Comments on "Defend Tony Greenstein"

Submitted by AWL on 30 June, 2008 - 12:23

These are the comments posted on this item. It has now been closed for comment. Some comments have been deleted because they were not just sharply polemical - which some of the comment here certainly is - but slanderous in a way that could cause legal problems for our website.

Submitted by Paul Bogdanor on 8 June, 2008 - 21:53.

Why are you restricted to writing 3 or 4 lines?


* Printer-friendly version

Because the AWL have had a problem with me writing so much
Submitted by Arthur Bough on 9 June, 2008 - 20:34.

stuff on the Discussion Board which they clam as their private property. I thought that over the last few months I had reduced my posts and their length substantially, but apparently me criticising Max Shachtman a couple of weeks ago in response to an article by Trotsky against other moral socialists conflicted with their need to use the Board solely for indoctrination of their contacts so I now have to write anything more substantive on my own blog.

Arthur Bough


* Printer-friendly version

And Even 3 or 4 lines appears to be too much for them now as
Submitted by Arthur Bough on 9 June, 2008 - 20:39.

I posted comments within that limitation on the articles about Tony Cliff's State Capitalism and a link to a discussion on my blog, and even they have been deleted! Fortunately, Mike McNair did pick up the link from one of them to my blog, and at least some decent discussion is forthcoming from that. Its how the Stalinists first began to silence Trotsky and his followers.

Arthur Bough


* Printer-friendly version

Menachem Begin Timeline
Submitted by Paul Bogdanor on 9 June, 2008 - 00:39.

I have checked the new edition of Menachem Begin's White Nights, which contains the transcripts of his NKVD interrogations. There he says (p79) that he fled Warsaw for Vilna on September 7-8, 1939, and stayed until his arrest on September 20, 1940.

The timeline is as follows:-

September 1 - Nazis invade Poland and bomb Warsaw.
September 7-8 - Begin flees Warsaw for Vilna.
September 17-9 - Soviets invade Poland and occupy Vilna.
October 10 - Soviets announce transfer of Vilna from Poland to Lithuania.
October 28 - Soviets withdraw and Lithuanians enter.
June 15 - Soviets invade Lithuania and reoccupy Vilna.
September 20 - Soviets arrest Begin as he prepares exit to Palestine.
March 8 - Begin sent to concentration camp in Soviet Union.

In short, Begin fled to a city within Poland which was then briefly occupied by the Soviets, handed to Lithuania, and reoccupied by the Soviets the following year.

At no time did Begin seek "sanctuary in the Soviet Union," as Greenstein keeps pretending.


* Printer-friendly version

The Screeching of the Useless Door
Submitted by tonyg on 9 June, 2008 - 00:50.

As I said, Bogdanor reminds me of Jabotinsky's description of Menachem Begin: 'the screeching of a useless door'.

Most of what he says now is simply not worthy replying to. The ignoramus can't decide whether to cite Hilberg or attack him. No surprise there.

But let's have one final look at another piece of nonsense. Apparently I have 'espoused conspiracy theories that rely on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion'. Hmm now what might this be? Is it a belief in world Jewish conspiracy theories? Good gracious no. Apparently my description of the murderous outfit that lobbies for the confiscation of Palestinian land and genocide inc. as behaving as if they were trying to act out the Elders of Zion stereotype is itself an 'espousal' of such theories.

Now I realise that Bogdanor Jnr. is not a patch on his old cerebral dad. To be blunt he is quite thick although he does spend a lot of time searching for quotes besides screeching. But anyone with a few brain cells to rub together would note a difference between my espousing.... and someone else acting as a caricature of someone or something. However Bogdanor doesn't do subtlety, or much else besides.

So what about the Jewish TV presenter, Jon Stewart, a link to whose show is below. In a skit on Aipac and the traipse of 3 Presidential candidates to their conference he asks 'would that be sufficient protocol to win over these Elders of Zion.'

I can only hope that Bogdanor doesn't have a heart attack as he bombards the Daily Show with his screechings. can there ever be a more explicit statement of support...... you can imagine the fool's rantings. Most people will know that a murderous organisation like Aipac, which does indeed behave as a nasty conspiratorial organisation, deserves to be pilloried, not least as a caricature of everything the anti-Semites used to put about (before the BNP and assorted German neo-Nazis became overtly pro-Zionist).…

But as I said before, Bogdanor's main purpose is to paint Stalin's regime as being as bad as that of Hitler, by suggesting both were engaged in their own version of a final solution. History suggests otherwise and that despite Stalin's counter revolutionary politics, unlike the Zionist project which saved next to noone, the USSR was responsible for, according to Hilberg some 1.5m Jews seeking refuge.

Bogdanor's problems with Hilberg is that of the establishment Zionist historians when it first emerged. Yad Vashem refused to publish it (which Bauer later regretted) because it didn't fit in with their line on the Judenrat or Jewish resistance. Indeed he details in his last edition just some of the campaign that was waged against him, including one particularly horrific meeting.

But there is a certain irony in the reactionary Bogdanor, whose contempt for public institutions like libraries or indeed anyone not born with a silver spoon in their gullet, coming to debate on the AWL web site.

Tony G


* Printer-friendly version

Greenstein's Words and Historical Truth-The two are incompatible
Submitted by MikeyMikey on 9 June, 2008 - 02:22.

Tony Greenstein states:

"Yad Vashem refused to publish it [Hilberg's book] (which Bauer later regretted) because it didn't fit in with their line on the Judenrat or Jewish resistance."

Greenstein's explanation of why Yad Vashem did not publish Hilberg's book is of course not accurate, but as it seems he cannot write anything in an honest fashion we should not be surprised.

The reasons why Yad Vashem did not publish Hilberg's book were sent to Hilberg in a letter from the General Manager of Yad Vashem on August 24, 1958. Hilberg copied the complete text of it in his own autobiography. The editorial board of Yad Vashem met on August 15, 1958 and noted that whilst "the manuscripts possessed numerous merits, it also has certain deficiencies." Yad Vashem explained to Hilberg that these deficiencies were as follows:

"1. Your book rests almost entirely on the authority of German sources and does not utilize primary sources in the languages of the occupied states, or in Yiddish and Hebrew.
"2. The Jewish historians here make reservations concerning the historical conclusions which you draw, both in respect of the comparison with former periods, and in respect of your appraisal of the Jewish resistance (active and passive) during the Nazi occupation."

Yad Vashem then explained to Hilberg, "our foundation cannot appear as one of the publishers without running the risk that expert critics who know the history of the Nazi catastrophe thoroughly and possess a command of the languages of the occupied states in question, might express hostile criticism to this book."


Raul Hilberg, The Politics of Memory: The Journey of a Holocaust Historian (Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 1996) pp. 110-111

Whilst Greenstein seems to be concerned about the health of Paul Bogndanor, right minded people might think that Greenstein himself ought to see a psychologist for his obvious problem, a compulsion to tell untruths.


* Printer-friendly version

Greenstein Surrenders
Submitted by Paul Bogdanor on 9 June, 2008 - 12:29.

Greenstein has finally surrendered.

He no longer pretends that any of his factual assertions were true. All of them were blatant lies: repeatedly faking statistics from Begin; repeatedly falsifying Begin's biography; pretending that Hilberg praised the Soviets and attacked the Zionists; citing Reitlinger as a credible source; totally misunderstanding the Historikerstreit; citing books he hadn't read; and so on and on and on - it was all a pack of lies.

Just look at the gap between his previous message and this one. In the previous message, he invoked Hilberg to show that the Zionists rescued no-one. I summarised Hilberg's conclusion that the Zionists saved 200,000 Jews in Hungary alone. So Greenstein simply repeats that the Zionists saved no-one. Is there a single honest person on the planet who could read those statements without recognising Greenstein's mendacity?

Greenstein seems to think he can have it both ways: he wants to rely on Hilberg where Hilberg has been refuted (1.5 million escaped) but he wants to lie about Hilberg where Hilberg has been vindicated (2.5 million trapped). He wants to fabricate arguments that are not in Hilberg (organised Soviet rescue) while denying statements that are in Hilberg (organised Zionist rescue). Does Greenstein have any idea how transparent his tactics have become?

All that remains is Greenstein's pathetic effort to rationalise his obscenities about the Protocols, irrelevant nonsense about Yad Vashem, and a barrage of childish insults. He has not been discredited; he discredited himself. How can Greenstein justify his argument that Hitler should not be compared to the tyrant who killed 4 million children in peacetime, because he had more in common with Orthodox rabbis?


* Printer-friendly version

Greenstein's BNP Lie
Submitted by Paul Bogdanor on 9 June, 2008 - 12:30.

Since Greenstein has just been caught lying about Yad Vashem, I can't resist pointing to yet another lie in his latest message.

According to Greenstein, the BNP is "overtly pro-Zionist." But according to the BNP,

- a "clique of Zionist parasites and crooks" has "abused and exploited the British Jewish community for decades"
- they are "Zionist Nazis of the extremist Nazi wing of Israeli politics"
- and the Board of Deputies is a "clique of self serving Zionist racists" and a "Zionist-Nazi organization."

So the BNP shares Greenstein's views on Zionism. And in his attack on "Zionist historians" who "inflate the figures to match the 6 million symbol," Greenstein echoes the BNP's views on Nazism.

No wonder he supports the Holocaust deniers of Hamas.


* Printer-friendly version

The Screeching Bognador Froths Again
Submitted by tonyg on 10 June, 2008 - 03:09.

It is advisable when you accuse others of lying not to repeat the same mistake oneself. Bogdanor's collaborator with Atzmon quotes from the letter of the General Manager of Yad Vashem, Dr Melkman. What he doesn't do is of course cite the response of Hilberg himself as to why his book, the Destruction of the European Jews was turned down by Yad Vashem. An act of which at least Yehuda Bauer has some regrets.

