Tuesday 16 September 2008

Tony Greenstein on Mass Muder etc

This post originally appeared on Alliance for Workers' Liberty web site but as can be seen they have deleted many of the contributions. Fortunately a screen shot was kept. The whole thread is reposted below but my summary post for those who may just want a summary is as follows:

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.

Defend Tony Greenstein!

From Atzmon's website
Rhodri Evans

Not a headline you'd expect to see here, since Tony Greenstein has spent much of his energy, for many years, on denouncing and traducing the AWL because we support the right to self-determination for Israeli Jews as well as for the Palestinians. But read on.

Greenstein has been the most high-pitched and abusive of those who say that when AWL argues against left anti-semitism, we are just belabouring an invented straw man, and de facto helping the ruling circles in Israel.

Well, now Greenstein himself - a vehement supporter of boycotting Israel, etc. etc. - has fallen foul of people on the left who take even further the idea that Israel is a nation so bad that it cannot be allowed to continue to exist.

He has been banned from the left-wing Internet network Indymedia for protesting - obstreperously, to be sure, but that is the right way to protest in such cases - at Indymedia carrying anti-semitic comments from ex-Israeli musician and SWP associate Gilad Atzmon.

Atzmon has written such things as: "We must begin to take the accusation that the Jewish people are trying to control the world very seriously... American Jewry makes any debate on whether the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion' are an authentic document or a forgery irrelevant. American Jews do try to control the world, by proxy..."

But Atzmon continues to post on Indymedia, and his obstreperous critic is banned.

"Indymedia capitulates to the anti-semites and the holocaust deniers", writes Greenstein, aptly.

He also manages to blame "the Zionists" for this... "Zionists have for so long attacked supporters of the Palestinians and anti-Zionists as anti-Semitic, that now that the real anti-Semites are coming out of the woodwork, the IM Collective, and to be fair not only them, have difficulty in telling the difference between the genuine article and the person that the Zionists have defamed".

In fact real anti-Semitism has been "out of the woodwork", and poisoning the left, primarily through the old Communist Parties, for a long time.

Protest to any Indymedia activists you know! And draw the lesson that left anti-semitism is not a "straw man".


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

The "anti-Zionist united front"?

The "blogosphere" is, of course, all agog at this. I can't claim to have an overview of what's been written. But this caught my eye, from Ian Donovan (formerly one of the Weekly Worker's main writers, now a prominent figure in Galloway's Respect Renewal).

Donovan takes strong objection to this remark, by Andy Newman: "Yes we wish to split the Palestinian solidarity movement, because we want to exclude neo-Nazis, anti-Semites, holocaust deniers, and those who defend them".

"Does this include Hamas supporters?", asks Donovan. "Since Hamas has a explicit positive reference to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in their charter, I don’t see how you can avoid this kind of conclusion. If you want to be consistent. Unfortunately, Hamas are also the legitimate, elected leadership of the Palestinians.

"If you wish to exclude all those who are sympathetic to Hamas, or who ‘defend’ them from the Palestinian solidarity movement, you will have a ‘Palestinian solidarity movement’ that excludes many if not most Palestinians. Not only would it exclude Hamas supporters. It would also exclude the many non-Hamas Palestinians who would interpret an attempt to exclude Hamas supporters as an attack on the right of the Palestinian people to choose their own leaders and representatives.

"This is very unwise. If you want to be in a ‘Palestinian solidarity’ movement acceptable to the likes of Goodwin Sands and David T, but unacceptable to most Palestinians, then go for it. Because that is what would be the result of such a split. Or is it not Hamas supporters you object to, but simply that Jewish fringe that flirts with some of their rhetoric? If that is the case, then why the inconsistency?"

I've never seen the argument put so baldly that international activity in solidarity with the Palestinians should (in effect) let its tone be set by Hamas. But when you see the argument stated that baldly, doesn't it make a case for a different sort of Palestine solidarity activity, one that starts from internationalist and democratic principle and not from an alleged need to accommodate "neo-Nazis, anti-Semites, holocaust deniers, and those who defend them"?

Martin Thomas

Tony Greenstein

In my opinion, it is perfectly reasonable to attack Gilad Atzmon for his views but that does not mean to say that genuine socialists and anti-racists should resort to defending Tony Greenstein. Theoretically if Stalin had attacked Mao as a mass murderer, would Workers' Liberty have defended Stalin?

Come on, Mikey!

We're not talking mass murderers or totalitarian dictators here! Indymedia's attack on Tony Greenstein's criticism of Gilad Atzmon is an attack on all criticism of Gilad Atzmon. Besides, what Tony Greenstein says about Gilad Atzmon is true.

Martin Thomas

Hi Martin,

I agree with you in principle. My difference is that I do not say, as you have done, "Defend Tony Greenstein!" What I would say is - a plague on both of your houses. This dispute involving Indymedia has gone on for some time. I expressed my own views on the matter in the following article:


My concluding question in that article was:

"One wonders who sane and rational people should support in this dispute. Should they support Tony Greenstein who wants “the state of Israel to be destroyed” and who thinks that Hamas and Hizbollah are not anti-semitic or Gilad Atzmon who is happy to support Hamas, wants Israel to disappear, and who also thinks burning down a synagogue is a rational act?"

What concerns me is why "the left" have not taken up the question of left-wing antisemitism more seriously.* The SWP have continually hosted Atzmon despite his known pronouncements and Indymedia also seem to be supporting him. Not only these so called left organisations but the PSC itself also seems to be happy to have Atzmon.



* I exclude Workers' Liberty from this criticsm. In fact I believe that some articles your organisation have published over the years have been excellent. I hold out for particular praise the following

1. Stan Crooke, "The Stalinist Roots of 'left' anti-semitism," Workers' Liberty No. 10 May 1988, pp. 30-37 (and the unsigned introduction to that article on pages 28-29

2. John O Mahony, "The 'Perdition' Affair," Workers Liberty No. 6 Apr/May 1987 pp.10-11 and O Mahony's responses to Tony Greenstein's correspondence on this article in the "Forum" of Workers' Liberty No. 7, June 1987 pp. 33-5 and in Workers Liberty No. 8, October-November 1987, p. 38. (There is an amusing anecdote about this series of articles. I showed them to someone else who has no sympathy for Marxism who gave what he would view as a massive compliment to Sean Matgamna,using the pseudonym John O Mahony, as author: "Sean Matgmana is too clever to be a Leninist." You may believe this to an insult, but I can assure you it was meant as a very high compliment.)

3. Sean Matgamna, "With Hitler on the road to Samara" Solidarity 3/99 28 September 2006, available on line at http://www.workersliberty.org/node/7049

I apologise

There is one more excellent article that I cannot fail to praise,

Sean Matgamna, "Gerry Healy discovers World Jewish Conspiracy," Socialist Organiser, April 14, 1983

Given that when this article was written your organisation was still supporting the idea of a secular democratic state of Palestine as opposed to the current 2 State Solution to the Israel/Palestine question, certain comments in that article were quite perceptive, such as "WRP style anti-Zionism is the anti-imperialism of idiots. And it is indistinguishable from anti-semitism,"

Greenstein = Atzmon

Martin Thomas wrote: "We're not talking mass murderers or totalitarian dictators here!"

Judging by their intentions rather than their actions, this is not so obvious. Let's compare the two:-

- Both legitimise violence against Jews.

Atzmon reportedly suggested (he disputes the quotation) that "to burn down a synagogue... is a rational act" (The Observer, April 17 2005). Greenstein wrote (he does not dispute it) that he "wouldn't lose a minute's sleep" if masses of American Jewish activists were "vapourised" (Alef list, April 19, 2007).

- Both employ antisemitic conspiracy theories.

Atzmon claims that "American Jews (in fact Zionists) do control the world," as in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion ("On Anti-Semitism," www.gilad.co.uk). Greenstein denounced American Jewish activists as an "anti-Semitic caricature" whose "naked conspiracies" seem "to act out the lines prepared in the Protocols of Elders of Zion" (Alef list, April 19, 2007).

- Both equate Zionists with Nazis.

Atzmon wrote: "we compare Israel to the Third Reich, we equate the IDF to the Wehrmacht" (Aljazeerah.info, August 11, 2006). Greenstein linked Zionism to "the anti-Semitic movements whose activities led directly to the Holocaust" (Return Magazine, March 1990) and stated that "Israel represents Hitler's triumph" (Socialist Unity, February 8, 2008).

- Both blame Jews for Nazism.

Atzmon claimed that Israelis are "as unpopular in the Middle East as their grandparents were in Europe just six decades ago" (PeacePalestine blog, August 13, 2007). Greenstein wrote that "without a Zionist movement... it is hard to believe that anything like 6 million would have been allowed to die" (Zionism: Anti Semitism's Twin in Jewish Garb, 1982).

- Both falsify Holocaust history.

Atzmon claimed that "many Jews do not take the 'six' figure and the Zionist Holocaust narrative very seriously" (CounterPunch, May 1, 2006). Greenstein denies that the Nazi-Soviet Pact led to the mass murder of Jews and insists that Stalin "save[d] up to 2 millions if not more" from Hitler (Socialist Unity, February 10, 2008).

If the editors of Indymedia are at fault for publishing Atzmon while pretending to be anti-racist, then the editors of Socialist Unity are at fault for publishing Greenstein while professing concern about leftist antisemitism. Not even their hypocrisy is original.


I don't want to enter into the debate of substance in this forum. There is a clearly and publicly stated disagreement between Indymedia activists over the substance - 'Is Atzmon personally an anti-semite', 'Are the articles that he has written anti-semetic', 'Are the articles he has written open to interpretation', or as discussion has gone on 'are they not explicitly anti-semetic, but open to easy interpretation as such and appropriated by anti-semites', is there 'new antisemitism', etc... Sadly webfora like these, and the blogs of individuals that have informed the bizarre interpretation of events, are not actually very good for this sort of discussion.

So two factual corrections about the course of events:

* 'But Atzmon continues to post on Indymedia'

Atmon's content, a few articles, had been reposted by others. No more have been posted since this row blew up. Only Greenstein's involvement drew him to the site, where he joined a mutual discussion of abuse. This has led Indymedia UK to clarify its editorial guidelines about posts about individuals.

* 'Indymedia's attack on Tony Greenstein's criticism of Gilad Atzmon is an attack on all criticism of Gilad Atzmon.'

The most vocal critics of Atzmon within Indymedia were equally vocal in condemnation of the incredibly counterproductive way that Greenstein has operated and were as supportive of keeping him out of discussion within Indymedia from now on.

Defending Tony Greenstein?

I'm not sure what the purpose of this article is, since I'm not aware that I have ever asked to be defended. My purpose in writing to Indymedia UK last October was to protest about their publishing Atzmon's 'Hunters of Goliath' article. It is, to say the least, unfortunate that instead of dealing with the problem of an open anti-Semite being able to publish non-news items on IM UK without let or hindrance, they fell in behind criticisms of those who had objected to Atzmon, myself included.

Whether I am able to post to Indymedia myself is a matter of supreme indifference. I objected to a site which sees itself as anti-racist, publishing articles from a holocaust denier and anti-Semite. http://azvsas.blogspot.com/2008/01/gilad-atzmon-now-open-holocaust-denier.html http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=1559#comment-35911

Unfortunately the IM UK collective was unable to form a collective view on an article which justifies the Nazi holocaust. That it does exactly that is hardly open to dispute. It suggested that it was the Jews’ ‘unpopularity’ in Europe, ahistorical and wrong anyway, that led to their extermination. As if the ‘unpopularity’ of the victims of racism has any relevance to what the racists do. It then equated that with what the Israeli state does to the Palestinians, when the obvious comparison would be with what the Nazis did to the Jews. And yes, I’m well aware that extermination camps haven’t been set up in Israel, but that doesn’t mean that political projects which have as their central aim ethnic cleansing don’t share common characteristics with Nazism.

The fact that IM UK have engaged in continuous personal attacks on myself does not matter, what matters is what they do about Atzmon and co., and it would seem that they are not doing a lot.

It is indeed ironic that the critic of Atzmon has been banned whilst no such sanctions have attached to someone who has made a number of personal attacks on me, with his supporters, on the site. However if Ekes does not see the irony then he and others will have to live with the political consequences.

And given the publicity that their actions have attracted it is not to me that IM UK are going to have to justify their behaviour to date.

I have indeed been a vocal critic, not a traducer, of the AWL’s support for Zionism over a number of years and that will not change, nor would you expect it to, which is why I suspect that the purpose behind this article is not as transparent as is being made out. I take a very simple political position and that is that racism is wrong, whether it is the Israeli state or local anti-Semites who carry it out.

