Wiesenthal Center

ojewriej

This news got me thinking.

The Simon Wiesenthal Center has strong evidence that a former SS member known as "Dr. Death" is in southern Chile or Argentina, a top Nazi hunter for the human rights organization said Tuesday.

Heim, who would be 94, tops the center's list of most-wanted Nazi war criminals. A reward of €315,000 (US$495,000) is being offered jointly by the center and the German and Austrian governments for information leading to his capture.

His crimes are fully documented by himself, because he kept a log of the operations that he carried out," Zuroff said. "He tortured many inmates before he killed them at Mauthausen, and he used body parts of the people he killed as decorations."

So the man is a war criminal, no doubt about it. He is also an old man, unlikely to survive a trial and serve his sentence.

Wiesenthal centre is still very actively pursuing Nazis. They are pretty ruthless, and chase not only high profile criminals. For example, at the moment they are going quite hard after four concentration camp guards - you can read about it here.

They were also accused of breaking laws all over the world, and cooperating with Mossad, having people they can't prosecute assasinated.

So what do you think? Are they a bit over the top - the war ended over 60 years ago. Or are they completely within their rights, and fair play to them?

I tend to think fair play to them, although if it's true that they break laws and have people killed, I find it a bit unsettling.

ejmaztec

I think that we are so politically correct, these days, that we firstly assume that we have to be nice to the old folk. We're supposed to feel sorry for these poor old devils despite what they got up to when they were in their prime. People like Pinochet got away with it, playing the same card.

I see on the linked report that Heim was in the hands of the Americans for two years after the war, when he was released without any trial having taken place. Surely, there were enough witnesses and other people around at that time to question this release. I'd like to know why they let him go.

If he were extracted and taken to Israel for trial, he would no doubt tell everyone the reason for the American's releasing him all those years ago. He might also explain how he managed to leave Germany so easily in 1962 when an indictment was in the offing.

I think that if he does manage to end up in court, there should be a few more people in the dock with him.

Morlar

They seem overly eager to sling accusations around the place - slandering good people then dragging their heels on making retraction. The level of arrogance is staggering in my view. Not sure if you are aware of the Hunt family ?

http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0122/mcaleesem.html

Its my view that 90+ year old veterans should be left in peace.


Unless there are exceptional levels of proof (not random accusation by 90+yr old accusers) that they are guilty of serious warcrimes then they should be allowed to live their final days in peace.

Rather than being used as a political football for point scoring by a multi - million dollar organisation seeking (in my view) to boost their publicity profile and fund-raising capabilities. That would be my take on i t. If there was a time for them to pursure people that time is past.

Flame on ! !

Heisenberg.

This post has been deleted.

ojewriej

ejmaztec wrote: »

I think that we are so politically correct, these days, that we firstly assume that we have to be nice to the old folk. We're supposed to feel sorry for these poor old devils despite what they got up to when they were in their prime. People like Pinochet got away with it, playing the same card.

I quite agree with that, but only when it comes to the major criminals.

I don't know if there is any point in chasing concentration camp guards and the likes though. Most likely they were teenagers during the war, completely messed up by propaganda and by the carnage they've seen, and probably very often it was killed or be killed for them. I know it doesn't sound like much of an escuse now, but those were different days. A lot of people did terrible things in order to survive, or simply because they didn't know any better.

ejmaztec wrote: »

I see on the linked report that Heim was in the hands of the Americans for two years after the war, when he was released without any trial having taken place. Surely, there were enough witnesses and other people around at that time to question this release. I'd like to know why they let him go.

If he were extracted and taken to Israel for trial, he would no doubt tell everyone the reason for the American's releasing him all those years ago. He might also explain how he managed to leave Germany so easily in 1962 when an indictment was in the offing.

I was wondering myself. One explanation might be that after the war there was so much stuff to take care of, that he would be pretty low on the priority list. Especially that it would probably take a while to sort out the evidence against him - Germans didn't manage to do it until the 60s.

Another thing is, that we often forget that it took a while for the world to realise the extent of attrocities committed by Germans. Even though there were numerous reports from the underground all over Europe about the things going on in the concentration camps, Allies didn't believe in them until they saw it themselves.

Morlar wrote: »

They seem overly eager to sling accusations around the place - slandering good people then dragging their heels on making retraction. The level of arrogance is staggering in my view. Not sure if you are aware of the Hunt family ?

That's a very good point, makes me feel very iffy about the Center as well.

They are also very quick to accuse people of Anti-semitism.

Morlar wrote: »

Rather than being used as a political football for point scoring by a multi - million dollar organisation seeking (in my view) to boost their publicity profile and fund-raising capabilities.

Another thing I tend to agree with.

Morlar wrote: »

If there was a time for them to pursure people that time is past.

I'm not sure about that. Some crimes deserve to be punished, no matter how long ago they were committed.

Also, it's Israel's m.o. to pursue anyone acting against it's people until they get a result. Black September terrorists would be a prime example.

ejmaztec

I saw a TV programme a few weeks ago and didn't realise until then that many holocaust victims are living in poverty. Various funds and self-elected organisations set up to help them are a bit picky when it comes to helping these people. A lot of them are victims twice.

If I can remember what the programme was called, I'll let you know, unless someone else can remember it.

It's ironic that the money-spinning worldwide holocaust machine makes certain that no-one forgets, but that same machine seems to ignore those impoverished survivors.

Perhaps the Wiesenthal organisation should slip 'em a few quid.

FiSe

He was a "bad guy" so hang that bastard. End of story. He'll be 100 shortly, well he never asked his victims about their age, or did he? Oh well, maybe he did, so he could carry on with his "scientific" research.

My point is:
There is a difference between common soldier , be it Wehrmacht or SS or Luftwaffe, who fought, who killed and who have been killed on someone else's order.
It's very hard to judge someone who took part in excecution of the Jewish, Polish, French, ... population in the field /not in the concentration camps/, but this man is a big fish, always fully responsible for his own actions. As are couple of others "researches" or "only soldiers" still alive. Those people should feel justice even after those 65odd years.

Hunt family museum, as that article says, it's still not clear where this collection came from. It could have been well connected to the Third Reich times, so what? Half of Europian museums do exhibit items plundered from another country during any given war.
If that's the truth and Hunt collection has its origin somwhere there, then, I think, it would be good to know. Without any silly emotions and fairytales about "good people of Ireland". Hope you know what I'm trying to say here :rolleyes:

FiSe

BTW I might be wrong here, but I think that Wiesenthal Centre is charity based and I doubt that this is a multi million dollar organisation, but as I said I could be wrong...

ojewriej

FiSe wrote: »

BTW I might be wrong here, but I think that Wiesenthal Centre is charity based and I doubt that this is a multi million dollar organisation, but as I said I could be wrong...

Their Net assets as of 30th of June 2007 were worth $66.193.619.

Thats an increas of over 3 million USD compared to the last year.

Breakdown - see here

Morlar

I hate using wiki - but sometimes its too convenient

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunt_Museum

In December 2003, the Simon Wiesenthal Center alleged in a letter to President Mary McAleese that the museum's collection contained items looted by the Nazis during the Second World War, although the letter did not refer to any specific items in the collection. The museum has denied the claims.

-- from what I recall despite repeated requests to say which items were looted from where ? The Wiesenthal centre repeatedly refused to do so. They refused to make a direct allegation which would be easier to defend yourself against - but insisted in the blanket 'some items' which is extremely difficult to defend yourself against. Also their wording often seemed more directed at an american market with a .01 milimetre deep attention span.

An inquiry led by former Supreme Court judge Donal Barrington was set up by the museum, but its members resigned in February 2005, saying that the museum's funding made an independent inquiry impossible, and requesting a more appropriate inquiry be created.

--Again from what I recall (open to correction here) the inquiry's independence was brought into question by the wiesenthal centre.

So not only did they make the blanket allegation they refused to accept that if the museum funded an extensive and independent investigation which cleared them that the Wiesenthal centre would possibly not accept it and reject the findings based on the museum having had to invest millions to clear its own name. Thats pretty manipulative behavior and compeltely insidious in my view.

The Department of Arts then provided €150,000 in funding for a second inquiry led by former civil servant Seán Cromien, under the auspices of the Royal Irish Academy. The second inquiry was due to submit an interim report to the Royal Irish Academy in November 2005. This was submitted in February 2006. In October 2005, the museum published a catalogue of its exhibits on the internet, providing full details of all the items in its collection. In June 2006, the inquiry submitted the final report, which was published on the Academy's website.

Also in June 2006, a one-day conference took place on the theme of Contested Cultural Property and Museums: The Case of the Hunt Museum. At this conference, a message was conveyed from Shimon Samuels, who had sent the original letter to Mary McAleese questioning why he had not been invited to the seminar.

- Again mindblowing arrogance in my view to sling unfounded general allegations around the place and then question why the subsequent chain of events are not tailored for your inclusion/ your satisfaction.

Later, the terms of reference of the Hunt Museum Evaluation Group were questioned, the Simon Wiesenthal Center believing that more emphasis should have been placed on investigating the purported Nazi links of the Hunt family

-- this is a shift from items which were looted to 'family links'- moving the goalposts rather than admit the blanket allegations were unfounded.

and the Hunt Museum Evaluation Group believing that this lay beyond their terms of reference, which were to do with provenance research. The Royal Irish Academy issued a press release responding to the statement of the Simon Wiesenthal Center.

