Skip to content


Personal tools
You are here: Home » Documents » Nazi-Zionist Collaboration 5: The Kastner case

Nazi-Zionist Collaboration 5: The Kastner case

Document Actions



5.1       Introduction


Rather than answer every complaint in the same detail, we are taking up the issue which the Victorian Jewish Board of Deputies (VJBD) has declared to be the most offensive of all, and will show that on this question; ‘The documentation available is overwhelming and its message is thundering’, just as Palestine Speaks claimed in one of the extracts complained about by the VJBD.


Since the accusation of direct Zionist cooperation and assistance in the extermination of hundreds of thousands of Jewish people, and the accusation that this flowed logically from shared aims, are clearly the most ‘extreme’ and ‘offensive’ accusations of Nazi-Zionist collaboration broadcast on 3CR programs, we will deal with this first, and in greater detail.


Since the ‘Kastner case’ is the subject of most of the broadcasts concerning collaboration which have been specifically complained about, we shall go into this in greatest detail, and have put some books in as evidence about it. 


Having answered the VJBD where its case appears strongest, and on the points to which it has given greatest emphasis, we hope it may become apparent to the Tribunal that things are not quite what they may have appeared before this inquiry began.


The most notorious case of Nazi-Zionist collaboration is that involving Rudolf Kastner.


Most Jewish people in Australia have never heard of Rudolf Kastner.  Those who have, are generally under the impression that there is some ‘controversy’ about negotiations he undertook for; ‘the purchase of Jewish lives for money and military equipment’, but that he was ‘fully rehabilitated’, by the Supreme Court of Israel.


That is exactly the line taken by Dr. John Foster, the Victorian Jewish Board of Deputies expert witness, in his evidence condemning 3CR for anti-Semitism.


It is quite clear from this evidence, that Dr. Foster does not know anything at all about the Kastner case, since he does not even know what Kastner was accused of.


This may not be his fault however, since one cannot read an accurate account of the Kastner case in any of the widely available works dealing with the Holocaust, either in bookshops or libraries.  Apart from 3CR, the suppression of information has been so complete, that even an expert like Dr. Foster, specifically asked to give evidence on the matter, has been unable to find out what it is all about.


5.2       The Accusations


Briefly, the accusations against Kastner are as follows:


Dr. Rudolf Verba, a Doctor of Science now serving at the British Medical Research Council, was one of the few escapees from Auschwitz.  In his memoirs published in February, 1961, in the London Daily Herald he wrote:


I am a Jew.  In spite of that - indeed because of that - I accuse certain Jewish leaders of one of the most ghastly deeds of the war.

This small group of quislings knew what was happening to their brethren in Hitler’s gas chambers and bought their own lives with the price of silence.  Among them was Dr. Kastner, leader of the council which spoke for all Jews in Hungary

While I was prisoner number 44070 at Auschwitz - the number is still on my arm - I compiled careful statistics of the exterminations…I took these terrible statistics with me when I escaped in I944 and I was able to give Hungarian Zionist leaders three weeks notice that Eichmann planned to send a million of their Jews to his gas chambers… Kastner went to Eichmann and told him, 'I know of your plans: spare some Jews of my choice and I shall keep quiet.'

Eichmann not only agreed, but dressed Kastner up in S.S. uniform and took him to Belsen to trace some of his friends.  Nor did the sordid bargaining end there.


Kastner paid Eichmann several thousand dollars. With this little fortune, Eichmann was able to buy his way to freedom when Germany collapsed, to set himself up in the Argentine…'22


These accusations are confirmed by the ‘Eichmann Confessions’ published in Life magazine, 28 November and 5 December, I960:


I resolved to show how well a job could be done when the commander stands 100% behind it.  By shipping the Jews off in a lightning operation, I wanted to set an example for future campaigns elsewhere. . . In obedience to Himmler's directive I now concentrated on negotiations with the Jewish political officials in Budapest. . .Among them Dr. Rudolph Kastner, authorized representative of the Zionist movement.  This Dr. Kastner was a young man about my age, an ice-cold lawyer and a fanatical Zionist.  He agreed to help keep the Jews from resisting deportation - and even keep order in the collection 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.  For keeping order in the camps, the price...was not too high for me.