Hilberg, who was no anti-Zionist, clearly understood what lay behind this decision. He writes of Melkman:
'...during the German occupation [in the Netherlands] his Zionist connections enabled him and his wife to hold on to a precarious privileged position, first in Amsterdam, then in the transit camps of Westerbork, and finally in Bergen-Belsen. In writing his letter to me he clearly relied on his staff. To discover e source of his argument about 'resistance', I merely had to glance at Yad Vashem's letterhead, which proclaimed the parity of the diaster and heroism. Net to that ideological statement, I could see only an attempt at parochail self-preservation. Did his e xperts really believe that their Yiddish or Hebrew sources had altered the basic history revealed by the German documents? Could they really stand on the primary so urces' in the languages of the occupied countries when in fact these materials were largely inaccessible to the public and therefore unemplored by YV itself? Where were the publications of these experts? Where was the evidence of their expertise?'

So yes, Yad Vashem did indeed justify itself by reference to use of German sources (which are clearly the most appropriate for understanding the mechanics of the Final Solution) and his relegating of 'resistance' to the footnotes. And this was therefore, as Hilberg says, an ideological decision. And if Bogdanor's daddy will buy him a copy, he can find the above quote in 'The Politics of Memory - the Journey of a Holocaust HIstorian' pp. 110/111, Hilberg.

I shall be interested to see the source for the Hilberg quote that the Zionists saved 200,000 in Hungary. It's nonsense of course since just about their only effort, excluding dissident Zionists like Krausz, was the rescue of the 'Prominents'. In fact Hilberg, precisely because he is an expert on the Germans, is not particularly au fait with the Zionist 'Rescue' Committee of Kastner. Certainly this is not the conclusion of Eugene Levai's Black Book of Hungarian Jewry, which Hilberg is the first to praise. In fact Hilberg quotes word for word what Eichmann said about the leader of the Jewish Agency in Hungary:
'Eichmann stated in his memoirs that Kastner "agreed to keep the Jews from resisting deportation - and even keep order in the camps - if I would close my eyes and let a few hundred or a few thousand young Jews emigrate illegally to Palestine. It was a good bargain.' Life Magazine, 5.12.6.

One notes that Rudolf Brahams, whose coverage of the Hungarian holocaust is much more comprehensive, is extremely non-committal about Kastner, despite himself being a Zionist. Where Hilberg quotes uncritically from Kastner's Report to the Jewish Agency after the war, Braham's describes it was 'self-serving'.

If anyone is responsible for the fact that about 200,000 Jews survived in Hungary (and again figures can only ever be approximate, Levai believes it is fewer) it is the US War Refugee Board which threatened mass bombing of Budapest and began to carry it out, forcing Horthy's hands. It is fair to say that the Papal Nuncio and the neutral countries saved rather more than the Zionists, who saved 1,684 Jews on their train of Prominents.

And the idiot Bogdanor, who really should take a lesson from his somewhat more famous father, i.e. settle down, relax and then think, asserts it is a 'lie' that the BNP is pro-Zionist. Of course never having been an anti-fascist activist, since he is a racist from the Abba Achimeir school who merely regrets that German fascism was also anti-Semitic, he now pretends that the BNP is anti-Zionist (& anti-Semitic!). In fact the BNP, like most anti-Semites is ALSO pro-Zionist. But don't take my word for it. That is what the Board of Deputies of British Jews says!!! Because on Thursday April 10 2008 the Guardian carried a news story which, for some of us at least, was no revelation. ‘BNP seeks to bury antisemitism and gain Jewish votes in Islamophobic campaign’.· We were told by one Ruth Smeed of the Board of Deputies of British Jews that ‘The BNP website is now one of the most Zionist on the web - it goes further than any of the mainstream parties in its support of Israel’.

And were Bogdanor to actually be acquainted with developments in the BNP then he would have read the article by Nick Griffin, ‘By their fruits (or lack of them) shall you know them’ he makes his reasons for the switch to a pro-Zionist position explicitly clear:
‘When the overwhelming majority of the instinctively patriotic people of our nations feel threatened by an alien force which is self-evidently evil by Christian and democratic secular values alike, to place oneself in the position whereby our political opponents can portray you as an enemy sympathiser, a collaborator, a traitor, is political suicide.’….

Of course anti-Semitism and Zionism go hand in hand. The anti-Semites believe Jews have no place outside Israel and the Zionists agree. Both agree that Jews are responsible for anti-Semitism by living as strangers in others' lands so their stance is quite natural Even today, the headquarters of the Zionist Organisation in Britain is named Balfour House, after one of the foremost anti-Semitic British politicians, Arthur J Balfour, who in 1905 as PM was responsible for the introduction of the Aliens Act. But the Zionists supported that too!

But it's nice to know that a reactionary and anti-communist like Bognador feels impelled to visit a socialist site with his fellow collaborator to try and rewrite history.

Tony Greenstein


* Printer-friendly version

Heating Up: The Battle for the Jewish Voice and the Jewish soul
Submitted by tonyg on 10 June, 2008 - 03:11.

Here is a wonderful open letter from some young Canadian Jews. Unlike racists such as the Bognador/Mikey combination, they clearly understand the real lesson from Jewish history. That if you oppose racism you must oppose racism by Jews too.

Tony Greenstein

Dear Mom, Dad, your Zionist friends, and Bob Dylan too,

I’ve got news for you all: The times they are a changin’! Remember last
Passover? Remember when we sat around the Seder table and listened to you rant
about Israel`s victimhood? About how ethnic cleansing really isn’t that bad?
And about how if they try to kill the Jews this time, we will at least take
them all with us? Remember the rolled eyes of my cousins and the looks we
exchanged thinking you were all nuts?

These are the four questions we were thinking of:

1) Why, on this night we dedicate to remembering our own history as an
oppressed people, do we justify Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians?

2) Why, on this night when Israelis are free to celebrate, are the Palestinians
locked down under curfew – as is done on most Jewish holidays?

3) Why, here in Canada, where we are a minority amongst a Christian majority,
do we advocate for and support a ‘Jewish State’ in the Middle East, where
the non-Jewish minority are treated as second class citizens?

4) Why should anyone think that just because we say ‘next year in
Jerusalem’ at the end of our Seder, that we had a right to kick others out of
their homes so that we could live there?

You see, our generation is different. We are not blind Zionist ideologues. We
did not take the lesson of kill or be killed from the stories our grandparents
told us about the Holocaust or the anti-Semitism they faced. Alongside our
lessons about Zionism and about why the Holocaust meant that Jews need a Jewish
state for themselves, we couldn't help but absorb the need to oppose racism,
to fight oppression and to not justify the subjugation of one ‘people’ for
the benefit of another.

At first, we may have believed your myths about ‘Israel the good’, about
the Israel Defense Forces being the world’s only ‘moral’ army, and about
how it’s not Israel but ‘the Arabs’ who don’t want peace. But we have
grown up now, and like our Christian peers who come to understand Santa Claus
is not real, the growing majority of us have come to see myth of Israel the
good as a relic of our childhood Chanukahs.

For those of us who have followed developments in the mainstream Jewish
community, we see more to your ranting, too. We see a sick hierarchically
organized Jewish community that is not only serving as a smokescreen to allow
the ongoing genocide of a people; we also see the twisted irony that you, our
parents who claim we need Israel as a safeguard from anti-Semitism, are
actually putting us and the rest of World Jewry in danger. By tying our fate
(and our children’s) to that of the leadership of the dying American empire,
you are setting us up as a scapegoat.

Israel is an offshore American army base and the Israeli leadership and its
North American lobby are so in bed with the neo-cons that our community will be
suffering consequences for years. Even worse, in Canada and the United States,
the lobby has deluded itself into actually thinking it controls the hand that
feeds it. The lobby happily plays the role of the dirty cop on the beat using
underhanded (but not so secret) ways to try and eliminate what it sees as
threats to Israel’s support, or the lobby`s own domestic power. I’m sure
that Harper, Bush, and their corporate masters are not disappointed that the
targets the Israel lobby chooses for career or character assassination (in the
media, academia, public life, etc.) typically line up with their own. But, what
will happen if: Oil prices keep rising? The war in Iraq and Afghanistan keeps
failing? Housing foreclosures keep increasing? And world anger at the West
keeps growing?

The Jewish community’s leadership certainly makes it easy enough to paint a
picture that the Jews are behind it; sometimes they even gloat. Will it really
be a surprise if, when shit hits the fan, our supposed allies in the
US/Canadian elite cut Israel’s strings and point the blame at home towards

Hypotheticals aside, luckily this too is changing! From the disenchanted, once
isolated Jews, a new community is rising. Remember the article I wrote on
“The Fall of Zionism” last October? Remember how you thought I was a
dreamer and that there was no way a threat to the Zionist control of our
community could ever take hold? Well, a lot has happened in the past eight
months. The kids are coming home! All those ‘self-hating’ Jews who isolated
themselves from the community not because of a dislike for our culture,
heritage, or religion, but because they were told to leave after speaking their
mind on the oppression of the Palestinian people, are finding each other,
organizing, and coming back.

In Canada, for example, there is a new national umbrella organization called
the Alliance of Concerned Jewish Canadians (ACJC), which represents Jews who
are opposed to the Israeli occupation of Palestine. The ACJC was launched in
March when internationally renowned author, journalist, keynote speaker and
Canadian Jew Naomi Klein kicked off a national conference that brought together
over 100 activist Jews representing 23 different Canadian Jewish groups. The
purpose of the ACJC is to provide a counterweight to Jewish organizations that
serve as apologists for Israel’s crimes, such as the Canadian Jewish Congress
(CJC). The ACJC has since put action to words. Recently, for example, it lent
support to the Canadian Union of Postal Workers when it became the first
national Union in North America to courageously pass a resolution supporting
the Palestinian campaign for a Boycott of Israel, and recognizing that Israel
has become an apartheid state.