-- There was a seperate investigation which also cleared them by
http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0122/mcaleesem.html

'Following an investigation, US expert Dr Lynn Nicholas said last year that there was no proof that these allegations were true, a verdict welcomed by the museum.'

The Wiesenthal defence of their blanket allegations is not to accept the evidence outlining where they were wrong, but, instead to say they will do their 'own investigation'.

Kind of makes you wonder why they didnt do that to begin with - ie before slinging the mud. They could well have charity status for tax purposes - I dont see the charitable endeavour in making unfounded allegations and then despite all reasonable responses (even from the president of Ireland) continuing to have the arrogance to refuse to acknowledge their mistake.

ojewriej

Morlar wrote: »

I
Kind of makes you wonder why they didnt do that to begin with - ie before slinging the mud. They could well have charity status for tax purposes - I dont see the charitable endeavour in making unfounded allegations and then despite all reasonable responses (even from the president of Ireland) continuing to have the arrogance to refuse to acknowledge their mistake.

You are dead right, very dirty tactics.

On the other hand, a lot of people would get away with what they did, if it wasn't for the Center. That's why I can't make up my mind about it.

Off topic:

I was reading up in Simon Wiesenthal himself, and found this:

1943 - On 20 April Wiesenthal is among 20 inmates selected to be shot as part of the celebration of Hitler's 54th birthday. He is spared, however, when an SS corporal has him released so he can paint a banner with a swastika for the occasion.

It never ceases to amaze me, how random it was. Whether you live or die, I mean.

Morlar

'20 inmates selected to be shot as part of the celebration of Hitler's 54th birthday'

ojewriej wrote: »

It never ceases to amaze me, how random it was. Whether you live or die, I mean.

I 100% agree that survival throughout that was was utterly random for all involved. Just out of curiosity - could I ask what is the evidence or what is the source to confirm that that above incident occurred as described ?

My point is that wiesenthal personally was prone to exaggeration. Wasnt there also an Irish journalist who interviewed Wiesenthal who said that he made outright outrageous claims about (among other things) having been personally responsible/assisted in the eichmann investigation ? I seem to recall a mossad operative later saying he was no help to them whatsoever and in fact hindered their investigation despite he claiming that he all but cracked the case himself.

ojewriej

Morlar wrote: »

I 100% agree that survival throughout that was was utterly random for all involved. Just out of curiosity - could I ask what is the evidence or what is the source to confirm that that above incident occurred as described ?

No proof, but the source is here

I don't really care if that particular incident really happen though. I've read enough books about stuff that went on in the camps to know that this sort of thing happened all the time.

Morlar wrote: »

My point is that wiesenthal personally was prone to exaggeration. Wasnt there also an Irish journalist who interviewed Wiesenthal who said that he made outright outrageous claims about (among other things) having been personally responsible/assisted in the eichmann investigation ? I seem to recall a mossad operative later saying he was no help to them whatsoever and in fact hindered their investigation despite he claiming that he all but cracked the case himself.

This is mentioned on the same website:

However, Wiesenthal's contribution is later disputed by Isser Harel, the head of Mossad at the time of Eichmann's capture. Speaking in 1991, Harel says that Wiesenthal had "had no role whatsoever" in the capture of Eichmann. "All the information supplied by Wiesenthal, and in anticipation of the operation, was utterly worthless, and sometimes even misleading or of negative value," he says.

Harel also implies that inaccurate information provided by Wiesenthal had obstructed attempts to locate Josef Mengele.

Thing is, the quote comes form the unpublished memoir of the agent. I've never seen anyone else denying Wiesenthal's involvement in Eichman's capture, I actually thought it's an undeniable common knowledge.

In fact, this is what convinced some money people to give Wiesenthal money to re-open the Jewish Documentations Centre, closed earliel due to the lack of funds. So he must have had some proof.

And to be honest, I would suspect Mossad agents of tendency to exaggerate too.

Another thing is, even if he ddidn't have anything to do with catching Eichman, he and his people cought a lot of others. Also, they've gathered a lot of evidence used in the Nurenburg trials.

Morlar

That is exactly the quote I was thinking of though I coudlnt actually find it - cheers. My point is he claimed to have played a significant role in the capture of Eichmann, this increased his profile and funding and so was in his interests to promote loudly and often.

He also claimed that he was spared death miraculously on several occassions (including the allegation that he was about to be executed to celebrate hitlers birthday). This also increased his funding, profile, public sympathy and was also in his interests to promote.


Re point 1 it was refuted by a central source who broke the normal official silence in order to clear the air (if you accept the mossad agents word above Wiesenthal). From what I have read this was after years of frustration at Wiesenthal publicly claiming credit.

So despite the fact that the mossad agent directly involved said '"All the information supplied by Wiesenthal, and in anticipation of the operation, was utterly worthless, and sometimes even misleading or of negative value," Wiesenthal continued to claim a sizeable portion of credit.

This makes him prone to exaggeration in my view. On a massive scale in a very public large scale manner he manipulated the media to portray himself in a heroic favourable light. That combined with the lack of corroboration would make his other claims largely suspect in my view.

Though it goes without saying (or should) that I am not saying people werent often killed out of hand either in the field or in detention.

ojewriej

I just had a quick look and found his obituary from The Independent.

Simon Wiesenthal, meanwhile, wrote a book entitled I Hunted Eichmann. It came out even before the Nazi was executed. Its boastful title " which the contents did little to substantiate " made its author, after years of obscure detective work, an overnight celebrity. Because of the cloak of secrecy which Mossad had cast over its kidnapping operation there was no-one to offer an alternative view.

Wiesenthal took full advantage of the publicity to press his cause and was able to return to full-time Nazi-hunting on the back of the Eichmann case. He reopened the Jewish Documentation Centre, this time in Vienna, and established a web of informants, including veterans of various intelligence services. They found not only the war criminals but also the witnesses whose testimony, the Simon Wiesenthal Centre in Vienna now says, has helped bring 1,100 former Nazis to trial over the past 50 years.

Wiesenthal's career has not been without controversy. He was accused of egocentricity by those who claimed he took more than his fair share of credit for the arrest of Eichmann.

In 1991 the Jerusalem Post disclosed that the former Mossad chief Isser Harel had written an unpublished manuscript which claimed that Wiesenthal not only 'had no role whatsoever' in Eichmann's apprehension, but in fact 'had endangered the entire Eichmann operation and aborted the planned capture of the evil Auschwitz doctor Josef Mengele'. Harel claimed that he wrote the manuscript out of frustration at the amount of credit Wiesenthal was claiming for the capture of Eichmann and declined to publish it only because that might give succour to anti-semites.

That was not all. Neal Sher, head of the US government's Office of Special Investigations which investigates war crimes, received a demand from Wiesenthal that the OSI investigate suspected war criminals living in the United States.

Sher replied: 'Few of your allegations have resulted in active ongoing investigations ... the bottom line is that ... no allegation which originated from your office has resulted in a court filing by the OSI.' And Sher's successor Eli Rosenbaum, wrote: 'In sum, Wiesenthal's roles in the biggest Nazi cases of all " Mengele, Bormann, and in all likelihood, Eichmann as well " were studies in ineptitude, exaggeration, and self-glorification.'

And there is few more points against him there. And there is also this:

But in one sense all that is irrelevant. Many of the Nazis he brought to trial were beyond dispute, such as Franz Stangl, the commandant of the Treblinka and Sobibor death camps in Poland, who liked to dress in white riding clothes, and was responsible for the extermination of nearly one million people.

Then there was Hermine Ryan who supervised the killings of hundreds of children at Majdanek concentration camp near Lublin in Poland. The doggedness with which Simon Wiesenthal hunted down such individuals has assumed a legendary status.

'When the Holocaust ended in 1945 and the whole world went home to forget, he alone remained behind to remember,' Rabbi Marvin Hier, his successor at the centre, said yesterday. 'He did not forget. He became the permanent representative of the victims, determined to bring the perpetrators of history's greatest crime to justice.'

Simon Wiesenthal spent the past 50 years not just hunting war criminals. He spoke out against racism everywhere, and held out the Jewish experience as a lesson for humanity. To many his name has become a symbol of human conscience. Whatever the facts, in the end it is for this that he will be remembered.

And that's my point. Whether he did catch Eichman or not, he kept the pressure on the Nazis, they knew that they can't rest.

Morlar

ojewriej wrote: »

And that's my point. Whether he did catch Eichman or not, he kept the pressure on the Nazis, they knew that they can't rest.

My point would be if you go around publicly telling large scale lies and exaggerations when it suits your interests then that undermines any level of integrity you might have othewise laid claim to.

Also calls into question the legitimacy / truth of later (particularly the more outrageous) claims you may make.

My overall point would be that that spirit of 'say anything for the attention/sympathy/profile/funding' - its ultimately for a good cause' continues to this day in the context of the organisation which now bears his name.

If you ask a colletor today to catalogue their entire multi-thousand piece collection in order to account for not just its whereabouts, but also any possible terms or circumstances of its acquisition which may have taken place during the years 1933-1945 (or if it did not change hands during those years - prove it) it seems to me that that would be extremely easy to allege that a collection contains such pieces, generating the publicity and attention and sympathy and so on.

