Holocaust Survivors Admit To Forming Death Squads To Hunt Down Nazis

[Stand Your Ground]

It's an old article but I stumbled upon it and was wondering if there was any truth to it as I had never heard of such happening:


As if taking a page out of Steven Spielberg's screenplay for his new motion picture "Munich," several Holocaust survivors shocked many when they admitted they formed a special death squad to hunt down Nazi war criminals after World War II. They conceded it was a group effort less concerned with bringing their persecutors to trial than with personally taking revenge on their tormentors.

The survivors said they hunted the former SS officers who headed the death camps executing and poisoning hundreds of them.

During a TV broadcast in Israel, the death sqaud members, some of whom fought in the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, described hunting down SS officers in the dead of night. While wearing British or American military uniforms and officers' insignia, they said they dragged the former SS killers out of their homes and killed them execution-style.

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/kouri/060101
(Bad source I know but it was where I found it.)

[Rafiq]

If I was put into a death camp, I would do the same thing to those that threw me in

[L.A.P.]

I don't see the problem.

[RED DAVE]

It's interesting that the article says that the zionists put pressure on them to stop what they were doing.

RED DAVE

[gorillafuck]

I've got no problem with it.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

It's interesting that the article says that the zionists put pressure on them to stop what they were doing.

RED DAVE

The Zionist movement craves ligtimacy more than anything, hence it's liberal use of the anti-semitic card to discredit its opponents.

[Rusty Shackleford]

fascists get what fascists deserve.

[William Howe]

I would've done the same thing.

[Invader Zim]

The problem with vigilante justice is that it is unaccountable, as such, liable to result in the mis-application of justice onto the wrong targets.

[Diello]

Is no one going to make the obligatory Inglourious Basterds joke?

[psgchisolm]

I don't see the problem.


I've got no problem with it.
Really no problems with this? I hate fascists as much as the next guy, but going out and killing people at almost random? You can't just do this, you will eventually get unintended results. Nazi's deserve a right to a fair trial as well. Especially since some of them might not have been SS officers at all. Going out and finding the people and having them put through trial would be just as good. Especially if you killed an officer that had nothing to do with the Death camps. This is just bloodlust.

[28350]

Yes, this is well documented. There's a list of Nazi hunters on wikipedia. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Nazi_hunters)

[Jose Gracchus]

Quite the noxious source you found this published at. Some Tea Party theocrat site?

[TC]

While we might be pleased at finding the only time it seems socially and politically acceptable to form a "death squad"...


Memories are never photographic (they're really not, studies have been done!), witness identification is unreliable, and misidentification happens all the freak'n time (as a defense lawyer)...

...its also not obvious to me that every single nazi is equally responsible and should be killed...I think they're all partially responsible, but there is an awful lot of partial responsibility to go around.

How would people feel if the American grunts who committed the most despicable crimes in Vietnam were being killed by vigilantes? I think as here, I'd feel mixed, not gleeful or rightous.

[PhoenixAsh]

It was known before... I am not sure where I read about (hardcopy in any case...perhaps in the book Auschwitz) it so I can not reproduce any evidence to what I am about to say...but I believe some of the group stopped when they discovered that they did indeed make a mistake...


Is no one going to make the obligatory Inglourious Basterds joke?

that was such a terrible, terrible movie...and whats more...someone gifted me a DVD :cursing:

[CornetJoyce]

...its also not obvious to me that every single nazi is equally responsible and should be killed...I think they're all partially responsible, but there is an awful lot of partial responsibility to go around.

How would people feel if the American grunts who committed the most despicable crimes in Vietnam were being killed by vigilantes? I think as here, I'd feel mixed, not gleeful or rightous.

According to the article, they went after SS officers, not grunts.
A rare instance in which a measure of justice was done.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Im okay with this.

[PhoenixAsh]

According to the article, they went after SS officers, not grunts.
A rare instance in which a measure of justice was done.


hmmm...not all SS-officers actively partcipated in the Einsatzgruppen or Totenkopfverbande....


Though IMO all SS-officers were throughly indoctrinated with Nazi ideology and would probably have done so when asked and / or ordered....and even the Verfugungstruppe have committed crimes against humanity and warcrimes. And you could argue tht since the Algemeine SS was tasked with the administration of the SS and therefore also the Totenkopfverbande taht they were fro a large part responsible as well.

Participation in the Einsatzgruppen was partially voluntary or part of penalisation for behaviour.

[Black Sheep]

I picture Tarantino going HA!TOLD YA SO!

[CornetJoyce]

Well, the full phrase in the article is:
"the former SS officers who headed the death camps executing and poisoning hundreds of them."
We found years ago, under laboratory conditions, that 70% of eye witness identifications were false; so TC is certainly right about that. Some may have just been standing around. In the cold light of legal reason, those executions may be regrettable, but in 1945 vengeance was our only consolation.

[the last donut of the night]

The source is a bit iffy. But if it is accurate, then hell, I'm not excited about it, but at the same time, I've got no problem with these actions. While they're not necessarily progressive, they're completely understandable and justifiable.

However, I'm curious as to one thing, and if anybody here knows more about trauma psychology than I do, please correct me on this: wouldn't the survivors of the camps' traumas be too scarred to act out on such violent acts later? I'd imagine that the horrors of the camps would lead them to just wish for a calm life after them (assuming they wanted to live after). It's like first-generation immigrants: they go through so much hardship and trauma that they're just, frankly, too tired for class politics (not saying that these acts are revolutionary, I don't think they are). Usually it's their kids that are more political, but that's just my experience.

[Anarchist Skinhead]

I imagine it all depends on particular persons state of mind- perhaps for some of them thinking about revenge was only way they could survive? We will never know exactly.
Not sure about reliability of the source, but if they had done it, then perhaps some scum finally got what they deserved.

[PhoenixAsh]

However, I'm curious as to one thing, and if anybody here knows more about trauma psychology than I do, please correct me on this: wouldn't the survivors of the camps' traumas be too scarred to act out on such violent acts later? I'd imagine that the horrors of the camps would lead them to just wish for a calm life after them (assuming they wanted to live after). It's like first-generation immigrants: they go through so much hardship and trauma that they're just, frankly, too tired for class politics (not saying that these acts are revolutionary, I don't think they are). Usually it's their kids that are more political, but that's just my experience.


You are refering to PTSD or ASD?


That can have very different effects on each individual. Most common is severe or complete numming of all forms of emotion...anger issues such as rage...anxiety and or over-emotionality.


An interesting story...linked to this... is that of a survivor who was working with the Sonderkommando in Auschwitz...in the crematoria and the gass chambers. He was at the end of the war moved by train. He sat there and another prisoner asked if he could sit in exchange for a sigarette. He agreed...smoked the sigarette and then asked for his seat back. the other prisoner did not want to move...so he sat on him untill he died. And kept sitting on him till the train reached its destination. He thought nothing of it, didn't feel anything and neither did any of the other prisoners present.