Likewise, in May the ACJC, along with other anti-occupation Jewish groups
across North America and the world, heeded the call of the Palestinian people
to declare the 60th anniversary of the Naqba (disaster) as No Time to Celebrate
(this is a common slogan being used in protest of Israel’s celebrations).
Protests were organized worldwide, and in Canada and the United States Jews
protested alongside Palestinians and other concerned citizens. In San
Francisco, twenty Jews were (unjustly) arrested trying to make themselves heard
as Jews opposed to Israel`s crimes. In Britain, over one hundred Jews signed an
open letter published in The Guardian, one of the United Kingdom’s leading
newspapers, declaring they would not celebrate Israel’s birthday. In Paris,
French Jews hung the Palestinian flag on the Eiffel Tower in protest. Here in
Canada’s capital of Ottawa, Jews, Palestinians, and other concerned
individuals formed a one hundred person-strong silent protest outside the
official Israel celebrations at the Convention Center on May 8th, and then
repeated it a few weeks later at another event at the National Arts Center on
May 20th. Despite the money and glamour being thrown into making 60 years of
Israeli oppression a propaganda campaign to whitewash Israel’s crimes, Jews
around the world are promising not to celebrate (one US-based online pledge not
to celebrate has over 500 Jewish signatures). The actions I am describing did
not have millions of dollars for publicity like the official events organized
by the Jewish community’s elites. Instead, they grew through grassroot
networks and traveled by word-of-mouth from committed activist Jew to committed
activist Jew. The Jews taking part in these events are the ones who are informed
and willing to put themselves on the line to oppose the mainstream Jewish
community’s official position, and I am growing increasingly confident that
their support runs deep.
This letter may sound angry, and at some points it is. It upsets me to hear our
Passover conversations, and I won’t just quietly roll my eyes anymore. But the
reason for that is love and respect. We are forming a new community, with a
humanist core that ties us together strongly. Seders are being held that tell
the story of the Palestinian enslavement along with that of our own. Events are
being held where Jews celebrate Jewish culture from a place that recognizes how
our history gives us a responsibility to speak out against oppression. I will
continue to celebrate my heritage as part of our family, just like all those
supposed ‘self-hating’ Jews will celebrate with me, as Jews and as part of
the Jewish community. We are committed to justice, and through this we are
finding our Jewish souls. And when you are ready to join the multitudes of
other Jews opposing Israeli oppression, our door will be wide open.

your Young Non-Zionist Kids


* Printer-friendly version

Greenstein Exposed
Submitted by MikeyMikey on 10 June, 2008 - 20:58.

Several times Greenstein has accused me of being a collaborator with Atzmon. Several times I have refuted this allegation. On the other hand, Greenstein’s ideological comrade, Roland Rance, proudly admits (September 2, 2007) that he has gone to hear Atzmon, corresponded with Atzmon and repeatedly met Atzmon.

I am pleased to see Greenstein’s admission that he was wrong on Yad Vashem’s decision not to publish Hilberg’s book. He originally stated that it was “because it didn't fit in with their line on the Judenrat or Jewish resistance.” After being corrected, he says: “Yad Vashem did indeed justify itself by reference to use of German sources.” But that doesn’t stop Greenstein telling another untruth: he adds that Hilberg’s “relegating of 'resistance' to the footnotes” was another reason. As I mentioned above, it was nothing of the sort – but concern about conclusions Hilberg had drawn in “comparison with former periods, and in respect of [his] appraisal of the Jewish resistance.”

Greenstein quotes (with many spelling errors and the wrong page numbers) Hilberg’s question in The Politics of Memory: “Where were the publications of these experts? Where was the evidence of their expertise?” Hilberg could have looked at the work of Professor Ber Mark who used extensive primary research as a director of the Jewish Historical Institute in Warsaw. Long before Hilberg’s book, Mark had published at length on Jewish resistance and had written books on both the Warsaw and Bialystok ghettos. In his devastating review, Mark completely demolishes Hilberg, concentrating on his selective use and blatant misuse of sources (“Falsifying the Jewish Resistance,” Jewish Currents, April 1963). Hilberg could have also consulted references from Jacob Robinson and Philip Friedman’s Guide to Jewish History Under Nazi Impact (New York: Yad Vashem/YIVO Institute for Jewish Research, 1960).

David Matis, a Yiddish writer originally from Kaunas (Kovno), listed numerous books and articles documenting the heroic Jewish resistance in Kovno that Hilberg had simply ignored (“Jews, Tradition and Resistance,” Jewish Currents, June 1962).

Yuri Suhl, who spent years working on his book They Fought Back: The Story of the Jewish Resistance in Nazi Europe, explained how Hilberg had misrepresented source material. He concluded: “If one were to take all the articles written in refutation of Raul Hilberg’s factual inaccuracies and false theories about Jewish non-resistance to Nazism which appear in his book, The Destruction of European Jews, and lay them out page-to-page they would fill a sizeable volume” ( “Is This Responsible Scholarship, Dr. Hilberg?” Jewish Currents, June 1964).

Hilberg notes that Hugh Trevor-Roper had written a positive review and Oscar Handlin had replied in Commentary. But Hilberg did not see fit to comment on the long and detailed letter from the leading expert on the Judenräte, Isaiah Trunk (Commentary, August 1962) Nor did Hilberg mention that A. A. Roback had demolished Trevor-Roper’s review elsewhere (“A Modern Balaam in Reverse,” Jewish Quarterly, Autumn 1962). Subsequently many specialist studies, such as Isaiah Trunk’s Judenrat: The Jewish Councils in Eastern Europe Under Nazi Occupation, refuted Hilberg’s conclusions.

None of this will have any impact on Greenstein, who does not care about the facts. Nor will it stop Greenstein from praising Hannah Arendt, although even Hilberg dismissed her scholarship (Hilberg, Politics of Memory pp. 147-157)!

It doesn’t surprise me that Greenstein moves on to the Holocaust in Hungary, where he can’t get anything right.

Greenstein can’t even get a name right. The doyen of Hungarian Holocaust studies is Randolph Braham. Greenstein calls him “Rudolf Brahams.” Greenstein tells us that Braham “is extremely non-committal about Kastner.” Obviously Greenstein needs to go back to the library: Braham states quite clearly that Kasztner “displayed great skill and courage in championing the cause of rescue” (The Politics of Genocide, New York: Columbia University Press, 1994, pp. 1,071-2) and that “Kasztner, like the six million other Jews, was also a victim” (p. 1,112).

Of course Kastzner’s report is “self-serving” and that is why responsible historians treat it with care. But then again Greenstein objects to quotations from Kasztner but he is happy to rely on Eichmann!

The lies keep coming. Greenstein refers to Miklos (Moshe) Krausz as a “dissident” Zionist. In fact Krausz ran the Palestine Office in Hungary (Braham, p. 94). Greenstein suggests that apart from the efforts of Krausz, the rescue of 1,684 “prominents” was the only Zionist achievement! This is a lie of gigantic proportions. It ignores most importantly the Zionist struggle to save one million Jewish lives in the “Goods for Blood” negotiations. And it ignores the Zionist activists who saved thousands of children (Robert Rozett, “Child Rescue in Budapest, 1944-5,” Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Vol. 2, No. 1, 1987).

Greenstein suggests that the 1,684 were all prominent. In fact many were poor. They included “Jewish refugees from Poland, Yugoslavia and Slovakia as well as seventeen Polish and some forty Hungarian orphans” (Szabolcs Szita, Trading in Lives? Central European University Press, 2005, p. 91). Less than ten percent paid for their places (Yehuda Bauer, Jews for Sale?, Yale University Press, 1994, pp. 198-9).

Greenstein gives credit to the War Refugee Board for saving the remaining Jews in Hungary. He does not mention that the WRB was founded thanks to pressure from right-wing Zionists (David S. Wyman and Rafael Medoff, A Race Against Death, The New Press, 2002). .

There is something rather sickening about Greenstein’s pleasure in quoting Eichmann. What next? Will he be quoting Myra Hindley on the last moments of her victims?

Finally, I’m amused that Greenstein accuses Bogdanor of not reading Hilberg’s Politics of Memory. As it happens, my copy is second hand: I borrowed it from Bogdanor!


* Printer-friendly version

Mikey's inability to understand what he has written!
Submitted by tonyg on 10 June, 2008 - 21:07.

Mikey says that 'Several times Greenstein has accused me of being a collaborator with Atzmon. Several times I have refuted this allegation.'

No. Tried to refute it. Which part of:

'Mikey, can you provide us with the criminal record of this Bugger-Rance. Is he on spent conviction like greenie l or is he just an ordinary liar? Gilad Atzmon
I have been very busy digging up stuff on Tony Greenstein - Roland Rance will have to wait for another day. Mikey'

does Mikey not understand? Is it little wonder that Atzmon, who we all acknowledge to be an open racist and holocaust denier can pay tribute to Atzmon thus:

‘Mikey, I hope you do not mind me saying that, but your contribution for the pls solidarity movement is priceless.'

My advice Mikey is that when in a hole stop digging and instead own up to the fact that you did 'research' on me for Atzmon.

Since Mikey states that 'I am pleased to see Greenstein’s admission that he was wrong on Yad Vashem’s decision not to publish Hilberg’s book.' when in fact I made no such admission, there really is no need to spend much time on the rest of his nonsense. Yes historians disagree. Yes Hilberg wasn't impressed with the resistance to the Nazis, neither was Hausner at the Eichmann trial because he opposed calling Vrba and Marek Edelman (couldn't afford the fares!) and kept asking why the Jews went like sheep to their slaughter.

As for all those poor Jews on the Kastner train. I guess that is why they were called Prominents by Kastner? In fact the poor Jews were the ones from whom knowledge of Auschwitz was kept by the Zionist 'rescue' committee.

Yes the War Refugee Board was established as a result of a campaign, not least by right-wing revisionist Zionists who first had to fight Stephen Wise, Sol Bloom and the AJC. Wise even compared Bergson/Merlin to Hitler in documents later obtained on his discussions with the State Department. Which is why Bergson later reconsidered his attitude to Zionism. But yes, many of them couldn't see why the Zionist movement, which wanted a Jewish State, was so indifferent if not hostile to rescue.

