Coalition of the Confused

Hosted by Jenifer (Zarknorph)

Confused malcontents swilling Chardonnay while awaiting the Zombie Apocalypse.

  • 792
    MEMBERS
  • 40773
    MESSAGES
  • 9
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

Vad Yashem selling fraudulent history.   Africa and the Middle East

Started Feb-7 by BerrySteph; 3182 views.
BerrySteph

From: BerrySteph

Feb-7

https://www.jta.org/quick-reads/yad-vashem-apologizes-for-unfortunate-errors-in-films-screened-at-auschwitz-commemoration
A view of the World Holocaust Forum at the Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial museum in Jerusalem, Jan. 23, 2020. (Yonatan Sindel/Flash90) (JTA)

This is the anodyne version of a row where Yad Vashem is accused of selling the history of the Holocaust to the highest bidder.

Yad Vashem apologizes for ‘unfortunate errors’ in films screened at Auschwitz commemoration

FEBRUARY 3, 2020 — Yad Vashem ... apology, sent Monday by email to several prominent Holocaust scholars, noted “a number of inaccuracies that resulted in a partial and unbalanced presentation of the historical facts.”

Specifically, the statement noted the films did not mention the 1939 division of Poland between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union or the conquest of Western Europe in 1940. “In addition, the maps show incorrect borders between Poland and its neighbors and erroneously identify concentration camps as exterminations camps,” Dan Michman, the head of the International Institute for Holocaust Research, wrote in the statement.

Hosted by Yad Vashem but organized by the World Holocaust Forum, the Auschwitz commemoration was held under a cloud of controversy as Russia and Poland traded accusations over their respective culpability in the Holocaust in the run-up to the event. Polish President Andrzej Duda eventually declined to attend the event in Jerusalem https://www.jta.org/quick-reads/yad-vashem-apologizes-for-unfortunate-errors-in-films-screened-at-auschwitz-commemoration

The Occupation Post is a bit more honest about the disagreement:

... the video does not show the Soviet occupation of Poland, it does however highlight the role of the Soviet Red Army in pushing back the Nazis from Eastern Europe.

The annexation of the Baltic countries by the Soviet Union and its control of Poland and other states behind the Iron Curtain after the war constitutes an ongoing grievance ...

... the timeline distortions in the video and its maps, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, and other countries are shown as still being free in 1942, despite the fact that they were overrun and occupied by Nazi Germany by the middle of 1940.

Finally, the video’s maps erroneously label the forced-labor, concentration camps of Bergen Belsen, Buchenwald, Dachau and Theresienstadt, all located in Germany, as death camps.   https://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Yad-Vashem-apologizes-for-inaccurate-videos-at-Fifth-World-Holocaust-Forum-616395

CONTINUED:

In reply toRe: msg 1
BerrySteph

From: BerrySteph

Feb-7

https://www.jta.org/quick-reads/yad-vashem-apologizes-for-unfortunate-errors-in-films-screened-at-auschwitz-commemoration
A view of the World Holocaust Forum at the Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial museum in Jerusalem, Jan. 23, 2020. (Yonatan Sindel/Flash90) (JTA)

CONTINUED:

But it is down to Haaretz (behind a paywall) to really report the story:

Feb. 3, 2020 ... To preserve its good name, credibility, professionalism and reputation, Yad Vashem has to tell the public the whole truth

... First and foremost, it must clarify the exact nature of the ties and relationship between Yad Vashem and Moshe Kantor, president of the European Jewish Congress, who organized and funded the ceremony after obtaining the sponsorship of President Reuven Rivlin, the participation of Yad Vashem and the Foreign Ministry’s organizational skills.

Kantor, an oligarch considered close to Russian President Vladimir Putin, is a donor to Yad Vashem. He also funds the Kantor Center for the Study of Contemporary European Jewry at Tel Aviv University, which is headed by Prof. Dina Porat, whose other job is chief historian of Yad Vashem.

The public has the right to know if there is a connection between his financial support and the content of the event held at Yad Vashem. 

... Yad Vashem must also explain why Kantor was granted the exceptional honor of being scheduled to speak at the opening of the event ... before any of the world leaders in attendance. It must explain how it allowed the screening of a PR film at the event’s opening that depicts Kantor as a Messiah rescuing the world from anti-Semitism.

You don’t need to be a major historian to know that this kind of event is no place for screening such films.

If Kantor is indeed the man who dictated the content of the event ... the public might begin to suspect that one can “buy” Yad Vashem’s imprimatur with money ... an especially grave precedent, which undermines the reputation of the institution and thus demands a more serious response.

... If, on the other hand, Yad Vashem was involved in the content presented ... Yad Vashem must also explain why it objected – and who exactly objected – to having Polish President Andrzej Duda speak at the ceremony

... This wasn’t an editing error in an article in an academic journal, which a historian might indeed have to apologize for, but a series of errors made at one of the most important events held in Israel in recent years.