He related this story in an interview for the BBC documentary over Auschwitz.

[S.Artesian]

Long documented and well known. There was a Jewish partisan unit in territories of the fSU, that after the war, infiltrated Germany and succeeded in poisoning the bread given to imprisoned Nazis held in several Allied locations. If I remember correctly over 1000 died or were made sick.

I don't think anyone needs, or cares, for our "approval" or "disapproval" of it. If you're the Nazis' jailers than you have the obligation to prevent this from happening. If you're a member of a former partisan group and you've had all your relatives slaughtered, your towns destroyed, your friends tortured and gassed, you might be seriously motivated to do something vengeful, brutal, and indiscriminate in nature to the members of the organization that did those things.

[gorillafuck]

*longish post cut down for quotableness*

How would people feel if the American grunts who committed the most despicable crimes in Vietnam were being killed by vigilantes? I think as here, I'd feel mixed, not gleeful or rightous.
That's a thoughtworthy point, but I think they only were hunting down prominent SS officers. There's no way they were hunting Nazi soldiers, they probably didn't even know who the soldiers were.

[S.Artesian]

Here's the info on the bread poisoning:http://www.jweekly.com/article/full/7899/survivor-reveals-1945-plan-to-kill-6-million-germans/


Harmatz took over the Din leadership. To this day, he is uncertain who betrayed the plan, but suspects that it was members of the Zionist leadership who he believes feared that Din's success would jeopardize their hopes for statehood.

With their stocks of Rehovot poison lying at the bottom of the Mediterranean, Harmatz abandoned the idea of poisoning Nuremberg's water supply. The group acquired a small quantity of arsenic and reverted to the more modest bread-poisoning plan.

One Saturday night in April 1945, members of Din broke into the Stalag 13 camp at Nuremberg and, with an artist's brush, Harmatz painted 3,000 loaves of black bread with poison.

At the time, he estimated that 12,000 people would be killed. For Harmatz, the following day would be wonderful: "That morning, I thought of my family," he said. "I felt very good that a job was going to be accomplished."

The plan called for them to move to Czechoslovakia. But it was only partially successful: They made it into the country, but the poison was not as strong as expected.

Only about 300 to 400 former guards at Nazi jails and concentration camps were killed, according to Harmatz.

This group was hard-core Zionist.

If you were a member of the revolutionary army detailed to guard these Nazis, then you'd stop the guy doing the poisoning, by shooting him if necessary.

Doesn't mean the Nazis, or the Pinochets shouldn't have died. Just means there's a certain responsibility when 1) you have people under arrest and 2)there is the revolutionary way to handle the Nazis, the Pinochets, etc. and there's the terrorist/Narodnik/zionist way. We know which one is better.

[TC]

However, I'm curious as to one thing, and if anybody here knows more about trauma psychology than I do, please correct me on this: wouldn't the survivors of the camps' traumas be too scarred to act out on such violent acts later? I'd imagine that the horrors of the camps would lead them to just wish for a calm life after them (assuming they wanted to live after).

People deal with trauma in many different ways, there is no uniform reaction, it doesn't necessarily destroy someone's life or change their personality, or it might, it could make someone more passive or more aggressive - people are psychologically diverse.



It's like first-generation immigrants: they go through so much hardship and trauma that they're just, frankly, too tired for class politics (not saying that these acts are revolutionary, I don't think they are). Usually it's their kids that are more political, but that's just my experience.

Well, younger people who are friends with leftists also tend to be more political and less tired ;)

What I think you're seeing is small number correlation - it tells you very little about what first-generation immigrants are really like with regard to political activity. Lots of first generation immigrants are very politically active (consider the Cuban exiles, the many well known first generation immigrant politicians, etc). Immigration doesn't make one inherently tired for the rest of their lives - lives are long and varied.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

While we might be pleased at finding the only time it seems socially and politically acceptable to form a "death squad"...
No, I smile at the thought of former members of Franco's Civil Guard getting hunted down.

[Optiow]

I won't be losing any sleep over it, they deserved to be hunted down.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

I really hate the article for meaning that the survivals should be humble and not craving for revange, fuck that. I also hate this revisionism which says that the nazis have been treated unfaire in for example the Nürnberg trails, like if all of a sudden the rules should be faire.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

There are obviously issues with vigilante justice, and whilst I can't say I condone this per se, I completely understand the mindset of the holocaust survivors. They weren't just put in labor camps, and their peers weren't just executed, they were treated in ways that we, almost literally, could not imagine.

[Stand Your Ground]

Quite the noxious source you found this published at. Some Tea Party theocrat site?
I don't know what the hell it is, I found it searching google.

[PhoenixAsh]

I really hate the article for meaning that the survivals should be humble and not craving for revange, fuck that. I also hate this revisionism which says that the nazis have been treated unfaire in for example the Nürnberg trails, like if all of a sudden the rules should be faire.

Survivors can crave all the revenge they want. But does your post mean that you are of the opinion that all victims are allowed to go outside the confines of law and kill their supposed purpetraitors or is there some "severity" line that must be crossed? And if so..who decides that line?



***



Objectively the Nurnberg trails were victory justice. The whole trail was from a judicial standpoint a farce IMO and laws had to retroactively rewritten to make it possible. This has nothing to do with revisionism.

Churchill, Stalin and Eden wanted the trails to be held in the political realm. Stating that guilt was obvious...and that is what happened.

The charges for which nazi's were prosececuted during the trail were some the very same allies who brought these charges were committing at that time or had committed in the past. For example...the conspiracy to devide Poland charge...(see where I am going??) In fact other powers were specifically excused for being charged before the court to be able to hide thier own warcrimes.

Normal rules for evidence were dispensed and the Tribunal stated that it would not be bothered with technical rules of evidence and made evidence admissible that would normally never have been admitted as evidence. Hearsay was taken as fact and generalized stories in which none of the accused played a role or was ever part of were taken as evidence of the guilt of that individual.

Now...to quote Stone (US Chief judge) which perfectly articulates my opinion: Jackson is away conducting his high-grade lynching party in Nuremberg, I don't mind what he does to the Nazis, but I hate to see the pretense that he is running a court and proceeding according to common law. This is a little too sanctimonious a fraud to meet my old-fashioned ideas."

[Princess Luna]

Is no one going to make the obligatory Inglourious Basterds joke?
"were not here to teach the Nazis lessons in humanity , nazis ain't got no humanity. their the foot soldiers of jew-hating , mass-murdering, manic and they need to be destroyed and every every nazi son of a ***** we find is going to die"

to all the people saying how vilgilante justice is bad because they could mistake the wrong person , if you look at records even 60 years later most holocaust survivers can still remember the faces of the guards and officers at the camps down to the smallest detail.

While we might be pleased at finding the only time it seems socially and politically acceptable to form a "death squad"...


Memories are never photographic (they're really not, studies have been done!), witness identification is unreliable, and misidentification happens all the freak'n time (as a defense lawyer)...