...We trusted each other perfectly.  When he was with me, Kastner smoked cigarettes as though he were in a coffeehouse.  While we talked he would smoke one aromatic cigarette after another, taking them from a silver case and lighting them with a silver lighter.  With his great polish and reserve he would have made an ideal Gestapo officer himself.


Dr, Kastner's main concern was to make it possible for a select group of Hungarian Jews to emigrate to Israel...


As a matter of fact, there was a very strong similarity between our attitudes in the S.S. and the viewpoint of these immensely idealistic Zionist leaders ...I believe that Kastner would have sacrificed a thousand or a hundred thousand of his blood to achieve his political goal... ‘You can have the others,' he would say, 'but let me have this group here.'  And because Kastner rendered us a great service by helping keep the deportation camps peaceful, I would let his groups escape.  After all, I was not concerned with small groups of a thousand or so Jews. . . That was the 'gentleman's agreement' I had with Kastner. 23


Quite clearly these accusations, whether true or false, do not relate merely to ‘the purchase of Jewish lives for money and military equipment’, as Dr. Foster imagines, and the term ‘collaboration’ is the term that would apply. 

It seems unlikely that if Dr. Foster had known what the accusation actually was, he would have condemned 3CR saying, ‘In these circumstances, to talk of collaboration is malicious and absurd.’


Are the accusations against Kastner true?


According to the Government of Israel, they are a lie. When Malchiel Greenwald, a strongly pro-Zionist Israeli citizen published these accusations against Kastner, the Israeli Government did rather more than demand that his views should not be broadcast.  Because a prominent Zionist official  was involved, the Attorney General of the State of Israel prosecuted Greenwald for criminal libel.24


5.3       The Verdict


Let the verdict of Judge Benjamin Halevi in Israel's District Court of Jerusalem speak for itself, given in criminal case No. 124 of 1953.  The Attorney General v. Malchiel Greenwald.  This material should be studied carefully, since a substantial extract from it, broadcast on 3CR, has been complained about by the Victorian Jewish Board of Deputies as allegedly offensive to the Jewish community, likely to promote anti-Semitism, likely to promote racism, in bad taste and contrary to common sense.


It is the actual words used that are the subject of the Board's complaint, not the manner of their presentation by 3CR.  Presumably the Board itself was not aware just whose words they were when it made its complaint, which shows how complete suppression of information can backfire on the censors themselves.


Here then are excerpts from the verdict of Judge Halevi, who later became one of the panel of three judges that tried Eichmann:


The masses of Jews from Hungary's ghettos obediently boarded the deportation trains without knowing their fate.  They were full of confidence in the false information that they were being transferred to Kenyermeze.


The Nazis could not have misled the masses of Jews so conclusively had they not spread their false information through Jewish channels.


The Jews of the ghettos would not have trusted the Nazi or Hungarian rulers.  But they had trust in their Jewish leaders.  Eichmann and others used this known fact as part of their calculated plan to mislead the Jews.  They were able to deport the Jews to their extermination by the help of Jewish leaders.


The false information was spread by the Jewish leaders.  The local leaders of the Jews of Kluj and Nodvarod knew that other leaders were spreading such false information and did not protest.


Those of the Jews who tried to warn their friends of the truth were persecuted by the Jewish leaders in charge of the local 'rescue work.’


The trust of the Jews in the misleading information and their lack of knowledge that their wives, children and themselves were about to be deported, to the gas chambers of Auschwitz. led the victims to remain quiescent in their ghettos.  It seduced them into not resisting or hampering the deportation orders.


Dozens of thousands of Jews were guarded in their ghettos by a few dozen police.  Yet even vigorous young Jews made no attempt to overpower these few guards and escape to nearby Rumania.  No resistance activities to the deportations were organized in these ghettos.


And the Jewish leaders did everything in their power to soothe the Jews in the ghettos and to prevent such resistance activities.


The same Jews who spread in Kluj and Nodvarod the false rumor of Kenyermeze, or confirmed it, the same public leaders who did not warn their own people against the misleading statements, the same Jewish leaders who did not organize any resistance or any sabotage of deportations,…these same leaders did not join the people of their community in their ride to Auschwitz, but were all included in the rescue train.


The Nazi organizers of extermination and the perpetrators of extermination permitted Rudolf Kastner and the members of the Jewish Council in Budapest to save themselves, their relatives, and friends.  The Nazis did this as a means of making the local Jewish leaders, whom they favored, dependent on the Nazi regime, dependent on its good will during the time of its fatal deportation schedule.  In short, the Nazis succeeded in bringing the Jewish leaders into collaboration with the Nazis at the time of the catastrophe.