This fact will not be unknown to the wiesenthal people who threw the allegations around to begin with.

Considering (in the case of the Hunt family) it was a collection which contained several thousand pieces it was then extremely difficult for them to defend themselves against such arrogant attention seeking claims.

FiSe

I'm sorry lads, completly loosing the plot here...

Morlar

FiSe wrote: »

I'm sorry lads, completly loosing the plot here...

In what way ?

Its a discussion about the wiesenthal centre - which has covered - both the Wiesenthal centre and Simon Wiesenthal (who it was named after and whose work it is supposed to be continuing). If the discussion covers the behaviour & activities of the centre and the character & integrity (or otherwise) of the man how is that losing the plot or irrelevant to the discussion?

In the context of Ireland - the hunt situation is highly relevant. In the context of the centre globally its also one of the more glaring examples of shady practice and completely relevant to the discussion (in my view). Your welcome to disagree or make whatever point you prefer instead.

FiSe

That's all very well, but this discussion is also about well known Nazi criminals, well one anyway and their handover to justice, in which Wiesenthal Centre plays a big part...

Hunt museum, is really unimportant if you looking at the situation from this point of view.
There were an inquiries, one of them led by "former civil servant", sorry couldn't resist, which proved SWC wrong. The End. Dot.
There was one day conference on this topic as well, so why not invite that angry fella, which name I forgot, from the Centre and get him nailed there and then?
Of course, if you bought any historical or fine art artefact during 1939-45 it stinks. And always will, right or wrong. Am not accusing, am just commenting on what I have said before. Every war brings movement of such items, if there's an offer and you are lucky enough and living in neutral country and your valet is big enough, you gonna go and buy. Natural. And if that's the only connection with Nazi Germany, then I can't see anything wrong with that. And even if there’s some of Hunt family who was in NSDAP or otherwise connected with the Nazi regime, so what? Was he a war criminal? If yes judge him, if not, well, tens of thousands like him were around back in those times...

I believe that there are, at least, some workers in SWC, who are trying really hard to do their best to uncover real war criminals, those who are still alive, or those who died under false names all over the world.
My granddad will be 90 shortly, he would be one of those witnesses you are talking about and which credibility you have questioned, or that was the impression I got, if he would have been in the lager. He wasn't, he told me some stories from the war, his dates are mixed, but if it's something terrible, he knows exactly how it happened, where it was he remembers every detail including people who were around.

Am not saying that SWC is the only right institution and I don't know what age are yous, but it's very hard to judge people who went through something which we will never know. Wiesenthal may put some bling on his live and make him self bigger than he was, but it doesn't make him a layer or it doesn’t make the Centre worthless organization. Or does it?

Morlar

FiSe wrote: »

Wiesenthal may put some bling on his live and make him self bigger than he was, but it doesn't make him a layer or it doesn’t make the Centre worthless organization. Or does it?

If by 'bling' you mean lies and by 'layer' you mean liar then sorry to sound like a smartarse but that would make him a liar.

Re the Wiesenthal centre - (not the guy) the hunt situation is 100% relevant.

There arent that many real life actual nazis with reasonable ground for suspicion of warcrimes still alive today to keep an organisation that size busy on a day by day basis. Going forward they need to diversify a bit which is where the hunt collection scenario comes in as thats the sort of area where the wiesenthal centre are heading once the last of the 90+ yrolds pass on.

The hunt story shows them up for the kind of people they are. They are so desperate for publicity and through that more funding that they will throw allegations around with no verification or proof. Putting families under the strain of having to defend themselves against a non specific allegation. Then to top it off - the wiesenthal centre dont accept their defence on the basis that if they (the Hunt family) funded the investigation out of their own pocket well then that's not impartial enough.

Then when a seperate independent body sets up to investigate the hunt people (following the wiesenthal initial groundless allegation) they disagree that they didnt agree in advance to the terms of reference - the arrogance is literally mindblowing. They then complain that they werent invited to a conference where the issue is discussed.. Who exactly they think they are to insinuate themselves like that is a good question - they have no mandate whatsoever let alone the right to assume the mantle of an officially involved party. In the case of the hunt family the wiesenthal centre have displayed the morals of a snake - to say that that somehow is simply not a relevant example in a discussion about the wiesenthal centre is something I wouldnt agree with.

FiSe

Morlar wrote: »

If by 'bling' you mean lies and by 'layer' you mean liar then sorry to sound like a smartarse but that would make him a liar.

"liar" oops, that one escaped, in and out from the spraybooth where am spraying layer after layer :rolleyes:

Bling means bling, or is it blink? Everybody puts bling on their life stories...

Morlar

FiSe wrote: »

"liar" oops, that one escaped, in and out from the spraybooth where am spraying layer after layer :rolleyes:

Bling means bling, everybody puts bling on their life stories...

Theres something about that combination of being a liar/prone to exaggeration while being responsible for making life and death accusations against people that doesnt go well together.

I was reading a little more on him and there was one telling quote that I would be in full agreement with (bling or no blingless). From here http://www.moreorless.au.com/heroes/wiesenthal.html

2003 - Wiesenthal announces that his Nazi-hunting work is complete and retires from the Jewish Documentation Centre.

"I found the mass murderers I was looking for, and I have outlived them all," he tells the Austrian magazine 'Format' in April. "If there are a few I didn't look for, they are now too old and fragile to stand trial. My work is done."

ojewriej

Morlar wrote: »

If by 'bling' you mean lies and by 'layer' you mean liar then sorry to sound like a smartarse but that would make him a liar.

You are making an awful jump here. I mean, a minute ago we just knew of some people questioning his story about Eichman - or rather one person really, and few people saying that he was an egomaniac and liked to exaggerate things. Are you sure that's enough to call him a liar and question everything he acchieved?

Your man Harel didn't publish these accusations in his biography - I wonder why is that?

What I'm getting at is that Wiesenthals role in catching Eichman is explained in quite a detail - i.e. the postcard he received informing him about eichman wherebaout - , and I find this kind of detail quite convincing. Especially that all we have against it is one person's accusations which are not supported by any kind of proof. As far as I can see, anyway.

Morlar wrote: »

The hunt story shows them up for the kind of people they are. They are so desperate for publicity and through that more funding that they will throw allegations around with no verification or proof.

Hunt's case was handled pretty badly, i agree. Very badly even. But I don't agree it shows "what kind of people they are" and that they are "desperate for publicity". In the line of work they are, it's inevitable that they will step on some toes and sometimes things will go wrong. To be honest, after reading up on their work over the years, I'm quite surprised that similar controversies only happened a handfull of times.

Morlar wrote: »

I was reading a little more on him and there was one telling quote that I would be in full agreement with (bling or no blingless). From here http://www.moreorless.au.com/heroes/wiesenthal.html

2003 - Wiesenthal announces that his Nazi-hunting work is complete and retires from the Jewish Documentation Centre.

"I found the mass murderers I was looking for, and I have outlived them all," he tells the Austrian magazine 'Format' in April. "If there are a few I didn't look for, they are now too old and fragile to stand trial. My work is done."

The truth is, Wiesenthal was never actually involved in institute's work. He did say it was his legacy, but actual Nazi hunting was done by other people. And I think they are right to do it. I mean, look at the guy from my OP,

"He tortured many inmates before he killed them at Mauthausen, and he used body parts of the people he killed as decorations."

I think he deserves anything they can throw at him, no matter how old and fragile he is. I really hope they'll find and punish him.

kowloon

Morlar wrote: »

They seem overly eager to sling accusations around the place - slandering good people then dragging their heels on making retraction. The level of arrogance is staggering in my view. Not sure if you are aware of the Hunt family ?

http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0122/mcaleesem.html

First thing that sprung to mind when I saw the title. What are they all going to do when the work runs out? Witches anyone?

marcsignal

ejmaztec wrote: »

I saw a TV programme a few weeks ago and didn't realise until then that many holocaust victims are living in poverty. Various funds and self-elected organisations set up to help them are a bit picky when it comes to helping these people. A lot of them are victims twice.

If I can remember what the programme was called, I'll let you know, unless someone else can remember it.

It's ironic that the money-spinning worldwide holocaust machine makes certain that no-one forgets, but that same machine seems to ignore those impoverished survivors.

Perhaps the Wiesenthal organisation should slip 'em a few quid.

I think I saw that documentary a few years ago, it was called 'Battle for the Holocaust' http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/B/battle/page3.html and featured interviews with victims as well as Professor Norman Finkelstein. He wrote a good book about the subject called 'The Holocaust Industry' http://books.google.ie/books?id=VrqK5VdO2i0C&dq=Norman+Finkelstein+%2BHolocaust+industry&pg=PP1&ots=52wy_lDXms&sig=SV_-8Ge1swI9SkQC4t6-_sPhrk0&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result
Finkelsteins' parents survived the concentration camps and he put in a claim for compensation money for them from the World Jewish Congress who were pressuring the Swiss and German Banks for money. His parents were given something in the region of $1240 each for their trouble, and meanwhile, these organisations were raking in billions.

Morlar

ojewriej wrote: »

You are making an awful jump here. I mean, a minute ago we just knew of some people questioning his story about Eichman - or rather one person really,

Not quite - going from the quotes you yourself provided in this thread ;

Neal Sher, head of the US government's Office of Special Investigations

'Few of your allegations have resulted in active ongoing investigations ... the bottom line is that ... no allegation which originated from your office has resulted in a court filing by the OSI.'

