabtai Beit Zvi noted, ‘Surprisingly, 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.  And 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:  ‘Really,
why did you come? … Did all of you, Haviva too, you three also, think it was a
kids’ game here?  You wanted to be
heroes? Spies? Why?…  I know what
you’ll say: you want to help, to represent the Yishuv in Eretz-Israel…. Who
summoned you? Who needs you?… You came here to play at soldiering… You’re
proud and you show off your independence, as though you came to us as
representatives of some kind of Eretz-Israel master race.’ … And suddenly a few
‘heroes’ 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’s slaughterhouse… Excuse me, but I must say that you have
done an irresponsible act. … You should never have come from there to here. And
didn’t 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!’
[99]
Auschwitz
Protocols Reach the West
Bogdanor suggests that I ‘minimise(s)
the role of Moshe Krausz, head of the Jewish Agency’s Palestine Office in
Budapest, in smuggling the Auschwitz Protocols to the free world.’
  Not at all. 
Krausz was a dissident Zionist, a member of Mizrahi.  Krausz detested Kasztner’s relationship with
the SS.  Bogdanor states that ‘the facts are well established:’  Unfortunately they are not. 
Anna Porter tells how the instigator was not Krausz but Carl Lutz, the
Swiss Consul from whose base Krausz was operating.  When Lutz pressurised Krausz to send the
Protocols via Florian Manoliu, a member of the Romanian
Legation in Berne, ‘Krausz, ever the
stickler for  formalities, resisted.  He could not send anything to a Salvadoran
Consulate, because he had not been authorized to deal with foreign
governments.  Krausz was not going to
jeopardize his own job.’
[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]   
What is certain is that Tel Aviv did nothing whatever to publicise the
Protocols despite having received a copy in mid-June.  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]  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  to halt the deportations, it was the
Protocols of Vrba and Wetzler which were responsible for saving Hungary’s
Jewish community in Budapest.   Most of Hungary’s 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  Samu Stern and Otto Komoly.
Finally 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!  This in a paragraph
that cites one detractor as claiming Brenner was ‘“certifiably
crazy”, a “Marxist agitator”.  Perhaps after
all Bogdanor possesses a sense of humor.
Tony
Greenstein


[1]           One example of these attacks was ‘Ben
Hechts’ Kampf by Shlomo Katz, whose
title suggested that Perfidy was the
equivlanet of Mein Kampf, Midstream Winter 1962. 

[2]           Eichmann
in Jerusalem—I
, February 16, 1963.

[3]
          Arendt, pp. 283-284.
[4]           Ruth Linn, Escaping Auschwitz – A
Culture of Forgetting, p.13, Cornell University Press, 2004.
[5]           Bass, Andre, A Million Jews to
Save, p.191, Thomas Hutchinson, London, 1975.
[6]           Tom Segev, The Seventh Million, p.140.
[7]           Judische
Rundschau
, No. 27, April 4, 1933 Wear
it With Pride, the Yellow Badge
.  In fairness
Weltsch, who turned his back on Zionism, bitterly regretted this headline
[8]
          Pinsker, Autoemanzipation, ein Mahnrufan seine Stammesgenossen, von einem
russischen Juden Berlin 1882 p.5.
[9]           Chaim Weizmann, Trial and Error, p.
90.
[10]          Theodor Herzl, A Jewish State, pp. 19,
25, 17.
[11]          Herzl, p.26.
[12]          Herzl, p.57.
[14]          Diaries of Theodor Herzl, p.1525, Ed.
Raphael Patai.
[15]          Moshe Menhuin, “Decadence of
Judaism in Our Time’ (Institute of Palestine Studies), 1969 p. 46.
[16]          Ibid. p.l24.
[17]          Menuhin op. cit., pp. 46/7.
[18]          Lacquer op. cit. p.l25.
[19]
         Edwin Black, p.36, Ha’avara – The
Transfer Agreement, Brookline Books, 1999.
[20]
         Nicosia, ZANG, p.91.  Tom Segev, p.18 attributes this to a report
from Moshe Beilinson to Kaznelson.
[21]          Segev, p.  18.