It was not me quoting Eichmann but me quoting Hilberg quoting Eichmann!! But maybe Mikey was in too much of a hurry. Either way what Eichmann had to say was invaluable since he did not say it under pressure or coercion but as part of his story of what his role was in the final solution to a sympathetic Dutch Nazi journalist, Sassen. Any serious student of the holocaust has to quote Nazis, whether verbatim, from diaries or documents. But since Mikey is just a plagiarist and fantasist it's not surprising that he thinks there's a principle involved in not quoting Nazis. In fact what Eichmann says and Hoess for that matter, is important in combatting the holocaust deniers that Mikey supports.

I suspect Mikey is somewhat more familiar with Myra Hindley and her ilk than I could ever be. Who knows, one day he might even grow up and have kids of his ownn and then he'll know how fatuous and offensive his comments are. But then again the chances that Myra Hindley is as much a pin up star for him as Kastner. After all he and his Bog friend have no difficulty in supporting the starvation and murder of Palestinian children.


* Printer-friendly version

Greenstein's Contortions
Submitted by MikeyMikey on 11 June, 2008 - 12:16.

Tony Greenstein is a blatant hypocrite. He writes friendly emails to Atzmon saying that he would be delighted to hear him play jazz, ignores the fact that his ideological comrade Roland Rance is proud to admit that not only has he heard him play music, he has met Atzmon on several occasions and decides to attack me for his imaginary belief that I collaborated with Atzmon. By doing this Greenstein ignores the fact that I attack him and Roland Rance independently of anything Atzmon does. In fact, as I have already mentioned in this thread, last month I published an article on Harry’s Place ridiculing all of them.

Greenstein’s fantasy has expanded. He now claims that the reason I researched him was for the benefit of Atzmon! This is particularly idiotic. I have been reading Greenstein since the mid 1980’s when I first came across his shoddy pamphlet complete with numerous distortions: Zionism: anti semitism’s twin in Jewish garb (Brighton Labour Briefing, n.d. circa 1982). Over the years I have collected lots of his equally shoddy output and tracked down,from an even earlier period, some particularly nasty stuff published by BAZO. I first came across the name Gilad Atzmon three or four years ago. I can assure Tony Greenstein that I am not a psychic.

Greenstein tries to withdraw his admission of error on Yad Vashem’s decision not to publish Hilberg’s book. Anyone following this thread can note that Greenstein stated: “"Yad Vashem refused to publish it [Hilberg's book]… because it didn't fit in with their line on the Judenrat or Jewish resistance." I copied an extract from a letter sent from Yad Vashem to Hilberg that gave the reasons why they did not want to publish it. Greenstein responded “Yad Vashem did indeed justify itself by reference to use of German sources.” Given that Greenstein has seen Hilberg’s memoirs The Politics of Memory that contains Yad Vashem letter, is he going back to his original erroneous claim despite the evidence he has available to him?

Greenstein tells another lie. He now claims that Gideon Hausner, Israel’s prosecutor of Adolf Eichmann was not impressed with resistance to the Nazis. The New York Times, which is more reliable than Greenstein, reported on Hausner speaking on May 19, 1963 at a dinner of over 1,000 people in America sponsored by the Bergen Belsen Survivors Association. The news report (Irving Spiegel, “Hausner Criticizes Book on Eichmann,” New York Times, May 20, 1963 p. 12) stated the following:

“In sharply rejecting the thesis that Jewish victims in the Hitler period had behaved passively, Mr. Hausner cited several instances of Jewish heroism, which had been depicted at the Eichmann trial in Jerusalem.

“He pointed to the heroic resistance of Jewish men, woman and children in the town of Bialystok, Poland. Here, he said, the Jews under the command of Mordecai Tennenbaum, ‘resisted with only a handful of weapons’ until they were killed.”

Greenstein again tries to imply that the Jews on the train that Kasztner rescued were all “prominents.” This is simply erroneous. Ladislaus Lob, who was not prominent, was a passenger on that train and he has recently published a book that comments on the diversity of the passengers:

“187 housewives, 139 students, 113 employees, 84 merchants, 77 dressmakers or seamstresses, 40 workmen or labourers, 36 lawyers, 35 doctors, 32 children, 27 teachers, 25 tailors, 18 nurses, 17 rabbis, 16 engineers, 12 gardeners, 12 chemists, 10 secretaries, 9 professors, 7 locksmiths, 7 milliners, 7 hairdressers, 5 manufacturers, 5 florists, 5 electricians, 4 printers, 4 economists, 4 dentists, 4 watch-makers, 3 furriers, 3 architects, 3 shoe-makers, 3 painters, 3 carpenters, 2 accountants, 2 bakers, 2 cooks, 2 actors, 2 photographers, a weaver, a glazier, a singer, a cabinet-maker, a butcher, a contractor, an agronomist, a musician, an exporter, a candy-maker, a glove-maker, a journalist, a blacksmith, an occupational therapist, an artist, a translator, a librarian and many more.” [Ladislaus Lob, Dealing With Satan: Rezso Kasztner’s Daring Rescue Mission, (London: Jonathan Cape, 2008) p. 117]

Tony Greenstein suggested that the only Zionist rescue effort(excluding those who he refers to as “dissident” Zionists) was the rescue of the above train. I showed that to be a lie. Greenstein ignored numerous other efforts. Greenstein suggested it was “nonsense” that Zionists can claim any credit for the rescue of the Jews of Budapest and gave credit to the War Refugee Board (WRB). I pointed out that efforts by Zionists were instrumental in getting the WRB established, a point he now concedes. So Greenstein was wrong, he admits that he was wrong but I assume he will now back track and deny that he was wrong. In my response to Greenstein on this thread on April 13, 2008, I made a reference to George Orwell and Greenstein’s Doublethink. I would like to ask Greenstein whether Oceania was ever in alliance with Eurasia.

Greenstein clearly changes his mind on matters at a whim, then denies he was wrong in the first place so one wonders whether he is back to his first opinion or not.

It is perfectly acceptable for Hilberg and responsible historians to quote Eichmann and the words of other Nazis as they tend to do so in context and do not accept claims that they make as fact. Greenstein, on the other hand, uses the fantasies of Eichmann and believes them. Maybe, it is for a similar reason that Greenstein thinks it is right to murder everyone at AIPAC. Eichmann would have no doubt approved of this.

As for Greenstein's final fabrication, let me point out that Greenstein himself admitted on this page that he supports Hamas, which advocates the extermination of millions of Jewish children.


* Printer-friendly version

Fantasist Mikey Collaborator Ezra Gets it Wrong Again
Submitted by tonyg on 11 June, 2008 - 13:23.

It's interesting how Zionist liars accuse others of lying. Let us deconstruct his major lie above:

'Greenstein tries to withdraw his admission of error on Yad Vashem’s decision not to publish Hilberg’s book.'

Lie 1: I have done no such thing.

'Anyone following this thread can note that Greenstein stated: “"Yad Vashem refused to publish it [Hilberg's book]… because it didn't fit in with their line on the Judenrat or Jewish resistance." I copied an extract from a letter sent from Yad Vashem to Hilberg that gave the reasons why they did not want to publish it. Greenstein responded “Yad Vashem did indeed justify itself by reference to use of German sources.” ... is he going back to his original erroneous claim despite the evidence he has available to him?

Lie 2: That my claim that ONE OF the reasons for the rejection, its use of mainly German sources, therefore invalidates the other political reason concerning resistance. But I also cited point 2 in the letter of Melkem:

"2. The Jewish historians here make reservations concerning the historical conclusions which you draw, both in respect of the comparison with former periods, and in respect of your appraisal of the Jewish resistance (active and passive) during the Nazi occupation."

So there is nothing to withdraw. Roland Rance and I have been the bitterest and most consistent critics of Atzmon, who I've never even met. Nor, to the best of my knowledge, has Atzmon. Both of us have been attacked, villified, libelled etc. by him. The one occasion I sent him a friendly message was when he criticised the Allies for not bombing the railway lines to Auschwitz and got into a spat with Israel Shamir who believes Auschwitz was a holiday camp. Mikey by contrast offers to do research and become an unpaid (?) errand boy for Atzmon and dares to question me about the Zionist lies he purveys (which ended up in The Times conceding a libel action to me) on this anti-Semitic PeacePalestine site.

The fact is that at least Kastner & co. were working in a situation of terror and occupation. What is Mikey's excuse for being a low-life informer to a well-known anti-Semite? Actually the answer is not hard to find. Mikey is an opponent of anti-Zionism. 'Anti-Semitism' is just a stick to beat his opponents with. he's never lifted a finger in his life to engage in anti-fascist or indeed any other activity, being a pretty sick and warped individual who is known as pretty loopy by those aware of his activities. But unlike Mikey I don't go for drinkies with Atzmon or offer to work for him or try to curry favour among fellow Zionist anti-Semites such as Atzmon (because in reality he combines both anti-Semitism and Zionism).

Professor Loeb, who escaped on the Kastner train is indeed grateful in his new book to Kastner who he tries to rehabilitate. Again Hilberg's description of the passengers on the train, and I suggest Mikey tries looking it up, makes it clear that those who were saved were in a number of categories, primarily Zionist but including rabbis. Of course they didn't include the very rich like the Manfred Weisses who negotiated their own private arrangements with the SS.

But Mikey is a strange liar who not only distorts the evidence and believes that quoting any Zionist historian somehow proves the point, but he even lies about those he is debating with! Take this:

' pointed out that efforts by Zionists were instrumental in getting the WRB established, a point he now concedes.'

I have conceded nothing so why another lie Mikey? Is it because your whole life is a lie? That having poured your heart out to The Times (yes I've got all the correspondence!) about how traumatised you were at hearing me speak, that you now have to engage in this type of crap. I suspect you feel close to Myra Hindley because of your own personal and sexual inadequacies, which are also well known.

The WRB was establishedd in the teeth of opposition of the Zionist movement as represented by Stephen Wise and Abba Hillel Silver. A few dissident Zionists, people who villified by the Mikeys and other collaborators of the time, in the Emergency Committee fought to bring the Jews of Europe into the limelight. Mikey prefers to identify with those who suppressed news of the holocaust and then claim credit for the activities of the Emergency Committee. Sorry it won't wash - especially coming from someone whose main goal in life is to justify the collaboration of Kastner et al.