But I don’t accept the argument that either Ian Donovan or your criticism of him is correct. There is a world of difference between solidarity with the Palestinians, Hamas included, and including anti-Semites in the solidarity movement outside Palestine. For a start there is no evidence that the motivation behind Hamas is anti-Semitism. Their motivation is primarily the genocidal attacks on the Palestinians of Gaza, the hunger and the bombing and the siege. I can quite understand that when someone demolishes your home and shoots your children in the name of ‘the Jews’ that they will react by cursing Jews. This not at all the same as European anti-Semitism who are the product of an entirely different social and political milieu. And if Hamas are that bad then the Israeli state, which consciously helped bring them into existence in the early 1980’s, bears the responsibility.

Andy Newman is quite right. Anti-semites should be excluded from the Palestine solidarity movement and of course we should express solidarity with the Palestinians, Hamas or non-Hamas, in their struggle against the Israeli state.

I have never argued that Israel is a ‘bad’ nation. I don’t recognise the terms ‘bad’ or ‘good’ when it comes to nations because this is to adapt to a nationalist mentality, not a class analysis. I argue that Zionism, in its goal of a Jewish state, allied with imperialism, first British and then American, to create an ethnically pure state and that the consequences of this carry on to this day.

Rhodri Evans is however wrong to fail to recognise that bogus accusations of anti-Semitism have not helped in the acceptance of people like Atzmon and ftp, his most trenchant supporter in Indymedia. Accusations of anti-Semitism against supporters of the Palestinians and opponents of Zionism are a universal tactic of Zionism’s supporters. One example I gave was when Marks and Spencers rejected a takeover bid from Philip Green, the latter accused their chairman, Paul Myners, of anti-semitism! (JC 6.8.04.) Do I really need to cite others? Even Yizhak Rabin was dressed up in Nazi uniform by his opponents, prior to his assasination. The examples are legion. See

With the benefit of 30 years hindsight, I can see how these accusations, and Paul Bognador is a good example of this type of practitioner, have genuinely confused and misled people who genuinely support the Palestinians into adopting the belief that all accusations of anti-Semitism are bogus. To fail to recognise this fact, when people like myself have regularly been the target of Zionist accusations of anti-Semitism, is politically dishonest. The Zionist movement bears the primary responsibility for the spread of Atzmon and his ideas that it is Jews or ‘Jewishness’, not Zionism, that is the problem.

As Anthony Lerman, Director of the Institute for Jewish Policy Research and no anti-Zionist, noted, ‘anti-Semitism’ has been drained of all meaning. http://thepcaa.org/writtenevidence.pdf

Mikey and Paul Bognador sing from the same songsheet. To Mr Bognador I am equal to Atzmon and from his perspective, of course, he is right. Indeed, if he is honest, I am worse than Atzmon, because despite his anti-Semitism Atzmon is at heart still a Zionist and operates within that framework.

I will not dignify most of Bognador’s hysterical rant with a response other than to say that of course hundreds of thousands of Jews were saved because of the existence of the Soviet Union and the fact is that Soviet troops took many with them and others fled with them. Menachem Begin’s ‘The Revolt’ testifies to this, hardly an unbiased source! This is not to justify in any way Stalin’s counter-revolutionary policy which led to the Nazi-Hitler pact. However the Soviet Union, despite its political degeneration, was a place where Jews could and did escape. This is recognised by Holocaust historians such as Gerald Reitlinger but Bognador’s anti-communism is such that he is unable to understand that the Soviet Union, even under Stalin, represented a different type of society from Hitler’s Germany.

As to his little echo, Mikey, he is clearly too modest. Far from saying ‘a plague on both houses’ he has been a willing accomplice with Atzmon. That of course is not surprising, since anti-Semites and Zionists have always had more in common with each other than with anti-Zionists. A full record can be found on http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=1687#comments but below is a sample of this sordid correspondence.

‘I have been very busy digging up stuff on Tony Greenstein - Roland Rance will have to wait for another day.’
Mikey | 03.12.07 - 8:53 pm | #

‘Mikey, I hope you do not mind me saying that, but your contribution for the pls solidarity movement is priceless. It is crucial that we all know about the racist record of this Greenpiss, a man who was banned time after time for being a racist and an anti Semite!

Gilad Atzmon | 03.04.07 - 10:46 am | #

However, Good luck with Greenie and thanks for all the info you gave us about this low being.
Peace is the way forward

Gilad Atzmon | 03.08.07 - 4:02 pm |

Ekes says that ‘the most vocal critics of Atzmon within Indymedia’ were equally vocal in criticising me. But that is the problem. They weren’t at all vocal when it came to Atzmon. On the contrary they fell in behind ftp and presented a united front against his critics. They have accepted this sordid compromise whereby I am banned but Atzmon is ‘disputed’ i.e. published with a tiny disclaimer. At no point have they presented a unified coherent account of what they wanted. On the contrary they now seem to be accepting the present attempt to provide an ‘authorised’ version of what happened.

Tony Greenstein

On Greenstein

Tony Greenstein's reply to my documentation of his ideological resemblance to Gilad Atzmon is instructive.

Does Greenstein deny that like Atzmon he has legitimised violence against Jews? No. Does Greenstein deny that like Atzmon he has promoted antisemitic conspiracy theories while invoking the Protocols of the Elders of Zion? No. Does Greenstein deny that like Atzmon he equates Zionists with Nazis? No. Does Greenstein deny that like Atzmon he has blamed Jewish groups for Nazi crimes? No. Does Greenstein deny that like Atzmon he is guilty of falsifying the history of the Holocaust? No.

Indeed, Greenstein seems eager to contribute items to my list: he tries to convince himself that "despite his anti-Semitism Atzmon is at heart still a Zionist," he finds "common characteristics with Nazism" in the movement that introduced democratic elections to the Middle East, and he identifies the "universal tactic of Zionism's supporters" in the negative publicity surrounding a Marks & Spencer takeover bid!

Where Greenstein does attempt to defend his record, he proves less than reliable. He insists that "I have never argued that Israel is a 'bad' nation. I don't recognise the terms 'bad' or 'good' when it comes to nations." Really? Less than 18 months ago he avowed that "what constitutes the Israeli Jewish 'nation' is the quest for racial purity" (Letter, Weekly Worker, October 12, 2006) and he declared that "Israeli Jews as a collective can only be oppressors because that is the political form that their identity takes" (Letter, Weekly Worker, November 9, 2006).

Perhaps this explains why Greenstein supports Hamas. He argues that "there is no evidence that the motivation behind Hamas is anti-Semitism" and so "we should express solidarity with the Palestinians, Hamas or non-Hamas, in their struggle against the Israeli state." No evidence? According to Hamas, "there is no blood better than the blood of Jews" (Jerusalem Post, February 17, 2006), Israel is "a cancer that should be eradicated" (BBC, November 8, 2006), and the Holocaust is just an "exaggeration" (Al-Jazeera TV, July 16, 2007)!

These examples tell us how far Greenstein can be trusted when he asserts that "hundreds of thousands of Jews were saved" from the Nazis by Soviet troops. The truth is that hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees from the Nazis were deported to concentration camps by Soviet troops. I have repeatedly alerted him to the scholarly research on these deportations, in which "old people, cripples, and mothers of children" were sent to "speedy annihilation" by "hunger, cold and disease" (Yosef Litvak, "The Plight of Refugees From the German-Occupied Territories," in Keith Sword, ed., The Soviet Takeover of the Polish Eastern Provinces, 1939-41, St. Martin’s Press, 1991, pp66-9).

That Greenstein is dissembling on these matters can be seen in his reference to Begin's Revolt. On Socialist Unity he adduced this source for his claim that Stalin had rescued 2 million Jews. When I exposed his falsehood, he cited Begin's remark that "hundreds of thousands of Jews were saved from Nazi hands." I then pointed out that he had amputated the sentence: "hundreds of thousands of Jews were saved from Nazi hands – though some of them suffered greatly and some of them died in prison, in exile, or as refugees." Caught red-handed, what could Greenstein do? After all, Begin had been describing his own experiences as a Jew in Stalin's concentration camps!

Greenstein thinks that I'm "unable to understand that the Soviet Union, even under Stalin, represented a different type of society from Hitler’s Germany." Actually, I consider that obvious. Just as it's obvious that Hitler's Germany represented a different type of society from its equally genocidal ally in Tojo's Japan. Just as it's obvious to everyone but Greenstein that without Stalin's alliance with Hitler, there would have been no WW2 and no Holocaust.


Oh dear, why does Tony Greenstein put his fingers on the keyboard and allow himself to be ridiculed so badly. He really should count to ten before he hits the send button and hopefully, in that time, he may decide not to. But Tony Greenstein does not pay much attention.

In his post above is a classic Greenstein blunder. I mentioned in an earlier post that in relation to the dispute between Greenstein and Atzmon, in my post to Harry's Place which I lined to, I took "a plague on both of your houses" approach. Greenstein retorts that this is not the case: "Far from saying ‘a plague on both houses’ he has been a willing accomplice with Atzmon." However the phrase I used about a plague on both houses is virtually identical to the phrase Tony Greenstein had earlier used about my argument:

"I posted last night, whilst holding my nose, to Harry's Place where Mad Mikey ... has a 'guest' post (such nice guests!) on the opposition to Atzmon by our good selves. Atzmon's favourite drinking partner takes a plague on all your houses approach as well as going for Mark (and of course me)!
Tony Greenstein | 11.23.07 - 9:19 am | #"


Consequently, it can be seen that it was Greenstein who first referred to my post as a plague on both (all) houses, I then use the same argument and Greenstein says I am wrong. Clearly, Greenstein cannot one remember what he says one day to the next, he does not agree with his own arguments from one day to the next.

Now in relation to this argument by Greenstein that I am "Atzmon's favourite drinking partner," he is referring to the fact that I have met Atzmon in a pub. The reason for this meeting is known to Greenstein, for a hobby I attend meetings with all sorts of extremists. I have been to meetings also in a pub, hosted by Greenstein's own despicable organisation, Jews Against Zionism, does that mean that I am also Greenstein's favourite drinking partner? Similarly, in relation to his claim that I am "a willing accomplice" of Atzmon, Greenstein ignores the fact that I am quote happy to attack the arguments of himself and Roland Rance irrespective of Atzmon. This is exactly what I did in the same Harry's Place guest post and what I have done in other posts. See for example:


Therefore, as we can easily conclude, Tony Greenstein's post above, in line with many of his posts contain a farrago of nonsense.

Bognador and Mikey's tripe

Since Bognador answers his own questions there's no need for me to do so.

Mikey makes a habit of meeting 'extremists'. I don't know what 'extremists' are. Possibly those who believe in changing society? No doubt the suffraggettes and the Tolpuddle Martyrs were also 'extremists'. It is an example of the empty rhetoric of Mikey but even if it were true, does that justify offering to act as an errand boy and dig up dirt on anti-Zionists for the benefit of an anti-Semite?

It would seem that Mikey's relationship with Atzmon went beyond the odd drink!

I am of course grateful for the mischievous support of the AWL. It reminds me of what Lenin said about the Labour Party - we should support it like the rope supports a hanging man. So Martin & Rhodri will understand if I take it with a pinch of salt!

Tony Greenstein

Tony Greenstein

Tony Greenstein now claims that he does not know what "extremists" are. That is not all he does not know but on the subject of extremists he clearly has not looked in the mirror recently. Those, such as himself, as Paul Bogdanor has mentioned, "'wouldn't lose a minute's sleep' if masses of American Jewish activists were 'vapourised'" are exactly the sort of extremists that I meet.

I am glad Tony recognises that the information that I have uncovered about him, by quoting his own words and from publications he has been intimately associated with it, is "dirt."

Greenstein's Bloodlust

Since Greenstein not only admits that he would like to see masses of American Jews vapourised but also says that he wants to hang AWL activists (metaphorically of course...), I suppose I should be grateful that he's too incompetent to spell my name correctly!



To be fair to TG, I'm pretty sure he was saying that the AWL supports *him* like a rope supports a hanging man... moreover, it's a simile/play on words! No bloodlust involved.

He's also right, obviously, about "extremism".

Sacha Ismail


It would be prudent to assume the worst, regarding the direction of the analogy (was he really thinking of AWL as Lenin and himself as the Labour Party reformist?!?), and his willingness to take it literally (cf. his thoughts on vapourising American Jewish activists)...

Presumably "extremists" in this context meant "anti-democratic extremists" (and not merely "those who believe in changing society").


Yes, but the choice of language is telling. Why not talk about anti-democratic reactionaries or whatever; why bring "extremism" into it? The answer is that most people who use this language are at least as opposed to the far left (ie democratic, egalitarian "extremism") as they are to the far right (anti-democratic, elitist "extremism"), seeking to paint them as essentially similar (for instance by equating the far left with Stalinism).