The Nazi chiefs knew that the Zionists were a most vital element in Jewry and the most trusted by the Jews.


The Nazis drew a lesson from the Warsaw ghetto and other belligerent ghettos.  They learned that Jews were able to sell their lives very expensively if honorably guided.


Eichmann did not want a second Warsaw.  For this reason the Nazis exerted themselves to mislead and bribe the Jewish leaders.


The personality of Rudolf Kastner made him a convenient catspaw for Eichmann and his clique, to draw into collaboration and make their tasks easier.


The question here is not, as stated by the Attorney General in his summation, whether members of the Jewish Rescue Committee were or were not capable of fulfilling their duty without the patronage of the S.S. chiefs.  It is obvious that without such S.S. Nazi patronage the Jewish Rescue Committee could not have existed, and could have acted only as an Underground.


The question is, as put by the lawyer for the defense, why were the Nazis interested in the existence of the Rescue Committee?  Why did the S.S. chiefs make every effort to encourage the existence of the Jewish Rescue Committee?  Did the exterminators turn into rescuers?


The same question rises concerning the rescue of prominent Jews by these German killers of Jews.  Was the rescue of such Jews a part of the extermination plan of the killers?


The support given by the extermination leaders to Kastner’s Rescue Committee proves that indeed there was a place for Kastner and his friends in their Final Solution for the Jews of Hungary – their total annihilation.


The Nazi’s patronage of Kastner, and their agreement to let him save six hundred prominent Jews, was part of the plan to exterminate the Jews.  Kastner was given a chance to add a few more to that number.  The bait attracted him.  The opportunity of rescuing prominent people appealed to him greatly.  He considered the rescue of the most important Jews as a great personal success and a success for Zionism.  It was a success that would also justify his conduct – his political negotiations with Nazis and the Nazi patronage of his committee.


When Kastner received this present from the Nazis, Kastner sold his soul to the German Satan.


The sacrifice of the vital interests of the majority of the Jews, in order to rescue the prominent, was the basic element in the agreement between Kastner and the Nazis.  This agreement fixed the division of the nation into two unequal camps; a small fragment of prominent, whom the Nazis promised Kastner to save, on the one hand, and the great majority of Hungarian Jews whom the Nazis designated for death, on the other hand. 


An imperative condition for the rescue of the first camp by the Nazis was that Kastner will not interfere in the action of the Nazis against the other camp and will not hamper them in its extermination.  Kastner fulfilled this condition.  He concentrated his efforts in the rescue of the prominents and treated the camp of the doomed as if they had already been wiped out from the book of the living.


One cannot estimate the damage caused by Kastner’s collaboration and put down the number of victims which it cost Hungarian Jews.  These are not only the thousands of Jews in Kluj alone, but also the thousands of Jews in Navarro or any other community in the border area; Jews who could escape through the border, had the chief of the rescue committee fulfilled his duty toward them.


All of Kastner’s answers in his final testimony were a constant effort to evade this truth.


Kastner has tried to escape through every crack he could find in the wall of evidence.  When one crack was sealed in his face, he darted quickly to another.


(Judgment of Judge Benjamin Halevi, Criminal Case 124/53; Attorney General v Malchiel Greenwald, District Court, Jerusalem June 22, 1955)25


Judge Halevi reverts to the meeting of Kastner with the S.S. officers Becher and Rudolf Hoess, commandant of Auschwitz at the time when the ‘new line’ of rescuing Jews was revealed by Hoess.  He says:


From this gathering in Budapest, it is obvious that the ‘new line’ stretched from Himmler to Hoess, from Jutner to Becher and Krumey.


According to Kastner, however, these Nazis were all active, in rescuing Jews.


This meeting of these important German guests in Budapest exposes the ‘rescue’ work of Becher in its true light.  It reveals also the extent of Kastner’s involvement in the inner circle of the chief German war criminals.


Just as the Nazi war criminals knew they needed an alibi and hoped to achieve it by the rescue of a few Jews at the eleventh hour, so Kastner also needed an alibi for himself.


Collaboration between the Jewish Agency Rescue Committee and the Exterminators of the Jews was solidified in Budapest and Vienna.  Kastner’s duties were part and parcel of the general duties of the S.S.