...its also not obvious to me that every single nazi is equally responsible and should be killed...I think they're all partially responsible, but there is an awful lot of partial responsibility to go around.

How would people feel if the American grunts who committed the most despicable crimes in Vietnam were being killed by vigilantes? I think as here, I'd feel mixed, not gleeful or rightous.
bullshit! if i had to watch people butcher my friends and family everyday for years you can bet your ass i would remember their faces till the day i died , and while i don't think American war crimes are equal to the crimes commited by the Nazis if someone put a bullet in the head of every American soldier involved in the my lai massacare i would sent a medal to the person who did it

[9]

Originally Posted by Diello http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1990450#post1990450)
Is no one going to make the obligatory Inglourious Basterds joke?"were not here to teach the Nazis lessons in humanity , nazis ain't got no humanity. their the foot soldiers of jew-hating , mass-murdering, manic and they need to be destroyed and every every nazi son of a ***** we find is going to die"
The obligatory Bordiga quote in response to virtually any quote from Inglorious Basterds:

"In refusing to see that capitalism itself is the cause of the crises and cataclysms that periodically ravage the globe, the bourgeois ideologues and reformists have always pretended instead to explain them by each other's wickedness. [...] On this point also, nazis and anti-fascists are agreed: It is racism; a hatred of Jews and a ferocious and uncontrollable passion that caused the death of the Jews. But, as Marxists, we know that social passions don't have a life of their own, that nothing is more determined than these big movements of collective hatred."

[Dimentio]

Sometimes, Death Squads are understandable.

[9]

Sometimes, Death Squads are understandable.
Gross. I imagine you - among others posting in this thread - would have been in favor of this as well:

http://www.jweekly.com/article/full/7899/survivor-reveals-1945-plan-to-kill-6-million-germans/


Harmatz, who lost two brothers in the Holocaust, led an organization -- Din, or Judgment -- made up of survivors of the Vilna Ghetto. Their objective: the deaths of 6 million Germans as vengeance for the Jews who died in the Holocaust.:rolleyes:

[Princess Luna]

Gross. I imagine you - among others posting in this thread - would have been in favor of this as well:
:rolleyes:
there is a difference between thoughts and actions , many Germans supported Hitler and the Nazis and they don't deserve to die however when certain people crossed the line and began to help exterminate people by working as guards at the camps or building the gas chambers then they deserve to pay for their actions rather it is a scaffold in Nurenburg or a Handgun in Argentina.

Survivors can crave all the revenge they want. But does your post mean that you are of the opinion that all victims are allowed to go outside the confines of law and kill their supposed purpetraitors or is there some "severity" line that must be crossed? And if so..who decides that line?
i just noticed this, and have to say it's hilarious a Anarchist saying people "should not go outside the law" please tell me , how is it when a state executes a murderer it is justice , but when a indiviual executes a murderer its a injustice?

[PhoenixAsh]

there is a difference between thoughts and actions , many Germans supported Hitler and the Nazis and they don't deserve to die however when certain people crossed the line and began to help exterminate people by working as guards at the camps or building the gas chambers then they deserve to pay for their actions rather it is a scaffold in Nurenburg or a Handgun in Argentina.

According to the article this group tried to put it into action and very nearly succeeded and would have gone through with it if they were not betrayed...

[Princess Luna]

According to the article this group tried to put it into action and very nearly succeeded and would have gone through with it if they were not betrayed...
But the group is wrong because it blames all Germans for the Holocaust which is like blaming all Jews for the Israel's actions towards palestine you can't lay blanket statements on entire groups of people , and nobody is doing that in this thread instead me and several others support justice against specific people who helped perpatrate the holocaust.

[S.Artesian]

while i don't think American war crimes are equal to the crimes commited by the Nazis if someone put a bullet in the head of every American soldier involved in the my lai massacare i would sent a medal to the person who did it

Think we're missing critical point-- that-- putting a bullet in the head of every American soldier involved in my lai didn't occur. The Jewish death squads, for the most part, didn't mete out "rough justice" to the Nazis, and the worst part is neither the Jewish avengers nor the Retributionist for My Lai did or would do anything to prevent those same massacres happening again.

You have to keep that in mind. If you don't-- well you can wind up like those who think Jews have to have their own state, no matter what, because "it might happen again." Of course by having that state, and conducting themselves as that state, the Zionists are ensuring that it happens again by doing it themselves.

This isn't an issue of seeking personal vengeance. Nobody-- wait, at least I don't bemoan slave rebellions that killed the wives and children of slaveholders in the immediate struggle for freedom. But I also don't take exception to Antonio Maceo executing two of lieutenants for molesting the wife of a Spanish landowner in Cuba.

Cheerleading for the Jewish hit squads is, IMO, pathetic. It doesn't matter. It didn't matter. Most importantly, it won't matter.

[Princess Luna]

Think we're missing critical point-- that-- putting a bullet in the head of every American soldier involved in my lai didn't occur. The Jewish death squads, for the most part, didn't mete out "rough justice" to the Nazis, and the worst part is neither the Jewish avengers nor the Retributionist for My Lai did or would do anything to prevent those same massacres happening again.

You have to keep that in mind. If you don't-- well you can wind up like those who think Jews have to have their own state, no matter what, because "it might happen again." Of course by having that state, and conducting themselves as that state, the Zionists are ensuring that it happens again by doing it themselves.

This isn't an issue of seeking personal vengeance. Nobody-- wait, at least I don't bemoan slave rebellions that killed the wives and children of slaveholders in the immediate struggle for freedom. But I also don't take exception to Antonio Maceo executing two of lieutenants for molesting the wife of a Spanish landowner in Cuba.

Cheerleading for the Jewish hit squads is, IMO, pathetic. It doesn't matter. It didn't matter. Most importantly, it won't matter.
Ummmmmm yes it does matter , they were not killing average German people who just supported hitler they were killing people who activily helped exterminate millions of humans beings yet somehow slipped though the cracks and were never brought to trial , and i have no illusions about it "preventing future genocides" its about justice for the ones that have already happened

[PhoenixAsh]

i just noticed this, and have to say it's hilarious a Anarchist saying people "should not go outside the law" please tell me , how is it when a state executes a murderer it is justice , but when a indiviual executes a murderer its a injustice?

Anarchy...read something about it.

I am not going to tell you how it is justice because I just so happen te believe that when the state is killing a murderer it is still murder.

What I can tell you is that anarchists =/ no laws. Look it up. And as such laws are there to prevent from mob rule....and wanton killing.

THe hilarious feeling you get is caused by ignorance...I prescribe a hefty dose of literature about the topic to cure it.

[PhoenixAsh]

But the group is wrong because it blames all Germans for the Holocaust which is like blaming all Jews for the Israel's actions towards palestine you can't lay blanket statements on entire groups of people , and nobody is doing that in this thread instead me and several others support justice against specific people who helped perpatrate the holocaust.

ok...I do not really understand your answer.

for now I assume it means that you mean the possible action the group tried to put in effect was wrong and therefore it is good it has failed.

the rest I do not get...