The "Democratic" Far Left

I have no intention of supporting Bogdanor's general argument, but he is right that for Sacha to talk about the credentials of the far left being democratic etc. whereas those of the Far Right being undemocratic is truly a bit rich. As he says look at any of the AWL's literature going back decades to see how democratic they really beleive others on the Left are. Look at the report elsewhere here about the SWP and SA's position at the NUT on LGBT rights where it conflicts with their support for clerical-fascists. In most democratic organisations there is a change of leadership every few years, but the leaders of nearly all the Far Left groups throughout the world hold their positions for life. Some have been in power longer than some leaders of the CPSU!

The drift of the SWP in particular would not be the first time that people in an undemocratic organisation, guided by a corrupted and bastardised, elitist and statist version of Marxism have found themselves in the camp of fascism. It happened to Mussolini and others, and as Trotsky pointed out in relation to Stalinism it differed from Nazism only in its greater cruelty, yet all of those people (or at least the majority) including Stalin himself began as "Marxists".

Arthur Bough


They think that the far left is no less elitist and totalitarian than the far right. And after examining AWL's damning evidence against its rivals in the WRP, the SWP, Militant, Workers Power, Socialist Action, etc., etc., who would care to disagree?

Defending Tony Greenstein?

Just for the record, I am not on record as wishing 'masses of American Jewish activists were "vapourised". What I said is I would lose no sleep if Aipac, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee were vaporised. A throwaway line it is true but I am referring to an organisation whose sole purpose is to legitimise the murder and dispossesion of the Palestinians and is widely recognised as representing the far-right of Zionist politics.

I would equally lose no sleep if the inhabitants of the White House were vaporised or the leaders of the Christian Coalition. However I doubt anyone could then go on to say that being oblivious as to whether these mass murderers were liquidated is akin to wishing millions of Christian Americans or indeed Republicans eliminated.

As to Mikey, digging up information on someone who is the target of Gilad Atzmon is, to me, the dirty act. At least Mikey doesn't pretend it didn't happen anymore

Tony Greenstein

Greenstein on Murder

Greenstein wrote on the Alef list: "If every staffer in AIPAC were to be vapourised tomorrow, alongside Bush, Blair and Cheney, I wouldn't lose a minute’s sleep."

AIPAC has 100,000 members.

Greenstein tells us that he "would equally lose no sleep if the inhabitants of the White House were vaporised [sic]."

In addition to the President and his family, the White House has 90 permanent staff and 5,000 visitors a day.

Readers may wish to compare these examples with Greenstein's previous endorsement of the Brighton hotel bombing: "The attack on Thatcher by the IRA was obviously legitimate."


In that atrocity, 5 innocent people were murdered, and others left disabled for life.

Right, I'm not interested in

Right, I'm not interested in this debate particularly, but that post from Bogdanor was a stunning example of dishonest argument. Quotes from Paul in Italics.

Greenstein wrote on the Alef list: "If every staffer in AIPAC were to be vapourised tomorrow, alongside Bush, Blair and Cheney, I wouldn't lose a minute’s sleep."

AIPAC has 100,000 members.

Are members the same as staff? No, obviously not.

Greenstein tells us that he "would equally lose no sleep if the inhabitants of the White House were vaporised [sic]."

In addition to the President and his family, the White House has 90 permanent staff and 5,000 visitors a day.

Are visitors 'inhabitants'? Obviously not. Are permanent staff 'inhabitants'? Obviously not. (I'm sure that some staff live there, and I'm sure the President doesn't always live there, but whatever, it's clear what Greenstein means.) To an onlooker, your post looks pretty absurd.

I personally 'wouldn't lose any sleep' if the AIPAC staff were vapourised either. I mean, it's obviously be sad for them and their families etc., but next to all the shit that goes down in the world, some of which they support, I really don't care about a few ruling class hawks being 'vapourised'. Neither would most people. It's a perfectly normal reaction.


There's no point debating with someone who thinks that AIPAC members do not staff AIPAC's offices, or that you could vapourise the inhabitants of the White House without killing everyone in the building. This is about as plausible as the notion that the IRA "only" intended to kill Thatcher when they bombed that hotel in Brighton.

More significant is the assumption that the murder of Jewish lobbyists and democratically elected leaders is unobjectionable, with numbers alone up for discussion. It's like listening to some neo-Nazi "explain" that Hitler should have stuck to his demand in Mein Kampf for the gassing of thousands of "Hebrew corrupters of the nation" rather than aiming at the entire Jewish population of Europe.

Vaporisation of AIPAC

Bogdanor is a total reactionary. Hence he will put any off the cuff comment by anyone to this right (which means most people) under the spotlight, distort it and then draw his own preconceived conclusions.

Do I ADVOCATE vaporisation of anyone? No. Am I suggesting only vaporising Jewish leaders of Aipac? No. What I said was, and let's be clear, given the support of that organisation's leadership for the Iraq war, for a new war on Iran, for 'full spectrum dominance' by the US in accord with the New American Century they advocate, regardless of who dies i the process, I would lose no sleep if they, the Bush White House, the leadership of the Republican Party, New Labour's cabinet and any other warmongers I can think of, were vaporised. Of course this is anarchist wishful thinking! I can't however see a connection with Mein Kamp though!

Other examples of Bognador's reactionary and dishonest nature abound. Apparently
'Perhaps this explains why Greenstein supports Hamas. He argues that "there is no evidence that the motivation behind Hamas is anti-Semitism" and so "we should express solidarity with the Palestinians, Hamas or non-Hamas, in their struggle against the Israeli state." No evidence? According to Hamas, "there is no blood better than the blood of Jews" (Jerusalem Post, February 17, 2006), Israel is "a cancer that should be eradicated" (BBC, November 8, 2006), and the Holocaust is just an "exaggeration" (Al-Jazeera TV, July 16, 2007)!'

Agree it is a complicated argument, certainly too complex for Bogdanor. I don't support Hamas politically. I believe it is politically reactionary, but in the fight against the far more powerful and equally reactionary Israeli state I support all Palestinians, including Hamas, who stand up against that power. You may agree or disagree with such a stance but that is not political support. Likewise its 'anti-Semitism'. Now assuming the quotes Bogdanor repeats are correct, then all that tells me is that Hamas are reflecting the anti-Semitism of others. And since the Israeli state in the 1980's play a pivotal role in bringing Hamas into being, just as the US did with the Taliban, then a simple question would be why Israel helped an anti-Semitic organisation come into existence? Why did they fear secular Palestinian nationalism so much? I would argue that its rhetorical anti-Semitism has nothing to do with real Jews and in fact people like Uri Avneiri have held meetings in Gaza supported by Hamas. This is playground yah boo politics of the Right.

And then Bogdanor waxes lyrial. Apparently I am totally untrustworthy for asserting that "hundreds of thousands of Jews were saved" from the Nazis by Soviet troops. The truth is that hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees from the Nazis were deported to concentration camps by Soviet troops. Even assuming his sources are correct and not motivated by anti-communism, then I was quoting Begin's Revolt. There is no doubt whatsoever that hundreds of thousands, probably well over a million were saved by the Soviets. I distinguish between Stalin and his monstrous system and ordinary Russian people who extended the hand of friendship or the Red Army which went out of its way on occasions to rescue whole villages of Jews. Does that excuse the gulags and Soviet camps? Of course not. I just happen to hold to that old Trotskyist view that despite the counter-revolutionary nature of the Soviet leadership the system itself was nonetheless not capitalist and indeed progressive in certain ways.

Don't take my word for it. One of the main difficulties as Raul Hilberg, who is not a hack polemicist, explained in his book Destruction of European Jewry (the key work for anyone who wishes to understand the mechanism of the Holocaust) is the numbers who managed to take advantage of the Soviet occupation to escape from the Nazis. That the Soviets committed many crimes, not least sending back Communists to the Nazis under the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact is undisputed. I suspect Bogdanor is so vehemently anti-communist that he will happily quote any anti-communist to prove that it wasn't Hitler but Stalin who was the real enemy in world war 2.

Tony Greenstein

Greenstein on Mass Murder

Greenstein will be pleased to know that he is not the first to argue that "Bogdanor is a total reactionary." Chomsky's neo-Nazi allies in France have already accused me of embracing "the most reactionary point of views [sic] of the last 40 years." While they deny the mass murder of Jews by Hitler, Greenstein denies the mass murder of Jews by Stalin. It would be flattering to be condemned by either party, and I'm honoured to have been insulted by both.

Previously I exposed Greenstein's thoughts on vapourising as many as 100,000 American Jews in AIPAC, along with the inhabitants of the White House, as well as his endorsement of the IRA atrocity at the Brighton hotel. Greenstein now extends the list to the leadership of the Republican Party, New Labour's cabinet "and any other warmongers I can think of." Thus Greenstein's "anarchist wishful thinking" encompasses the mass murder of the entire democratically elected leadership of America and Britain, and, apparently, anyone at all who supported the Iraq war. That would presumably include everyone from Iraqi voters who support Coalition forces to those he has elsewhere described as "the racist warmongers of Harry's Place"!

The implementation of such "anarchist wishful thinking" would entail a bloodbath rivalling the death tolls in Dachau and Buchenwald. I do wonder why Greenstein chose to reply by widening his list of potential victims. Perhaps he wanted to distract attention from his equally outrageous statement that AIPAC's "naked conspiracies" seem "to act out the lines prepared in the Protocols of Elders of Zion"?

Explaining his views on another case of mass murder, Greenstein draws a "complex" distinction: in the war against Israel - i.e., the killing of Israeli Jews - he supports "all Palestinians, including Hamas... but that is not political support." The possibilities for such "complex" argumentative techniques are limitless. One can well imagine Stalinists protesting that their "support" for Hitler at the time of the Nazi-Soviet Pact was not "political support." Or the SWP pretending that its "support" for Atzmon during the Oslo intifada was not "political support." Does Greenstein really expect to convince anyone with this sort of nonsense? Does he even believe it himself?

Greenstein considers it an excuse that "Hamas are reflecting the anti-Semitism of others." Apologists for the antisemitism of Hitler and Stalin would say the same. More interesting is his suggestion that Hamas can't really be antisemitic because they played host to Uri Avneri. Google Tony Greenstein's name and you will find his essays on the website of the Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust (CODOH). Elsewhere you will find Greenstein's admission that he met "one of the leaders of the NF, Stephen Brady." Thus Greenstein's excuses for the genocidal Hamas fanatics he supports (but not "politically"!) would exonerate all manner of fascists.

Passing from atrocious logic to historical fiction, Greenstein alleges that Israel played "a pivotal role in bringing Hamas into being, just as the US did with the Taliban." Of course, Hamas is the Palestinian wing of the Muslim Brotherhood, which was created in 1928, two decades before Israel even existed. As for the Taliban, Greenstein tells us (The Argus, November 16, 2001) that it was "armed, trained and even created by the US and its client, the Pakistani government, in order to destroy a progressive Afghani regime." But even a minimally attentive undergraduate knows that, far from being armed, trained and created by the US, the Taliban overthrew the US-backed Jamiat-e-Islami government in Afghanistan.

Like many of Greenstein's tales, this last falsehood has been exposed before. And still he repeats it. The conclusion is obvious.

The same holds when he cites Begin's The Revolt to prove that "hundreds of thousands, probably well over a million" Jews were saved by Stalin. To reiterate what I said above, Greenstein is referring to Begin's remark that "hundreds of thousands of Jews were saved from Nazi hands." And he is deliberately suppressing the rest of Begin's sentence: "some of them suffered greatly and some of them died in prison, in exile, or as refugees."

Apparently being caught red-handed once, twice, three times, just isn't enough for Greenstein. He continues to falsify Begin's words, just as he manipulates Hilberg to conflate the number of Jews who fled the Nazi advance with non-existent humanitarian rescue efforts by the Stalinist dictatorship. And then he adds a new fabrication: that the Red Army "went out of its way on occasions to rescue whole villages of Jews," when in fact hundreds of thousands of refugees from Nazism were sent to die in the Gulag! Are there no limits to chutzpah?

I began with Greenstein's "wishful thinking" about mass murder, and I'll end on the same note. Stalin, says Greenstein, was "monstrous," but "the system itself was nonetheless not capitalist and indeed progressive in certain ways." In what respect was Stalinism progressive? In the construction of totalitarian state monopolies? In the violent enslavement of the peasant population? In the manufacture of famines? In the genocidal deportations of national minorities - including Jews? In perpetrating the greatest peacetime mass murders in European history? The latest demographic evidence shows that by 1939, the Stalinist dictatorship had murdered 10 million innocent people, including 4 million children. This is what Greenstein calls "progressive."

Bogdanor - another reactionary rant

Since Chomsky doesn't have any neo-Nazi allies the rest of Bogdanor's diatribe is pretty irrelvant. However the 'democratically elected' leadership of the West is the same one that has perpetrated a bloodbath of 1 million plus in Iraq and to wish that the inhabitants of the White House (who were not elected by Iraqis and therefore had no democratic mandate to invade that or any other country) had perished instead seems quite reasonable.

