Zydokomuna Opposes ANY Polish State Friling

A Jewish Kapo in Auschwitz: History, Memory, and the Politics of Survival, by Tuvia Friling. 2014

Double Standards on Jews and Poles? Also: Jewish Communists Oppose a Polish State of Any Kind

I focus on the broad-based implications, which go far beyond the experiences of Auschwitz Kapo Eliezer Gruenbaum

JEWISH COMMUNISTS (THE ZYDOKOMUNA) WERE GENERALLY MORE ANTI-POLISH THAN EVEN STALIN

Eliezer Gruenbaum, a Communist himself, supported the resurrection of the Polish state after WWII, albeit as effectively a Soviet puppet state (which is what actually happened). Not so with other Jewish Communists. They did not want even THAT for Poles. Friling writes, “Most of his [Eliezer’s] Jewish friends maintained, as the Russians did, that Poland should become part of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and conducted their propaganda in accordance with this view.” (p. 128).

JEWISH POST-WWII LYNCHINGS OF THOSE JEWS WHO HAD COLLABORATED WITH THE NAZIS

While in Europe in late 1945, David Ben Gurion had witnessed the lynching of a Jew suspected of having been a Kapo. (p. 158). This was no fluke.

The following is in reference to Eliyahu Dobkin, a member of the Jewish Agency Executive, following a visit to the Displaced Persons camps, “In Munich he [Dobkin] was told about hundreds of Jews who had filled posts at various levels in the Nazi system and who had been murdered by fellow Jews immediately after liberation. One of the liquidators told him: ‘Three million Jews were killed in Poland, 70,000 Jews remain, and it will be no disaster if a few thousand less are left.’” (p. 228). [Readers: Now compare that with the big deal that is made, in academia and media, of several hundred (not thousands) of Jews killed by Poles, during postwar property disputes, in war-ravaged civil-war Poland.]

ACCUSED JEWISH KAPOS AND ACCUSED POLES AT JEDWABNE: A DOUBLE STANDARD ON THE ACCEPTANCE OF HEARSAY TESTIMONY

After a postwar trial in France, Auschwitz Kapo Eliezer Gruenbaum was acquitted of savagely beating Jewish inmates, and of sending them to the gas chambers. Author Friling tells why, “After this opening, Ballot declared that the three major prosecution witnesses, Pakin, Gebet, and Zylberstein, all admitted that they had not themselves seen Eliezer commit any of the crimes they accused him of. On top of that, Loberstein’s allegations were ‘confused’” (p. 161).

Now compare this with Poles and Jedwabne. When his NEIGHBORS hit the media, neo-Stalinist Jan T. Gross had been made into a great hero. Facts did not matter. NEIGHBORS had largely relied on the claims of Szmul Wasserstein, who had not been an eyewitness to any of the murderous events at Jedwabne! In other words, hearsay testimony was transformed into fact in the media courtroom. In addition, the Jewish Jedwabne narratives in the YITZKOR books (memorial books) was, using Friling’s words, very much “confused.”

“INSUFFICIENT” HEROIC BEHAVIOR AMONG JEWS AND AMONG POLES: ANOTHER DOUBLE STANDARD

Author Tuvia Friling quoted these sage comments with regards to Jewish conduct under the Nazis, “Moshe Ben-Ami (Sephardim) proposed to his colleagues that they keep in mind at least two principles in their discussion of the issue. First, ‘Do not judge your fellow until you have been in his place.’ Second, most humans are simple folk: ‘We are not talking about exceptional people,’ who are rare. The debate and the law should address the experience of the average person acting in history, since they are the overwhelming majority.” (pp. 234-235).

The informed reader can compare all this with perennial Jewish complaints that Polish rescuers of Jews were “so few”, and that “most Poles did nothing” to help the Jews (were bystanders, according to the standard Holocaustspeak). And never mind that Poles faced the death penalty for the slightest form of aid to fugitive Jews. The double standard on heroism is palpable.

1950s ISRAEL: INCULPATORY AND EXCULPATORY JEWISH VIEWS OF THE JUDENRAT

Author Friling comments, “These debates assumed polarities between the ghetto fighters and the Judenraete. A part of the Israeli public viewed the former as the only possible model of heroism and the latter as the acme of cowardice, Jewish supplication, and collaboration with the Nazis. Another part of the public believed that Judenrat members could also be heroes, doing all they could under impossible circumstances to save what Jews they could and maintain Jewish communal life under Nazi rule.” (p. 237).
.