joffe bros

joffe brothers; left grigori, right - simon.

from voldemar pinn "punane terror ja läänemaa". haapsalu 1990

Simon Joffe 100 | Mees terava meele ja terava keelega

                                Suri legendaarne väliskommentaator Simon Joffe 

                                                

                                          20. 06 1920  - 10.06.2022

hans grabe case.

 before the soviets, in 1930 _ties

hans (heiman) grabe was prosecutor assigned with estonian army cor of red army, was dismissed for not beeing harsh enough with those, incompetent and funky, was denounced again on EC(b) P VIII plenum , march 1950 as an explicit zionist.

WHEN GENERAL GRANT EXPELLED THE JEWS

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/05/books/when-general-grant-expelled-the-jews-by-jonathan-d-sarna.html?_r=1&ref=books

April 4, 2012
The Exodus From Paducah, 1862


By JANET MASLIN


WHEN GENERAL GRANT EXPELLED THE JEWS
By Jonathan D. Sarna


Jonathan D. Sarna’s provocative new book, “When General Grant Expelled the
Jews,” is exactly what it sounds like: an account of how Gen. Ulysses S.
Grant issued an order to expel Jews from their homes in the midst of the
Civil War. Anyone seeking to rock the Passover Seder with political debate
will find the perfect conversation piece in Mr. Sarna’s account of this
startling American story.
There are good reasons that the document known as General Orders No. 11
has remained only a footnote to Civil War history. Argument endures about
what Grant meant, how much damage his order inflicted and how significant
this act of explicit anti-Semitism really was. But the incontrovertible
part of the story is that the perception of profiteering in Paducah, Ky.,
and his tendency to use the words “profiteer” and “Jew” interchangeably,
provoked a written outburst from Grant, commander of the Territory of the
Department of the Tennessee, which included Paducah.
On Dec. 17, 1862, Grant issued the order that read: “The Jews, as a class
violating every regulation of trade established by the Treasury Department
and also department orders, are hereby expelled from this department
within 24 hours from the receipt of this order.” While this mandate
conformed to Grant’s pattern of associating Jews with illicit business
activities, the exact reasons for his action are anything but clear. What
is clear is that on Jan. 4, 1863, one week from the day (Dec. 28, 1862) on
which Paducah’s Jews were actually expelled, President Abraham Lincoln
ordered Grant to revoke the controversial edict.
What tangible damage did the expulsion do? Very little, as far as Mr.
Sarna, chief historian at the National Museum of American Jewish History
and the co-editor of “Jews and the Civil War: A Reader” can tell. He can
provide no individual accounts of families fleeing the order, no more than
four affidavits about the expulsion and no reports of physical hardship
beyond those who claimed they had been jailed briefly, treated roughly or
forbidden from changing out of wet clothes. It is not the magnitude of the
incident that makes it so enduring, ugly or willfully ignored.
The reaction of one Jewish merchant in Paducah, Cesar Kaskel, touched off
a firestorm. He took off on what Mr. Sarna calls a “Paul Revere-like ride
to Washington.” He alerted and roused the press. And he managed, through a
congressman, to gain access to Lincoln, who “turned out to have no
knowledge whatsoever of the order, for it had not reached Washington.”
Here is an excerpt from the overblown conversation Kaskel claimed to have
had with Lincoln:
Lincoln: “And so the children of Israel were driven from the happy land of
Canaan?”
Kaskel: “Yes, and that is why we have come unto Father Abraham’s bosom,
asking protection.”
Lincoln: “And this protection they shall have at once.”
The real effects of Grant’s action took the form of similarly extreme,
sometimes hyperbolic responses from American Jews. Suddenly everything
about them, including the question of exactly what “American Jews” means
in terms of allegiance, was part of the debate. Mr. Sarna delivers a
careful, warts-and-all accounting of the ugliness surrounding all sides of
this incident, right down to quoting the fearful, competitive, even
hostile attitude some Jews held toward newly freed slaves. Lincoln’s
Emancipation Proclamation had arrived on Jan. 1, 1863, right between the
enforcement and revocation of Grant’s order.
“Historians, understandably, have played down this fear, not wishing to
besmirch the reputations of some of American Jewry’s most illustrious
leaders whose words, in retrospect, are painful to read,” Mr. Sarna
writes.
“Painful” is an understatement.
One of the most egregious came from Isaac Leeser, editor of The Occident,
a Jewish publication: “Why are tears shed for the sufferings of the
African in his bondage, by which his moral condition has been immensely
improved, in spite of all that may be alleged to the contrary, whereas for
the Hebrews every one has words of contempt or acts of violence?”
But it is the long-range repercussions of Grant’s order, and the Jews’
enduring anger about it, that prompt the most disturbing aspects of Mr.
Sarna’s story. When Grant ran for president in 1868, his treatment of Jews
became campaign fodder for Democrats seeking to defeat him. The Jewish
vote was not numerically large enough to sway the election; still, the
issue became highly inflammatory. Vengeful rhetoric against Grant sounds
even worse now than it did at the time, as in “General Grant and the
Jews,” a pamphlet that threatened that Jews would vote “as a class,” just
as Grant had described them:
“We are numerous, we are wealthy, we are influential, we are diffused over
the whole continent, we are as one family; wherever our influence reaches,
every Jew — no matter of what political party — every Jew, with the voters
he can command, will endeavor to defeat, and with God’s blessing, will
defeat you!” This argument is an anti-Semite’s dream. It may also be an
anti-Semite’s handiwork, since the pamphlet was ascribed to a pseudonymous
author and signed “A Jew.”
Grant had a legitimate some-of-my-best-friends-are-Jewish case to make. He
appointed Jews to some prominent positions in his administration. He also
inveighed on behalf of human rights when Jews in Russia and Romania were,
like those from Paducah, threatened with expulsion. And he attended the
dedication of a synagogue in Washington, surprising other attendees by
sitting through a three-hour ceremony. Grant also let it be known that his
original order “would never have been issued if it had not been
telegraphed the moment it was penned, and without reflection.”
Mr. Sarna’s book is part of a prestigious series matching prominent Jewish
writers with intriguingly fine-tuned topics. (Also published or
forthcoming: “Burnt Books,” “Judah Maccabee,” “The Dairy Restaurant” and
“Mrs. Freud.”) One of the book’s purposes is to put the Grant episode into
its proper context. To that end Mr. Sarna places undue emphasis on the
narrow question of whether Grant ultimately “earned” the support and
forgiveness of Jews. But he also asks how any voter balances self-interest
with patriotic conviction if the two are at odds — as they were when the
General Grant who expelled Jewish citizens became Candidate Grant,
courting Jewish votes for the presidency.
“No final decision ever resolved this debate,” he writes.


