Some Measure of Justice: The Holocaust Era Restitution Campaign of the 1990s,
by Michael R. Marrus
Reviewed by Jan Peczkis
The author is a Holocaust historian, and his work presents some revealing information. I focus on it.
JEWISH FORCED LABORERS GOT THREE TIMES THE MONIES OF NON-JEWISH FORCED LABORERS!
Marrus makes the issue very clear, “The agreement reached with German industry at the end of 1999, amounting to DM [Deutschmarks] 10 billion or about $5.2 billion in all, made an important distinction between two classes of plaintiffs: a smaller class, the slave laborers, mainly Jews who had toiled in concentration camps and who were intended to be worked to death [?], and the much larger class of forced laborers, mostly Slavic people who had worked elsewhere for the German war machine under a variety of conditions, ranging from the most cruel to the relatively favorable. The former, said to number some 240,000, received a token payment of $7,800 per worker, and the latter, of whom there were about 1.2 million still alive, $2,600 each.” (p. 21. Emphasis added).
For more on this travesty of justice, see:
THE JUDEOCENTRIC REASON FOR PAYING JEWISH LABORERS MUCH MORE THAN POLISH LABORERS
No evidence has been presented to support the standard argument that so-called Jewish slave laborers were all to be “worked to death”. In fact, historians are not in agreement that the Nazis ever had an “annihilation through labor” policy aimed specifically against Jewish forced laborers. See:
The survival of hundreds of thousands of Jewish laborers argues strongly against any kind of “annihilation through labor” policy! Either that, or else the Nazis were totally incompetent in killing captive Jews that they professedly sought to annihilate through labor.
NO ARTIFICIAL DIVISION OF NAZI VICTIMS INTO “SLAVE LABORERS” AND “FORCED LABORERS”
The distinction between “slave laborer” and “forced laborer” is arbitrary to begin with, and it smacks of a Jewish-serving meritocracy of suffering and victimhood. Differences between one and the other are governed by MANY factors, not just supposedly whether or not the laborer was Jewish! Michael Marrus admits that “these categories cover an extraordinarily wide spectrum of circumstances, for both Jews and non-Jews” (p. 113). He then quotes Peter Hayes from the online USHMM publication, Forced and Slave Labor in Nazi-Dominated Europe, as follows:
“The rubric ‘forced and slave labor’ covers ordeals that varied greatly over time and from place to place according to the category of person involved and in consequence of the sort of assignment meted out. The principle of inclusion under the heading is clear: forced laborers were those set to work for, by, or in Nazi Germany under duress and on its terms. Yet considerable differences arise concerning everything from daily treatment and nourishment to ultimate chances for survival depending on whether the laborer was a Jew; male or female; a civilian, prisoner of war, or a ghetto or camp inmate; could or could not speak German; came from Western or Eastern Europe; and whether he or she had to toil in Germany or the occupied East, in agriculture or industry, directly for the SS or the Wehrmacht, in a state-owned or private enterprise, a large or a small one, and in construction or mining or on an assembly line. Even the moment at which a person was caught up in the system could alter one’s situation since Nazi policy toward forced laborers (even those from camps) went through relatively hard and soft phases that had important effects on what individuals suffered.” (Hayes, p. 1; Marrus, pp. 113-114).
Finally, most of the labor done by Jewish forced laborers, like that of non-Jewish forced laborers, was productive work, not impossible-to-survive arduous “make work”. See:
A JEWISH-SERVING VICTIM HIERARCHY DROVE REPARATIONS DISPARITIES
Marrus comments, “In the settlement with German industry, there were bitter debates between representatives of the Jewish survivors of the Holocaust and East European forced workers, behind which were layers of animosity and utterly different ways of understanding the history of the Second World War…The East Europeans rested their case on the devastation in the conquered territories: the Jews stressed the racially motivated persecution and the fact that so many of them were worked to death.” (p. 111). [As if Slavs were not subject to racially motivated persecution, and as if Slavs in Nazi German concentration camps were not often worked to death.]
OPEN CONTEMPT FOR NON-JEWISH VICTIMS
The author describes the racist conduct of the Jewish attorney involved, “Melvyn Weiss, representing Jewish survivors, denounced the East European claimants as ‘a bunch of anti-Semites’. ‘Go file your own suit,’ he is supposed to have told them in an effort to beat back their case for greater restitution.” (p. 112).
Now tell me that there is no such thing as victimhood competition.
THE HOLOCAUST INDUSTRY IS ALL ABOUT BLACKMAIL, SHAMING, AND RUINING THE REPUTATION OF THE TARGETED ENTITY
The author reflects on the Swiss banks case. He concludes, “Particularly irksome in the view of these commentators is that none of the Holocaust restitution cases have ultimately been resolved on the merits of this case. In the end, the defendants simply calculated that it was cheaper to settle than to continue. Owen Pell, a counsel for the defendants, noted that his clients simply had drawn the obvious conclusion: ‘Companies have learned that you don’t judge a lawsuit by its merits…You judge it by the potential public relations damage.’” (p. 32).
HOLOCAUST INDUSTRY IMPROPRIETIES. THE HOLOCAUST INDUSTRY IS IRREDEEMABLY CORRUPT
Author and historian Michael Marrus recounts the character and subsequent fate of many of those closely involved in the Swiss banks case. It is not pretty.
Avraham Hirchson, a close associate of Israel Singer, was caught in Poland attempting to board a plane to Israel in 1997, with $250,000 in cash stuffed in suitcases. (p. 126). The Israeli authorities later indicted Hirchson on charges of embezzlement, fraud, breach of trust, and money laundering. (p. 126).
Star class-action attorney Melvyn Weiss was indicted for paying kickbacks. (p. 125). Israel Singer of the WCC (World Jewish Congress), one of the ringleaders of the Holocaust Industry, had diverted Congress money for personal use, and was removed by Edgar Bronfman from his position. (pp. 126-127).
These are not isolated instances. The author writes, “And there were other cases of misconduct as well–a string of persons associated with the restitution campaign of the 1990s who turned out to have been involved in shady dealing, personal dishonesty, or other improprieties.” (p. 125). He mentions, Chuck Quackenbush, Neal Sher, Alan Havesi, and even Alfonse D’Amato. (pp. 125-126).
Marrus realizes that the problem is systematic. It is much deeper than just a few rotten apples. He comments, “It is hard to know what to make of this cascade of dysfunction, impropriety, and illegality among some major players in the Holocaust restitution movement. In addition to the insalubrious culture of class actions already noted, the reason for it may simply relate to the unhealthy confluence of big rewards and moral posturing that accompanies much restitution seeking in the public arena.” (p. 127).
This is all the more reason that the Holocaust Industry should be ended! The sooner, the better.