Whatever Stalin's horrendous crimes he did not single out the Jews for genocide or extermination, although of course many died as did many Russians and others.

I suggest that Bogdanor jnr. stops shouting and ranting and looks to his father, a model of prevarication and hesitation before coming to a conclusion (albeit the wrong one being a constitutional theoretician) and shouting at everyone.

Tony G

Greenstein and Denial

If Greenstein reads this translation to the end he will see French Holocaust deniers boasting of Chomsky's support and Chomsky openly collaborating with them:-


He will also find that these neo-Nazis denounced me in precisely the terms that he is using.

But this isn't the first time Greenstein has defended an ally of Holocaust deniers:-


Above and elsewhere I have quoted the historians on Stalin's antisemitic mass murders. Greenstein openly denies those atrocities, while falsifying sources to portray the murderers as rescuers. His denial of antisemitic mass murder is on the same moral level as his "wishful thinking" about the annihilation of Jewish lobbyists.

Greenstein apparently thinks he can save any argument by calling his opponent a reactionary. He has yet to explain his statement that AIPAC's "naked conspiracies" seem "to act out the lines prepared in the Protocols of Elders of Zion." Does Greenstein pretend that invoking the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is anything other than reactionary and antisemitic?

Tony Greenstein: Stalin's Apologist

I find it incredible that Greenstein can claim that Stalin, "did not single out the Jews for genocide or extermination." If Greenstein knew anything about Stalin's antisemitism he would know that by the mid 1940’s quotas were effectively established for Jews in prominent positions in the party, for admission to universities and that Jews were also barred from obtaining a position in the Soviet foreign service. Confidential instructions were sent to factory directors to remove Jews from positions of responsibility. The culmination of this was that by 1946, Stalin could boast "in our Central Committee there are no Jews!" All of this and more can be seen in William Korey's excellent article, "The Origins and Development of Soviet Anti-Semitism: An Analysis" published in the March 1972 issue of Slavic Review.

Specifically in relation to genocide, Tony Greenstein ignores the fabricated Doctors' Plot that appeared in Pravda in January 1953. According to a number of sources the purpose of this fabrication was that a show trial could be staged and used as a pretext for deporting all Soviet Jews to Siberia “for their own safety.” The idea was that approximately sixty famous Soviet Jews would denounce the traitorous “doctor-murderers” in a letter that would be published in Pravda. The signatories would propose that the entire Soviet Jewish community would be “voluntarily” deported to protect them from “the Russian people’s righteous wrath.” This act would have been a virtual death sentence for the entire Russian Jewish population. Fortunately Stalin died and the matter could be dropped before this plan was carried out. For more on this genocidal plan of Stalin's, particularly aimed at Jews, I direct Tony Greenstein to the following source material:

David Brandenberger, "Stalin’s Last Crime? Recent Scholarship on Postwar Soviet Antisemitism and the Doctor’s Plot" Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History Vol 6. No. 1 Winter 2005 pp. 187-204, A. Mark Clarfield, "The Soviet 'Doctors’ Plot' – 50 years on" BMJ Vol. 325 December 21-28, 2002 pp. 1,487-1,489 and Simon Madievski, "The Doctors’ Plot," Midstream September-October 2003

More nonsense from Mikey and Bogdanor

I'm well aware of the Doctor's Plot but Stalin died before it could be put into operation. Clearly Stalin was anti-Semitic but to compare what might have happened had the Doctor's Plot transpired with what did happen in Nazi Germany just demonstrates how the extermination of European Jewry is merely a political device for smearing the left as far as right-wing Zionists like Bogdanor are concerned.

Bogdanor goes on at length about the Soviet Union and the Jews. The fact remains that up to 2 million Jews owe their lives to the fact that the USSR was in existence and that they were able to take shelter when the Nazi storm erupted in Poland and the areas of the USSR that the Nazis occupied. As I have already cited, even Menachem Begin estimated that 3/4 million Soviet Jews survived, somewhat more than the Zionist project saved. But then the Zionist leaders saw the Holocaust as a bargaining chip at the negotiating table, an opportunity to help in the building of the State rather than a priority that necessitated dropping all else.

And if Bogdanor stops shouting and starts reading he could try Raul Hilberg's Destruction of European Jewry which estimates that about 1.5 million Jews were saved as a result of the Soviet Union. Again somewhat more than the Zionist movement managed with its policy of 'selectivity'.

As for the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Bogdanor says that 'Does Greenstein pretend that invoking the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is anything other than reactionary and antisemitic?'. No I don't agree. It depends on what the context is. If Zionist groups call themselves the Jewish Lobby, and act in conspiratorial ways to defeat candidates, channel money to certain other candidates, seek to demonise and witchhunt people on campus under various bogus names and do all this undercover, as the ADL did when it got found out spying on left-wing groups a few decades ago, then one can indeed say that th ey are seeking to replicate what the Protocols described. That isn't to sanctify the Protocols but to condemn the disgusting war-mongers and genocide supporters in AIPAC.

AIPAC seek to legitimate the oppression of the Palestinians, the denial of the most basic land and water rights to the indigenous of that area, in the name of American Jewry. They are not better than the worst anti-Semite.

Greenstein, Stalin and the Protocols

Here and elsewhere I've repeatedly exposed Greenstein's preposterous campaign to rehabilitate Stalin as a mass rescuer of Jews. I've cited the historical research proving that Stalin did nothing to help Jews but much to kill them. I've also exposed Greenstein's hoax that Begin credited Stalin with saving 2 million lives. Greenstein now reduces his claim to 3/4 million, but a fabrication remains a fabrication, no matter what number he plucks out of thin air. And since Greenstein continues to invoke Hilberg, let me put an end to his fakery by quoting the historian's final verdict:-

"there is little evidence of any Soviet attempts to evacuate Jews as such... in most invaded regions Jews were often on their own. Soviet Jews, directly threatened but effectively muted, could not pressure the Soviet government to do anything, and that government was not going to take any overt steps to assist Jews as Jews" (Perpetrators, Victims, Bystanders, HarperCollins, 1992, pp251-2).

Why does Greenstein embarrass himself with lies about Stalin's humanitarianism? He knows that Stalin had murdered 4 million children in peacetime before Hitler built the first gas chamber. He knows that without Stalin's collaboration with Hitler, there would have been no WW2 and no Holocaust. He knows that far from trying to save Jews, Stalin had the refugees from Hitler's terror sent to "speedy annihilation" in the Gulag. So why does Greenstein persist?

The reason, of course, is his tortured effort to persuade himself that Stalin was better than the hated Zionists who "saw the Holocaust as a bargaining chip at the negotiating table" and not as "a priority that necessitated dropping all else." Contrast Greenstein's malevolent fantasy with the minutes of the Jewish Agency executive on November 29, 1942:-

"We must limit ourselves to focusing on a few issues which can be adapted to demands for the Jewish people as a whole, and to gaining for them the support of the enlightened world. They are: (a) cessation of the slaughter and rescue of the Jews; (b) enabling the Jewish people to fight as Jews against Hitler. It is also our duty to request that the Allies threaten the Nazis with individual and collective retribution for massacres of Jews... We must particularly stress the rescue of children, but we ought not to be satisfied with children alone: every Jew who can possibly be rescued must be saved" (Yad Vashem Studies 13, 1979, p195).

I won't respond to Greenstein's claim that for me "the extermination of European Jewry is merely a political device for smearing the left" since his psychological projection must be obvious to everyone. Far more serious is his reliance on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. When I quoted his views on the subject, I expected a denial but hoped for a retraction. I hardly anticipated a shameless defence of the antisemitic lie that became infamous as the "warrant for genocide." But then Greenstein has also confessed to "wishful thinking" about the extermination of Jewish activists, democratically elected leaders, the Labour cabinet and "any other warmongers I can think of." Fantasies about mass murder, support for Hamas, apologetics for Stalin and now endorsement of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion - can Greenstein possibly sink any lower? It's difficult to imagine, but no doubt he'll try.

Tony Greenstein and Genocide Denial

I see that Tony Greenstein continues to deny that Stalin had plans to kill Jews en masse. Louis Rapoport ( Stalin's War Against The Jews: The Doctors' Plot And The Soviet Solution New York: Free Press, 1990) has written a detailed account of the Stalin’s actions against the Jews. He states that after the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact "one of Stalin's first gifts to the Nazis was to turn over some 600 German Communists, most of them Jews, to the Gestapo at Brest-Litovsk in German-occupied Poland. “ He continues, “ Beginning in February 1940 in the Soviet-occupied zone of Poland, Beria's NKVD arrested and deported about one million Polish refugees, half of them Jews. Many died en route to Siberia."

In relation to the 1953 Doctors’ Plot, Rapoport states that the plan was to first execute the doctors under the fictitious charges and “Then ‘incidents’ would follow: attacks on Jews orchestrated by the secret police, the publication of the statement by the prominent Jews, and a flood of other letters demanding that action be taken. A three­stage program of genocide would be followed. First, almost all Soviet Jews . . . would be shipped to camps east of the Urals . . . Second, the authorities would set Jewish leaders at all levels against one another . . . Also the MGB [Secret Police] would start killing the elites in the camps, just as they had killed the Yiddish writers . . . the previous year. The . . . final stage would be to ‘get rid of the rest.’”

It is chilling to read Greenstein’s denial of all this. He should be thoroughly ashamed of himself although I suspect he has no shame.

Bogdanor Rants & Mikey Wails

I defend nothing about Stalin. But Stalin wasn't the sole actor in respect of the Soviet Union's defence against fascism in the second world war. The Red Army defeated Nazi Germany (something Bogdanor clearly regrets) despite not because of Stalin.

If Bogdanor were to actually read Destruction of European Jewry he would also find references to whole Jewish communities evacuated by the Soviet Army in the wake of Operation Barbarossa. But being a died in the wool anti-communist but a louder version of his father he cannot bring himself to admit what anyone to the left of Atilla the Hun does, viz. that between 1 and 2 million Jews survived the war because of the existence of the Soviet Union (not Stalin - if the ignorant Bogdanor can make that differentiate).

And yes it was one of the great crimes of Stalin and Stalinism that they handed back to Hitler German communists. I have written about this but they were handed back NOT BECAUSE THEY WERE JEWISH BUT BECAUSE THEY WERE COMMUNISTS! Simple - even Bogdanor and Mikey should understand.

Unfortunately Bogdanor is like a rabid dog. He reads what he reads what he wants to read and disregards all commonly accepted meanings. Nowhere have I suggested rehabilitating Stalin. Why should I? The record of the Jewish Agency and the Zionist Executive is best judged not by pious declarations that never saw the light of day but by the decision of Stephen Wise, ably supported by the Jewish Agency to keep secret for 3 months news of the Final Solution, following the Riegner telegram delivered via the British, at the request of the US State Dept. This of course was in the middle of the most intensive period of the Final Solution - Autumn 1942. paper declarations mean nothing in this regard.

One example of a little Bogdanor lie is his statement that 'I've also exposed Greenstein's hoax that Begin credited Stalin with saving 2 million lives.' I never credited Stalin with saving anyone. I referred to the Red Army and Soviet citizens who did what they did despite Stalin. Nor have I reduced the figure of those saved to 3/4 million. I was quoting Begin, as Bogdanor knows, but Bogdanor knows nothing else other than how to lie. I have said I don't know, nor did Hilberg or Reitlinger or other reputable historians. But it is accepted by most people that between 1-2 million Jews did escape, not only with the Red Army but by joining Soviet partisans in the forests (whereas the Polish and other partisans were often anti-Semitic and turned them away or worse).

It's also the case that many Polish Jews preferred not to escape with the Soviets because they believed that the rumours of what the Nazis would do was just propaganda. Tragically they were to learn that these were not the cultured Germans they had believed them to be.

Since I've not actually read the Protocls quite how I can rely on them I'll leave to someone who is a bit saner than Bogdanor. As for endorsing them well this is another leap of Bogdanor's febrile imagination. As I've told him before, ask your dad before you put pen to paper and then you won't make such an ass of yourself.

I have also not wished for the extermination of Jewish activists but I have also said I would lose no sleep if AIPAC and the other warmongers, who are responsible for the extermination of others, were to be vaporised alongside the Bush Whitehouse. Those who advocate genocidal war should indeed be prepared to face the consequences, not because they are Jewish but because they are warmongers. The fact that some in Aipac are Jewish or Christian fundamentalist is irrelevant but this is an example of the malicious and deliberate lying of this cretin.