[Frosty Weasel]

Shouldn't we be doing this now?

[PhoenixAsh]

Ummmmmm yes it does matter , they were not killing average German people who just supported hitler they were killing people who activily helped exterminate millions of humans beings yet somehow slipped though the cracks and were never brought to trial , and i have no illusions about it "preventing future genocides" its about justice for the ones that have already happened

A sort of...christian notion of an eye for an eye?

[S.Artesian]

The cheerleading is what I called pathetic. As for the hits-- I laid it out earlier-- you're the soldier responsible for guarding the Nazis, you stop the guy from poisoning them-- whether you're in the US, the Red, or the true revolutionary proletarian army.

The cheerleading doesn't matter. And the hits? Shrug of the shoulders. It happens. It doesn't mean anything one way or the other-- the war was over. The dead were dead. The death camps had functioned to the end of the war.

This "death squad" is no more significant than a person avenging the murder of a relative.

EDIT: And a correction-- the first plan of the group that poisoned the bread given to the prisoners was to poison the water supply of Nuremberg, poisoning the entire population, indiscriminately. So this
they were not killing average German people who just supported hitler might be applicable to the hit teams, but certainly is not applicable to all the groups trying to exact vengeance.

[Frosty Weasel]

A sort of...christian notion of an eye for an eye?That notion was a Jewish notion long before it was a Christian one friend.

How appropriate, now that I think about it. :)

[PhoenixAsh]

That notion was a Jewish notion long before it was a Christian one friend.

How appropriate, now that I think about it. :)

indeed...old testament...slightly ironic in this case :-) damn my impatience @ bible school ;-)

... either way eye for an eye is not justice when extracted on people not directly involved or incarcerated

[Amphictyonis]

Really no problems with this? I hate fascists as much as the next guy, but going out and killing people at almost random? You can't just do this, you will eventually get unintended results. Nazi's deserve a right to a fair trial as well. Especially since some of them might not have been SS officers at all. Going out and finding the people and having them put through trial would be just as good. Especially if you killed an officer that had nothing to do with the Death camps. This is just bloodlust.

Say that to the hundreds of innocent men who have been executed or are rotting in in American prisons. The notion of a 'fair trial' in America is somewhat absurd.

[Frosty Weasel]

... either way eye for an eye is not justice when extracted on people not directly involved or incarceratedCertainly, but all Nazis regardless of post were in fact responsible to some degree.

They probably deserved a trial, but I won't be the first guy to stand in the way of someone whose whole family just got mercilessly massacred.

[Kibbutznik]

This didn't exist in a vacuum. The victorious powers of WW2 were quite unwilling to actually bother to go through with deNazification and bring the willing executioners of the Nazi regime to justice.

In the absence of such action, vigilante murder is bound to happen, and in my view, perhaps only in this instance is it acceptable. The whole notion of a "crime against humanity" means that such an action is so base and so heinous that to stand idly by and allow it go unpunished calls into question one's own humanity into question.

As members of the SS who oversaw the plans to exterminate the Jews and other peoples of Europe, these men turned in their membership card in the human community. These men were the enemies of all humanity, and they were let go.

[9]

To me, this thread really reeks of some sort of retrospective social chauvinism.


The victorious powers of WW2 were quite unwilling to actually bother to go through with deNazification and bring the willing executioners of the Nazi regime to justice.
Yet I don't suppose you see any similar need for anyone to have brought the willing executioners of the victorious powers of WW2 "to justice"?

[Robocommie]

Yet I don't suppose you see any similar need for anyone to have brought the willing executioners of the victorious powers of WW2 "to justice"?

I think I know where you're coming from, but which willing executioners in particular do you mean?

[9]

I think I know where you're coming from, but which willing executioners in particular do you mean?
How about British and American bombadiers, for example? "Which willing executioners in particular" is really beside the point, though.

[Kibbutznik]

How about British and American bombadiers, for example? "Which willing executioners in particular" is really beside the point, though.
Bombing civilian cities during wartime is qualitatively different from overseeing death camps to exterminate an entire ethnic group. State terror in the form of carpet bombing may be heinous, but it does not rise to the same level of barbarism as genocide. Genocide is rightly considered to be a special kind of evil.

[S.Artesian]

It's interesting that the article says that the zionists put pressure on them to stop what they were doing.

RED DAVE

That might have something to do with what they were planning to do... poison the water supply of Nuremburg.

Looks real bad on your application for statehood:

Proposed name of state: Israel

Purpose of state: multiple; European outpost in Mideast; general police duties; abet reactionary religious figures; codify eviction and expulsion of Palestinians from any location; land based aircraft carrier for US in the Mediterranean.

Special awards, projects, talents: King Leopold humanitarian action award for poisoning the entire population of Nuremburg, Germany.

[S.Artesian]

Bombing civilian cities during wartime is qualitatively different from overseeing death camps to exterminate an entire ethnic group. State terror in the form of carpet bombing may be heinous, but it does not rise to the same level of barbarism as genocide. Genocide is rightly considered to be a special kind of evil.



This thread is about is inane as it gets. Cheerleading for something that was so immaterial, tangential, inconsequential with absolutely no social, class importance.

[Frosty Weasel]

Purpose of state: European outpost in Mideast; Please tell me you aren't suggesting the Jews are actually a European people?

[Kibbutznik]

This thread is about is inane as it gets. Cheerleading for something that was so immaterial, tangential, inconsequential with absolutely no social, class importance.
No one is cheerleading here. We're simply expressing that we would not be stopping these people from bringing these Nazis to extra legal justice.

[Princess Luna]

to all the people saying that killing Nazis is evil and how your sicked by people like me , what the fuck did you want to happen to them? let them spend the rest of their lives relaxing on a beach in South America using wealth they stole from Jewish people? fuck that and fuck you , the only good fascist is a dead one so cry all you want about "those poor helpless Nazis , being killed by those big mean Jews :crying:" i sure as hell won't be.

Anarchy...read something about it.

I am not going to tell you how it is justice because I just so happen te believe that when the state is killing a murderer it is still murder.

What I can tell you is that anarchists =/ no laws. Look it up. And as such laws are there to prevent from mob rule....and wanton killing.

THe hilarious feeling you get is caused by ignorance...I prescribe a hefty dose of literature about the topic to cure it.
so your also opposed to all the executions carried out by the anarchists in Spain right? and if you think killing someone who helped carry out a genocide is a "eye for a eye" then where do you draw the line , what about the killing of Mussolini was that bad too?
*edit* also i suggest you read The Psychology of Political Violence by Emma Goldman and maybe you will realize not all Anarchists are little pacifists who running wishing good fortune upon class enemies some (get ready for this it maybe a shocker) actually support violence against people who, like you know are responsable FOR FUCKING GENOCIDE!