Tony Greenstein


* Printer-friendly version

Tony Greenstein and Adolf Eichmann
Submitted by MikeyMikey on 11 June, 2008 - 17:14.

Greenstein is out of ideas and keeps repeating the same point about Atzmon. I have already answered him. Anyone who can be bothered will see who is lying. I shall ignore Greenstein's personal insults and his hysterical fabrications about my personal life.

What I will do is comment on Greenstein's disgusting scholarship, not that it deserves to be called scholarship.

Readers will have noted that Greenstein has continually referred to Hilberg and in his recent message has suggested that I consult Hilberg. I have read Hilberg on Kasztner. To show how disgraceful Greenstein's posts are, I copy from the third edition of Hilberg's The Destruction of European Jews (Yale University Press, 2003) p. 903:

"There are two versions of the ensuing discussions.

"According to Kastner, the SS man promised that, for 6.5 million pengö (ca. RM 4,000,000 or $1,600,000 at the official rate of exchange), 600 Jews would be permitted to leave for Palestine. The committee immediately turned to the Central Council for financial help, and after weeks of canvassing, the Council managed to collect five million pengö from the rich Jews. The committee itself added the missing million and a half. The Germans then raised the number of prospective emigrants by a thousand. [166] Eichmann stated in his memoirs that Kastner "agreed to keep the Jews from resisting deportation – and even keep order in the camps – if I would close my eyes and let a few hundred or a few thousand young Jews emigrate illegally to Palestine. It was a good bargain." [167]

The relevant footnotes are:

166. Kasztner, "Bericht," pp. 24-27, 58, 63
167. Life, December 5, 1960, p. 146

Hilberg provides two alternate accounts. This is perfectly reasonable. Greenstein uncritically accepts Eichmann's account ("invaluable") while dismissing Kasztner's ("self-serving"). When his own source mentions two alternative witnesses – a mass murdering Nazi or a Jewish leader - Greenstein believes the Nazi and not the Jew.

A further example is his description of all the passengers as "prominents." I pointed out that they were not all prominent and quoted Lob's breakdown. Greenstein dismisses Lob as a "Zionist historian." One wonders how Greenstein can tell if Lob is or is not a Zionist. His book does not discuss the State of Israel, but such is Greenstein's modus operandi: if he doesn't like the evidence, he denounces the source as a Zionist or a "rabid dog" in true Stalinist fashion.

Greenstein then backs away from his claim that they were all prominent: "Hilberg's description of the passengers on the train, and I suggest Mikey tries looking it up, makes it clear that those who were saved were in a number of categories, primarily Zionist but including rabbis." I have looked it up. It is on the same page:

"[The Zionists'] first reaction was to select only children. [Eichmann's deputy] Wisliceny, however, vetoed this plan on the ground that the Hungarians would notice a children's transport. The Jews thereupon proceeded to compile a list of ten categories: Orthodox Jews, Zionists, prominent Jews (Prominente), orphans, refugees, Revisionists, and so on."

Another Greenstein fabrication.

Bogdanor, above, summarised Hilberg's conclusion that the Zionists had helped save the 200,000 Jews of Budapest. Greenstein replied that he'd "be interested to see the source for the Hilberg quote that the Zionists saved 200,000 in Hungary." If he had checked Bogdanor's page references he would have seen this:

"The Hungarians in their eagerness had intercepted the messages [transmitted by the Jewish relief committee in Budapest] and had thereupon managed to frighten themselves. On July 6 Veesenmayer was informed by Sztojay that the Regent had ordered the deportations to stop."

So much for Greenstein's methods.


* Printer-friendly version

Mad Mikey Ezra fails to explain his Collaboration & much else
Submitted by tonyg on 12 June, 2008 - 02:36.

Yes, it is true. Mikey has already answered me, by evasion, regarding his relationship with Gilad Atzmon. What he hasn't explained is how come he came to work with him in the first place. So please tell us Mikey. What was it, when I and others were attacking Atzmon for trying to gain an audience for anti-Semitism amongst a fringe element of Palestine solidarity activists, that led you to lend him a helping hand? Was it the enemy of my enemy principle? After all it makes sense. If the main enemy for Zionists like you is anti-Zionism then an alliance with anti-Semites makes sense. Indeed given Atzmon’s increasingly pro-Zionist sentiments it makes even more sense: Because there is no other way to interpret lines such as:

'Mikey, can you provide us with the criminal record of this Bugger-Rance. Is he on spent conviction like greenie l or is he just an ordinary liar?'

To which you could of course have told him to get lost, that you wouldn't be seen dead with anti-Semites and people who subscribe to Jewish conspiracy theories. Instead the response is: 'I have been very busy digging up stuff on Tony Greenstein - Roland Rance will have to wait for another day.' Roland is a long-standing anti-Zionist comrade, who has been equally active in combatting people like Atzmon. But your only response was to say that Atzmon will ‘have to wait for another day’. You really are condemned out of your own mouth.

Mikey complains that 'Greenstein objects to quotations from Kasztner but he is happy to rely on Eichmann!' until I pointed out to him that I am merely citing Hilberg's quotation of Eichmann in his Destruction of European Jews! Now he complains I didn't cite everything. But that is the job of any historian, to make selections. In fact Hilberg's whole treatment of the Kasztner affair, and he doesn't give it much treatment at all, is second hand at best. But clearly he gives credence to Eichmann's version, which as I say was unforced and for which he had no discernible motive to lie. On the contrary he bragged about his role in the Final Solution and wished he could have completed it. I would say this is pretty powerful evidence that he was speaking the truth. And the question of keeping order in the camp was raised in the Kastner trial in Israel by those who didn't perish. And it is also pretty convincing evidence with which to dismiss those other flat earthers – the Holocaust Deniers – since it comes from one of the main architects of the final solution.

But at least Mad Mikey Ezra (MME) cites the professions and political attachments of those who left on the train, though other accounts state that some 300 or so Jews leapt on the train at the last moment. In other words it was not only class but political attachment that was decisive. Anti-Zionists, socialists or communists were not considered. But even now MME can't resist the temptation to quote selectively. After admitting that the categories included Orthodox Jews, Zionists, Prominents, Revisionists among others he omits the following from Hilberg: 'One category consisted of "paying persons. The geographic distribution was a bit lopsided: 388 persons, including Kastner's father-in-law came from the Transylvaia city of Cluj.' In other words mainly Zionists and the Orthodox, but also large numbers of friends and family, for which news about Auschwitz and reassurance about being transported for labour in the Reich was the deal.’

But what’s MME’s explanation for the end to the deportations. I asked for the location of the claim by Bogdanor that Hilberg had said that the Zionists had saved the 200,000 Jews of Budapest and he quotes what is really a throwaway line from Hilberg, viz. that "The Hungarians in their eagerness had intercepted the messages [transmitted by the Jewish relief committee in Budapest] and had thereupon managed to frighten themselves. On July 6 Veesenmayer was informed by Sztojay that the Regent had ordered the deportations to stop."

"The Hungarians in their eagerness had intercepted the messages [transmitted by the Jewish relief committee in Budapest] and had thereupon managed to frighten themselves. On July 6 Veesenmayer was informed by Sztojay that the Regent had ordered the deportations to stop."

Even Mikey should possibly see what is wrong with this except that he is such a hack Zionist propagandist that he can’t. Hilberg is a brilliant historian concerning the mechanics of the Final Solution, but he is not so brilliant when it comes to political speculation about an area in which, by his own admission, he would have had little information that was original.

Instead Mikey distorts even when it is not necessary. For example when I said that Kastner’s Report to the Jewish Agency was ‘self-serving’ this is not to be contrasted with Eichmann, as if it is a choice between the mass murderer and the collaborator. Both can be wrong, or Eichmann alone can be right. In fact Eichmann’s testimony is backed up by other sources. Of course one wouldn’t condemn Kastner simply because Eichmann says he collaborated but there is pretty good evidence. And the reference to ‘self-serving’ is not mine anyway, but is quoted from Randolf Braham’s Politics of Genocide and is made specifically about the complete absence of or mention of the Auschwitz Protocols of Vrba from Kastner’s tediously long-winded Report to the Jewish Agency on his war-time activities.

Mikey fails to tell us how and why Kastner went to Nuremburg to testify for 4 Nazi war criminals (at least). Col. Becher of the Waffen SS, Wisliceny and Krumey of Eichmann’s 4 B IV SS Jewish Department and SS Lt. Gen. Hans Juttner. This in itself was, as even the Israeli Supreme Court, anxious to exonerate him was forced to admit, collaboration.