Sher's successor Eli Rosenbaum, wrote:

'In sum, Wiesenthal's roles in the biggest Nazi cases of all " Mengele, Bormann, and in all likelihood, Eichmann as well " were studies in ineptitude, exaggeration, and self-glorification.'

Isser Harel, the head of Mossad at the time of Eichmann's capture

"All the information supplied by Wiesenthal, and in anticipation of the operation, was utterly worthless, and sometimes even misleading or of negative value,"

And those are just the ones you yourself provided.

ojewriej wrote: »

and few people saying that he was an egomaniac and liked to exaggerate things. Are you sure that's enough to call him a liar and question everything he acchieved?

Wiesentahl didnt just mention this in passing - its not 'bling' or some minor point he bragged about in the heat of the moment like say . . . his golfing ability (the reason I use this example is not to lessen the subject but to point out that others trivialising his lies are not entirely accurate).

He wrote a book in which this was the central claim then that book in ways became the basis of his career (eg it led to him being a movie consultant on the boys from brazil for example) and it generally increased his profile.

If he was capable of lying consistently on that scale - (ie to the entire world while knowing that certain people bound by official oaths knew the truth), repeatedly over that many years then in my view he is 100% unreliable.

ojewriej wrote: »

Hunt's case was handled pretty badly, i agree. Very badly even. But I don't agree it shows "what kind of people they are" and that they are "desperate for publicity".

Considering they also tried to ban the sale of militaria on ebay (as one other example) publicity seeking with regard to the wiesentahl centre is not an isolated episode in my view. Besides re the Hunt saga - reproaching the head of state of Ireland . . . . I dont believe that that would happen without senior wiesentahl people planning that one out in advance. Organisations dont take on (even symbolic) heads of state without agreeing fully in advance. They chose this route at the highest levels of the organisation rather than correct a mistake they chose to continue their belligerence to bluster the opposition aside. They have had years to correct their approach and consistently failed to do so. Its not an isolated blip on their record - its at highest levels and consistently over years.

ojewriej wrote: »

The truth is, Wiesenthal was never actually involved in institute's work.

Technically, no, but the institute carries his name and is supposedly based on his lifes work so I am not sure how relevant your point here is.

ojewriej wrote: »

Quote:
"He tortured many inmates before he killed them at Mauthausen, and he used body parts of the people he killed as decorations."

I think he deserves anything they can throw at him, no matter how old and fragile he is. I really hope they'll find and punish him.

'body parts . . . as decorations' I take it you mean legs and arms and so on ? Can I ask what is the evidence a German officer used body parts for decoration ?

I know skulls are often used on the battlefield as they can be commonplace at times but in the context of a camp situation what evidence is there that arms and legs were used as decoration ?

The reason I ask is that I still remember when the stories about bars of soap made out of body fat, shrunken heads, lampshades made out of human skin (and I believe also drums) and so on were commonplace in relation to that subject. Those more 'out-there' claims seem to be less repeated thesedays but still you get ones like the above which seem to go unchallenged as a matter of course. I think this is due to the climate of fear surrounding any non 100% agreement in discussions of any aspect of that entire topic. Now I am not saying that a german officer in the entirety of that 6 year war with 20 million german combatants never used body parts as decorations but i am just curious as to what the actual evidence is (aside from the fact that the allegation has been made).

Morlar

marcsignal wrote: »

I think I saw that documentary a few years ago, it was called 'Battle for the Holocaust' http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/B/battle/page3.html and featured interviews with victims as well as Professor Norman Finkelstein. He wrote a good book about the subject called 'The Holocaust Industry' http://books.google.ie/books?id=VrqK5VdO2i0C&dq=Norman+Finkelstein+%2BHolocaust+industry&pg=PP1&ots=52wy_lDXms&sig=SV_-8Ge1swI9SkQC4t6-_sPhrk0&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result
Finkelsteins' parents survived the concentration camps and he put in a claim for compensation money for them from the World Jewish Congress who were pressuring the Swiss and German Banks for money. His parents were given something in the region of $1240 each for their trouble, and meanwhile, these organisations were raking in billions.

And he was recently barred from Israel for his troubles. I have read that finkelstein book 'the holocaust industry' and it is completely stomach churning what has happened to the likes of his parents. They recieved next to nothing while countless billions were siphoned off to legal interests and political organisations.

marcsignal

Morlar wrote: »

And he was recently barred from Israel for his troubles. I have read that finkelstein book 'the holocaust industry' and it is completely stomach churning what has happened to the likes of his parents. They recieved next to nothing while countless billions were siphoned off to legal interests and political organisations.

Yeah he certainly raised a lot of, what I personally believe are, valid questions about the integrity of these organisations. If what he says is true, (and I can't see any point in him making it up), it is truly shameful.

Slightly off topic, but the Dachau camp is very close to where I live, and the German Government has recently spent millions renovating the place and building a new visitors centre.

There was also a lot of grumbling in Germany recently about the renovation of another lesser known camp called 'Flossenbürg' near 'Grafenwohr' in Bavaria. From what I understand, in the 60's and 70's local people built houses on the site of the camp which was largely abandoned. Recently the German Government decided to re-open it as a Holocaust memorial. A compulsory purchase order was sent to all those living on the site and the people concerned were consequently forced to move. You can see it here on Google Earth 49°44'9.63"N 12°21'22.98"E The surrounding houses are really close to, and on the original site.
Link here to renovation, but all in German http://www.gedenkstaette-flossenbuerg.de/ausstellung/index.php

Another embarrassing one that happened a while ago, was over the Holocaust memorial in Berlin. In order to avoid Anti-Semetic graffiti appearing on the site, the stonework was treated with a kind of 'anti stick' varnish to prevent spray paint from drying on the surface. However the company that made this product were found to have some connection with the company that made the Zyklon-B Gas from the Camps.

FiSe

Morlar wrote: »

'body parts . . . as decorations' I take it you mean legs and arms and so on ? Can I ask what is the evidence a German officer used body parts for decoration ?

Don't want to start again, so only quick one, I believe, that this is taken from a newspaper article or web article which was put together by journalist who knows feck all about the topic he/she writes abot. Very common practice unfortunately nowadays and the "human decoration" thing seemed to be a good punchline to get a point across.

But apart from all this talk about The Centre, Wiesenthal, multimillion dollar holocaust industry, which, OK, is not as rose as it looks, The Hunts, Mossad and god only knows what else, I'm still trying to understand what are you saying about "that" particular German officer who is a known war criminal.

And, just one more thing, I thought, that Simon Wiesenthal died shortly after that Wiena interview, you have mentioned above, so he can't be chasing any other Nazi criminals. So in all fairness, he's right in that one after all.

LostinBlanch

marcsignal wrote: »

I think I saw that documentary a few years ago, it was called 'Battle for the Holocaust' http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/B/battle/page3.html and featured interviews with victims as well as Professor Norman Finkelstein. He wrote a good book about the subject called 'The Holocaust Industry' http://books.google.ie/books?id=VrqK5VdO2i0C&dq=Norman+Finkelstein+%2BHolocaust+industry&pg=PP1&ots=52wy_lDXms&sig=SV_-8Ge1swI9SkQC4t6-_sPhrk0&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result
Finkelsteins' parents survived the concentration camps and he put in a claim for compensation money for them from the World Jewish Congress who were pressuring the Swiss and German Banks for money. His parents were given something in the region of $1240 each for their trouble, and meanwhile, these organisations were raking in billions.

Yes, that is really sickening. It's the victims who get practically nothing, while organisations get (and keep) the lions share.

marcsignal

LostinBlanch wrote: »

Yes, that is really sickening. It's the victims who get practically nothing, while organisations get (and keep) the lions share.

He speaks about it here on YouTube (in 6 parts)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ja4WfP7Be78

ojewriej

Morlar wrote: »

Not quite - going from the quotes you yourself provided in this thread ....

If he was capable of lying consistently on that scale - (ie to the entire world while knowing that certain people bound by official oaths knew the truth), repeatedly over that many years then in my view he is 100% unreliable.

I can see your point here. Mine is:

We have two sides of the story - and we don't, and probably ever will which one is true. My guess is that the truth is somewhere in the middle as usual.

As convincing as his opponents might sound, the truth is that Wiesenthal is viewed as an Ultimate nazi Hunter, the person who kept the pressure on the Nazis when the rest of the world was busy with the Cold War.

Fair enough, there are doubts about his part in catching Eichman for example, but there is plenty of other cases where his role was well documented. I.E. catching an officer who arrested Anne Frank and her family.

He received US Congressional Gold Medal, the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and an honorary British knighthood. After he died, Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman said: "''Simon Wiesenthal acted to bring justice to those who had escaped justice, In doing so, he was the voice of 6 million.".

I just find it hard to believe that the achieved all that only because he could sell himself.