[S.Artesian]

Please tell me you aren't suggesting the Jews are actually a European people?

Where do you think the Zionist movement originated? Are you going to tell me that there was a great diaspora after the destruction of the 2nd Temple?

Who founded the state of Israel? Sephardic or Ashkenazy Jews?


I don't care what you think the "Jewish people" "are" since there is no such thing as a "Jewish people"-- there is a Jewish religion, there are people who are Jewish. There is no "Jewish people"

[Frosty Weasel]

I don't care what you think the "Jewish people" "are" since there is no such thing as a "Jewish people"-- there is a Jewish religion, there are people who are Jewish. There is no "Jewish people"Fuck, now you sound like one of the racist conspiracy pricks from Stormfront.

DNA evidence proves the Jews are a Levantine people, and the closest groups related to them are Palestinians, Jordanians, and Syrians, and the Lebanese.

I am not saying that this in any way justifies taking Palestinian land/genocide, but what you are saying is just totally mind-blowingly stupid.

[psgchisolm]

Say that to the hundreds of innocent men who have been executed or are rotting in in American prisons. The notion of a 'fair trial' in America is somewhat absurd.
I love how you completely digress away from the topic with no point in mind:laugh:. Seeing as how the nuremburg trials had judges and prosecutors from France, America, Britain, and the Soviet Union then it must be easy to say it was a conspiracy by only Americans for the "unfair" trials;)

[S.Artesian]

Fuck, now you sound like one of the racist conspiracy pricks from Stormfront.

DNA evidence proves the Jews are a Levantine people, and the closest groups related to them are Palestinians, Jordanians, and Syrians, and the Lebanese.

I am not saying that this in any way justifies taking Palestinian land/genocide, but what you are saying is just totally mind-blowingly stupid.

Reference, please.

Zionism was and is of European origin, you mind-blowingly stupid fuck. It isn't in anyone's genes.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

Survivors can crave all the revenge they want. But does your post mean that you are of the opinion that all victims are allowed to go outside the confines of law and kill their supposed purpetraitors or is there some "severity" line that must be crossed? And if so..who decides that line?





No. I was refering to the mainstream attitude of that the survivors Should be greatful and forgiving and as soon as someone doesnt show that they are seend as a "bad exampel" by people who have no idea of what theive gone thruogh.



Objectively the Nurnberg trails were victory justice. The whole trail was from a judicial standpoint a farce IMO and laws had to retroactively rewritten to make it possible. This has nothing to do with revisionism.

Churchill, Stalin and Eden wanted the trails to be held in the political realm. Stating that guilt was obvious...and that is what happened.

The charges for which nazi's were prosececuted during the trail were some the very same allies who brought these charges were committing at that time or had committed in the past. For example...the conspiracy to devide Poland charge...(see where I am going??) In fact other powers were specifically excused for being charged before the court to be able to hide thier own warcrimes.

Normal rules for evidence were dispensed and the Tribunal stated that it would not be bothered with technical rules of evidence and made evidence admissible that would normally never have been admitted as evidence. Hearsay was taken as fact and generalized stories in which none of the accused played a role or was ever part of were taken as evidence of the guilt of that individual.

Now...to quote Stone (US Chief judge) which perfectly articulates my opinion: Jackson is away conducting his high-grade lynching party in Nuremberg, I don't mind what he does to the Nazis, but I hate to see the pretense that he is running a court and proceeding according to common law. This is a little too sanctimonious a fraud to meet my old-fashioned ideas."



My point of calling it for revisionism was al this talk about that the trials wasnt faire and that many nazis was threated to harsch, which i think is hilarious regarding the amount of thoose who escaped or got a carreer.
And when they find someone today there is al this talk about "No we cant have a trial hes to old and sick look at him" which is just to unhistorical and nonechalant against justice. Just saying.

[PhoenixAsh]

to all the people saying that killing Nazis is evil and how your sicked by people like me , what the fuck did you want to happen to them? let them spend the rest of their lives relaxing on a beach in South America using wealth they stole from Jewish people? fuck that and fuck you , the only good fascist is a dead one so cry all you want about "those poor helpless Nazis , being killed by those big mean Jews :crying:" i sure as hell won't be.

So you are arguing it is ok to plan and act to execute that plan to whipe out a whole city by poisoning the water supply? Because in your mind that is ok because people of the same nationality committed horrible, horrible attrocities and that somehow justifies you to do the same?

well...ok then...check...you just argued you are morally on the same level as nazi scum. Fine by me. Thank you for informing us.

As for the fact that you ar somehow unable to see the huge world of difference between killing and relaxing an a beach somewhere...I can only say that I am very, very sorry for you that you do not understand. It saddens me...truely it does.



so your also opposed to all the executions carried out by the anarchists in Spain right? and if you think killing someone who helped carry out a genocide is a "eye for a eye" then where do you draw the line , what about the killing of Mussolini was that bad too?Have I argued that? or did you just bring that in in a base attempt to somehow argue that it would be ok to murder an entire city?

Let me explain to you some vital differences here in our moral believes. Yes I do not agree with killing people for their political believes when and after they are captured and certainly not without a fair trail. I also do not agree with killing people because of their believes if they do not act on them. If your a fascist...fine...so long as you do not act on it...we have no problem. Act and I will kill or capture you. I do not go around slaughtering entire cities or planning to slaugher entire cities and act on that plan because somehow I feel justified because others of that city may have assisted in trying to whipe out a race. Now expain how Mussolini did NOT act on his believes....before you try to use your slanderous lies and morally abject reasoning on me again.

And yes THAT is exactly an eye for an eye. YOUR crimes are NOT excused by the crimes of another. Because...you know...when does it end? When their country men then come back an poison an entire city in your country because they are just as much justified to do so? Understand it?


And for the Anarchist scum...yes...you read it...SCUM who committed murder and butchered civilians, clergy and opponents NOT for participating in fights or because of them actually doing anything other than believeing what they did and did not actively work against them...those anarchist are worth just as much to me as the first Falangy proponent out there. Simply because they are no better.




*edit* also i suggest you read The Psychology of Political Violence by Emma Goldman and maybe you will realize not all Anarchists are little pacifists who running wishing good fortune upon class enemies some (get ready for this it maybe a shocker) actually support violence against people who, like you know are responsable FOR FUCKING GENOCIDE!Did you read it? Did you UNDERSTAND it? did it read to you as an excuse for vengeance on prisoners or civilians? Or did it read to you as an essay on why violence is necessary to overthrow the system and how violence is brought about by that system?

"It is this arrogance that has brought about the bomb, and the more they tyrannize over a helpless and unarmed people"

Now explain to me how THAT justifies the plan and acting on it to whipe out an entire city?

And you use this essay to defend that!


Go stand in a corner and think about what you have just said and done!


O...and if you do not like the tone of my reply...think it is to harsh or polemic...watch how your own tone when you argue against me in the future....I will mirror it.