[22]          See Tony
Greenstein Rewriting the Holocaust

[23]
         Ibid. p. 231.
[24]          Diaries of
Theodore Herzl, Gollancz, London 1958 p.6.
[25]
         B. Matovu, “The Zionist
Wish and the Nazi Deed’ Issue, Winter 1966-7.
Uri Davies, ‘Utopia Incorporated’
p. 17.
[27]          Brenner 51 Documents, p.200.  Department of State Memorandum of Conversation,
19.5.44.
[29]          Segev, p.29.
[30]
         Black pp. 130, 188, 191.
[31]
         Black p.269, Jewish Chronicle
8.9.33. ‘Hitler Reaffirms Jew murder policy’.
[32]
         Black, p. 253.
[33]
         Black, pp. xiii, 181-2.
[34]          Nicosia, Zionism in National Socialist
Jewish Policy, D1263, The Journal of Modern History, Vol. 50, 1978.
[35]
         Black pp. xix, 110, 130.
[36]
         Ibid.
[37]
         Nicosia, TRPQ, p.57.
[38]
         N.
Weinstock p. 135.
[39]          Joachim Prinz, ‘Zionism under the Nazi
Government’, Young Zionist, London
Nov. 1937 p.18.
[40]          Shabtai Teveth, The Burning Ground 1886-1948,
p.848, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 1987.
[41]
         S. Beit-Zvi, pp. 78-79.
[42]          Porter, Kasztner’s Train, p. 205.
[43]          Segev, p.99.
[44]          Segev, p. 108.
[45]          Segev, p. 105.
[46]          The Times 6.6.61.
[47]
         Zionism and the Holocaust, http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/631/zionism-and-the-holocaust,
Yoav Gelber, ‘Zionist policy, p.199, Segev, p.28.  Ben-Gurion at the Mapai CC, 7.12.38, Labour
Party Archives, Bet Berl Tsofit., 22/38, Teveth, p.855, Piterberg, p.99. 
[48]          Shabtai Teveth, The Burning Ground, pp.
858-9.
[49]          ‘The Blue & Yellow Stars of Zion – The
Zionist Leadership in Palestine and the holocaust 1939-1945’ Harvard University
Press, pp. 135, 111-118 1990’
[50]          Shabtai Beit Zvi p. 115..
[51]
         I. Trunk, p.32 Judenrat:
the Jewish councils in eastern Europe under Nazi occupation
, New York
1972.
[52]
         Dawidowicz p.336.
[53]
         S Beit Zvi, p.331 see also Trunk,
Patterns of Jewish Leadership in Nazi Europe 1933-1945,Typology of the
Judenrate, p.27.
[54]          Patterns of Jewish Leadership in Nazi
Europe 1933-1945, Yad Vashem ‘Typology of the Judenrate, p.  28, Isaiah Trunk.
[55]
         Edelman, p.99 citing Second
report from the Jewish workers’ underground movement, 15.11.43.’
[56]          S Beit Zvi, pp. 211-240., Post-Ugandan Zionism On Trial
[57]          Anna Porter, Kasztner’s Train, pp. 186,
200.
[58]          Segev, p.103.
[59]          II-28 Der Kasztner-Bericht.
[60]          Ladislau Lob, A Survivor’s Tale – Dealing with
Satan’, p.270 .
[61]          Ben Hecht, Perfidy, p. 87.
[62]          Ben Hecht, p.151.
[63]          Ben Hecht, p.158.
[64]          Perdition, p.87. ‘The Kasztner Case – a
note by Akiva Orr’.
[65]          Porter, Kasztner’s Train, p. 371.
[66]          Shabtai Beit Zvi p.107.
[67]          Ben Hecht, p.195.
[68]          Hecht, p.94.
[69]          Hecht, Perfidy, p.158.
[70]          Ari Bober (ed.), The Other Israel, p.171 and Doug Lorimer, The  Palestinian Struggle, Zionism and