Morlar wrote: »

Considering they also tried to ban the sale of militaria on ebay (as one other example) publicity seeking with regard to the wiesentahl centre is not an isolated episode in my view. Besides re the Hunt saga - reproaching the head of state of Ireland . . . . I dont believe that that would happen without senior wiesentahl people planning that one out in advance. Organisations dont take on (even symbolic) heads of state without agreeing fully in advance. They chose this route at the highest levels of the organisation rather than correct a mistake they chose to continue their belligerence to bluster the opposition aside. They have had years to correct their approach and consistently failed to do so. Its not an isolated blip on their record - its at highest levels and consistently over years.

As I said, I agree, they are no angels, and there are things they could do better. But I still think that doing what they do, they managed to stepped on very few toes.

Morlar wrote: »

Technically, no, but the institute carries his name and is supposedly based on his lifes work so I am not sure how relevant your point here is.

The way I understand it, it was called after him as a tribute rather than to indicate that they will follow him and his work blindly. What I mean is, even if Wiesenthal said he was done, there are others who are not, and won't be until there are still Nazis at large.

Morlar wrote: »

i am just curious as to what the actual evidence is (aside from the fact that the allegation has been made).

Witnesses accounts, his journal, the fact that he was a SS Doctor working in a KL? Even if he didn't use body parts as decoration - he still experimented on alive, healthy people.

I know that there is a lot of exaggerated accounts of attrocities, for example I don't believe in the soap story myself, but there is plenty well documented ones too. Like Ilse Koch colecting tatoos. I also read a lot of books written by former KL inmates, and mentions of things like this happening are just to numerous to be dismissed.

But again, that's beside the point - I agree that before they go after someone, they should be damn sure that they have a right person.

So let me ask you this - if Dr. Mengele was found alive and well, living somewhere in South America - do you think he should be left alone, because he is old?

As for survivors living in poverty - as much as I agree that it's not right, I don't really see how it's relevant in this thread. Wiesenthal Centre's focus is on chasing Nazi hunters and preserving memory of the Holocaust, this is what they raise money for and this is what they do. So you can hardly epect them to help every Jew who fell on hard times.

Morlar

Looks like those Wiesenthal Centre charmers are at it again :

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0414/1224244629878.html

AN INTERNATIONAL Jewish organisation has criticised the Government for failing to respond to a report on alleged links between the founders of the Hunt Museum in Limerick and Nazi sympathisers.

The Simon Wiesenthal Centre in Paris accused the Government of “total discourtesy” for failing to even acknowledge the report, which was sent to the Taoiseach last December.

The Department of Arts, while acknowledging Government departments erred in not responding to the centre, says there is nothing new in the report about the late John and Gertrude Hunt and no reason to believe any of the 2,000 items in the collections of the Hunt Museum, which they founded, had been looted by the Nazis.

However, the director of the centre, Dr Shimon Samuels, said that by consigning the report “to oblivion” Ireland showed it was in “a state of denial” over the past activities of Nazi sympathisers in the country. He said he planned to embarrass Ireland over the issue at international conferences and in the US media.

The report by museum consultant Erin Gibbons detailed business relationships between the Hunts and Nazi sympathisers and traffickers of looted art. It claimed investigations by the Irish authorities up to now were inadequate and called for further research.

Supporters of the couple have pointed out that the author of the latest report, Ms Gibbons, was the person who started the controversy in 2004.

“The report contains not one single piece of evidence to support the assertion that the museum contains any looted art objects,” said Brian O’Connell, director of Shannon Heritage. “No evidence has ever been produced by Dr Samuels that the Hunts had any connection of any kind with any Nazi in the pre-war period, apart from contact in the normal course of his business as an art dealer with the director of the National Museum of Ireland, Adolf Mahr.”

An earlier report by Dr Lynn Nicholas, a world authority on Nazi-looted art, cleared the Hunts of involvement in Nazi-era spying and trafficking in looted art.

Dr Samuels said Ireland was the one neutral country in Europe that had not faced up to the challenges of the past. The fall of the Berlin Wall had led to the discovery of fresh information in archives throughout Europe which shed light on the period, he said. “That process was never confronted in Ireland and so you haven’t had the healthy catharsis of other countries which have refreshed their view of history from this time.”

The official dealing with the matter in the Department of Arts acknowledged a mistake had been made in not acknowledging receipt. He insisted there was “nothing new or specific” in Ms Gibbons’s report.

The department has funded research into the provenance of the items in the museum, which have been catalogued online. “We’re satisfied with the research that has been carried out. No link has been found between any item in the museum and any list of stolen Nazi or Holocaust items,” the official said.

Dr Nicholas told The Irish Times she stood by her report.
__________

This seems to be to be the height of absurdity.

The Wiesenthal centre claim that an Irish art collection contains looted art - but will not specify which pieces of art.

They then force the collection owners (at their own expense) to fund an investigation which subsequently clears them.

The Wiesentahl centre instead of apologising - reject this due to their claims that the investigation was biased.

This forces the Irish Govt to fund an seperate additional investigation. The subsequent state funded investigation also clears the Hunt Family (whose Art collection the wiesentahl centre have their eyes on) and the wiesentahl centre now say that this was 2nd investigation was an 'inadequate' investigation and the Irish govt should now fund more investigations into their (wiesentahl centre's) non specific unsubstantiated claims !! This is all straight out of a Kafka novel imo.

Their intention now to 'embarass Ireland' on the flimsiest of accusations is disgusting in my view and further confirms the earlier assessment of this particular lobby group. The arrogance and recklessness of these people is staggering.

ilkhanid

It appears that no investigation will please the Wiesenthal centre. No body that could conduct one would be considered impartial by them. For some reason they are starting from an initial point that considers the guilt of the Hunts to be a given. So obviously all investigations are inadequate that don't produce the 'correct' result. It seems that-contrary to all investigative logic-the Wienthal centre, in the absence of hard evidence of dubious dealing and Nazi sympathies on the part of the hunts, is demanding that their innocence be proved.It's time the Government stopped indulging them and ingnored their yelping.

marcsignal

ilkhanid wrote: »

It's time the Government stopped indulging them and ingnored their yelping.

HERE HERE !!

Mahatma coat

I'm reminded of this story
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/arts/4563133.stm

the old womans family had been in Austria but fled before the Anschluss

AANYWAY, in 1925 the Paintings were Willed to the national gallery in Austria, then the Nazi's pinched them, then the Austrians got them back, then this burd popus up and says wait, my Uncle said that they were to remain in the Family, and they were of great sentimental value as thats a pic of my aunt, Boo hoo poorme, I'm a victim etc etc........

after the arbitration ( I think less than a week after) they were Auctioned off to private collections and the collection was split up.

it sickens me what means some people will use to get their own way

Morlar

I remember a documentatary about that story. The film participants filmed themselves throughout or had a documentary crew along (for some parts of the ride). From what I recall she kept saying was 'never, ever about the money'.

There were all sorts of shenanigans over the years where the Austrians had decided to give her family some paintings but not the Klimt ones in question as they were willed to the National Gallery and considered a national treasure.

So the family sold those (paintings they had been given by the Austrians gratis) off and lived very comfortably throughout the 1950's/60'e/70's etc on the proceeds. Then they decided to go for the Klimts in addition to the above.

They were asked the day of the judgement if they were going for auction the following week their response was in effect NO. The following week they are up for auction and sold off. So they went from the National Gallery in Austria where they were enjoyed by countless art lovers from around the world over the years into private hands.

The family member who originally owned them left clear unambigious instruction in their will that the paintings should go to the National Gallery of Austria (which from what I recall was the artists wishes also). Then another family member I believe sold them. They changed hands a few times and ended up in the National Gallery of Austria anyway. Until the american court judgement which gave them to the woman above who sold them in record time. I thought the whole story was pretty sickening.

Morlar

Today's whim is that they now desire someone (else) to fund an investigation into any european MEP candidates which the wiesentahl centre have not given the ring-kiss of approval to. One of the candidates the wiesentahl centre do not approve of is Ryzard Bender (whose grandparents perished in Auschwitz). Apparently he is not virulent enough in his opposition to alleged anti-semitism.

The wiesentahl centre are trying to inveigle themselves into having a position of influence (or even a role for themselves) within european politics where they could have some kind of approval/veto power over candidates who do not (in their opinion) conform to their ideals with enough enthusiasm. Very much like the jewish lobby waives a disproportionate amount of power within the United States political system. If the wiesentahl centre were run by non jews instead of Jews it is hard to see how the media would pander to, and give credence to, this inane drivel.

Their new timely allegation is that 2 of the Libertas party's 600 candidates in Europe 'support' a Polish radio station the wiesentahl centre have alleged may (in the view of the wiesentahl centre) be anti-semitic. Of course they throw in some overly dramatic guff about 1933 etc to cheapen things up.


Irish Times article on this

The Jewish human rights group, which is famous for hunting down Nazi war criminals,

(this is not all it is famous for)

has written to the EU’s Fundamental Rights Agency asking for it to undertake an investigation on its links with several members of the Polish League of Familes.

So the wiesentahl centre would like you (as an EU taxpayer) to fund an investigation which would serve to promote the wiesentahl brand.

If you read the rest of the article in the link be sure to replace the word 'anti-semitic' with the words 'alleged by us anti-semitic', and the word 'racist' with words 'alleged by our group to be a racist'. Also worth bearing in mind the motives and agenda of the people behind generating all of this free publicity for themselves.