Lee Perlman
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Dagbladet: Norwegian Police apprehended the Jews

April 6, 2012
By McGonagall

Lifted from Dagbladet

Many Norwegian police officers got away with impunity from their participation in the extermination of the Norwegian Jews. - Now the time is ripe to clear the air and review the action of the Norwegian Police Authorities, says Per Ole Johansen.

ASBJØRN SVARSTAD
asva@dagbladet.no

(Dagbladet): Many testimonies stink of ”esprit de Corps”, Per Ole Johansen says, the professor of criminology at the University of Oslo, who for the last five years has gone studied the documents pertaining the investigations and trials of 230 members of the Norwegian State Police. He wanted to look into how the elite of the country’s police officers gave evidence immediately after the war – and when they gave testimony in court as defendants.
Covered each other
- The pattern is that everybody covered over each other afterwards. This is one of the reasons why very few police officers were convicted of having participated in the rounding up and deportation of Norwegian Jews to Poland – where nearly all were murdered in the gas chambers, says Johansen.
- The Germans wanted of course no big commotion and unrest in the population, when the order came in November 1942 that all Norwegian Jews were to be detained and jailed – or deposited directly on the quay in Oslo. So everything went much quieter and simpler, when it was Norwegian sheriffs or police officers who executed the order – and not the Hird or the German Gestapo.
Zealous in the service
The State Police was responsible for the organization – and the staff participated actively in detention. The documents show how some officers put unusual zeal into fulfilling the order. Afterwards, they were believed when they claimed that they had no choice – or that they had no concept of what was going on. The comparison of the 230 criminal cases of post-war years has offered an amazing wealth of documentation.
- There was a very blatant disinformation. Police officers who themselves were not indicted, met in court and gave very positive testimony of colleagues who had been landed in the dock. The defendants could reconcile their testimonies with each other and the witnesses made statements that were similar in wording so similar that it could only be learned in advance. This pattern runs through all the way, says Johansen.
It took no more than a few years before the horror that had befallen the Jews was pushed into the background, he says.
Creating an image of Norway
- It was important to create an image of Norway and Norwegians during the war, where it was the Germans and the Nazis who exterminated the Jews. Although the Norwegian policemen had robbed the persons of their homes, money and identification, they were believed when they said that they had no inkling of the fate that awaited the Jews when they arrived at Auschwitz. The courts assumed that the crime was committed by the Germans who received the Jews on the Oslo dock – and not by those who had actually given the Jews over, says Johansen.
- The mass murder of 762 people had for decades only been mentioned passing in the great works of history about the war. The survivors themselves were so traumatized that they were not talking about the disaster – much less had the power to search for the culprit. For the national self-image it was most convenient that no Norwegians were convicted of complicity in the killing of the deportees, says the professor.
Refused to speak
- The fact that Norwegian police officers who had been members of the Nazi party and even participated in the persecution of jews were allowed to continue inservice, left the Norwegian police riddled bitter rivalry and hate for many years. The bitterness was particularly strong among those who had been detained for resistance work, and even sent to prison camps in Germany. People who were in the State Police during the war, and some of the people I contacted in the 1980′s reacted aggressively and dismissive of questions regarding their own personal history.
- Now almost all the time witnesses have died. Perhaps the time has come for us to study our history – and see how terribly wrong it actually went with this part of the Norwegian police, who chose collaboration instead of opposition? asks Per Ole Johansen.
- It was not just the notorious police inspector Knut Røed who got away scot free. His colleagues from the State Police too – with very few exceptions – were let off free. And none of them seem to understand that they themselves had made up all the little wheels in the system –and were just as important as those at the top who gave the orders. In reality, they participated in a genocide, says Per Ole Johansen.
- National trauma
- Norwegians’ active participation in the genocide is in fact not a topic that will just disappear. Young people growing up, will examine how this was possible.This is a national trauma that we can no longer continue to sweep under the carpet, says Professor Per Ole Johansen.