As for Gilad Atzmon's friend and collaborator (did he pay you or did you do 'research' on me for him for free?). Well at least he thanked you for it demonstrating that collaboration with anti-Semites is as much a part of Zionism as eating haggis is a Scottish custom. I'm aware of the Doctor's plot and no amount of speculation will uncover whether or not it was the precursor to something else. The Slansky trial in Czechoslovakia didn't lead to a generalised attack on Jews and nor did the Doctor's Plot. As I wrote in an early pamphlet:
'Following the Stalinisation of the U. S. S. R. anti-Semitism did become more and more tolerated (with the exception of the 2nd World War) and no-one should be in any doubt as to the anti-Semitic nature of the Slansky trial of the Czech communist and resistance leader who was framed and shot after the War, and the notorious Doctors Plot which was fortunately brought to an end by Stalin’s death or the attacks on Trotsky and other old Bolsheviks by virtue of their Jewish origins.'

Anyway it's nice to know that the 2 rabid anti-communists are up to their old tricks of distortion and plain lying.

Tony Greenstein’s Doublethink

I find it amusing that Tony Greenstein is reduced to attempts at dehumanisation by comparing Paul Bogdanor to a “rabid dog.” His insistence that he is not a Stalinist is hardly convincing when he uses the language of Andrey Vyshinsky, the prosecutor at Stalin’s show trials in the Great Purge, who would say about the suspects, "Shoot these rabid dogs."

The twists and turns in Greenstein's latest outburst are exposed for all to see. He told members of the Alef List that those who run AIPAC “seem determined to act out the lines prepared in the Protocols of Elders of Zion.” Now he forgets his own words and claims that he has “not actually read the Protocls [sic].” Earlier he argued that Stalin "did not single out the Jews for genocide or extermination"; after being reminded of the Doctors’ Plot which he claims he is “well aware of,” he changes his tune to argue that "no amount of speculation will uncover whether or not [the Doctors’ Plot] was the precursor to something else." He also claims he has "not wished for the extermination of Jewish activists" as members of AIPAC that he wants "vaporised" could be Jewish or Christian. It would be like arguing that if Neo-Nazis attacked a Kosher restaurant it would not be antisemitic because the victims might include non-Jews.. He believes "Those who advocate genocidal war should indeed be prepared to face the consequences ...because they are warmongers," but at the same time he believes that people should "express solidarity" with Hamas. Maybe I should remind Tony Greenstein that Article 13 of the Hamas Charter states "There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad." George Orwell defined in part doublethink as "The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them."

Greenstein accuses me again of being "Gilad Atzmon’s friend and collaborator." He ignores the fact that I totally refuted this scurrilous allegation earlier on this thread. (See my contribution of February 22, 2008.)Orwell provided a further part definition of doublethink as "to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed." How convenient that Greenstein forgets his meeting with one of the leaders of the fascist National Front.*

*See comment from Tony Greenstein on March 26, 2007 at 06:01:26 AM on the following post

Greenstein Caught Red-Handed

"I defend nothing about Stalin," says Greenstein. "Nowhere have I suggested rehabilitating Stalin," insists Greenstein. His misattribution to Begin of 2 million Jews saved by Stalin is a "Bogdanor lie," claims Greenstein. "I referred to the Red Army and Soviet citizens who did what they did despite Stalin," adds Greenstein. And here, for the record, are the exact words of Greenstein:-

"Just to say that the figure of 2 million Jews who would otherwise have died is cited in Menachem Begin’s The Revolt... There were many things to say about the Stalinist regime [emphasis added] in the USSR but they didn’t embark on an attempt to liquidate the Jews, quite the contrary, the USSR was one of the few places of refuge for Jews from Poland. And even Begin owes his life to that fact." (Socialist Unity, February 11, 2008)

Greenstein's attribution of the 2 million figure to Begin was a hoax, as he was immediately forced to admit. Greenstein was caught red-handed fabricating humanitarian achievements by the Stalinist regime, and now he has been caught red-handed denying that his hoax had anything to do with the Stalinist regime.

Greenstein was equally unfortunate when he repeatedly invoked Hilberg and I responded by actually quoting Hilberg. But Greenstein simply will not admit defeat: it isn't that Greenstein has been contradicted by Hilberg. Not at all: his defence is that Hilberg has been contradicted by Hilberg!

As I've written before, "being caught red-handed once, twice, three times, just isn't enough for Greenstein." And this litany of polemical disasters arises not from some trivial matter but from Greenstein's apologetics for the regime that murdered 4 million children in peacetime, the regime that sent Jewish refugees to die in concentration camps, the regime whose collaboration with Nazism led to the Holocaust.

Greenstein's historical revisionism extends to his own writings, even on this page. He dismisses evidence of Zionist efforts to combat the Final Solution, having previously asserted that Zionists saw the murder of millions of Jews as a "bargaining chip." He inveighs against "genocidal war," disregarding his own support for the genocidal fanatics of Hamas. He denies that he "wished for the extermination of Jewish activists," having boasted of his "wishful thinking" about the mass murder of "every staffer in AIPAC." He even expects us to believe that his endorsement of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a leap of my "febrile imagination," when he has just accused "Zionist groups" of "seeking to replicate what the Protocols described."

Greenstein makes excuses for Stalinism and then pretends that he hasn't, he falsifies sources and pretends that he hasn't, he fantasises about mass murder and pretends that he hasn't, he endorses the Protocols and pretends that he hasn't. I predicted that he would find it difficult to sink any lower, but clearly he has made the effort: calling me a "rabid dog," he actually claims that I regret the defeat of Nazism, implying that I welcome the murder of my own relatives in the Holocaust. Will Greenstein's next message deny making that statement as well?

The attempts of Bodganor & Mikey to Relatavise Nazi Crimes

Mikey finds it difficult to believe I haven't read the Protocols. But I haven't. I have read ABOUT them, e.g. Norman Cohn's Warrant 4 Genocide and on that basis I say yes, definitively, that AIPAC and other Zionist lobby organisations behave just like cardboard caricatures out of that work. They plot, plan, conspire to unseat election candidates in the US, prevent people from speaking on campuses, invent false allegations against academics like Joseph Massad to deny them tenure (except they got it wrong in that case). No contradiction there.

As for vaporising Aipac's leadership I stand by my comments. These are people whose sole raison d'etre is the waging and creation of wars. It's called reaping what you sow.

The Doctor's Plot came at the fag end of Stalinism. It never got off the ground and it is, I would have thought, significant that Stalin's successors did not carry out this plot. Mikey and Bogdanor seem to regret it.

What we really have here is an attempt, along the lines of German historical revisionists, Ernst Nolte, in particular to play down if not legitimise the Nazi regime by seeing it as a reaction to Bolshevist class terror. Hence the desperate attempts of Mikey and Bogdanor to paint the Soviet Union as equally guilty of the genocide and murder of Jews as the Nazis. It's no wonder that Mikey is such good friends with, and even a collaborator with, holocaust denier Gilad Atzmon.

Calling Bodganor a 'rabid dog' is merely a reaction to his hysterical rants and modus operandi. What Vyshinski said about the victims of the purges is neither here nor there since the same comparisons and epithets are made in countless different situations so it is another example of the McCarthyite guilt-by-association technique.

If Bogdanor were to actually read, not a short book but Hilberg's magnus opus, the Destruction of European Jewry, he would find all the evidence he needs for the assertion that possibly 1.5 million Jews survived by escaping into the Soviet Union, many perhaps the majority taken there with the Soviet troops. Begin mentions a figure of about 3/4 million, which is not inconsiderable but since it defeats Bogdanor's thesis that the Soviet Union was no different from Nazi Germany (indeed worse possibly) he makes no reference to the figure that Begin does mention. I cited, from memory, a figure of 2 million. That was mistaken. So what?

Tony Greenstein

Tony Greenstein: Stalinism's Twin in Trotskyist Garb

It is astonishing that Tony Greenstein accuses AIPAC of being part of a Zionist conspiracy. Norman Cohn described the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as a Warrant for Genocide - and Greenstein proves it when he boasts that he would be happy if "every staffer in AIPAC were to be vapourised tomorrow."

Greenstein defends Stalin's successors because they chose not to commit antisemitic genocide, ignoring the fact that they shared Stalin's antisemitic ideology. For example V. Vysotsky made the extraordinary claim that that there had been a secret meeting of Zionist lobbyists where they plotted via the use of "force, bribery, slyness, perfidy, subversion, and espionage" to achieve "mastery over mankind." (Sovetskaia Belorussiia, May 1969) V. Bolshakov argued that the "international Zionist body" is "a well-organised propaganda and slander service" dedicated to "bellicose chauvinism, anti-communism and anti-Sovietism." (Anti-Communism: The Main Line of Zionism, Novosti, 1972, pp.4-5) And L. Korneyev wrote that Zionism operates "Mafia-like on a world-wide scale" in its "espionage and subversion." (Ogonyok, No. 5, 1977) All this seems remarkably similar to Greenstein's ranting about "Zionist lobby organisations" which "plot, plan, conspire to unseat election candidates..."

Following the maxim "never let the truth get in the way of a good story," Greenstein reiterates his libel that I am "good friends" with Atzmon the "holocaust denier." Alas, Greenstein has yet to provide a decent explanation of his own grovelling message to Atzmon in which Greenstein praised Atzmon's views on the Holocaust. Readers who want to check this for themselves can see it here:


As the AWL itself has stated (Workers' Liberty, May 1988), "much of what many British and international leftists - even Trotskyists - say about Israel is an indirect and unwitting copy of the Stalinists' efforts at constructing a Marxist-sounding gloss on old anti-semitic themes."

Greenstein's conspiracy theories about Zionists are a case in point.

Greenstein's Politics Lessons

Since Greenstein views the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as a reliable guide to Zionist politics, readers may be inclined to distrust his pretended expertise on the history of the Holocaust. With good reason.

Greenstein accuses his critics of trying to "relatavise [sic]" Nazi crimes and attacks those such as Nolte who "play down if not legitimise the Nazi regime." Of course, Nolte's thesis that Hitler "originated the State of Israel" is identical to Greenstein's own verdict that "Israel represents Hitler's triumph."

Greenstein pretends that 1.5 million Jews were rescued by the Stalinists, "many perhaps the majority taken there with the Soviet troops." For this claim he relies on Hilberg, who actually wrote that "there is little evidence of any Soviet attempts to evacuate Jews as such... in most invaded regions Jews were often on their own."

Greenstein cited Begin for the statement that Stalin saved 2 million Jews, his hoax was exposed and so he reduces it to 3/4 million. Begin did not mention that number either - but he did say that Jews who fled to the Soviet Union "died in prison, in exile, or as refugees."

Is it surprising that Greenstein sees nothing wrong with this type of hoax, when he boasts of taking his politics lessons from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion?

probably enough

Tony, Mikey, Paul

Thrilling though it must be for site visitors to watch you three metaphorically kicking lumps out of each other, I don't think this debate can possibly progress given that you are all consistently mis-representing what the other is saying. If you want to continue with this I'm sure that there is a proper forum to do so elsewhere, either on one of your own blogs or over at socialistunity.com.

Since all three of you disagree wildly with the AWL on many of our politics we'd be very happy for you to post comments on any of the many thousands of articles on here which I'm sure can lead to stimulating debate, without the need to reduce yourselves to playground level name calling.


Is this a personal opinion or a formal request by AWL? If it's the latter, then I will offer to publish any further posts by Greenstein or Mikey in full on my own site.

I'm slightly amused that you accuse us of misrepresenting each other while the comment below makes the opposite criticism!

what are you on about?

What are you on about?
You essentially corroborate what Tony Greenstein was saying and then claim it was a hoax.
Your baleful posts are a joke.

The Zionist Politics of Distortion

I agree that there is little purpose in this continued 'debate'. However it is illustrative of the way the more wacky Zionists distort their opponents.

E.g. I cited, from memory, Begins statement about Jews finding refuge from Nazis in the Soviet Union DESPITE Stalin (which becomes in Bogdanor's jumble 'Greenstein pretends that 1.5 million Jews were rescued by the Stalinists'). No I didn't say 'the Stalinists' rescued Jews but that:
a. Many Jews sought refuge on their own account, and Hilberg and Reitlinger go into this in some depth.
b. The Red Army evacuated whole communities as the Nazis advanced. Again that is in Hilberg's Destruction of European Jewry. Being 3 volumes and some 1300 pages long I wouldn't expect Bogdanor to have read it, let alone digested it.

Begin, who was himself an example of someone who sought sanctuary in the Soviet Union as he states in his biography that he would have otherwise have been executed if he had remained in Poland (which Brenner doubts in Zionism in the Age of the Dictators) states that 'hundreds of thousands' of Jews were saved because of the Soviet Union. That is quite compatible with 2 million or 1.5 million for that matter, since it is a matter of dispute just how many Jews died in the Nazi holocaust. The most widely quoted figure is 6 million however Hilberg, who is the most authorative historian on the Nazi holocaust uses the lower figure of 5.1 million precisely because of the no. of Jews he estimates escaped to the Soviet Union.