Libertas initially responded to this by saying this :

(Wiesentahl centre are) " Beneath contempt" "it is only a matter of time before the establishment got so desperate that they resorted to calling Libertas Nazi's"

"The only surprise here is that we had to wait so long before they could find a willing idiot to come and say it"

Then promptly backed down and now say this :

"In response, Party Leader Declan Ganley said Libertas would work with the centre to combat racism and anti-semitism in the European Parliament"

All of which kind of re-inforces this soap bubble of an illusion that jews are the eternal victims of us pesky europeans. This time of EU parliament anti-semitism which, even if you make a leap and take these allegations as sincere & at face value all they do is display an utter jewish persecution complex / fantasy which only serves to advance the centre's groundless & mandateless attempt at gaining power and influence through PC fear and mudslinging.

Here is another link to this story

Wiesenthal Centre slams Libertas Holocaust deniers
http://ganleydeclan.blogspot.com/2009/06/wiesenthal-centre-slams-libertas.html

Quite co-incidental I am sure that they chose to time this on the eve of European elections. I think Caroiline Simmons got it right first time around - they are beneath contempt. They should keep their nose out of european politics and stick to persecuting elderly art collectors who have done nothing wrong whatsoever.

Dinter

There's as much chance of the Wiesenthal Centre admitting that all nazis are dead as there is of Concern saying, "actually the developing world's all right for food these days".

The centre pays its staff wages and the more mud slinging and muck raking they carry out the longer donations will continue to support this.

Mahatma coat

Another Klimt up for Auction, similarly sketchy provenance.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/entertainment/arts/rare-klimt-to-fetch-26-m/2010/01/13/1263058299758.html

its a shame but if the Nazi's had gotten hold of the collections during the Anschluss most of these paintings would be in the Austrian National Gallery.

Morlar

I don't normally resurrect dead threads but these recent articles are relevant to the discussion on wiesentahl and his character :

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1310725/Why-I-believe-king-Nazi-hunters-Simon-Wiesenthal-fraud.html

Why I believe the king of the Nazi hunters, Simon Wiesenthal, was a fraud

By Guy Walters
Last updated at 2:43 PM on 10th September 2010


For millions around the world, Simon Wiesenthal is seen as a hero.

Often credited with bringing to justice some 1,100 war criminals, the Nazi hunter and Holocaust survivor is regarded almost as a saint, a man who did more than any government to lock up the perpetrators of some of the worst crimes the world has witnessed.

Nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, the recipient of a knighthood and more than 50 other honours, Wiesenthal is particularly remembered for his role in tracking down the notorious architect of the Holocaust, Adolf Eichmann.
Revered: But did the Nazi hunter build his reputation on fantasy?

Revered: But did the Nazi hunter build his reputation on fantasy?

After he died at the age of 96 in September 2005, the eulogies poured in from around the world.

Wiesenthal was lauded as the ‘permanent representative of the victims’, a man who had not only sought justice, but prided himself on never forgetting his six million ‘clients’, as he called those who died in the Holocaust.

Those who read his memoirs could only marvel at his wartime heroism and incredible escapes from death at the hands of the Nazis.

It seemed as if Wiesenthal’s mission was almost divinely given, the gods sparing his life for some higher purpose.

The accounts of his hunts for fugitives were no less sensational, as Wiesenthal told how he engaged in a battle of wits against the sinister postwar Nazi networks and their sympathisers.

It was the ultimate feelgood story of revenge, and the world lapped it up.
Rewriting history: Wiesenthal is shown attending a trial of suspected Nazi war criminals in Vienna, Austria in 1958

Rewriting history: Wiesenthal is shown attending a trial of suspected Nazi war criminals in Vienna, Austria in 1958

TV programmes and movies were made, and soon Wiesenthal became a household name, a symbol for the triumph of hope over evil.

Those who thrilled at his life story can now do so once more, thanks to a new biography written by the Israeli historian Tom Segev.

The figure who emerges in the book is far more complex than one might expect.

Dr Segev shows that so much of Wiesenthal’s account of his life was the product of exaggeration and self-mythologising.

Appearing on Radio 4’s Today programme this week, the author said Wiesenthal was ‘a storyteller, a man who lived between reality and fantasy’.

He excused Wiesenthal’s inclination to fabricate stories about his past,saying it was his way of making it easier to deal with the real atrocities he had experienced in the concentration camps.

I’m sorry, but this compassionate approach simply does not wash with me. For the truth is that the great Nazi hunter is far, far worse than Dr Segev makes out.

In my view, Simon Wiesenthal was a liar and a fraud. In fact, I’d go so far as to say he was one of the biggest conmen of the 20th century.

I spent four years working on a history of Nazi-hunting that was published last year, and the material I gathered on Wiesenthal was enough to make me scream out loud.

When I started my book, I too believed that the great man was just that — great.

But when I looked at all his memoirs, biographies and original archive material, I realised that, like so many others, the image I had built up of Simon Wiesenthal was hopelessly incorrect.

The Lvov State Archives have no record of Simon Wiesenthal having studied at Lvov Technical University

There were too many distortions and inconsistencies, too many outright lies — none of which could be explained away by sympathetic psycho-babble offered by the likes of Dr Segev.

The fact is that Wiesenthal lied about nearly everything in his life.

Let us, for example, start at the beginning and look at his educational record.

If you visit the website of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, you’ll learn that he ‘applied for admission to the Polytechnic Institute in Lvov’, but was turned down ‘because of quota restrictions on Jewish students’.

The website then claims that he went to the Technical University of Prague, ‘from which he received his degree in architectural engineering in 1932’.

Other biographies — published during Wiesenthal’s lifetime — state that he did in fact go to Lvov, in either 1934 or 1935, and gained a diploma as an architectural engineer in 1939.

All of these accounts are rubbish.

The Lvov State Archives have no record of Simon Wiesenthal having studied at Lvov Technical University.

The archives have records for other students from that period, but not for Wiesenthal — and there were no quota restrictions on Jewish students at that time.

Neither did he graduate from Prague. Although he matriculated on February 21, 1929, Wiesenthal never completed his degree. He passed his first state examination on February 15, 1932, and then he left that same year.

Despite a lack of academic credentials, he would fraudulently use his supposed engineering diploma on his letter paper for the rest of his life.

During the war, Wiesenthal claimed to have spent years in and out of a succession of concentration camps.

Although he certainly spent time in camps such as Mauthausen, he also said he had been in Auschwitz — a claim for which there is no record.

Then there is his supposed career as a brave partisan. In two of his memoirs, he claims to have joined a group of partisans after escaping from a camp in October 1943.

According to an interview he gave the American army in 1948, he claimed he was immediately made a lieutenant ‘on the basis of my intellect’.

Since there exist at least four wildly differing accounts of Wiesenthal’s activities, serious questions about what he actually did should surely be raised

He was soon promoted to major, and he was instrumental in ‘building bunkers and fortification lines’.

‘We had fabulous bunker constructions,’ he said.

‘My rank was not so much as a strategic expert as a technical expert.’

One only needs a basic grasp of World War II military history to know that Wiesenthal’s claims are highly dubious.

Partisan groups do not build ‘ fabulous bunker constructions’, they instead rely on mobility to outwit the enemy.

As a Jew, it is also highly unlikely that he would have been made an officer in such a group, which was usually anti-semitic.

Wiesenthal would also give another account of his experience in the partisans, in which he joined a more ad hoc and smaller band — hardly one to build bunkers and fortifications or have a formalised promotion structure.

Since there exist at least four wildly differing accounts of Wiesenthal’s activities between October 1943 and the middle of 1944, serious questions about what he actually did should surely be raised.

Some of those who doubted his version of events — such as the lateformer Austrian Chancellor Bruno Kreisky — went so far as to accuse Wiesenthal repeatedly in the 1970s and the 1980s of being a collaborator with the Gestapo.

Kreisky’s claims were supported by unsubstantiated evidence provided by the Polish and Soviet governments, and when Wiesenthal took Kreisky to court, it was Wiesenthal who won.

Two affidavits made by former members of the German army also asserted that the Nazi hunter was a collaborator, but such claims must be treated with extreme caution.

Smearing Wiesenthal is a popular pastime for anti-Semites, Holocaust deniers, so-called ‘Revisionists’ and other such cranks.

But the multiplicity of conflicting accounts demands that questions about the authenticity of his story must be raised by those who, like me, have no agenda.

However, I have no compunction in stating that the biggest lie he spun was over his involvement in the hunt and eventual capture of Adolf Eichmann, a supposed coup with which he will always be associated — and quite unjustifiably.

According to the myth, Simon Wiesenthal star ted hunting Eichmann almost as soon as the war was over.

By the early 1950s, he had all but given up, until he had a supposedly chance meeting with an Austrian nobleman called Baron Mast in the late autumn of 1953.

Unfortunately, Wiesenthal’s intelligence was useless

Baron Mast showed Wiesenthal a letter he had received in May that year from a former army comrade now living in Argentina, in which the writer had come across the ‘pig Eichmann’, who was living in Buenos Aires and working nearby.

In his first published memoirs, I Hunted Eichmann, Wiesenthal recalls how he was terribly excited by the news, but realised that he was out of his depth.

A few months later, on March 30, 1954, Wiesenthal finally sent a dossier on Eichmann to the World Jewish Congress and the Israeli consul in Vienna, in which he shared the contents of the Baron’s letter and revealed that the criminal was working at the construction site of a power station 65 miles from Buenos Aires.