But yes I disagree with Hilberg and accept the main thrust of the account of Eugene Levai in his Black Book of Hungarian Jewry, which both Braham and Hilberg accept as authoritative. Let me cite excerpts from Levai:

229 on June 26th through Swiss Legation, Roosevelt ‘threatened the Hungarian Government with grave reprisals and a relentless bombing of Hungarian towns.’ On June 27th Secretary of State Hull protested against the ‘massacre of the majority of the Hungarian Jews.’ The first news regarding the fate of the Hungarian Jews appeared in the Swiss papers towards the end of June and the beginning of July. [so much for the nonsense about the Zionists publicising the Report they undoubtedly had - TG]. … On July 8th the ‘Gazette de Lausanne’ published on its front page a very effective leader by its editor, Mr Georges Rigassi ‘les Juifs persecutes’. Talked of the deaths of 400,000 in Auschwitz and the ‘stain on the honour of the Hungarian nation, which could never be removed.’
230 Article presented to Regent Horthy by his son.
231 On June 25th Pope sent personal message to Horthy. General message of hope that ‘Your Serene Highness will do everything in your power to save many unfortunate people from further pain and sorrow.’
235 On June 21st Baky and Endre attended Cabinet meeting where they read their reports ‘especially the more detailed one of Endre… gave an extraordinarily reassuring description of the position the Jews found themselves in.’
240 In response Minister Jugerth-Arnothy remarked sarcastically: ‘One almost regrets not having been born a Jew and thus not to be able to join these pleasure trips.’…
243 Following day Field Marshall Faragho was summoned before Horthy, who declared that he would not permit further deportations.’ On 26th June Crown Council. Horthy stipulated that ‘I won’t stand it any longer. I won’t allow the deportations to bring more shame upon Hungary! The Government shall take measures to remove Endre and Baky from their positions. The deportation of the Budapest Jews shall be stopped.
244 Cabinet meeting of 27th ‘consented in part to the proposals of the Deputy Foreign Minister but actually did nothing to put an end to the deportations. They dared not even inform the Germans of the Regent’s point of view.’ 4th and 5th ‘cleaning up operations’ were in full progress.
247 Attempted coup….Baky turned out 1,600 gendarmerie on streets. Purpose deportation of Jews.
249 Middle of July finally brought a turning point in the fate of the Jews of Budapest. Great Soviet summer offensive of 1944 in the Tarnopol-Luck area had just begun. Horthy and advisors at last realised that Germany stood on the brink of collapse. ‘This enlightenment as well as the easy victory gained over Baky acted as a stimulant to the Regent and his entourage. They even dared challenge the Germans in matters relating to the Jewish question.’
253 ‘Horthy no longer accepted the explanations given by Sztojay and Jaross… Finally the Regent ‘issued the plain order: the deportation of the Jews has to be stopped.’ A number of reasons for which included the Allied invasion was proceeding to plan, the victory gained over the ‘Baky attempt’ by the vigorous action of the Christian churches, the ‘menacing attitude of the enemy countries’ the protests of the neutral countries and ‘last not least by the insistence of members of his family, summoned Prime Minister Sztojay.’ The last deportation train left Bekasmegyer Hev station on Saturday night, July 8th.
254 New deportation train to leave Kirstaczy on July 14th. Horthy ordered Jarossy to have it stopped. It was recalled and back the same evening. ‘Every one of the 1,500 occupants were safe, even those who had previously been detained at Rokk Szilard Street and Horthy-Liget. (This is an indisputable proof of the ability of the Regent and his Government to enforce their orders as far as the Jewish question was concerned, provided they wanted, or chiefly, if they dared to do so…)
267 Towards the beginning of May the reports arriving from Slovakia contained the first authentic account of the horrors of Auschwitz…. It seems clear therefore that Eichmann suggested the idea of the consignments at precisely the same moment in which 300,000 Jews had to face the catastrophe of deportation….’ Of Kasztner, As member of the Zionist Federation, he judged nearly every question from that point of view.'
268 ‘It must be borne in mind that Kasztner was never willing to inform the Jewish leaders as to the progress of the negotiations without being pressed to do so, although he was acting with the authorisation of the Jewish Council…. It was obvious that he intended to be the only one to have a grasp on the situation, fearing that possibly somebody might contest his leadership.’
270 ‘the Jewish Council – by virtue of a concession obtained from Eichmann through Freudiger and Wyslizeni – managed to rescue several prominent Jews from the provincial ghettos and to have these brought to Budapest. Kasztner himself, with the assistance of Eichmann, rescued 350 Zionists from his home town, Kolozsvsar. In Budapest these people were held in a so-called ‘Vorzugslager’ in the Deaf-Mute Institute in Columbus Street, which had been equipped by the ‘Sonderswtab’ and was guarded by SS-men in order to protect the inmates against the gendarmerie and the Hungarian Gestapo.’

So when Mikey insists, not only on defending the collaboration of Kastner and the Jewish Agency but that of the Zionist movement as a whole re Hungary and even has the audacity to suggest that the Zionists ‘saved’ 200,000 Jews in Hungary, when it was they, under the leadership of Stephen Wise who bitterly opposed doing anything in the USA which might jeopardise the establishment of the Israeli state, then one is entitled to kick a little sand in his face.

Rudolph Vrba, one of only 5 Jewish escapees from Auschwitz, wrote to the Observer on 22.9.63. after Hanna Arendt had come under attack by the Zionist professor, Jacob Talmon, for daring to raise the question of collaboration. He described how:

‘In April 1944 we handed to a high representrative of the Zionist movement, Dr Oskar Neumann, a 60 page detailed report on the fact that extermination of 1,760,000 Jews had taken place in Auschwitz…. Did the Judenrat (or the Judenverrat) in Hungary tell their Jews what was awaiting them>? No, they remained silent and for this silence some of their leaders – for example Dr. R. Kasztner – bartered their own lives and the lives of 1684 other ‘prominent’ Jews directly from Eichmann…’.

Yehuda Bauer, the main Zionist historian at Yad Vashem, writes in his ‘Jews for Sale’ that the Auschwitz Protocols, which Vrba and his fellow Wetzler had written in Slovakia for the Judenrat, arrived in Hungary ‘perhaps through Kasztner at the end of April and have been handed over to the leading members of the Judenrat.’ pp. 156/7.

As Ruth Linn explains in, ‘Escaping Auschwitz – a Culture of Forgetting’
‘Like Freudiger, Kasztner was convinced from reading the Vrba-Wetzler report that the entire Jewish community in Hungary was doomed to be liquidated. In his mind the only hope was to try to save the few.’ And that is the real story. The Zionist strategy throughout the holocaust of saving the few, the elect, the prominents, call them what you will as opposed to rescuing or saving the poor, the working class, the socialists. Linn, who is a Professor at Haifa University, no she is no anti-Zionist, goes on to describe how ‘during his intense negotiation with the SS, Kasztner kept the Vrba-Wetzler report secret in order not to create panic among the potential deportees to Auschwitz.’ p.27.

And therein lies the real crime.

And as for the fable that the Zionists were responsible for saving 200,000 Hungarian Jews, we learn that not only were the Auschwitz Protocols sent to the Pope but ‘they also sent the Vrba-Wetzler’ report to the Zionist liaison committee in Istanbul and to the Zionist representative in Switzerland, Nathan Schwalb.’ Schwalb was the representative of Hehalutz, the Zionist young pioneers, in Europe. However ‘Schwalb’s primary interest in this instance was to prevent the Vrba-Wetzler report from being published so as not to disrupt Kasztner’s negotiations with Eichmann.’ Maybe this is an instance of ‘saving Jews’?!!

And citing Braham’s Politics of Genocide, Linn describes how:
‘On July 5, Eden stated that the BBC would be employed to warn the Hungarian leaders. On July 7 1944, Admiral Miklos Horthy ordered a halt to the deportations from Hungary, which became effective only on July 9. Almost 200,000 Jews in Budapest were thus saved from deportation.’

And what was the reaction of those Jews who hadn’t been informed of Auschwitz, bearing in mind that many Jews in Hungary were but a short distance away from safety in Rumania? Linn again describes an incident in the Eichmann trial when ‘during Freudiger’s testimony [Zionist Chief Rabbi of Hungary] at Eichmann’s trial, a Hungarian survivor screamed at him from the gallery, ‘You duped us so you could save yourselves and your families. But our families were killed.’ This man was apparently attacking Freudiger as a representative of the Jewish Council, for he added, referring to another Judenrat member, ‘He gave us injections to numb our minds. But he took his own parents out… and left mine there to die.’ citing Pearlman ‘The Capture and Trial of Adolf Eichmann’. p. 38 Linn. The holocaust survivor was then ejected from the Eichmann trial.

And just in case Mikey has still not got it then Andrea Biss, who helped compile the lists of the Prominents, ‘further provides the moral rationale for the Judenrat’s decision to conceal the Vrba-Wetzler report:
‘It was part of Klages’ job… to keep an eye on Eichmann and to see that everything was done to ensure that the secret behind the ‘final solution’ should be completely guarded. It was therefore necessary that the object of the deportations should remain unknown.’ Linn p.80.
And just in case Mikey still doesn’t get the message, let us cite a few more opinions:

‘Here [in Hungary] the protocol acquired some kind of publication. It was taken to heads of churches and leaders but it was not distributed to the Jewish communities generally….
‘It is beyond question: The Auschwitz Protocols did reach the Jewish Council and Zionist activists, including the Halutz Underground. Yet they did not transmit this information to the Jewish public when the deportation began.
‘The report remained unknown to the Jewish population inside Hungary itself.’ [Linn p.81 citing reports such as Cohen’s ‘Holocaust Hungarian Jews in Light of the Research of Randolph Braham’ 381.

And even in Bauer’s Rethinking the Holocaust ‘Bauer admits that ‘the protocols were an important factor in stopping the deportations.’

One could go on but the idea that the Zionists, having suppressed all news of Auschwitz as long as they dare, can then claim to have ‘saved’ the 200,000 Jews of Hungary is plain sick. It was Chaim Cohen, the Attorney General who defended Kastner in the Jerusalem District Court trial, who explained that saving the few from the many was a Zionist principle, even if as in Hungary it meant sacrificing close to half a million Jews for the sake of ‘The Prominents’.

I hate to be so dismissive of Mikey’s zionised version of history but one has to be hard – be it on Holocaust Deniers or Holocaust Falsifiers (and of course Nakba Deniers). It is little wonder that in their attacks on Vrba, for not following the Zionist line on the Holocaust, that the Zionist historians – Bauer, Porat, Kulka et al. have simply provided ammunition for the Holocaust Deniers who use their attacks as a way of casting doubt on the Auschwitz Protocols. Therein lies their real crime.

Tony Greenstein


* Printer-friendly version

Greenstein the Contortionist
Submitted by MikeyMikey on 12 June, 2008 - 22:53.

I have never offered to do research for Atzmon - paid or unpaid. When I publish something, I can't stop Atzmon reading it. When Greenstein publishes something, he can't stop Nazis re-posting it. Or maybe he can. At any rate, people who want to know what I think of Atzmon can easily find out. Greenstein is repeating this nonsense as a diversion from his own friendly communications with Atzmon, his comrade's secret meetings with Atzmon, and their ideological resemblance to Atzmon.

Greenstein's 3,000-word diatribe is quite an achievement: it's as dull as it's dishonest. Greenstein's contortions are amazing to see.