[PhoenixAsh]

My point of calling it for revisionism was al this talk about that the trials wasnt faire and that many nazis was threated to harsch, which i think is hilarious regarding the amount of thoose who escaped or got a carreer.
And when they find someone today there is al this talk about "No we cant have a trial hes to old and sick look at him" which is just to unhistorical and nonechalant against justice. Just saying.


Ok. Thank you for explaining. Well my opinion is that the Nurenberg trails were a judicial farce. Not that the sentencing was to harsh...nor do I think enough nazies have been prosecuted. Just te be clear.

...and arguments that people are too old to stand trial or to sick are not arguments that aleviate culpability. You can have a trail and he can watch it from his television in jail or in hospital...just as long as he is represented by a lawyer and the trail is fairly conducted.

[PhoenixAsh]

No. I was refering to the mainstream attitude of that the survivors Should be greatful and forgiving and as soon as someone doesnt show that they are seend as a "bad exampel" by people who have no idea of what theive gone thruogh.

Ok. Then we probaly agree on that.



My point of calling it for revisionism was al this talk about that the trials wasnt faire and that many nazis was threated to harsch, which i think is hilarious regarding the amount of thoose who escaped or got a carreer.
And when they find someone today there is al this talk about "No we cant have a trial hes to old and sick look at him" which is just to unhistorical and nonechalant against justice. Just saying.

I think it was a lynching and a judicial farce. Not however that it was harsh....if anything some of them got off too lightly. And there weren't enough in there.

As for the tendency to argue against trails...too old never aleviates culpability. They cvan watch from a tv set with live feed if they are too old to attend.

[Princess Luna]

So you are arguing it is ok to plan and act to execute that plan to whipe out a whole city by poisoning the water supply? Because in your mind that is ok because people of the same nationality committed horrible, horrible attrocities and that somehow justifies you to do the same?

well...ok then...check...you just argued you are morally on the same level as nazi scum. Fine by me. Thank you for informing us.

As for the fact that you ar somehow unable to see the huge world of difference between killing and relaxing an a beach somewhere...I can only say that I am very, very sorry for you that you do not understand. It saddens me...truely it does.

Have I argued that? or did you just bring that in in a base attempt to somehow argue that it would be ok to murder an entire city?

Let me explain to you some vital differences here in our moral believes. Yes I do not agree with killing people for their political believes when and after they are captured and certainly not without a fair trail. I also do not agree with killing people because of their believes if they do not act on them. If your a fascist...fine...so long as you do not act on it...we have no problem. Act and I will kill or capture you. I do not go around slaughtering entire cities or planning to slaugher entire cities and act on that plan because somehow I feel justified because others of that city may have assisted in trying to whipe out a race. Now expain how Mussolini did NOT act on his believes....before you try to use your slanderous lies and morally abject reasoning on me again.

And yes THAT is exactly an eye for an eye. YOUR crimes are NOT excused by the crimes of another. Because...you know...when does it end? When their country men then come back an poison an entire city in your country because they are just as much justified to do so? Understand it?


And for the Anarchist scum...yes...you read it...SCUM who committed murder and butchered civilians, clergy and opponents NOT for participating in fights or because of them actually doing anything other than believeing what they did and did not actively work against them...those anarchist are worth just as much to me as the first Falangy proponent out there. Simply because they are no better.


Did you read it? Did you UNDERSTAND it? did it read to you as an excuse for vengeance on prisoners or civilians? Or did it read to you as an essay on why violence is necessary to overthrow the system and how violence is brought about by that system?

"It is this arrogance that has brought about the bomb, and the more they tyrannize over a helpless and unarmed people"

Now explain to me how THAT justifies the plan and acting on it to whipe out an entire city?

And you use this essay to defend that!


Go stand in a corner and think about what you have just said and done!


O...and if you do not like the tone of my reply...think it is to harsh or polemic...watch how your own tone when you argue against me in the future....I will mirror it.
lol nice straw man , i cleary said i don't support the actions of that group who wants to kill 6 million germans and your response was "i don't understand........you must want to kill entire cities!" i have been saying the whole time ,the people who worked at the death camps and helped plan the holocaust deserve to die them and ONLY them got it yet?

[S.Artesian]

This has got to be one of the most infantile threads in the history of infantile threads. Consider this and these:

1. The OP is based on an newspaper article that provides exactly zero information on what events actually occurred; what organizations undertook what actions; what the results, if any, were.

2. The lack of information is no obstacle to those who want to fill the empty space with their own fantasies of meting out "rough justice," "payback," "extra-legal retribution," based on reports of events of such marginal importance, historical irrelevance, social insignificance as to be beyond belief, but require "belief" to even warrant a response.

3. From there, the horse is off and running, although the course it's on goes nowhere except to the glue factory, and we get all those tough guys saying "yeah, I'm down with that. Yeah, that's what I'm talkin' about. Yeah, kill em all, let god sort em out."

4. And then? Then we get... we get exactly nowhere. We get the "Yeah?" "Yeah!" "Says who?" "Says me." breast beating, tub thumping posturing of pre-teens in the playground at recess.

Hey kids, the bell has rung. Time to go back to the classroom, fold your hands, and sit quietly lest the teacher write a stern note home to your parents.

[Princess Luna]

This has got to be one of the most infantile threads in the history of infantile threads. Consider this and these:

1. The OP is based on an newspaper article that provides exactly zero information on what events actually occurred; what organizations undertook what actions; what the results, if any, were.

2. The lack of information is no obstacle to those who want to fill the empty space with their own fantasies of meting out "rough justice," "payback," "extra-legal retribution," based on reports of events of such marginal importance, historical irrelevance, social insignificance as to be beyond belief, but require "belief" to even warrant a response.

3. From there, the horse is off and running, although the course it's on goes nowhere except to the glue factory, and we get all those tough guys saying "yeah, I'm down with that. Yeah, that's what I'm talkin' about. Yeah, kill em all, let god sort em out."

4. And then? Then we get... we get exactly nowhere. We get the "Yeah?" "Yeah!" "Says who?" "Says me." breast beating, tub thumping posturing of pre-teens in the playground at recess.

Hey kids, the bell has rung. Time to go back to the classroom, fold your hands, and sit quietly lest the teacher write a stern note home to your parents.
oh stfu and get off your high horse , you and the whole "the nazis are innocent!" crowd as been just as infantile if not more

[PhoenixAsh]

This has got to be one of the most infantile threads in the history of infantile threads. Consider this and these:

1. The OP is based on an newspaper article that provides exactly zero information on what events actually occurred; what organizations undertook what actions; what the results, if any, were.

2. The lack of information is no obstacle to those who want to fill the empty space with their own fantasies of meting out "rough justice," "payback," "extra-legal retribution," based on reports of events of such marginal importance, historical irrelevance, social insignificance as to be beyond belief, but require "belief" to even warrant a response.