anti-Semitism, p.44.
[71]
         Rabbi Hillel Silver to 49th
Annual Convention of the Zionist Organisation of America, New York Times,
27.10.46.  (quote should be “moments of
desperation”). Robert Silverberg, If I
Forget Thee O Jerusalem
, p. 335, Pyramid Books, NY, 1972. Canadian JC
10.8.45.  Eliezer Livneh declared during
a symposium organised by ‘Maariv’ in 1966 “that for the Zionist leadership, the
rescue of Jews was not an aim in itself, but only a means.” (Information
Bulletin, Communist Party of Israel, 1969, pl97).
[72]          Shabtai beit Zvi, pp. 154-155.
[73]
         Christopher Sykes, Crossroads to
Israel, p. 188-191.
[74]          Khamsin 6, Zionism and its Scarecrows, Moshé Machover and Mario Offenberg https://libcom.org/library/zionism-its-scarecrows
[75]
         Arthur Ruppin, “The Selection of the Fittest,” in Three Decades of
Palestine: Speeches and Papers on the Upbuilding of the Jewish National Home.
Trans. n/a (Tel-Aviv 1936) 66–80.
[76]
         Amos Morris-Reich  Arthur Ruppin’s Concept of Race’, Israel
Studies, Vol. 11, No. 3, Fall 2006, pp. 8-9.
[77]
         Amos Morris-Reich, Arthur Ruppin’s Concept of Race, Israel Studies,
Volume 11 , number 3, p.1. citing CZA A107/954.
[78]
         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.
[79]
         Bloom, p.405-6, See e.g., Der Volks-Brockhaus, [popular lexicon],
Leipzig, 1937.
[80]
         Bloom, op. cit. p.408.
[81]
         Bloom, p. 409, Arthur
Ruppin, Briefe, Tagebucher, Erinnerungen,
(ed.) Schlomo
Krolik, Leo Baeck Instituts, Königstein: Leo Baeck Instituts & Jüdischer
Verlag Athenau, 1985.p.422
[82]
         Amos Morris-Reich, Arthur Ruppin’s Concept of Race, Israel Studies,
Volume 11 , number 3
[83]
         Bloom, pp. 409-410.
[84]
         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.
[85]
         Bloom,
p.414.
[86]
         Zionism in the Age of the
Dictators – A Reappraisal, Lenni Brenner, pp. 48-9, Croom Helm, 1983.
[87]
         51 Documents: Zionist
Collaboration with the Nazis, Lenni Brenner, pp. 109-110, Barricade Books,
NW, 2002.
[88]
         Ibid., pp. 104-5.
[90]
         Lucy Dawidowicz, War Against the Jews, pp.118, citing
Mommsen ‘Der Nationalsozialistische Polizeistaat pp.78/9 and
Nicosia, Anti-Semitism, p.119.  Nicosia attributes the second sentence to the
Gestapo rather than Heydrich’s directive.
[91]          5
May 1935, L. Dawidowicz, p.118, citing Karl Schleunes, The twisted road
to Auschwitz – Nazi policy towards the Jews 1933-39, 1970.  Dawidowic
[92]          Nicosia,  ZANG, p.118-119.
[93]          Nicosia, ZANG, p.124.
[94]          Nicosia, ZANG pp. 123-124
[95]          Nicosia, ZANG, pp. 125-126.
[96]          Segev, p.33.
[97]          Segev, p.84.
[98]          Op. cit.  p.100.
[99]          S. Beit Zvi, p. 57 see also Segev p.88.
[100]         Anna Porter, Kasztner’s Train, pp.
204-5, Constable, London, 2007.
[101]
        Braham p. 1120.
[102]         Martin Gilbert, Auschwitz and the
Allies, p.232.

 

 

 

0 Comments

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Share This