1. Greenstein demanded that I read Hilberg on Kastzner. I'd read Hilberg on Kasztner. I showed that Hilberg contradicted Greenstein. Greenstein responded that Hilberg doesn't give the Kasztner affair "much treatment at all" and the treatment he does give "is second hand at best"!

2. Greenstein demanded to see a Hilberg quotation on the Zionists saving the Jews of Budapest. When the quotation was given, Greenstein dismissed it as a "throwaway line," claimed that Hilberg was "wrong" and decided that Hilberg was "not so brilliant" after all!

3. I said that "Greenstein believes the Nazi [Eichmann] and not the Jew [Kasztner]." Greenstein objects: "Both can be wrong, or Eichmann alone can be right." For Greenstein, there is no possibility that the Jew might be right and the Nazi wrong! He even argues that the Nazi who murdered millions of Jews "had no discernible motive to lie"!

4. I don't disagree when Braham calls the Kasztner report "self-serving." But contrary to Greenstein's claim that there is a "complete absence of or mention of the Auschwitz Protocols," Kasztner's report does mention them (Braham, pp. 826, 845n57). If Greenstein had paid attention to Braham rather than his own prejudices, he would be slightly less ignorant about the Holocaust in Hungary.

5. Greenstein tells us that "class" was "decisive" in choosing passengers for the train. The Kasztner Memorial website lists more than 1,300 passengers with their professions. Perhaps Greenstein could explain the "class" origins of the butcher, the bakers, the cabinet-maker, the hairdressers, the teachers and the numerous orphans.

6. Greenstein tells us that anti-Zionists were excluded. This is a fabrication. The train carried the virulently anti-Zionist Satmar Rebbe and dozens of his followers (Lob, Dealing With Satan, pp. 150-1). Greenstein tells us that socialists were excluded. This is a fabrication. The train carried many socialists, notably the members of youth movement Hashomer Ha-tzair which shared Greenstein's love for the Soviet Union (Szita, Trading in Lives?, p. 91n7).

7. Greenstein says that Kasztner's aim was "saving the few." Kasztner's aim was saving the many. Hence the title of the book by André Biss, A Million Jews to Save (Hutchinson, 1973). As the Supreme Court Judge Agranat ruled, "Kasztner was motivated by the sole motive of rescuing all Hungarian Jews."

8. Greenstein argued that if anyone is "responsible for the fact that about 200,000 Jews survived in Hungary… it is the US War Refugee Board." Then he admitted that the WRB "was established as a result of a campaign, not least by right-wing revisionist Zionists." But now he dismisses the idea that Zionists "saved the 200,000 Jews of Hungary" as "plain sick." Watching Greenstein's performance as historical contortionist must make his readers sick.


* Printer-friendly version

Mad Mikey Ezra Dodges Again
Submitted by tonyg on 13 June, 2008 - 02:01.

It seems that amateur sleuth and fawning Zionist toady, Mad Mikey Ezra, is a glutton for punishment.

Like Humpty Dumpty words mean what MME wants them to mean. What he hasn’t done is explain his conversation with Atzmon, and how could he!!!

Of course I can’t stop people posting what I write, but I don’t parley or negotiate or communicate with them. MME when asked to ‘provide us with the criminal record of this Bugger-Rance. Is he on spent conviction like greenie l or is he just an ordinary liar?' didn’t tell him to fuck off but said instead ‘Roland Rance will have to wait for another day.' I’m afraid that no amount of lying will exculpate you MME. Try apologising and a bit of contrition.

Yes my citation from Eugene Levai, who clearly MME has never read, may be dull but it’s not dishonest. That is reserved for MME and his idiot friend the Screeching Bogdoor.

I don’t demand MME reads anything since he is incapable of understanding what he does read.
No quotation was give re the Zionists saving 200,000. The quotes I gave, make it clear that the intense diplomatic and military pressure on Hungary were what led to Horthy putting a stop to the deportations and that Schwalb still did his best to cover things up. Of that there is, not surprisingly, no comment.

MME talks about ‘the Jew might be right’. A good example of Zionist anti-Semitism. Whether someone is Jewish or not is irrelevant. It is their politics.

MME says that Kastner’s Report does mention the Auschwitz Protocols. Well I couldn’t find them and despite his quotations, which I also can’t find, in Braham’s book, he is quite clear on the subject: Brahams is quite explicit on Kastner’s role:

706: ‘Shortly after liberation, Kasztner brought out a detailed though self-serving report on the wartime activities of the Budapest Rescue Committee…. He is basically silent about their failure to inform Hungarian Jewry…

Since MME is unable to understand the written English language I shall continue:

711: In his report on the activities of the Budapest Vaada, Kasztner is basically silent about the Auschwitz Protocols…. The Protocols are also ignored by Samu Stern [Chair of the Jewish Council]… In the ‘Report on Hungary’, which he wrote with co-authors a few months after his arrival in Bucharest on August 10, 1944, Fulop Freudiger is also silent about them’.

It is clear that the leaders of Hungarian Zionism and the Jewish Council deliberately kept silent for reasons which are obvious. Brahams makes repeated references to what he describes (632) as ‘the most baffling enigmas requiring elucidation if one is to understand he extent of the catastrophe in Hungary.’ Mad Mikey and his idiot friend believe that knowledge of Auschwitz would have been of no use and would have helped noone (except that those who did know had much better survival chances!). This is the typical arrogance of Zionist toadies and their servile understudies like MME that it is better that those who went to the gas chambers should know nothing of their impending fate.

And again on p.715 Braham’s refers to the ‘agonizing question remains: Why did the Jewish leaders in Hungary, Switzerland, and elsewhere not distribute and publicise the Protocols immediately after they received copies of them late in April or early in May 1944?’ Of course Mad Mikey isn’t interested in this question because it points the finger at his comrades in crime. Braham, who remember MME used to refer to as the most authoritative scholar on Hungary also mentions that ‘The Protocols appear to have been ignored by, or perhaps not even brought to the attention of the Palestine press…’

Previously MME pretends that Moshe Krausz was just another Zionist whereas he was one of the few in bitter disagreement with Kasztner. Braham’s refers to ‘Krausz, Kasztner’s long time enemy’ who claimed that Kasztner had obtained the Protocols in April 1944. [fn. 81. p.729.]

Braham’s, MME’s favourite historian (until now!) also refers to the ‘plausible and to a considerable extent convincing’ claims made in respect of the Protocols, though he says, quite correctly, that there is no ‘foolproof evidence’ to substantiate them: And what were these claims? That Kasztner had received the Protocols in April 1944 and ‘The charge that Kasztner deliberately remained silent in accordance with an agreement with Eichmann under which he was allowed to save a few thousand ‘prominent’ Jews, including his own family and friends.’

Hilberg describes at length pp. 909/910 how ‘with regard to the Jewish question, Horthy mentioned that daily he was being bombarded with telegrams from all sides, from the Vatican and the King of Sweden, from Switzerland and the Red Cross. He, Horthy was certainly no friend of the Jews, but for political reasons he had to intervene… Fourth, the Hungarian government was ‘deluged’ with telegrams from the King of Sweden and the Pope. The nuncio was calling ‘several times’ a day.’

And what had the Zionists been doing. Well he describes some of their ‘activities’. Hilberg cites Henry Monsky, president of B’nai Brith on 6.1.43. when the Final Solution was at its height, declaring that ‘American Jewry… must be ready to voice the judgment of American Jews along with that of other Jewish communities of the free countries with respect to the post-war status of Jews and the upbuilding of a Jewish Palestine.’ Hilberg comments that ‘In this letter no warning to the Germans is proposed, no scheme to put an end to the destruction process is suggested; the destruction of the European Jews is not even mentioned. The European Jews are already given up and all thoughts turn to post-war salvage.’ p.1205

So then we go back to another of Mikey’s lies, the idea that the War Refugee Board was the result of Zionist efforts when the Zionist leaders in the USA vehemently opposed it to the last. If anything it was Henry Morgenthau, the Treasury Secretary who can claim the credit. The Revisionist Zionist minority, with Ben Hecht remember, who pushed for such an organisation did it in the teeth of opposition of the leaders of Zionism at whose feet Mikey fawns. Bergson and Merlin did what they did not because they were Zionists, but in spite of that fact, as Bergson later came to recognise.

Let us cite a document even Mikey should be familiar with, the Department of State Memorandum of Conversation of 19.5.44. Let us remember this is 4 days after the start of the Hungarian deportations, a time when one would expect the Zionists to be exerting every muscle, but of course their eyes are fixed on statehood: Dr Nahum Goldman ‘asserted that Bergon’s activities had not resulted in the rescue of one single Jew or in the saving of a single Jewish life… He mentioned the support which Bergson had been receiving from the WRB and he said that he had discussed this several times with Mr. Pehle, the Executive Director of the Board, who had taken the position that Bergson’s Emergency Committee to Save the Jewish People of Europe had inspired the introduction of the Gillette-Rogers Resolution, which in turn had led to the creation of the WRB. In on of their meetings with Mr. Pehle, Rabbi Wise had gone so far as to inform Mr. Pehle that he regarded Bergson as equally as great enemy of the Jews as Hitler, for the reason that his activities could only lead to increased anti-Semitism. Dr. Goldmann said that only yesterday he had again seen Mr. Pehle and had told him that unless the WRB disavowed Bergson it would be necessary for the WJC to denounce publicly the WRB.’ (reprinted in Lenni Brenner, 51 Documents – Zionist Collaboration with the Nazis’ pp. 197-200). So the organisation which we all agree was responsible in major part for the saving of 200,000 Hungarian Jews, and others as well, was the subject of the threat of denunciation because Goldmann’s political enemies were being talked to by the State Department and WRB. Bergson who wanted to and did save Jews was the equivalent of Hitler. Zionist power politics are shown in all their naked glory as more important than dead Jews from Hungary. And that is the story of Zionist collaboration in Hungary.

As I’ve already pointed out, Loeb is not a reliable source when it comes to Kastner. What is clear though is that those on the select train, the Jewish and Zionist leadership were chosen because of their politics, not their class. It is immaterial whether they were butchers or candlemakers given the general decline in Jewish status in Hungary anyway. The very rich got out as I already explained but MME prefers to ignore. Or maybe the 300+ Kasztner relatives in Cluj were also the poor of the earth?