In addition to its Extermination Department and Looting Department, the Nazi S.S. opened a Rescue Department headed by Kastner.


All these extermination, robbery and rescue activities of the S.S. were coordinated under the management of Heinrich Himmler. (ibid)


Judge Halevi continues:


Kastner perjured himself knowingly in his testimony before this court when he denied he had interceded in Becher's behalf.   Moreover, he concealed the important fact that he interceded for Becher in the name of the Jewish Agency and the Jewish world Congress.


As to the contents of Kastner's affidavit, it was enough for the defense to prove Becher was a war criminal.  It was up to the prosecution to remove Becher from this status, if they wished to negate the affidavit.


The Attorney General admitted in his summation that Becher was a war criminal.


The lies in the contents of Kastner's affidavit, the lies in his testimony concerning the document, and Kastner's knowing participation in the activities of Nazi war criminals, and his participation in the last minute fake rescue activities - all these combine to show one overwhelming truth - that this affidavit was not given in good faith.


Kastner knew well, as he himself testified, that Becher had never stood up against the stream of Jewish extermination, as Kastner had declared in the affidavit.

The aims of Becher and his superior, Himmler, were not to save Jews but to serve the Nazi regime with full compliance.  There is no truth and no good faith in Kastner's testimony, ‘I never doubted for one moment the good intention of good Becher.’


It is clear that the positive recommendation by Kastner, not only in his own name but also in the name of the Jewish Agency and the Jewish World Congress was of decisive importance for Becher.   Kastner did not exaggerate when he said that Becher was released by the Allies because of his personal intervention.  The lies in the affidavit of Kastner and the contradictions and various pretexts, which were proven to be lies, were sufficient to annul the value of his statements and to prove that there was no good faith in his testimony in favor of this German war criminal.  Kastner's affidavit in favor of Becher was a willfully false affidavit given in favor of a war criminal to save him from trial and punishment in Nuremberg.


Therefore, the defendant, Malchiel Greenwald, was correct in his accusations against Rudolf Kastner in the first, second, and fourth of his statements. (ibid)


Judge Halevi's verdict found Malchiel Greenwald generally innocent of libel against Kastner, but fined him one Israeli pound (FIFTY PENCE) for the one unproven accusation - that Kastner had actually collected money from his Nazi partners for his aide to their slaughter program.  The judge also ordered the Government of Israel to pay Greenwald two hundred Israeli pounds (one hundred pounds) as court costs. 26


In fairness to Kastner it should be mentioned that as well as having been unpaid, it was never established that he ever wore S.S. uniform.


Nevertheless, this verdict, and the evidence on which it was based, completely establishes the truth of everything said on 3CR about the matter.


If the story ended there, it would only prove conclusively that the individual Kastner was a collaborator and the Israeli Government had attempted to defend him, although facts brought out in the trial pointed to much more than that.


But the story does not end there.


5.4       The Reaction


Public opinion in Israel was almost unanimous in demanding that Kastner and his associates should be put on trial.  Remember that up to now it was Kastner's accuser who was on trial.


The Communist Party newspaper Kol Haam (Voice of the People) wrote:


‘All those whose relatives, were butchered by the Germans in Hungary know now clearly that Jewish hands helped the mass murder.’ (23 June 1955)


In the authoritative Israeli newspaper Haaretz., the leading political journalist, Dr. Moshe Keren wrote:


‘Kastner must be brought to trial as a Nazi collaborator.  And at this trial, Kastner should defend himself as a private citizen, and not be defended by the Israeli Government...’  (14 July 1955)


Haboker, the pro-Government General Zionist party paper stated:


‘The public wants to know the real facts about Kastner, and not about him alone.  The only way to find out the truth is to put all the Rescue Committee people on trial and give them a chance to offer their defense.’  (23 June 1955)


But public opinion was not quite unanimous.  The problem with bringing Kastner and his associates to trial was that his associates were the Government of Israel.


As the evening paper Yediot Aharanot said:


‘If Kastner is brought to trial the entire government faces a total political and national collapse - as a result of what such a trial may disclose.’  (23 June 1955)


Accordingly, the Government of Israel did not put Kastner on trial, instead it filed an appeal against the acquittal of Greenwald for criminal libel.