Unfortunately, Wiesenthal’s intelligence was useless. Not only was he unable to supply Eichmann’s alias — Riccardo Klement — but at the time of the Baron’s letter, Eichmann was in fact working more than 800 miles from Buenos Aires, and by March 1954 he was living in the Argentine capital trying to establish his own business.

However, there was worse to come.

In 1959, when the hunt for Eichmann was heating up, the Israeli intelligence service, Mossad, asked Wiesenthal if he had any more information on the criminal.

On September 23, he wrote to the Israelis and told them that he suspected Eichmann was in ‘northern Germany’ and that he ‘does visit Austria from time to time’.

Once again, he was supplying useless information.

From other sources, the Israelis had established that the fugitive was in fact in Buenos Aires, and the Wiesenthal lead was another dead end.

After Eichmann was kidnapped the following year by Mossad agents, Wiesenthal at least had the grace to deny that he ‘personally had something to do with Eichmann’s arrest’, and that he had deposited all his files in Jerusalem.

However, with the Israelis remaining tight-lipped about his involvement,he decided to fill the information vacuum and started placing himself right at the heart of the hunt.

He would write that although he said he had sent all his files to Israel, he had actually always kept the Eichmann file. This was completely untrue.

Perhaps Wiesenthal’s most shocking lie concerning the Eichmann affair was to claim that he told the Israelis in his letter of September 1959 that the Nazi was actually in Argentina.

As we have seen, he told them that Eichmann was likely to be in Germany — a minor difference of several thousand miles.

Curiously, Dr Segev has seen both the September 1959 letter and the later claim, yet he chooses to ignore the differences in his book.

The plain facts are that Wiesenthal lied about his degree, his wartime experiences and his ‘hunt’ for Adolf Eichmann.

Any man who utters so many untruths does not deserve to be revered. Although some excuse Wiesenthal’s ‘story-telling’, there are simply too many other lies to take him seriously.

Furthermore, by stating that Wiesenthal ‘lived between reality and fantasy’ to deal with his wartime experiences is an insult to all those Holocaust survivors who merely told the truth.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/guywalters/100056051/why-cant-old-etonians-criticise-holocaust-survivors/

Why can't Old Etonians criticise Holocaust survivors?

As regular readers of this blog will know, my bonnet has an apian infestation concerning Simon Wiesenthal, who I believe to be one of the greatest frauds of the twentieth century. As I show in my book Hunting Evil, Wiesenthal’s claims were either vastly exaggerated, or worse, simply invented. I won’t go into detail here, but suffice to say, I’m not a fan.

Of course, my stance has earned me a few enemies, but far fewer than I had expected. Those who have read my claims have seen that they are the result of diligent research, and not one of my charges against Wiesenthal has been refuted. I have also found support from members of the Jewish community, and I’m particularly grateful to Daniel Finkelstein for his sympathetic words in the Jewish Chronicle a while back.

Yesterday, that same paper carried a review by Robert Low of Tom Segev’s biography of Simon Wiesenthal. At the beginning of his piece, Low identified that Wiesenthal attracted many enemies, of whom I am the latest. After observing that I had made my criticisms in my ‘biography’ of Simon Wiesenthal – I have no written no such thing – Low then observes:

“It takes a special kind of chutzpah for an Old Etonian born 26 years after the war who has made a good living writing potboilers about fictional Nazis to blacken the name of a Holocaust survivor who devoted his life to tracking down real ones…”

This is the worst kind of ad hominem criticism, and the literary editor of the JC should think again before commissioning Low. What I infer from Low’s words is the awful notion that my age, profession and scholastic background should disqualify me from writing about Holocaust survivors. I can only assume that in Low’s World, the only people who can do so are, er, Holocaust survivors.

Let’s get this straight: I most certainly have no beef with genuine Holocaust survivors as a group, and I count Simon Wiesenthal among them. As my friend and colleague Ed West has observed, Low has managed to employ both ends of the victimhood hierarchy to make his attack: Old Etonian (evil) versus Holocaust Survivor (good). This is a specious little argument, and implies that I am using a position of privilege to attack someone who bears the ultimate victimhood status.

I find Low’s words offensive and moronic. Would I have been magically more qualified had I been educated at a deprived school? Would it have helped had I been born in 1921 and not 1971? By suggesting that my age and background makes me unsuited to do my job as an historian is bizarre, and verging on censorship.

That’s the thing with Eton. A good schoolfriend of mine once said that you can be prime minister, attempt a coup in a West African state, even be a king, but to others, first and foremost, you’ll always be an Eamonn. I can live with it, even if Mr Low can’t.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/weekend/2010/1002/1224280148855.html

The strange case of the Nazi hunter
Nazi nemesis: Simon Wiesenthal. Photograph from Simon Wiesenthal: The Life and LegendsNazi nemesis: Simon Wiesenthal. Photograph from Simon Wiesenthal: The Life and Legends

CARLA KING

BIOGRAPHY: Simon Wiesenthal: The Life and Legends By Tom Segev Jonathan Cape, 482pp. £25

SOON AFTER it ended the facts about the atrocities committed during the second World War became generally known. But although executions were carried out locally, and the Nuremburg Trials brought about 200 Nazi leaders to court, there was surprisingly little further sustained effort to track down Nazi war criminals.

Governments were struggling to rebuild shattered societies; collaboration had been widespread; some felt it would be better not to reopen old wounds; and the priorities of the cold war meant several Nazis had new roles serving European or US masters.

A man whose name became identified with the continued search for Nazi criminals was Simon Wiesenthal, who for decades operated almost alone from a small apartment in Vienna. Against a tide of opinion that would have preferred to forget the crimes of the Holocaust, he made sustained efforts to track down the former Nazi leadership, even as their numbers dwindled over the decades.

His work depended to a large degree on information supplied by hundreds of informants, often simply individuals seeking justice for one reason or another. A Holocaust survivor, Wiesenthal, who came from Buczacz in eastern Galicia (now part of Ukraine), worked as an architect in Lviv before the war. With the invasion of Poland he, his wife and his mother were taken prisoner by the Nazis; although he and his wife, Cyla, survived, they lost 89 relatives between them during the Holocaust.

After helping US forces track down former Nazi officers and working with Jewish refugees, Wiesenthal set himself up in an office in Linz, appointing himself president of the Organisation of Jewish Concentration Camp Prisoners in Austria – it was not the last time he would exaggerate his status. He worked at gathering information against Nazis, helped to smuggle Jews to Israel and was employed as a secret agent for the US and Israel. Over a life devoted almost obsessively to his task, he was involved in locating and prosecuting hundreds of Nazi criminals and assisted in the conviction of dozens.

The most famous of Wiesenthal’s quarries was Adolf Eichmann, who had directed the deportation of the Jews of Europe first to ghettos and then to the death camps. After the war he went into hiding and became the most senior of the wanted Nazis. Wiesenthal located his wife, and in 1953 he was able to inform both the Israeli and US governments that Eichmann was in Argentina. His reports were ignored, however, and it was seven more years before Eichmann was abducted from Argentina and brought to Israel, where he was tried and executed.

Autobiographical memoirs apart, this is the first full-length biography of Wiesenthal. Tom Segev, a weekly columnist for the newspaper Haaretz, has published books on the Israelis and the Holocaust, the 1967 war, and Jews and Arabs under the British mandate. He is among a group called the New Historians, who have challenged Israel’s traditional accounts of its past. Although clearly sympathetic to his subject, his is by no means an uncritical study. Wiesenthal is shown to have been egotistical, contentious and willing, on occasion, to falsify information to suit his purposes. Many of the “legends” of the title were self-generated by Wiesenthal about his own experiences and achievements.

A man of the right since his student days, in the 1920s, Wiesenthal became caught up in the cold war to the point where his judgment was clouded. In the 1970s he engaged in an unedifying struggle with Bruno Kreisky, the Austrian Social Democratic chancellor. Both men, who were of Jewish background, attempted to portray each other as associating or having collaborated with Nazis.

On the other hand, Wiesenthal concerned himself with violations of human rights worldwide, from Kurdistan to Argentina. He formulated a convention for the protection of political prisoners, joined the campaign against anti- personnel mines and supported prominent figures such as the Soviet dissident Andrei Sakharov and the Dalai Lama. He differed sharply with other Jewish leaders, such as Elie Wiesel, in seeking to include gypsies, homosexuals and Jehovah’s Witnesses in Holocaust remembrance rather than confining it to Jews alone.

By the end of his life Wiesenthal had become a celebrity, honoured by governments from the Netherlands to the US, presented with some 20 honorary doctorates and admired by personalities such as Elizabeth Taylor and Frank Sinatra. Two feature films were based on his life story, and the Simon Wiesenthal Center was established in Los Angeles; today it also maintains offices in New York, Toronto, Palm Beach, Paris, Buenos Aires and Jerusalem.

Nonetheless, he also had to face constant threats of attack from neo-Nazis: his home was lit by spotlights and guarded following an attempt to blow it up; and he carried a gun, which he kept under his pillow at night. His lifestyle took its toll on Cyla, who suffered repeated nervous breakdowns. Segev points out that Wiesenthal’s determination to remain in Austria, a country that took so long to come to terms with its Nazi past, was hard on his wife and daughter. Wiesenthal claimed the right as a naturalised Austrian citizen to criticise his adopted country from within.