And what is Mikey’s response to the charge of selectivity, saving the few from the many?
‘Kasztner's aim was saving the many. Hence the title of the book by André Biss, A Million Jews to Save (Hutchinson, 1973). As the Supreme Court Judge Agranat ruled, "Kasztner was motivated by the sole motive of rescuing all Hungarian Jews."

Ah yes, the logic is impeccable. Not only did Kastner’s sidekick Biss call his book ‘A million Jews to save’ but an Israeli judge confirms it! But that was not the rationale of his defence counsel, Attorney General Chaim Cohen. Again let me quote from Braham, who Mikey previously found so infallible:

‘Ironically, a related conclusion was reached by Chaim Cohen, then Attorney General of Israel, in defending Kasztner, against the accusation of collaboration with the SS. He explained Kasztner’s predicament and silence as follows:
‘Kasztner was convinced and believed that there was no ray of hope for the Jews of Hungary, almost for none of them, and since he, as a result of his personal despair, did not disclose the secret of the extermination in order not to endanger or frustrate the rescue of the few – therefore he acted in good faith and should not be accused of collaborating with the Nazis in expediting the extermination of the Jews, even though in fact he brought about its result.’ p. 721.

Note that ‘expediting the extermination of the Jews’ and an admission that ‘in fact he brought about its result.’ And still Mad Mikey defends Kasztner, the representative of the Jewish Agency in Hungary Truly one can say he is not only a liar and distorter, but an apologist for those who delivered nearly ½ million Jews into the hands of the nazis in order to save the elite.

Tony Greenstein


* Printer-friendly version

Tony Greenstein’s Ludicrous Post
Submitted by MikeyMikey on 14 June, 2008 - 19:26.

Tony Greenstein's latest post is a complete shambles. It is full of so many errors and distortions, one hardly knows where to begin. Below I expose a number of his worst blunders:

1. Greenstein claims he does not “parley or negotiate or communicate” with antisemites. One wonders how he can say that after he admitted in the comments section of Engage (March 26, 2007) that he “ once had a conversation with one of the leaders of the NF.” I presume in Greenstein’s topsy-turvy world, where the words of Nazis such as Eichmann are believed to be true, his email to Atzmon was also not communication?

2. I have never accused Eugene Levai of being dull and dishonest in his writings. I reserve that accusation for the likes of Greenstein. Greenstein is also in error when he says that I have never read Levai’s book. I have – but as it was originally published in 1948 it is outdated on a lot of information.

3. I originally stated: "Greenstein believes the Nazi [Eichmann] and not the Jew [Kasztner]." Greenstein objected: "Both can be wrong, or Eichmann alone can be right." Hence my accurate comment: " For Greenstein, there is no possibility that the Jew might be right and the Nazi wrong!” Greenstein now tells us that suggesting a Jew may be right is anti-Semitism! Clearly in Greenstein’s world, Jews are liars.

4. I gave Greenstein a full reference where he can see Braham quoting Kasztner mentioning the Auschwitz Protocols in his report but Greenstein could not locate it. I suggest he looks again because it is there as clear as day. As he is so incompetent, I will help him out. I made it clear that I was using the latest 1994 revised and enlarged edition of Braham’s two volume work The Politics of Genocide. It is quite clear from Greenstein’s references that he is using an earlier edition. I suggest he finds a decent library that has a moré up to date copy.

5. Greenstein keeps saying that the Jews did not know about their fate but he ignores facts and scholarly opinion: For example Greenstein has chosen not to cite the testimony of Dr. Alexander Nathan who stated that after reading the Auschwitz Protocol:

"I could not keep information like that to myself. I consulted with Zionist friends [in the labor service unit] and it was agreed that I should read the document to the whole unit. The reaction was awful .... [They called me ] 'a defeatist, a traitor, a rotter.' They threatened to turn me in. It was no joke. If not for a few Zionist friends they would have beaten me to the point of death. One of the young men fell upon me with a big iron bar which my friends took away from him. The entire company was convinced that I was a provocateur, and that’s how they treated me."

[Cited by Asher Cohen, The Halutz Resistance in Hungary 1942-1944 (Social Science Monographs, Boulder and Institute for Holocaust Studies of City University of New York, 1986) pp. 129-130]

6. Greenstein claims that I pretended “that Moshe Krausz was just another Zionist.” That is a blatant Greenstein lie. I cited Braham and said quite clearly that “Krausz ran the Palestine Office in Hungary.”

7. When Greenstein writes about what the Zionists were doing in early 1943, he ignores the fact that for example 15 meetings were held in different cities in the USA on February 28 and March 1 to “protest the deliberate and barbaric massacres” of Jews in Nazi -occupied Europe. At the meeting in Detroit with Rabbi Stephen Wise and Charles Taft of Roosevelt’s War Relief Board, a motion was passed appealing to Roosevelt and the Allies listing seven points for immediate plans for rescue and for aid in the escape of victims of Nazi terror. (Bette Roth Young, “The American Jewish Response to the Holocaust – A Reconsideration,” Midstream March-April 2007)

8. Greenstein comments that “the idea that the War Refugee Board was the result of Zionist efforts” is one of my “lies” but it was Greenstein himself who said the WRB "was established as a result of a campaign, not least by right-wing revisionist Zionists”!

9. Greenstein claims that “Bergson and Merlin did what they did not because they were Zionists, but in spite of that fact” This is hardly the case. As Rafael Medoff explains, Bergson was an Irgun Zvai Leumi activist, who, in 1936 “helped defend Jerusalem against Palestinian Arab rioters in 1936.” He then “spent several years in Poland, organizing Jewish immigration to Palestine in defiance of British restrictions.” He went to America in 1940 because revisionist Zionist leader Ze'ev Jabotinsky sent him there! (Rafael Medoff, “A Zionist play that changed history,” Jerusalem Post Online Edition September 4, 2006)

10. Greenstein suggests Ladislaus Lob’s book “is not a reliable source when it comes to Kastner.” He has shown no evidence that he has read this book and has not pointed to a single inaccurate statement in that book and provided a reliable of source documenting this. The fact is that Lob had first hand knowledge of the Kasztner train as he was a passenger on it!

11. Greenstein first told us that “it was not only class but political attachment that was decisive” for selection on the train. He now claims that passengers were chosen “because of their politics, not their class.” With each post Greenstein seems to change his mind.

12. Greenstein implies that “300+ Kasztner relatives in Cluj” were passengers on the train but Benjamin Halevey in the Kasztner trial said that there were “more than 20 of Kasztner’s family” on the train. Whilst I accept that “more than 20” could equal “300+” it is massive exaggeration to say that was the case and not surprisingly Greenstein has not sourced his claim. The reason he hasn’t is that he does not have a source. Like many of his claims, it is a figment of his imagination.

13. In relation to Kasztner’s committee attempt to save a million Jews, Greenstein dismisses the book by Biss because he was “Kastner’s sidekick” and dismisses Judge Agranat’s considered opinion because he was an “Israeli judge.” But he is quite happy to believe quotes from Adolf Eichmann!

In fact, details of Kasztner’s committee attempt to save 1,000,000 Jews can be read in numerous books. For example Braham Politics of Genocide (1994 edition) pp. 1,078-1,088; Bauer, Jews for Sale? pp. 162-195; Szita Trading in Lives? pp. 67-76; Martin Gilbert, Aushwitz & the Allies: The Politics of Rescue (London: Hamlyn Paperbacks, 1983) pp. 201 ff; Shlomo Aronson, Hitler, the Allies, and the Jews (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004) pp. 219-262 and the list goes on.

14. Greenstein shows he does not have a basic understanding of the court case involving Kasztner as he refers to Chaim Cohen as Kaszter’s “defence counsel.” The truth was that far from acting as a “defence counsel,” Cohen was the prosecuting attorney!

But then again, what can we expect from someone who reads the words of Adolf Eichmann and believes them?


* Printer-friendly version

Time to Call an end to Battering Mikey the Collaborator
Submitted by tonyg on 14 June, 2008 - 01:35.

Having battered Mikey around town, so much so that he even claims that what I say is just another form of agreement with him, I think it's time to call it a day and let him lick his wounds.

Tony Greenstein


* Printer-friendly version

Summing Up Greenstein’s Depraved Posts
Submitted by MikeyMikey on 14 June, 2008 - 19:47.

Before reading Greenstein’s words, we can note the following:

1. He admits that he would be quite happy if thousands of Jewish supporters of AIPAC were “vaporised.”
2. He would like to see “the Bush White House, the leadership of the Republican Party, New Labour's cabinet” and many more also “vaporised.”
3. He endorsed the IRA bombing at a hotel in Brighton.
4. He has his work published by Neo-Nazis.
5. He acts as an apologist for Stalin.
6. He regurgitates Stalinist propaganda.
7. He dismisses Zionist efforts to combat the Final Solution.
8. He falsifies facts on the Holocaust
9. He lies about his sources.
10. He cites books that he has not read.
11. He cites unreliable sources as if they are reliable.
12. He admits that he supports the murderers of Hamas.
13. He believes Iranians are Arabs.
14. He believes in conspiracy theories.
15. He quotes the mass murdering Adolf Eichmann and believes him.

Having noted this, one can see why we has finally given up trying to defend his claims. With every sentence he writes, he makes a bigger fool of himself.


* Printer-friendly version

Atzmon's favourite Zionist Talks to Himself

Submitted by tonyg on 15 June, 2008 - 01:11.

I can only assume that Mad Mikey Ezra has managed to convince himself of the above if noone else


* Printer-friendly version

Mad Mikey 2
Submitted by tonyg on 15 June, 2008 - 21:33.

Oh I see Mad Mikey's omitted point 16. I eat babies for breakfast. Don't care what religion their parents are though.

Add new comment

This website uses cookies, you can find out more and set your preferences here.
By continuing to use this website, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms & Conditions.