As Dr. Karlebach wrote in Israel's largest evening newspaper, Maariv:


‘What is, going on here?  The Attorney General has to mobilize all the government power, appeal himself, in court, to justify and defend collaboration with Himmler!  And in order to defend a quisling, the government must drag through the streets one of the grimmest stories of our history!’

‘At 11 P.M. the verdict was given.  At 11 A.M. next morning the government announces the defense of Kastner will be renewed - an appeal filed.  What exemplary expediency!  Since when does this government possess such lawyer-genius who can weigh in one night the legal chances of an appeal on a detailed, complex verdict of three hundred pages?’  (21. June 1955)'27


At, the appeal hearings before the Supreme Court, the Attorney General of Israel, Chaim Cohen, explained clearly why the Government of Israel was defending Kastner so strongly:


The man Kastner does not stand here as a private individual.  He was a recognized representative, official or non-official of the Jewish National Institutes in Palestine and of the Zionist Executive; and I come here in this court to defend the representative of our national institutions.28


The truth of this statement cannot be denied.  Kastner's collaboration was not that of an individual. It was the collaboration of the Zionist leadership.


So far, it has only been established that the Government of Israel continued to support a Nazi collaborator after the facts about his collaboration had been conclusively established in an Israeli Court.  But the story gets worse.


The Supreme Court of Israel unanimously found that Becher was indeed a Nazi war criminal and that Kastner had without justification, and in the name of the Jewish Agency, helped Becher to escape justice.  On this point Greenwald was acquitted of libel and Kastner was not ‘fully rehabilitated’.


The Supreme Court also accepted the facts established in the lower Court - that Kastner deliberately concealed the truth about Auschwitz from the majority of Hungarian Jews in exchange for Nazi permission to take a thousand or so to Palestine.  Again, Kastner was far from being ‘fully rehabilitated’.


5.5       The Majority Judgment


But now comes the really nasty bit.  After unanimously acknowledging these facts, the Supreme Court of Israel, by a majority of three to two, found that Kastner's actions were morally justifiable and convicted Greenwald of criminal libel for calling this ‘collaboration’.


In saying that 3CR broadcasts concealed the fact that Kastner had been fully rehabilitated by the Israeli Supreme Court, Dr. Foster is totally missing the point.


Kastner's actions only proved that he was a Nazi collaborator it is the defense of these actions by the Government and Courts of Israel that prove conclusively that Zionism approves of Nazi collaboration.


The majority of the Supreme Court of Israel did not rehabilitate Kastner.  They joined him.


Let us read from the majority Judgment of Supreme Court Judge Shlomo Chesin:


...What point was there in telling the people boarding the trains in Kluj, people struck by fate and persecuted, as to what awaits them at the end of their Journey...Kastner spoke in detail of the situation, saying, 'The Hungarian Jew was a branch which long ago dried up on the tree.’  This vivid description coincides with the testimony of another witness about the Hungarian Jews, ‘This was a big Jewish community in Hungary, without any ideological Jewish backbone.’ (Moshe Shweiger, a Kastner aide in Budapest, protocol 465)


I fully agree with my friend, Judge Agranat, when he states that, ‘The Jews of Hungary, including those in the countryside, were not capable, neither physically nor mentally, to carry out resistance operations with force against the deportation scheme’…From this point of view no rescue achievement could have resulted by disclosing the Auschwitz news to the Jewish leaders there, and this…is a consideration which one can properly conclude that Kastner had in front of his eyes.


…And I take one more step.  I am certain that the silence of Kastner when he arrived in Kluj was premeditated and calculated and did not result from this great despair because of the helplessness of the Jewish community.  Even then, I say, this is still not considered willful collaboration and assistance in the extermination, because all the signs indicate that Kastner’s efforts were aimed at rescue and rescue on a big scale…And towards the end I take one last step. 


In doing so I go very far and say that if even if Kastner ordered himself to keep silent knowingly, in submission to the strong will of the Nazis, in order to save a few Jews from hell – the is still no proof that he stained his hands by collaborating with the enemies of his people and carrying out their plan to exterminate most of the Jewish community in Hungary. 


Even if, through these activities of his – or rather, through omissions – the extermination became easier.  And as to the moral issue, the question is not whether a man is allowed to kill many in order to save a few, or vice versa.  The question is altogether in another sphere and should be defined as follows:  a man is aware that a whole community is waiting its doom.  He is allowed to make efforts to save a few, although part of his efforts involve concealment of truth from the many; or, should he disclose the truth to many though it is his best option that this way everybody will perish.  I think that the answer is clear. 