karl linnas fam as DPis

as it goes by local story tellers : parents of this nazi henchmen from tartu, est. were murdered by che-ka jude commissars. was extradated to the sov.un 1987

sister - Frau Karulas geb. Linnas 

linnas receives some kind firefigther's diploma
indicated as summer 1944

 linnas with daughter - DPis

herr&frau karulas - geb. linnas with her - karl linnas parents. DPis

all from herder institut karl hintzer sammlung

Holocaust denial in decline, says historian

Holocaust denial is slowly becoming a thing of the past, according to a leading authority who claims there are only three or four "pure denial experts".Dr Nicholas Terry, founder of the anti-denial blog Holocaust Controversies, told a Leicester University conference that denial these days has "great brand recognition, but almost zero customers".Dr Terry, a historian at Exeter University, said: "My assessment is that there have been around 100 authors since the 1940s who have written what can be considered pure denial books or pamphlets. "Most of these experts are now either dead or inactive. It's down to only three or four authors who are capable of writing such books."He said there are another 100 cheerleaders or propagandists who talk down the Holocaust but without contributing original ideas. These include Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and 500 "footsoldiers" who are active online.The reason for the decline in experts is "generational", he said. "The big names of the eighties and nineties are mostly over 60. Very few under-60s are stepping up to replace them. He said the Irving-Lipstadt case in 2000, where David Irving lost a libel suit against author Deborah Lipstadt for calling him a denier, had "severely downsized" the movement. He said the hearing led to the suspension of the Journal of Historical Review, the movement's former flagship, and the withdrawal from activity of many experts. He also said that web traffic for denier forums was small. Other conspiracy theories have been more prevalent in the past 10 years, particularly since 9/11. But Dr James Smith, chairman of the Beth Shalom Holocaust Centre, warned of the continuing danger. "The problem is, even after professional Holocaust deniers have died, their published material remains in circulation, is available on the internet and remains as pernicious and dangerous as ever," he added. Mark Gardner, of the Community Security Trust, said that while legal action in many countries had limited the growth of Holocaust denial,

"as a global issue", he added: "We need to pay serious attention to denial throughout the Muslim world; and forms of denial in the ex-Soviet bloc."



THE JEWISH CHRONICLE ONLINE

How clean are the countries that do not recognize Israel?

There is a fairly reliable index of corruption in the various countries of
the world, the Corruption Perception Index, according to which the
"cleanest country" (New Zealand) is rated 9.5, and the lowest (Somalia) is
rated 1.0. The average country receives a score of 5 or 6.
Now, of the 192 members of the UN, Israel has diplomatic relations with
156. The remaining 36 governments refuse to have such relations with
Israel, some more vociferously than others. Quite a few go so far as to
deny that Israel exists at all. The full story is told here
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_Israel].
As it happens, the countries that refuse to have diplomatic relations with
Israel are, by and large, among the most corrupt in the world, some having
a cleanliness score of no more than 1 or 1.5 out of ten. The average
rating for these refusal countries is 3.16. (The US has a score of 7.1,
Israel 5.8). Below are the scores of all the 36 governments that refuse
to deal with Israel:


Afghanistan 1.50
Algeria 2.90
Bahrain 5.10
Bangladesh 2.70
Bhutan 5.70
Bolivia 2.80
Brunei 5.20
Chad 2.00
Comoros 2.40
Cuba 4.20
Djibouti 3.00
Guinea 2.20
Indonesia 3.00
Iran 2.70
raq 1.80
Kuwait 4.60
Lebanon 2.50
Libya 2.00
Malaysia 4.30
Mali 2.80
Mauritania 2.40
Morocco 3.40
Nicaragua 2.50
Niger 2.50
North Korea 1.00
Oman 4.80
Pakistan 2.50
Qatar 7.20
Saudi Arabia 4.40
Somalia 1.00
Sudan 1.60
Syria 2.60
Tunisia 3.80
United Arab Emirates 6.80
Venezuela 1.90
Yemen 2.10






average 3.16