In the final chapter Segev describes Wiesenthal’s astonishing friendship with Albert Speer, formerly one of Hitler’s closest allies. He also provides a convincing analysis of what motivated Wiesenthal, suggesting the hunt for Nazis was a self-inflicted punishment for the fact he survived the Holocaust and suffered less than some of its victims.

This is a fascinating study of a complex man and his task: thoughtful, carefully researched and a thoroughly absorbing read.

Fuinseog

apparently the wiesenthal center was too extreme even for Simon Wiesenthal, who wanted nothing to do with it

Stovepipe

Morlar,
Do I read you correctly when you say that old age should prevent the arrest of old Nazis for Holocaust crimes? By that mark, should the perpetrators of mass murder and other war crimes in the recent Yugoslavian wars and the horrors of Rwanda and Congo and Sudan should escape justice because they qualify for a bus pass?! How old is too old?
regards
Stovepipe

Mahatma coat

Depends on the Crime Dosent it.

How about the SonderKomando?? should they get strung up or their part??
What about John Demanjuk?? Should he be Tried over and Over again til they find something he's guilty of???

What happens after they are Found Guity and charged? Some posters here dont seem to think thats enough for SOME of them, they want to see some of the sadistic tortures meted out on men intheir 90's that they wish these men to be tried for inthe first place.

And Finally What about the War Criminals on 'Our' side?
what about the RAF Pilots that Killed thousands at Dresden and other cities??
What about the Us Soldiers that Murdered the SS Camp Guards????
What about the Russians who Raped and Pilaged their way across Europe??

Then theres the American War Crimes in Vietnam etc... Feel the same way about those??????


What about Israels Ethnic cleansing program? what about Ariel Sharon and his involvement in Sabra and Chatilla????

How about the Balkan Conflict, Should Radavan Karadich be tried for Warcrimes, if you think Yes then why havent Blair and Bush been tried for the Same crimes






I'd love to live in the B&W World of some posters here, but everything is shades of Grey

marcsignal

Mahatma coat wrote: »

I'd love to live in the B&W World of some posters here, but everything is shades of Grey

+1

The indisputable fact is that Holocaust rememberance has become a 'brand' and like any other brand it needs to be reinvented every now and again so it doesn't become tired and boring (Madonna and Kylie spring to mind).

Take Auschwitz, as an example. Auschwitz has it's own Facebook page ffs. In fact there are 3 seperate pages relating to it on Facebook.

http://www.facebook.com/auschwitzmemorial

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Auschwitz/106293256076688

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Auschwitz-Institute-for-Peace-and-Reconciliation/106689706513?v=info

There was even some controversy relating to the launch of the first one.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/15/auschwitz-facebook-page-taken-down

It has already been mentioned that these organisations (Wiesenthal Cntr and Anti Defamation League. etc) have staff that have to be paid.

If no evidence of 'Anti-Semitism' or 'Old Nazis hiding out in Paraguay' can be found, then how would these organisations justify whatever funding they get (from governments or individuals). So consequently the 'evidence', irrespective of how small, irrelevant and dodgy it is, is dug up from anywhere it might yield a monetary gain.

In this instance, it's business, and there's no business like Shoah Business.

jonniebgood1

marcsignal wrote: »

+1

The indisputable fact is that Holocaust rememberance has become a 'brand' and like any other brand it needs to be reinvented every now and again so it doesn't become tired and boring (Madonna and Kylie spring to mind).

Take Auschwitz, as an example. Auschwitz has it's own Facebook page ffs. In fact there are 3 seperate pages relating to it on Facebook.

http://www.facebook.com/auschwitzmemorial

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Auschwitz/106293256076688

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Auschwitz-Institute-for-Peace-and-Reconciliation/106689706513?v=info

I understand where you are coming from in relation to the Facebook pages, it seems tacky and maybe disrespectful in ways. Your view however is too cynical.
It could also be seen that the purpose of having a memorial or museum at Auschwitz is educational, i.e. to try and learn from our past in the hope that it is never repeated. Thus it follows that with living memory of WWII fading that new technologies such as social networking are used to try and educate a younger generation.
I believe that attractions such as this are a growing business, i.e. 3rd reich tours, Battle of somme tours, even shankill/ falls tours in Belfast!

marcsignal

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I understand where you are coming from in relation to the Facebook pages, it seems tacky and maybe disrespectful in ways. Your view however is too cynical.

If i'm honest, I can't deny my cynicism. It seems that the cracks are beginning to show with some of the organisations mentioned. Is it because they know the nazis will all soon be dead ? and they will be confronted with thinking up of new reasons to justify their funding, or indeed, their existance. They appear to be squabbling now over the meager remains, or the ashes of nazism, for the want of a better phrase.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

It could also be seen that the purpose of having a memorial or museum at Auschwitz is educational, i.e. to try and learn from our past in the hope that it is never repeated.

100% agree, it's just I have found that the concept seems to be lost on some the people you'd least expect, in my opinion.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Thus it follows that with living memory of WWII fading that new technologies such as social networking are used to try and educate a younger generation.
I believe that attractions such as this are a growing business, i.e. 3rd reich tours, Battle of somme tours, even shankill/ falls tours in Belfast!

Again, agreed, it certainly will always be a source of interest for future generations.

I need to be clear here, that I've nothing at all against commeration, but think the parameters of what could be defined as restitution have become very blurred in recent times.

marcsignal

Dutch seeks extradition of former SS volunteer sentenced to death

DEREK SCALLY in Berlin

DUTCH AUTHORITIES have asked Germany to extradite a former SS volunteer who was sentenced to death for murder in 1947.

Authorities in The Hague confirmed yesterday that they had issued a European arrest warrant for Klaas Carel Faber (88), who served in a firing squad at the Westerbork transit camp.

It was from Westerbork that Anne Frank and her family were transferred to Auschwitz.

After the war, a Dutch court dubbed Faber and his brother Pieter “two of the worst criminals of the SS”. Pieter was executed in 1948, while Klaas Faber’s death sentence was commuted to life.

He escaped to Germany with six others in 1952 and settled in the Bavarian city of Ingolstadt, where he worked for Audi.

A German court acquitted him of wrongdoing in 1952. Yesterday a Bavarian justice official said the new request would be considered, “but as far as I know, there is nothing new”.

Faber received German citizenship in 1952 under a Nazi-era law, still on the statute books at the time, that granted citizenship to foreign Nazi collaborators. Yesterday’s application is understood to query the legality of this citizenship application, originally made during the war. It is the third application after two failed extradition attempts, in 1954 and 2004.

Faber is the fifth most wanted man on the Simon Wiesenthal Centre list of wanted Nazis.

The centre has called on Germany to extradite him, citing his membership of the Sonderkommando Feldmeijer execution squad, which executed members of the Dutch resistance, Nazi opponents and those hiding Jews.

Full article Here

Jesus, at this rate, if I was working as a tea lady in the SS canteen I'd be getting a little worried by now. God knows where the Wiesenthal centre are going to draw the line if this guy was No. 5 on their hit list. :rolleyes:

jonniebgood1

marcsignal wrote: »

Full article Here

Jesus, at this rate, if I was working as a tea lady in the SS canteen I'd be getting a little worried by now. God knows where the Wiesenthal centre are going to draw the line if this guy was No. 5 on their hit list. :rolleyes:

An SS tea lady??? I think that comment does not take due cognisance of the crimes for which he is convicted.

He was convicted of complicity to murder 22 people. He escaped his sentence and was protected by Germany since then. I think his case is a disgrace to Germany in their protection of him.

The Wiesenthal centre draw the line at this- I don't particularly understand where you think that they should draw the line or not? Is your position that the crime he is convicted of is not correct or do you think that to much time has now passed to warrant him serving his time for the crime.

If his death comes before his sentence is served it will be tragic as it was with Samuel Kunz. At least this publicity highlights his crimes.

Fuinseog

he fought for a cause in which he believed. those he 'murdered' were terrorists. he committed no crime.
he is a German citizen, not Dutch and has been for more than sixty years.

maybe the Irish should have imposed deaths sentences on those who collaborated with the British and who murdered their on countrymen.

jonniebgood1

Fuinseog wrote: »

he fought for a cause in which he believed. those he 'murdered' were terrorists. he committed no crime.
he is a German citizen, not Dutch and has been for more than sixty years.

maybe the Irish should have imposed deaths sentences on those who collaborated with the British and who murdered their on countrymen.

Perhaps you have more information on his crimes than I do, If you could substantiate your point that those people he killed were 'terrorists', I would appreciate the chance to read this.

My understanding was that he was involved in the killing of his own countrymen (dutch) in retaliation for resistence operations. In other words when the resistance attacked a leading Nazi, Fabers role was to assasinate local dutch loyalists (not necessarily resistence) with the aim of scaring the local population into collaboration with Nazi rule. As I pointed out above I am open to correction on that if you can point out some genuine source material that backs up your view that he only killed terrorists.

He is a German citizen due to a Nazi law that allowed collaberaters to become citizens of Germany. I don't think thats a good enough reason to evade justice, i.e. if he commited crimes on behalf of the Nazi's he should not evade punishment on the back of a Nazi law. Thats not really important in this anyway.