What good will the blood of the few bring if everybody is to perish?...As I said, I am not arguing with the basic factual findings of the learned President of the Jewish District Court (Judge Halevi) but it seems to me, with all due respect, that his findings do not, as of necessity, demand the conclusion he has arrived at.  That is to say collaboration on the part of Kastner in the extermination of the Jews.  And that they better coincide with bad leadership both from a moral and public point of view…


In my opinion, one can say outright that if you find out that kastner collaborated with the enemy because he did not disclose to the people who boarded the trains in Kluj that they were being led to extermination, one has to put on trial today Danzig, Herman, Hanzi, Brand, Revis and Marton and many more leaders  and half-leaders who gagged themselves in an hour of crisis and did not inform others of what was known to them and did not warn and did not cry out of the coming danger…


Because of all this I cannot confirm the conclusion of the District Court with regard to the accusation that Greenwald has thrown on Kastner of collaboration with the Nazis in exterminating the Jewish people in Hungary during the last war.’29


In other words, the Court approved of Kastner’s contempt for the Hungarian Jews and could not allow him to be condemned for doing exactly what many other Zionist leaders and half-leaders did – concealing their knowledge of the Nazi extermination plans so that Jews would board the trains to Auschwitz peacefully while their Zionist ‘leaders’ boarded a different train for Palestine. 


4.6    The minority Judgment

It cannot be said that all top Zionist leaders actively approved of Nazi collaboration in this way.  Indeed the most precise answer to this sickening judgment of Judge Chesin is provided in the minority judgment of Supreme Court Judge Moshe Silberg:


‘I do not say that he was the only man who possessed information among the leaders.  It is quite possible that somebody else as well does not have a clear conscience with regard to this concealment.  But we are dealing here with the guilt of Kastner and we do not have to make judgments on the guilt of others…


The declaration of the learned Attorney General therefore shrinks into an opinion…'Kastner was convinced and believed that there was no ray of hope for the Jews of Hungary, almost for none of them, and as 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.’


I am compelled to state that it is very difficult for me to conceive such an intention.  Is this good faith?  Can a single man, even in cooperation with some of his friends, yield to despair on behalf of and without the knowledge of 800,000 other people?  This is, in my opinion, the decisive consideration in the problem facing us.  The charge emanating from the testimony of the witnesses against Kastner is that had they known of the Auschwitz secret, then thousands or tens of thousands would have been able to save their lives by local, partial, specific or indirect rescue operations like local revolts, resistance, escapes, hidings, concealment of children with Gentiles, forging of documents, ransom money, bribery, etc - and when this is the case and when one deals with many hundreds of thousands, now does a human being, a mortal, reject with, complete certainty and with an extreme 'no' the efficiency of all the many and varied rescue ways?  How can he examine the tens of thousands of possibilities?  Does he decide, instead of you?  Indeed, he who can act with such a usurpation of the last hope of hundreds of thousands is not entitled to claim good faith at his defense.  The penetrating question quo warrento is a good enough answer to a claim of such good faith...


If the superintendent of a big hospital lets thousands of sick people die so that he may devote himself to the sure rescue of - one soul, he will come out guilty, at least morally, even if - it is proven that he as an individual erroneously thought that there was no hope of saving the other patients.  He is a collaborator with the angel of death.


Either a complete atrophy of the soul or a blind involvement with complete loss of senses and proportion in his small but personal rescue operation could bring a man to such a gigantic, hazardous play.


And if all this is not enough to annul the claim of good faith which was put before us on behalf, of  Kastner by the Attorney General, then Kastner himself - comes and annuls it altogether.  Not only did he never make this claim, but his own words prove the contrary.   He writes in his report to the Jewish Agency that the Committee sent emissaries to many ghettoes in the countryside and pleaded with them to organize escapes and to refuse to board the trains.  And though the story of these pleadings is untrue, and the silence of Kastner in Kluj is proven, the very uttering of these statements entirely contradicts the claim that Kastner had concealed the news about the fate of the ghetto inmates in good faith and only as a result of - his complete despairing of the chances of escaping or resisting the Germans.  You can not claim at the same time helplessness and activity.  Anyway, such a claim is not convincing...