3. From there, the horse is off and running, although the course it's on goes nowhere except to the glue factory, and we get all those tough guys saying "yeah, I'm down with that. Yeah, that's what I'm talkin' about. Yeah, kill em all, let god sort em out."

4. And then? Then we get... we get exactly nowhere. We get the "Yeah?" "Yeah!" "Says who?" "Says me." breast beating, tub thumping posturing of pre-teens in the playground at recess.

Hey kids, the bell has rung. Time to go back to the classroom, fold your hands, and sit quietly lest the teacher write a stern note home to your parents.

Yeah...all I can say is that when you are right...you are right. :blushing:

[S.Artesian]

oh stfu and get off your high horse


See, that's what I'm talkin' bout. He's thinking he's a fucking hard guy, leaving the ace-of-spades on corpses, looking at the world with a thousand-yard stare. In reality doesn't have a clue.

[Princess Luna]

i love how nobody answered my question of what should have been done to the people who helped with the Holocaust yet escaped justice , instead try to portray me as a hyper-masculine fool for supporting justice against mass-murderers
*edit* the expression "get off your high-horse" means stop acting like your so wise and moral when in fact your just as guilty of the stuff you accuse other people of doing

[PhoenixAsh]

i love how nobody answered my question of what should have been done to the people who helped with the Holocaust yet escaped justice , instead try to portray me as a hyper-masculine fool for supporting justice against mass-murderers
*edit* the expression "get off your high-horse" means stop acting like your so wise and moral when in fact your just as guilty of the stuff you accuse other people of doing


Great...now apply that to yourself and we can have a civil debate wether or not it is justified and indeed justice to kill outside the confines of law....you know...the abstract instead of the example.

Which is basically very interesting topic seeing as the revleft is split up about this and it is very valuable info to have before hand if we are to work together in a social revolution against capitalism. I for one would like to know who and which political thought justifies it...so that I can make an informed opinion with whom I would risk to colaborate in bringing that about. you know...seeing as I might be on the other side of the gun when someone decides again that Anarchist thought is a danger to the revolution.

Now...lets think your argument through...and apply logic to what you are saying.

Justified extra judicial killing applies to everybody who finds that someone committed attrocities against them. In this case it is nazies...in an other it might very well be roving bands of vigilantes that decide killing communists is justified for the millions of deaths that occured in the USSR and under so called communist systems.

Now...from a purely argumentative point of view based on the logic: who decides what is a worthy and justified target?

[Geiseric]

I don't see how killing ex-nazis is a bad thing, I also think it's excusable to kill anybody who's tried, nearly successfully, to wipe out a race or region, despite political beliefs. I think that the U.S.S.R. Should have been tried for trying to divide poland, I think America should have been tried for the nuke and firebombings, the nuremburg trials, in those instances, and others where a bunch of ex-nazis were excused or given light sentences, that is also a sham. West germany was run by ex nazis for the next 50 years, and that's so disappointing

[Princess Luna]

Great...now apply that to yourself and we can have a civil debate wether or not it is justified and indeed justice to kill outside the confines of law....you know...the abstract instead of the example.

Which is basically very interesting topic seeing as the revleft is split up about this and it is very valuable info to have before hand if we are to work together in a social revolution against capitalism. I for one would like to know who and which political thought justifies it...so that I can make an informed opinion with whom I would risk to colaborate in bringing that about. you know...seeing as I might be on the other side of the gun when someone decides again that Anarchist thought is a danger to the revolution.

Now...lets think your argument through...and apply logic to what you are saying.

Justified extra judicial killing applies to everybody who finds that someone committed attrocities against them. In this case it is nazies...in an other it might very well be roving bands of vigilantes that decide killing communists is justified for the millions of deaths that occured in the USSR and under so called communist systems.

Now...from a purely argumentative point of view based on the logic: who decides what is a worthy and justified target?
But once again i am not arguing for someones death based on their political views but by their actions , if someone served as the head of a death camp in Nazi Germany but escaped to South America after the war i think that vigilantism would be justitfied , that does not mean you have the right to kill every person who supports Nazism , but justice is not only legitimate when carried out by a state (or group of states such as Nurenburg)

[PhoenixAsh]

But once again i am not arguing for someones death based on their political views but by their actions , if someone served as the head of a death camp in Nazi Germany but escaped to South America after the war i think that vigilantism would be justitfied , that does not mean you have the right to kill every person who supports Nazism , but justice is not only legitimate when carried out by a state (or group of states such as Nurenburg)


Ok... well in the case of criminals escaping to an extra judicial country...that is indeed a problem. On the other hand...many revolutionaries were able to hide in those as well...so I am basically a bit...how so you say that in English...undicided how I feel about hit squads or kidnappings. I prefer the last.

I have a real problem saying that I support hit squads when I use the arguments of hit squads in other debates agianst my opponent. The risk is that I am justifiably called a hypocrite...which would then force me on the defence.

However...when no other alternative is possible I do prefer kidnapping towards a country that does extradict or to the country that wants to exact justice.

Indeed I agree with you that justice is not only justice when carried out by the state....in fact a lot of so called justice done by the state isn't. However I do feel that it is essential that justice follows preexisting written rules accepted by the community and every devendant has the right and possibility offered to defend themselves...and/or make a case for mittigating circumstances....

That means that if I kill the murderer of my son (for example) I should be brought before a court and I should be convicted for my crimes...but I should be able to bring foreward a defence...perhaps of temporary insanity of because of overpowering grieve...which could lower the penalty considerably.

[S.Artesian]

And I'm saying the issue precisely is NOT whether or not "vigilantism" is "justified." I'm saying the vigilantism is historically irrelevant, insignificant, meaningless, and most importantly a failure; a social failure, which, the more it is practiced, and the more powerful it is, the more of a failure it is-- which is evidenced by the fact that the primary project of these so-called death squads was an attempt to poison the water supply of an entire city.

How anyone would separate the self-admitted secondary, substitute actions of these death squads-- poisoning Nazi concentration camp guards-- from their original purpose, indiscriminately poisoning an entire city, boggles the mind.

You are dealing in moral abstractions-- look at the actual social categories, the social organization, the social expression of what these "vigilantes" tried to do.

We are not arguing about a peasant organization rising up and slaying the feudal lords; we're not talking about slaves rebelling and killing their masters and their masters' offspring. We're talking about a group that wanted to poison an entire city, but had to settle for poisoning 1000 or so Nazi officers, killing 300-400, when they wanted to poison hundreds of thousands no matter what those hundreds of thousands did or did not do.

So tell me again how you're think these vigilantes performed a service; actually accounted for something in the struggle for human emancipation.

Does the need for vengeance exist? Of course. Is it "understandable"? Sure. Do acts that are designed to take, and only take, that vengeance amount to a plus? Ask yourself, are they "game-changers"? Do they leave a legacy that future struggles for emancipation can draw on, adopt and adapt?