However to Bogdanor the Stalinists were as bad as, if not worse than, the Hitler regime and therefore yes Bogdanor relativises the Nazi crimes. How else can you describe it? I cited Nolte in this respect not on the origination of the Israeli state, although of course Zionists regularly use the Holocaust as justification for the establishment of the Israeli state.

Mikey, who to be fair plays 2nd fiddle to Bogdanor, cites one V. Bolshakov, who I've never heard of before. But if he talks about an "international Zionist body" is that wrong? Isn't there a World Zionist Organisation? Do tell us if this is wrong?

And if he talks about "a well-organised propaganda and slander service" is that wrong? Mikey and Bogdanor are good examples of just that or the ritual libel/slander of anti-Semitism/self-hater or the most virulent anti-Semitism that Zionists have used to e.g. attack the signatories of the recent letter to the Guardian by 105 British Jews. Or maybe Mikey hasn't seen the e-mail distributed by Haim Beresheeth which calls him a 'kike'. Does Mikey and Bogdanor agree with attacking anti-Zionists using the most filty anti-Semitic slurs?

As for Zionism being "bellicose chauvinism, anti-communism and anti-Sovietism." what is untrue in that? Zionist politics have become steadily more overtly right-wing and Aipac has aligned itself with the most right-wing and anti-semitic elements in the US, viz. the fundamentalist Christian Zionists who want a Jewish State to encourage Rapture and the return of Christ, whence all Jews who don't convert will be slain. I would be happy to see Aipac, Bush, the neo-cons, Blair & Brown, to say nothing of Putin and most of the Arab leaders, including Ahmedinajad vaporised. What objection can there possibly be to that?!!!!!!!!!!

Tony Greenstein

Protocols of the Elders

I forgot to add that because the Protocols allege there was an international Jewish conspiracy doesn't mean that conspiracies don't exist or don't take place. E.g. the Iraq war was clearly the result of a conspiracy to manipulate intelligence and mislead people. Likewise the Jonathan Pollard spy case and the more recent case of Israel spying on the US would seem to be a conspiracy (spies tend not to do things openly!).

It is one of the ironies that the Zionist movement does operate, not in an open manner debating its differences with its opponents, but by means of dirty tricks, libelling (as per Bogdanor/Mikey), trying to get its opponents banned and to prevent them speaking, denying tenure, manufacturing incidents that don't occur (Prof. Joseph Massad) etc.

So yes, Zionist politics are a caricature of the Protocols but the Zionism has always sought to justify the main claim of anti-Semites that Jews don't belong in the Diaspora. So reaffirming the Protocols is just one more string to the bow.

Tony Greenstein

Greenstein Unmasked

What do we learn from Greenstein's latest communications?

Greenstein announced on Socialist Unity that "the Stalinist regime" had granted refuge to Polish Jews. I demonstrated that the Stalinist regime had sent them to die in the Gulag. Greenstein then angrily protested on this page that "I never credited Stalin with saving anyone" and "I didn't say 'the Stalinists' rescued Jews."

Greenstein has lied about his statement.

Greenstein writes that Begin was "an example of someone who sought sanctuary in the Soviet Union." Begin sought sanctuary in Lithuania, which he called "anti-Communist through and through" (White Nights, Steimatzky, 2008, p21). Far from seeking "sanctuary in the Soviet Union," Begin fled to a country that was later attacked by the Soviet Union, whereupon he was sent to a concentration camp in the Soviet Union.

Greenstein has lied about these facts.

Greenstein announced on Socialist Unity that Begin had credited the Soviets with saving "2 million Jews." When I challenged his hoax, Greenstein admitted that Begin gave no such number. Greenstein then claimed on this page that "Begin mentions a figure of about 3/4 million" and "Begin estimated that 3/4 million Soviet Jews survived." Now that I have challenged his hoax, Greenstein admits that Begin gave no such number.

Greenstein has lied about these statistics.

According to Greenstein, Begin "states that 'hundreds of thousands' of Jews were saved because of the Soviet Union" which is "quite compatible with 2 million or 1.5 million." But according to Begin, out of "hundreds of thousands" saved from the Nazis, "some of them died in prison, in exile, or as refugees" under the Soviets. And contrary to Greenstein, Begin gave no hint of "2 million or 1.5 million" Jews rescued because of the Soviet Union.

Greenstein has lied about this statement.

Greenstein invokes the authority of "Hilberg's Destruction of European Jewry. Being 3 volumes and some 1300 pages long I wouldn't expect Bogdanor to have read it." Alas, Greenstein hasn't read it. That's why he keeps getting the title wrong - it is The Destruction of the European Jews - and that's why, on Socialist Unity, he referred to the abridged 1-volume "student edition."

Greenstein has not read the book he accuses me of not having read.

Greenstein has asserted that if I read the book he hasn't read, I'll "find all the evidence" that out of 1.5 million Soviet Jewish refugees, "many perhaps the majority" were "taken there with the Soviet troops." In the 3-volume edition Hilberg writes that they "fled before the Germans arrived" (Holmes & Meier, 1985, p291). Nowhere does he say or imply that 750,000+ Jews were "taken there with the Soviet troops."

Greenstein has lied about this source.

Greenstein cites Hilberg to prove that the Red Army "evacuated whole communities as the Nazis advanced." In the 3-volume edition the sole reference to evacuation of whole communities is a Nazi allegation contradicted by research stating that "there is no evidence" of such an evacuation plan (p295). As Hilberg's subsequent book confirms, "there is little evidence of any Soviet attempts to evacuate Jews as such."

Greenstein has lied about this source.

Greenstein omits that Hilberg provides no evidence that 1.5 million fled. As it happens, the figure came from a Soviet spokesman (Morgen-Frayheyt, October 21, 1946). And as historians concluded decades ago, "There is simply no proof to justify such a sweeping statement" and Hilberg's escape estimates turned out to be "wildly wrong" (Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Vol. 1, No. 2, 1986, p301).

Greenstein has repeated discredited nonsense about the Holocaust.

Greenstein argues that "to Bogdanor the Stalinists were as bad as, if not worse than, the Hitler regime and therefore yes Bogdanor relativises the Nazi crimes." But Greenstein has compared the Zionists to "the anti-Semitic movements whose activities led directly to the Holocaust." Greenstein thinks that Orthodox Judaism has "Judaeo-Nazi views" and Greenstein condemns the Israelis as "Judaeo-Nazis."

Greenstein will not compare Stalin with Hitler but he accuses other Jews of being Nazis.

In this exchange, Greenstein has falsified the Holocaust, boasted of supporting Hamas, defended Soviet antisemitic incitement and invoked the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. He has justified the murder of Jewish activists, democratic politicians and people who disagree with him on Iraq. He has lied about facts, lied about statistics, lied about sources and lied about his own lies. It is all rather depressing. But Greenstein has now lightened the burden: he has described Ahmadinejad as an Arab leader. At least I can thank him for that moment of hilarity!

Tony Greenstein - Genocidal Thinking and Other Matters

Just over a year ago, Tony Greenstein wrote to the Alef list and said, “If every staffer in AIPAC were to be vapourised tomorrow, alongside Bush, Blair and Cheney, I wouldn't lose a minutes sleep.” On this thread he widened his target list to include “the inhabitants of the White House” and the leaders of the Christian Coalition.” (March 2) As the thread progressed, his “anarchist wishful thinking” extended further to include “the leadership of the Republican Party, New Labour's cabinet and any other warmongers I can think of.” (March 9) In his latest message Greenstein’s genocidal dream targets have extended still further to include, “the neo-cons,” “Blair & Brown,” “Putin,” “ most of the Arab leaders” and “Ahmedinajad” who he mistakenly refers to as an Arab leader. Martin Ohr has suggested this thread has gone on long enough, maybe he is right because the longer it goes on the more people Tony Greenstein seems to want killed.

Not only does Greenstein have this extended list of people he wants killed, he cannot see anything wrong with it and is perplexed that anyone else can.

Paul Bogdanor has already cited many lies in Greenstein’s words but I wish to add one more: In order to justify his wish for “vaporising Aipac's leadership,” Greenstein argues “These are people whose sole raison d'etre is the waging and creation of wars.” (May 1) This is a blatant lie. The purpose of AIPAC is to help ensure that American support for Israel remains strong.

On “trying to get its opponents banned and to prevent them speaking,” thi s is the exact technique that some in the boycott Israel movement that Greenstein has placed himself at the forefront of have carried out. For examples there was the case of Andrew Wilkie who banned an Israeli student from working in his laboratory and the case of Mona Baker who sacked two Israelis from the boards of her journal because they were connected to Israeli universities.

Finally, with his talk of conspiracies and his agreement with hard-line Stalinist propagandists one wonders whether Tony Greenstein has gone completely mad.

Bogdanor's apologia for the Hitler Regime

There is no need to respond to Mikey's comments because, as he has had to accept, he is a collaborator with Gilad Atzmon no less (though pretending to remain neutral in the divide between anti-Semites and their opponents). It is little wonder that his hero is Rudolf Kasztner.

As regards Bogdanor, whose project is a thoroughly anti-communist one, which is to follow the lead of German revisionist historians in relativising the deeds of Nazi Germany, little comment is needed. Yes Jews who escaped from the clutches of the Nazis were often sent to the gulags in Siberia. Not because they were Jewish but because of the paranoia of the Soviet regime. Many died not because they were Jewish but because they were seen as political enemies, however if Bogdanor cannot understand the difference between killing Jews, or Slavs or Gypsies because of that fact and the general level of repression which killed many people then he is even more stupid than I've given him credit for.

Begin is of course a good example of someone who fled and was incarcerated in a Soviet camp but also lived to tell the tale. Very few survived the Nazi extermination camps and that is the difference, but it is a difference that the anti-communist Bogdanor finds difficult to accept because it runs contrary to his current project of demonising the left and cuddling up to the right.

Bogdanor reminds me of Jabotinsky's comment about Begin - the useless screeching of a door. The fact that he repetitively uses the word 'liar' is an example of his political hyperventilation. He should take some lessons from his more staid bourgeois father, Vernon Bogdanor, who unlike him has a reputation, albeit as a constitutionalist pedant. Bogdanor is just an amateur propagandist.

The rest of his rubbish about the Protocols is just that. However for the enlightenment of others who are not one step away from the lunatic asylum, I post some extracts from both Hilberg's Destruction of European jews and Reitlinger's The Final Solution. I think it's quite clear that both authors accept that hundreds of thousands were indeed saved by the Soviet troops, despite Stalinism and its counter-revolutionary politics (which of course Bogdanor is quite happy with).

Jews Fleeing into Soviet Russia
Hilberg, Destruction of European Jewry, 2003 edition:
p. 299: 'As Einsatzgruppe B moved rapidly through the eastern portions of Byelorrusia, it tore holes in Jewish poulation centers, but left them essentially intact…. On the road from Smolensk to Moscow, the Einsatzgruppe reported that in many towns the Soviets had evacuated all the Jewish inhabitants.

Starting from southern Poland, Einsatzgruppe C traversed Galicia. When it reached the heart of Ukraine, it reported on September 12 that “across the lines, rumors appear that circulated among the Jews about the fate they can expect from us.’ It had in fact encountered Jewish communities that were reduced 70 to 90% and some by 100%. Such reports were to multiply in the fall. Dnepropetrovsk had a prewar Jewish population of roughly 100,000. It was thought that 30,000 had remained, an estimate that turned out to be too high. In Chernigov, with a prewar Jewish community of 10,000, Sonderkommando 4a found only 309 Jews.
[fn. 21 – Most Jews were reported to have fled also from Kremenchug and Poltava RSHA IV A 1 Operational Report]

p. 353 Of 4,000,000 Jews in the area of operations, about 1,500,000 had fled. Five hundred thousand had been killed, and at least 2,000,000 were still alive. To the Einsatzgruppen the masses of bypassed Jews presented a crushing burden. When Einsatzgruppe C approached the Dnepr, it noted that rumors of killing operations had resulted in mass flights of Jews…. The Einsatzgruppe went on to say: ‘Therein may be viewed an indirect success of the work of the SD, for the movement of hundreds of thousands of Jews free of charge – reportedly most of them go byond the Ural – represents a notable contribution tof the solution of the Jewish question in Europe.’

p.394 ‘Ostland Jewry became a remnant of fewer than 100,000 divided into 2 groups: Jews who had fled to the forests and the remainign Jews in ghettos and camps.’ Of Operation Hornung, Brigadefuhrer von Gottberg reported 3,3000 dead Jews. ‘Nonetheless some thousands survived in the woods until the arrival of the Red Army.’