We can sum up with these three facts:


1.  That the Nazis didn't want to have a great revolt - 'Second Warsaw' - nor small revolts, and their passion was to have the extermination machine working smoothly without resistance this fact was known to Kastner from the best source - from Eichmann himself...And he had additional proofs of that when he witnessed all the illusionary and misleading tactics which were being taken by the Nazis from the first moment of occupation.


2. That the most efficient means to paralyze the resistance with - or the escape of a victim, is to conceal from him the plot of the coming murder.  This fact is known to every man and one does not need any proof or evidence for this.


3. That he, Kastner, in order to carry out the rescue plan for the few prominents, fulfilled knowingly and without good faith the said desire of the Nazis, thus expediting the work of exterminating the masses.


And also the rescue of Becher by Kastner…  He who is capable of rescuing this Becher from hanging proves that the atrocities of this great war criminal were not so horrifying or despicable in his eyes...I couldn't base the main guilt of Kastner on this fact had it been alone, but when it is attached even from afar to the whole scene of events it throws retroactive light on the whole affair and serves as a dozen proofs of our conclusion. 30

(Supreme Court Judge, Moshe Silberg, 1957)


5.7       Conclusion


If that had been the majority judgment, one could say that whatever their attitudes to the Arabs, and whatever their past behavior might have been under pressure, the Zionist leadership today did not advocate collaboration with the Nazis.


One could then at least understand the complaints by Mr. Bloch President of the Victorian Jewish Board of Deputies, about the ‘dragging in of alleged episodes in the history of Jewish/Nazi relationships.’


But Judge Silberg's judgment was that of a minority.


The Kastner case is therefore not an alleged episode in past history, being ‘dragged in’ to discredit an opponent.


It is a continuing controversy in which the top Zionist leadership of Israel stand indicted of continuing to publicly defend collaboration with the Nazis in the extermination of Jews.


Despite the unanimous finding of the Supreme Court of Israel that Kurt Becher was a major war criminal, the Jewish Agency (World Zionist Organization) refused to withdraw the fraudulent certificate Kastner gave on their behalf, which saved Becher from hanging, and allowed him to remain a free man in West Germany, the head of several corporations and with an estimated personal worth of 30 million.


Becher has even used his certification as a ‘good’ SS officer to give evidence in support of his associates at other war crimes trials in West Germany.


Since the prosecution, representing the Israeli Government, agreed with the Supreme Court that Becher was a major war criminal, one can only presume that the Israeli Government did not want him put on trial for fear of what might come out.


Likewise, none of Kastner's associates on the Zionist Relief and Rescue Committee or his bosses in the Jewish Agency have ever been put on trial as demanded by Israeli public opinion.  Let alone the hundreds of ‘prominents’ who helped Kastner to reassure the Hungarian Jews that they were going to Kenyermeze and not Auschwitz, in exchange for tickets on the one train that took them eventually to Palestine.


As for Kastner himself, he will cause no further embarrassment to the Zionist leadership with his undisputed claims that everything he did was approved by the Jewish Agency (World Zionist Organization) leadership in Palestine.  He is, as Dr. Foster so delicately puts it, ‘now dead’.  Or putting it less delicately, on 3 March, 1957 he was shot by Zeer Eckstein immediately after the appeal hearings were concluded, and before the judgment ‘rehabilitating’ him was delivered. Eckstein was not a Hungarian avenger.  He was a paid undercover agent of the Israeli secret service. 31


Clearly this issue has a major indirect relevance to the Arab-Israeli dispute.  Apart from countering Israel's cynical use of the Holocaust as a propaganda weapon, it answers a very real concern that many people have about the State of Israel and the Jews.  This concern is whether, if Jews had a State of their own during the Holocaust many more could have been saved, and whether this is not an essential future consideration, at least as an insurance policy.


The facts of the Kastner case show that the very existence of the Jewish Agency (World Zionist Organization) was an actual help to the Nazis and that more could have been saved if the Zionist movement had not existed.  Having a State that approves of actions like those of Kastner for an insurance policy, is like using petrol for a fire extinguisher.


Zionism is not the answer to anti-Semitism, but a cowardly proposal to run away from it.  The only answer to anti-Semitism is to fight back.   We shall go on to prove this in detail.


back to CONTENTS

Created by anita
Last modified 2005-08-10 12:25 AM

Powered by Plone

This site conforms to the following standards: