Survivors of Nazi Persecution: Beyond Camps and Forced Labour, edited by Susan Bardgett et al. 2024. Palgrave Macmillan, Switzerland
Communist Trials Selective: “Reliable” When They Support Jewish Holocaust-Related Accusations; “Unreliable” When They Indict Jews!
It is ironic and self-serving for today’s Jews (e. g, Andrew Kornbluth) to claim that Communist trials exercise blind justice whenever they accuse Poles of “complicity in the Holocaust”, but are (conveniently) political and unreliable when they target Jews (as for Zionism). But that is exactly the farcical kind of Holocaust scholarship that we have today.
COMMUNIST TRIALS SELECTIVE: THEY CONVENIENTLY BECOME UNRELIABLE ONLY WHEN THEY GO AGAINST JEWS
Blum and Koustova comment, “…the Stalinist police constructed guilty scenarios, providing the justification for multiple arrests. Any expression of solidarity, any attempt to rebuild the Jewish community, was immediately suspected of being the work of a clandestine Zionist organization with anti-Soviet views…” (p. 154). The authors clarify, “Plans to flee were not always a pure figment of the police imagination, and nor were the motivations always apolitical. But insubordinate, anti-Soviet activity was attributed to a much broader spectrum of people than those who may actually have made such plans.” (p. 154). So any “kernel of truth” in the accusations (against Jewish Zionism or Polish collaboration alike) does not exonerate Communist justice. No double standards!
In other words, Communist trials ARE political, and not only, as Jewish apologists argue, in the narrow case of Communist show trials. For more on the systematic unreliability of Polish Communist justice, which is modeled on Soviet Communist justice, see:
COMMUNIST TRIALS SELECTIVE: COMMUNIST ORIGINS OF THE PEDAGOGIKA WSTYDU
Blum and Koustova touch on the systematic Communist use of guilt as a tactic, “The term ‘guilt factory’ was coined by Pavel Chinsky to describe the production of charges and evidence of guilt during Stalinist police and judicial procedure.” (p. 163).
FURTHER FATAL PROBLEMS OF COMMUNIST TRIALS–WHETHER DIRECTED AGAINST POLES OR AGAINST JEWS
Exercising the Jewish-serving double standard, Blum and Koustova now argue that the postwar Communist trials of alleged collaborators suddenly are “an important historical source” for studying Jews and the Holocaust. Even so, they incongruously admit grotesque improprieties in these trials. They freely admit, “Such files often consist of several hundred pages and contain a variety of documents. These provide the researcher with a large amount of information of a highly complex nature. The documentation was produced as part of a Stalinist investigation, which systematically used falsification, pressure, and even torture on defendants and witnesses. Some of its content is thus completely false, while some elements have a more complex relationship with the truth.” (p. 144). Clearly, falsification and torture were, in Blum and Koustova’s own words, systematic. They were not occasional occurrences!
Note that Blum and Koustova use cover phrases such as “highly complex nature” and “more complex relationship with the truth” but fail to specify how truth is supposed to be winnowed out from the falsehoods of these trials, especially when specific individuals are accused of helping the Germans kill Jews–something that is exploited by today’s Jews to the hilt.