... In 2018, after Poland passed a controversial “Holocaust Law,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu published a joint statement with his Polish counterpart ... three other senior historians at Yad Vashem – Michman, Prof. Chavi Dreyfuss and Dr. David Ziberlang – harshly and publicly criticized the declaration, saying it “contravened historical fact.” To this day, it is unclear what role Porat, or the institution as a whole, played in the wording of the controversial declaration.

... Some of the most professional and world-renowned historians work at Yad Vashem, devoting all their time and effort to researching and documenting the Holocaust. It’s too bad that an improper mix of history and politics is staining their good name. https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-adoption-of-false-russian-wwii-narrative-calls-yad-vashem-s-integrity-into-question-1.8493077

adwil

From: adwil

Feb-13

Not Yad Vashem's finest moment.  One hopes they will learn from it and ensure that all contributors stick to historical truth in future.  They deserve some credit for apologising, but Ha'aretz raises questions that Yad Vashem needs to answer. 

In reply toRe: msg 3
BerrySteph

From: BerrySteph

Feb-13

adwil said:

Not Yad Vashem's finest moment.  One hopes they will learn from it and ensure that all contributors stick to historical truth in future.  They deserve some credit for apologising, but Ha'aretz raises questions that Yad Vashem needs to answer. 

Those were schoolboy errors put about by known by the Russians, known historical fraudsters. 

On a subject where people are thrown in prison and their careers wrecked for deviations from "known history". 

Its bizarre and shameful you give them any credit for anything.

Meanwhile "expert" on the Bermuda Conference of April 1943 - what can you tell us about this account of genocidal neglect? It appears to come from a respectable Zionist source:

The Bermuda Conference was only one of many failures to take advantage of rescue opportunities in 1943. The most startling episode led to a written accusation and a near scandal that forced Franklin Roosevelt to take drastic action. This incident was triggered by the United States obstruction of the proposed rescue of 70,000 Rumanian Jews. Rumania, led by the dictator, Marshal Ion Antonescu, was allied to Germany. In 1941-42, Antonescu had deported 185,000 Jews from their native land. 'They had been brutally removed to primitive camps in Transnistria, a Ukrainian area north of Odessa. As the Soviet armies drove the Nazis back toward Transnistria, Antoncscu, envisioning an ultimate Allied victory and the later punishment of war criminals, underwent a change of heart. The Marshal let it be known to the Allies in early 1943 that he would bring the 70,000 survivors back to Rumania if their food, clothing and medicines were provided.

Once again, it was Gerhart Riegner who confirmed the information and proposed a rescue plan to Minister Harrison in Switzerland. About $600,000 ($8.50 per human being) would be needed. Certain Rumanians were willing to lend the money for repayment after the war. Riegner wanted the World Jewish Congress to transmit $25,000 as a first installment, to be deposited in a Swiss bank. It would not be released until after the German defeat, so the money could not aid the Nazi cause.

In accordance with U.S. wartime regulations, the State and Treasury Departments would have to agree to the issuance of a license to Riegner before the money could be sent. Harrison relayed Riegner's information on April 120. On May 17, Robert Borden Reams sent Breckinridge Long a memorandum about the message. "I have certain definite doubts about the subject matter referred to in the telegram. In the first place questions of this sort will properly fall within the competency of tile Intergovernmental Committee." Reams, having just returned from Bermuda, must have known that the committee had not yet been reorganized and was incapable of action,

Thanks to the intercession of Dr. Herbert Feis, the State Department's adviser on economic affairs (and, more recently, a Pulitzer Prize-winning historian), the Riegner initiative was kept alive, but by July 15, State had still not acted. Fortunately, the Treasury's Division of Foreign Funds Control had become interested in the proposal. Under the energetic leadership of 34-year-old John Pehle, the Division approved the arrangements. But two more months passed before State consented to the rescue proposal. By that time, the British Ministry of Economic Warfare's representative in Bern objected in the absence of instructions from London. After six months of delay, Minister Harrison now cabled State: "Legation is uncertain to exercise authority granted by the Treasury to issue licenses to implement Riegner plan in the absence of the Department's specific instructions."

State and Treasury then prepared a joint message for Harrison, but before it was sent, Reams voiced his opposition in another memo to Long: "I feel that this proposal is objectionable from the Department's point of view. We are granting to a special group of enemy aliens relief measures which we have in the past denied to Allied peoples." He added that the proposed rescue action would "incense the British," since we had not consulted them.

Long replied, explaining his approval of the license. As for the Jews, characterized as "enemy aliens" by Reams, "There is no available presently known method for the people for whom the funds are intended to leave the jurisdiction of the enemy."

State finally sent an equivocating message to Harrison that further convinced the Minister that the Department did not really wish him to issue the license. This added delay enraged Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau, Jr. On November 24, his "My dear Cordell" letter informed the Secretary of State that months had elapsed since Hull himself had authorized the issuance of the license:

 "Since programs of this character can be just as effectively vitiated by delay as they can by denial of the necessary licenses, your assistance is badly needed in order to expedite this matter."

Before Hull could act, the British Government introduced the most callous argument that had yet been raised on the subject of rescue.

On December 15, 1943, the Ministry of Economic Warfare addressed a letter to Ambassador John G. Winant in London, who immediately cabled its contents to Washington. The text, read in the light of what was then known of the Nazi extermination program, represented nothing less than a death sentence:

 "The Foreign Office are concerned with the difficulties of disposing of any considerable number of Jews should they be rescued ... They foresee that it is likely to prove almost if not quite impossible to deal with anything like the number of 70,000 refugees whose rescue is envisaged by the Riegner plan." During 1943, when the Foreign Office was concerned "with the difficulties of disposing of any considerable number of Jews," Britain's 1939 White Paper on Palestine was choking off immigration to that haven. And in 1943, the United States, with an annual quota permitting the immigration of more than 150,000 persons, admitted a grand total of 23,725. Of these, only 4,705 were Jews fleeing from persecution.

On December 20, Henry Morgenthau and John Pehle visited Cordell Hull and Breckinridge Long. Hull had drafted a strong reply to the Britis
...[Message truncated]
View Full Message
adwil

From: adwil

Feb-13

BerrySteph said:

"Bermuda Conference of April 1943 "

When it's been mentioned before, you didn't like my answers. I can't change history to something you'd find palatable, I'm afraid.

In reply toRe: msg 5
BerrySteph

From: BerrySteph

Feb-14

adwil said:

When it's been mentioned before, you didn't like my answers. I can't change history to something you'd find palatable, I'm afraid.

What we can say in your favour on this occasion is that the lies you tell now are not of your own invention. These lies come direct from the embittered and kiddy-torturing Zionists.

April 1943 turns out to have been the turning point in the siege of the UK - but everything concerning the war then was totally driven by the US. It is beyond stupid that we had any influence over US policy regarding the escape of Jews. (Who couldn't come here anyway - just one German speaker of uncertain loyalty could have blown out the D-Day landings of June 1944).

It is outrageous to suggest we were trying to get Jews killed then - even as the American Zionists (FDR & Stephen Wise etc) and the Palestinian Zionists were doing their utmost to make Jews suffer and die.

All we can tell is that you continue to betray the British.

And of course, you despise devout Jews anyway, calling them "fruitcakes, dangerous fruitcakes".

adwil

From: adwil

Feb-14

You make no sense.

In reply toRe: msg 7
BerrySteph

From: BerrySteph

Feb-14

adwil said:

You make no sense.

You're just virulently and fraudulently and maliciously anti-British.

The Bermuda Conference (Apr 1943) was called by the US before the siege on us (the Battle of the Atlantic) was known to be broken. Things were really bad in Feb 1943, suddenly better in March.

It was called by FDR to force us to toe the line, probably on many significant matters including an 80 year long occupation of the UK.

That the Jews were to be kept trapped (and only 10,000 a year go to Palestine) was one of the minor matters that FDR imposed on us.

adwil

From: adwil

Feb-15

BerrySteph said:

"The Bermuda Conference (Apr 1943) was called by the US..... It was called by FDR "

You should stop trying to alter history.

The Bermuda Conference was proposed by the UK Gov after the William Temple's speech in the House of Lords and large scale public support after the Nazi plans to exterminate the Jews became public. The USA only agreed after the mass Madison Square demonstration. Both governments wanted to give their public the impression that they wanted to do something about Hitler's extermination of the Jews.

Neither did.

Bermuda was chosen because Jewish organisations could be excluded and the news agenda could be controlled. The US Gov refused to alter or rescind their immigration quotas and the British refused to increase Jewish migration to Palestine. 

The British Gov were worried  that if they protested too loudly, Hitler would change his policy from exterminating the Jews to shipping them to the UK. 

"There is a possibility that the Germans or their satellites may change over from the policy of extermination to one of extrusion, and aim as they did before the war at embarrassing other countries by flooding them with alien immigrants." 

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/holocaust-bermuda/

"before the siege on us (the Battle of the Atlantic) was known to be broken. Things were really bad in Feb 1943, suddenly better in March."

Again untrue and anyone can check your assertion. The key month in 1943 was May, when 43 U-Boats were destroyed. (In March, 12 U-Boats were destroyed and in April, 15 were destroyed.)

The following website gives the location and fate of U-Boats in detail. Note that whilst most U-Boat losses were during the Battle of the Atlantic, some losses were in other areas.

https://uboat.net/fates/losses/1943.htm

In reply toRe: msg 9
bml00

From: bml00

Feb-15

Dear, dear those facts will cause numb nuts some problems as he hates facts they always get in the way of his perverted history

BM

TOP