Gerald Reitlinger p.53 The Final Solution estimates that 700,000 fled into the Soviet Union. ‘For, in the deeper interior, most of the employable Jews had escaped or had been evacuated by the Russians, so that their families and dependants, were reasily disposed of.’ P.216

So despite the hysterical screeching of the Bogdanor and his little echo chamber, Mikey Ezra, the facts speak for themselves. And the facts are that Mikey is a dirty collaborator with Gilad Atzmon, whose anti-Semitism and racism becomes more pathological with every passing day, witness his latest U Tube offerings. But Mikey can't help, like a dog returning to its vomit, following in the footsteps of Kastner, Rumkowski and Greenbaum.

So no, Mikey isn't a Nazi, but faced with the choice of socialists or Nazis it's not difficult to know what his choice would be.

Tony Greenstein

Mikey's Collaboration with Atzmon"

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 | 03.12.07 - 8:00 pm | #
I have been very busy digging up stuff on Tony Greenstein - Roland Rance will have to wait for another day.
Mikey | 03.12.07 - 8:53 pm | #
‘Mikey, I hope you do not mind me saying that, but your contribution for the pls solidarity movement is priceless. It is crucial that we all know about the racist record of this Greenpiss, a man who was banned time after time for being a racist and an anti Semite!
I really want to believe that this revolting violent man will feel some shame and take some time off to think about it all. But I doubt it.’
Gilad Atzmon | 03.04.07 - 10:46 am | #
‘Mikey, I hope you do not mind me saying that, but your contribution for the pls solidarity movement is priceless. It is crucial that we all know about the racist record of this Greenpiss, a man who was banned time after time for being a racist and an anti Semite!
I really want to believe that this revolting violent man will feel some shame and take some time off to think about it all. But I doubt it.’
Gilad Atzmon | 03.04.07 - 10:46 am | #
Again, again, I believe that Zionists like you can cope with philosophical thinking because Zionism is a Jewish ideological stand. RK, Ben Gurion and later Begin and Shmuel Tamir were operating within different interpretation of the very the same ideology. The political and legal aspects are nothing but a cover up of the real meaning of this saga.
You can cope with it, Greenie and Brenner can't.
However, Good luck with Greenie and thanks for all the info you gave us about this low being.
Peace is the way forward
Gilad Atzmon | 03.08.07 - 4:02 pm |

(Martin Ohr 09/06/08 -I edited this comment because the html tag it contained was causing the rest of the page formatting to screw up. I didn't change any of the text)

Greenstein's Nonsense Continues

Greenstein continually copies an extract of a thread to suggest that I "collaborate" with Atzmon. There is of course nothing in that extract to prove his ludicrous point. Moreover, Greenstein ignores the fact that I have ridiculed Atzmon as my recent post on Harry's Place clearly shows. The fact is that I oppose Atzmon, I oppose Greenstein and I oppose Rance. Greenstein, on the other hand, sends Atzmon very friendly emails saying that he would be "more than happy" to hear him play Jazz. So whilst Greenstein tells me I am a "collaborator" with antisemites what he is doing is sending those same people who accuses me of collaborating with friendly messages. Greenstein also does not explain his meeting with one of the leaders of the fascist National Front that mentioned on this thread in my post of April 13.

Finally, it seems very hypocritical of Greenstein to claim that he is against racism when he is one of the major champions of a campaign to attempt to get the UCU to boycott Israeli universities. This is a policy that two eminent barristers in their recently published Opinion consider to be in breach of the Race Relations Act!!

Greenstein, Double Standards and Extermination of Jews

After a dozen weeks, thousands of words and an infinity of blatant lies, Greenstein finally admits that "Jews who escaped from the clutches of the Nazis were often sent to the gulags in Siberia." Not that this undermines his position: "Many died not because they were Jewish but because they were seen as political enemies," he asserts.

Thus Greenstein is forced to concede that "the Stalinist regime" he had previously credited with saving millions of Jews from Hitler was in fact a mass murderer of Jewish refugees from Hitler. And it makes no difference to him. According to Greenstein, slaughtering Jews because they are not communists is so much better than slaughtering Jews because they are not Aryans!

Greenstein-watchers often start to wonder if they have been transported to an alternative universe in which black is white, true is false and up is down. An example: Greenstein asserted that Begin sought refuge from Nazism under the Soviets. I pointed out that Begin fled to Lithuania, which was invaded by the Soviets, whereupon he was sent to a concentration camp by the Soviets. Does Greenstein admit that he lied? Of course not! He just papers over his lie: "Begin is of course a good example of someone who fled and was incarcerated in a Soviet camp but also lived to tell the tale." Does Greenstein realise that the only person on earth who expects anyone at all to fall for this evasion is Greenstein?

All too many of Greenstein's lies provoke the same question. A selection:-
- "Bogdanor is quite happy" with "Stalinism and its counter-revolutionary politics."
- "Bogdanor finds difficult to accept" that "very few survived the Nazi extermination camps."
- Opposing mass murder irrespective of the perpetrator amounts to an "apologia for the Hitler Regime."

Since Greenstein accused me of not having read the 3-volume edition of Hilberg, it's good to see that he has finally decided to read it himself. Unfortunately for him, the quotations in his latest message confirm my point exactly: "the sole reference to evacuation of whole communities [by the authorities] is a Nazi allegation" from an Einsatzgruppen report. If he had bothered to read my previous message before reserving a library copy of the 3-volume Hilberg so that he could set eyes on it for the very first time, he would have checked Hilberg's reference to the research contradicting this Nazi fantasy.

As for Hilberg's statistics on the mass escapes of Jews, it's a pity that Greenstein's visit to the local library didn't include a perusal of the sources I mentioned. To save him the effort, I quote one of them at length (page references omitted):-

"[Hilberg] says that 1.5 million out of a total of 4 million Jews in territories occupied by the Germans escaped into the Soviet interior. There is simply no proof to justify such a sweeping statement. The suspicion that this is an overestimate is provided by Hilberg himself... The same can be shown for the Vilna region, where he claims that 'up to a third' of the Jews managed to flee. Dov Levin’s and Yitzhak Arad’s research has shown very clearly that this is unfortunately not so. For Bessarabia and Bukovina, Hilberg says that one hundred thousand were deported – and thereby saved – by the Soviets prior to the German conquest, or had fled, or had been evacuated (not deported). This is wildly wrong, as research by Jean Ancel and Avigdor Shahan has shown. Hilberg ignores the statistical calculation made many years ago by Jacob Robinson in the Encyclopedia Judaica, which arrived at 5.8 million victims." (Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Vol. 1, No. 2, 1986, p301)

And since Greenstein is equally infatuated with Reitlinger, let me save him yet another trip to the library:-

"Reitlinger’s misuse of the Stahlecker-Ohlendorf evidence is related to a far graver error on the number of Jews killed in Russia through 1941. He gives this as 'about 350,000,' but provides no bases of calculation in the documents. In fact Reitlinger’s figure is an invention... The death toll for this first phase of the Holocaust in Russia comes to over 600,000 Jews, a quarter-million more than Reitlinger’s invention...

"From all these errors of omission and commission, it is evident that far fewer Jews escaped from the mobile killing areas and that many more were killed there than Reitlinger admits. His overall death figure, about 750,000 Jews, is low by considerably more than 100 per cent...

"[Reitlinger] misused and ignored documents to arrive at a large understatement of numbers murdered. Why he does this so often is a difficult question. Certainly it is in part a matter of sheer intellectual slovenliness. Yet it cannot be only this, because Reitlinger’s errors are a non-random pattern, always in the direction of death minimization." (Jewish Social Studies, Vol. 41, No. 2, Spring 1979, pp102, 106, 111)

Although Greenstein's evidence consists entirely of long-refuted blunders from history books that are decades out of date, I must congratulate him on his discovery that sources should be checked before, and not after, he pretends to know what they say.

There remains his comical suggestion that in condemning the slaughter of Jews by an ally of Nazi Germany, I seek "to follow the lead of German revisionist historians in relativising the deeds of Nazi Germany."

If Greenstein ever decides to devote his efforts to learning rather than lying, he will discover that I "follow the lead" of the co-author of the Black Book of Russian Jewry. He will attend to my demonstration that his own writings "follow the lead" of the most notorious of the "German revisionist historians." And he will tell us why comparing Zionists to the progenitors of the Holocaust and denouncing Orthodox Jews as Judeo-Nazis does not count as "relativising the deeds of Nazi Germany."

Perhaps he will even explain why his readiness to invoke the Protocols of the Elders of Zion does not count as disseminating the lies of Nazi Germany.

Bogdanor - Full of Sound & Fury Signifying Nothing

Amidst the hysteria of Bogdanor, surely some form of oedipal reaction to his staid father, we have the ludicrous allegation that Gerald Reitlinger deliberately minimises the numbers murdered in the Holocaust. And then having previous accused me of quoting Hilberg against Hilberg he does precisely that!!

The fact is that whether it was 4 or 5 or 6 million Jews who were murdered is irrelevant to the enormity of the crime. However it is not only necessary for Bogdanor to want as many to have been killed as possible, and to imply that those who don't agree with his figures are some form of anti-Semite or holocaust denier, but he needs to equate the Stalinist regime and the USSR with Hitler's Germany. Just as the German revisionist historians do. Bogdanor comes from the Abba Achimeir school of Zionism, which published a column 'Diary of a Fascist' in the paper Doar Hayom. In this Achimeir made it clear that but for Hitler's anti-Semitism he would have had no difficulty in supporting him. Indeed the Stern Gang, which included Yitzhak Shamir as one of its leaders, did exactly that in proposing a military alliance.

Being a fool and an idiot Bogdanor fails to understand that the Soviet regime could both kill those who sought refuge, not because of the fact that they were Jewish but because like all refugees they were suspect, with the undoubted fact, as Hilber documents, hundreds of thousands if not millions of Jews were saved because of the existence of the Soviet Union. No amount of screeching, or bold lettering by Bogdanor, can get away from the fact that whereas the Zionist project saved next to noone, not even its own cadre, the degenerated Soviet system, despite its counter-revolutionary and reactionary leadership, was responsible for saving far more Jews than the Zionist movement did. And of course the reason is, as S Beit Zvi documented in his Ugandan Zionism in the Crucible of the Holocaust, viz. that achieving statehood was the aim, whereas saving the victims of the Nazis was something that only lip service was paid to, indeed there was actually obstruction of the resc ue efforts of others including the dissident revisionist Zionists, Bergson & Merlin in the USA. This again is too well documented for Bogdanor or his acolytes to dissent.

Just one example of Bogdanor's stupidity will suffice. Lithuania had already been invaded by Poland before in turn it was invaded by the Soviet Union and then Nazi Germany. But for the latter invasion and Begin's escape (he claimed the Nazis would have executed him) he would have died. Hence why even Begin, a fascist according to Einstein and Arendt, was grateful to the Soviets for the fact that he lived. However our latter day apologist for fascism, Paul Bogdanor concedes nothing in this respect because his enemy is socialism and imperialism and fascism are his natural allies.

If Bogdanor understood the nature of historical debate then he would know that estimates of how many died in the holocaust, and in different phases of it, depend on factors which will never be finally ascertained. The Yad Vashem database lists some 3 million victims. Bogdanor, like the proverbial dead sheep, likes to think he has savaged Reitlinger for deliberately (lying? that's how the Bogdanor conducts a debate!) for suggesting 350,000 died in the first phase of Operation Barbarossa by the end of 1941. But in fact noone can be certain how many died, that is the whole point. Another historian who I presume Bogdanor has heard of, Christopher Browning in the Origins of the Final Solution, estimates that between .5 and .8 million had died by the end of 1941.

But in fact Reitlinger doesn't say that 350,000 died by the end of 1941 He says (p. 259) in the 1968 Edition that this no. had died 'In four short months of 1941' i.e. around the middle of October. Simple extrapolation would suggest that this would be aroun .5 m by the end of 1941.

The fact is that the Zionist historians whom Bogdanor quotes wish to inflate the figures to match the 6 million symbol whilst the movement they support did nothing at the time. Serious historians as opposed to scribblers like Bogdanor know that you can't estimate either the numbers who died in the Slave Trade or the Nazi holocaust with any great degree of accuracy.

And no I don't think condemning the likes of Rabbi Dov Lior for saying that Jewish blood is more precious than non-Jewish blood is relativising the Nazi horrors. It merely puts into context the racism that is predominant in Israeli society since Lior was only kept off the Central Rabbinical Council by Executive fiat.

I note the elitism and snobbishness of Bogdanor's reference to public libraries. Wonderful institutions as Bogdanor will discover if he ever pays visit to one of them. Or wouldn't daddy allow him to be seen in one?

Tony Greenstein

Tony Greenstein or David Irving?

Anyone still following this exchange will be familiar with Greenstein's methods by now: (i) he makes a ridiculous factual assertion, vaguely mentioning a source; (ii) he is shown to have lied about the facts and the source; (iii) he responds with a stream of childish abuse (latest examples: "hysteria," "screeching," "fool," "idiot," "stupidity," etc.) and the cycle starts all over again.