[Princess Luna]

Even more shocking was the story of how they wanted to poison the water supply of five German cities. However, fear that innocent people might die caused them to drop the plan"from the original link , the funny thing is i was about to to say you were right and i was wrong about the "death squads" until i found this. also i would like to point they were mostly killing SS officers, so they were killing people who had a major role in the holocaust not low level grunts. as for legacy i think it can help deter people from helping commit future genocides , because it shows if you participate in atrocitys you can't always use money and position to escape justice.

[S.Artesian]

That's not why they dropped the plan. They dropped the plan because somebody betrayed it, the ship carrying the poison was about to boarded, so they dumped the poison overboard to avoid being imprisoned.

As for deterrence-- right, sure-- absolutely. I mean look how afraid the Israeli themselves are of committing crimes against humanity? And Pinochet, disappeared all those people while quaking in his boots.

And that Rios guy in Guatemala, the evangelist's Goering, petrified of the retribution after those massacres of the indigenous people.

Works like a fucking charm I would say.

[S.Artesian]

Here's the full article I cited earlier:



LONDON—Israel's first president supported a Jewish group's plans to murder Germans immediately after World War II, according to the man who led the avengers.

Details of the plan, which included poisoning bread at a bakery, were unveiled by Lithuanian-born Joseph Harmatz, 73, in an interview published recently in the British newspaper the Observer.

Harmatz, who lost two brothers in the Holocaust, led an organization—Din, or Judgment—made up of survivors of the Vilna Ghetto. Their objective: the deaths of 6 million Germans as vengeance for the Jews who died in the Holocaust.

The idea for the organization apparently came from the poet Abba Kovner—a leader of the Lithuanian partisans who is credited with describing Jews as "being led like lambs to the slaughter"—and Vitka, his partisan girlfriend and later his wife.

As a first step, Kovner was sent to Tel Aviv to win the support of the Jewish leaders in prestate Israel for a plan to poison Germans.

David Ben-Gurion, then head of the Jewish Agency and later Israel's first prime minister, was appalled by the idea and was worried that it would prejudice the chance of establishing a state.

Zalman Shazar, who later became Israel's third president, was also hostile to the plan.

Harmatz, who from 1960 to 1994 headed the World ORT network of Jewish-sponsored vocational institutions, said, "His idea of revenge was the reparations that Israel would later exact" from Germany.

But Israeli President Chaim Weizmann was more receptive.

"He approved of our plans," Harmatz said, "and recommended a scientist who would make a poison for us." The scientist worked at the Sieff Institute in Rehovot—later renamed the Weizmann Institute.

In fact, Weizmann was not explicitly identified by Harmatz in his book "From the Wings," which is slated to be published in May by the Book Guild in England. In his book, Harmatz refers to Weizmann simply as "an elder."

But Harmatz agreed with the Observer interviewer that the "elder" was actually Weizmann and that the Zionist leader was integral to Din's operation.

Kovner told Weizmann the group was planning to poison a few thousand loaves of bread intended for former SS guards who were being held at the jails and concentration camps where they had served during the war.

The story was only partly true—that was a backup plan. Din also wanted to poison the water supply of the German city of Nuremberg. But Harmatz said he did not tell Weizmann about this plan because "we did not want to frighten" him.

Eventually, the Rehovot professor recommended by Weizmann produced an odorless, colorless substance that he said was enough to poison one night's production of bread at the bakery that supplied four prisons and concentration camps, including Dachau.

But Kovner did not make it back to Europe with his lethal cargo. Returning to Europe on a British ship, Kovner was arrested by British police, who apparently knew of the plot. The poison, concealed in condensed milk cans in Kovner's cabin, was thrown overboard by other members of the group, but Kovner was arrested and sent to an Egyptian jail.

Harmatz took over the Din leadership. To this day, he is uncertain who betrayed the plan, but suspects that it was members of the Zionist leadership who he believes feared that Din's success would jeopardize their hopes for statehood.

With their stocks of Rehovot poison lying at the bottom of the Mediterranean, Harmatz abandoned the idea of poisoning Nuremberg's water supply. The group acquired a small quantity of arsenic and reverted to the more modest bread-poisoning plan.

One Saturday night in April 1945, members of Din broke into the Stalag 13 camp at Nuremberg and, with an artist's brush, Harmatz painted 3,000 loaves of black bread with poison.

At the time, he estimated that 12,000 people would be killed. For Harmatz, the following day would be wonderful: "That morning, I thought of my family," he said. "I felt very good that a job was going to be accomplished."

The plan called for them to move to Czechoslovakia. But it was only partially successful: They made it into the country, but the poison was not as strong as expected.

Only about 300 to 400 former guards at Nazi jails and concentration camps were killed, according to Harmatz.

Soon thereafter, the organization called off its plans.

The head of the research institute at the Yad Vashem museum in Jerusalem cast doubts on Harmatz's recollection of events.

Yehuda Bauer, a retired professor of Holocaust history at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, said, "It did happen and it is likely that many people got sick. But I believe the number of people who were killed has been exaggerated."

After the state was established, Harmatz decided the burden of retribution had passed to Israel's new leaders, and he declined Kov- ner's appeals to launch a fresh revenge attempt. Kovner followed his lead and gave up dreams of vengeance, becoming one of the great poets of the new state. He died some 10 years ago.

Harmatz eventually settled in Israel. He studied law and then ran the Israeli end of a French shipping line.

Harmatz , now living in a suburb of Tel Aviv, harbors regrets.

"It didn't work out," he says. "The 300 or 400 we poisoned was nothing compared with what we really wanted to do."


"The 300 or 400 we poisoned was nothing compared with what we really wanted to do."

Says it all, don't you think. People driven to madness are still crazy people, know what I mean?

[synthesis]

The cheerleading doesn't matter.

So why post about it?

[S.Artesian]

So why post about it?

Nice way to excise a fragment from the whole issue. Did you learn that from watching Fox TV?

Actually I wasn't posting about the cheerleading, but about Kovner et al's plan A to poison the population of Nuremberg which he had to ditch in favor of plan B, painting arsenic on the loaves of bread fed to ex-SS and concentration camp officers.

But don't the notion of context, and what is actually being said in more or less direct response to items in that context, keep on with what you're doing-- being more than one day late, and more than a few dollar short.

[Geiseric]

This is kinda like a James Bond villain-esque take on Inglorious Bastards... I wonder if today's situation in the middle east would be better if they succeeded. They would have gone down in history as psychopaths as well, victims of psychological damage due to nazi torture. The whole situations pretty sad, can't feel bad for the SS officers though. Karma's a *****.

[9]

Even more shocking was the story of how they wanted to poison the water supply of five German cities. However, fear that innocent people might die caused them to drop the plan"from the original link , the funny thing is i was about to to say you were right and i was wrong about the "death squads" until i found this.

The original link was all spin, btw. The people wanting to carry it out didn't see any Germans (unless they were Jewish, I assume) as innocent people, period.

[Blackscare]

I think this is pretty cool, by the way.