A couple of reminders will suffice. Greenstein wrote that Begin had credited the Soviets with saving "2 million Jews." I exposed this as a lie. Greenstein then wrote that "Begin estimated that 3/4 million Soviet Jews survived." I exposed this as a lie. Greenstein next asserted that Begin "sought sanctuary in the Soviet Union." I exposed this as a lie. Begin was in Lithuania when it was attacked by the Soviet Union. Greenstein now accuses me of "stupidity" and produces yet another lie: "Lithuania had already been invaded by Poland before in turn it was invaded by the Soviet Union and then Nazi Germany."

For Greenstein's information: in 1939, Poland was invaded by Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union; Polish territory was transferred to Lithuania by the Soviet Union; and in 1940, Lithuania was invaded by the Soviet Union.

Greenstein just can't control his compulsion to lie. He adds that without that invasion, Begin "would have died" and he "was grateful to the Soviets for the fact that he lived." On the contrary: Begin had just received his visa for Palestine when the Soviets arrested him and sent him to the Gulag. His interrogator told him: "Running away from the Soviet Union is an offence and you will be punished for it" (White Nights, Steimatzky, 2008, pp121-2).

Another example: Greenstein made various assertions about Hilberg, all of which I exposed as lies. So Greenstein accuses me of "screeching" and pretends that "as Hilberg documents, hundreds of thousands if not millions of Jews were saved because of the existence of the Soviet Union," which saved "far more Jews than the Zionist movement did." Of course, that wasn't Hilberg's view at all:-

"Soviet information media, in pursuance of a policy of appeasement, had made it their business to keep silent about Nazi measures of destruction. The consequences of that silence were disastrous... a large number of Jews [2.5 million, on his figures - PB] had stayed behind not merely because of the physical difficulties of flight but also, and perhaps primarily, because they had failed to grasp the danger of remaining in their homes" (Destruction, Holmes & Meier, 1985, p316; Yale University Press, 2003, p325).

Hilberg also explained how the Hungarian Zionists saved 200,000 Jews from Auschwitz by transmitting demands for Allied bombing of Hungarian and German targets, instigating a worldwide publicity campaign and issuing a hit list naming the perpetrators (ibid., 1985, pp851-2; 2003, pp910-1).

Can things get any worse for Greenstein? Well, yes. He deplores my "elitism" regarding public libraries. But my subject wasn't the merits of these institutions - it was the comic spectacle of Greenstein repeatedly boasting of his expertise on the 3-volume Hilberg and then rushing to the library so that he could actually read it! I'll admit that he won't find me beseeching the local librarian for spare copies of books I've mentioned. That's because unlike Greenstein, I examine my sources before I claim to know what they say!

Now I don't expect accuracy from someone who cites books he hasn't read and thinks that Ahmadinejad is an Arab leader. Nor do I expect rationality from someone who argues that Hitler's genocides must never be compared with Stalin's genocides because the true equivalent of Nazism is Orthodox Judaism. But I do wonder if Greenstein's definition of "German revisionist historians" includes Jewish Holocaust scholars such as Breitman, who observes that the Soviet regime "closely resembled Nazi Germany" in its contempt for innocent human life.

Trapped by his own blunders, Greenstein has decided to minimise both Soviet and Nazi crimes. Hence his reliance on the long-discredited statistics of Reitlinger. If Greenstein consults the paper I quoted, he will learn that Reitlinger published a figure of 350,000 murders when the relevant documents listed a total of 600,000. And he will find evidence of countless similar distortions. He will understand why the statistical appendix was omitted altogether from the German edition, having lost all credibility.

Then there's Greenstein's disgusting argument that "noone can be certain how many died" in the Holocaust, although "Zionist historians" attempt "to inflate the figures to match the 6 million symbol." So Greenstein now thinks that the Zionists invented the 6 million. Apparently he wants to reduce the number to 4 million or less. Perhaps he recalls the infamous neo-Nazi who "put the number of deaths of Jews in the Holocaust as high as 4 million."

So far Greenstein has expressed support for the genocidal terrorists of Hamas, justified the mass slaughter of political opponents and espoused conspiracy theories that rely on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Is he planning to propagate the lies of the Holocaust deniers as well? Is he determined to prove that "imperialism and fascism" are his "natural allies"?

AWL Stalinism

Yesterday I saw a comment here from Arthur Bough about the AWL deleting his posts. From what I've read here the AWL told him to only post short items which I don't really understand, but never mind. The post I saw was only 3 or 4 lines. But later I noticed it had been deleted. Yesterday I posted to ask why as this seems very undemocratic to me and a dangerous precedent. Today, I find that my post asking about this has been deleted too. Perhaps given your comments above you might want to ask about this too.

I Might Be Tempted To Participate in This lengthy and Wordy

debate, but unlike the reactionaries currently allowed to write thousands of words by the AWL here, I'm restricted to only writing 3 or 4 lines. C'est la vie.
Arthur Bough


Why are you restricted to writing 3 or 4 lines?

Because the AWL have had a problem with me writing so much

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

And Even 3 or 4 lines appears to be too much for them now as

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

Menachem Begin Timeline

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.

The Screeching of the Useless Door

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

Greenstein's Words and Historical Truth-The two are incompatible

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.

Greenstein Surrenders

Having endorsed the genocidal terrorists of Hamas; justified the mass murder of American Jewish activists, democratic leaders and all manner of political opponents; revived the Protocols of the Elders of Zion; invented humanitarian achievements by Stalin and denied the murder of 6 million Jews by Hitler, 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? And how can Greenstein explain his denial that Hitler murdered 6 million Jews?

Greenstein's BNP Lie

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.

The Screeching Bognador Froths Again

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

Heating Up: The Battle for the Jewish Voice and the Jewish soul

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


Greenstein Exposed

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!

Mikey's inability to understand what he has written!

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.

Greenstein's Contortions

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.

Fantasist Mikey Collaborator Ezra Gets it Wrong Again

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

Tony Greenstein and Adolf Eichmann

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.

Mad Mikey Ezra fails to explain his Collaboration & much else

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

Greenstein the Contortionist

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.

Mad Mikey Ezra Dodges Again

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

Tony Greenstein’s Ludicrous Post

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?

Time to Call an end to Battering Mikey the Collaborator

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

Summing Up Greenstein’s Depraved Posts

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.

Atzmon's favourite Zionist Talks to Himself

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

Mad Mikey 2

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

Greenstein, Eichmann's Disciple


Not content with minimising the victims of Stalin and Hitler, Greenstein has decided to peddle the lies of Eichmann. According to Greenstein, "what Eichmann had to say was invaluable." So Greenstein believed Eichmann when he said:-

"the real agitators for war were the infernal high finance circles of the Western hemisphere, whose servants are Churchill and Roosevelt, and the puppets, the pawns in this game of theirs, are Hitler, Mussolini, Daladier, Chamberlain."

In the words of the judges:-

"The 'infernal finance circles' are, of course, the Jews according to the concepts of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion... This is the style used by the Accused even in 1957, so deep was his conviction from the past that the Jews are the enemies of mankind, and he reaches a new peak in the development of the Nazi mythology: Hitler himself was a plaything into the hands of the Jews."

Since Greenstein also uses the Protocols of the Elders of Zion to justify atrocities against Jews, he must consider Eichmann "invaluable" on this point as well.


Greenstein's assertions about Kasztner are as "invaluable" as Eichmann's ravings about Hitler. For example, Greenstein referred to "the complete absence of or mention of the Auschwitz Protocols" in the Kasztner Report. "I couldn't find them," he protested. That's because he never looked. He hasn't read it. I quote:-

"According to these reports, the SS was ready to repair and renovate the gas chambers and crematoria of Auschwitz... One of the guards was overheard saying, 'Soon we'll eat good Hungarian salami,' referring to the provisions the Jews took with them." (Kasztner Report, II:18)

Greenstein says that Zionists "delivered nearly 1/2 million Jews into the hands of the nazis in order to save the elite." Kasztner's contemporary communications prove the opposite:-

"Many hundreds of thousands have to be saved from deportation and its related outcome, so we must be helped to carry out this plan... It is still possible to help many hundreds of thousands of Jews and keep them alive..."

To state the obvious: Greenstein is a liar.


Greenstein pretended to be an expert on Braham. He had never read Braham. He rushed off to the library and found an outdated edition of Braham. That explains why he gave the wrong page references in Braham. It doesn't explain why he blatantly falsified Braham. Compare Greenstein's rendition of Braham with Braham's verdict on Kasztner:-

"It is likely that, motivated by a strong subconscious drive for grandeur, he hoped to emerge as virtually the sole rescuer of close to one million Jews... in his dealings with the SS, and especially with the leaders of the Sonderkommando, he often displayed great skill and courage in championing the cause of rescue." (Politics of Genocide, Columbia University Press, 1994, pp1,071-2)

Greenstein dismissed "the nonsense about the Zionists publicising the [Auschwitz] report." Braham made it clear that the Zionists had been distributing the reports:-

"it was Krausz's report of June 19, rather than the many similar reports sent by Kasztner and his colleagues, that became the focus of the diplomatic activities in the summer of 1944." (p1,162, emphasis added)

To repeat: Greenstein is a liar.


Greenstein pretended to be an expert on Hilberg. He had never read Hilberg. He rushed off to the library and found the 3-volume edition of Hilberg. He claims that there is nothing about "the Zionists saving 200,000" in Hilberg. I quote Hilberg's description of how the Zionists saved 200,000 Jews from Auschwitz:-

"Finally, the Hungarian Prime Minister brought up his strongest point... [Intercepted messages] suggested the bombing and destruction of destination points and railroad lines, 'target bombing of all collaborating Hungarian and German agencies, with exact and correct street and house numbers in Budapest,' and finally, 'world-wide propaganda with detailed descriptions of the state of affairs.' In another teletype message seventy Hungarian and German personalities who were said to constitute the main culprits were mentioned by name...

"The Jewish relief committee in Budapest had sent these requests to Bern to be transmitted through diplomatic channels to the Allied capitals, where no action was taken upon them. [Wrong: Budapest was heavily bombed on July 2 - PB.] But fate had intervened. The Hungarians in their eagerness had intercepted the messages and had thereupon managed to frighten themselves.

"On July 6, Veesenmayer was informed by Sztojay that the Regent had ordered the deportations stopped." (Destruction, Yale University Press, 2003, p910ff, emphases added)

Again: Greenstein is a liar.


To sustain his lies about Zionists, Greenstein resorted to praising capitalists. He referred to the War Refugee Board, which "the Zionist leaders in the USA vehemently opposed... If anything it was Henry Morgenthau, the Treasury Secretary, who can claim the credit." But Greenstein has been caught red-handed again:-

"Since the Treasury initiative came about as a result of actions begun by the WJC... we must credit this organization, at least partially, with the achievement of the Board. In addition, according to Morgenthau's own testimony, it was Rabbi Wise (President of the WJC) who first made the Secretary aware of the Holocaust and prepared to act to save Jews, the most important expression of which was the struggle to establish the WRB." (Ariel Hurwitz, "The Struggle Over the Creation of the War Refugee Board," Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Vol. 6, No. 1, 1991, p28)

According to Greenstein, the WRB "is responsible for the fact that about 200,000 Jews survived in Hungary." And according to the WRB, the credit belongs to Kasztner (The Holocaust: Selected Documents, Vol. 16, Garland, 1982, p46ff).

Once more: Greenstein is a liar.


Greenstein is no ordinary liar. He denies Hitler's annihilation of 6 million Jews. He repeats Eichmann's lies about the annihilation of Jews. He supports genocidal terrorists who seek the annihilation of Jews. And then he poses as a champion of murdered Jews - while using the Protocols of the Elders of Zion to justify atrocities against living Jews. Presumably there was much to discuss in his meeting with the National Front.

Greenstein and the BNP

That point about the National Front reminds me to mention another Greenstein lie: "the BNP, like most anti-Semites is ALSO pro-Zionist." I had embarrassed Greenstein by quoting the BNP's virulent attacks on Zionism. So Greenstein scoured the BNP website. He linked to an article on the BNP's "pro-Zionist position."

Turning to Greenstein's BNP source, we find him

- raving about the neocon plot to "make the world safe for the Zionist state of Israel"
- attacking "the power of the Zionist lobby in American politics"
- denouncing the "overseas agitprop department of Israel's ruling Likud party"
- vilifying their "Christian-Zionist and plutocrat allies."

I'm curious as to Greenstein's mental state when he tells these lies. Does he think that his references won't be checked? Does he think that he won't be exposed? He praises the "invaluable" testimony of Eichmann. Does he hope to convince anyone? Does he expect anything other than ridicule and disgust?

No comments: