Episode 1347: The Trial of Adolf Eichmann - Pt. 1 - w/ Thomas777

through Patreon. You can also subscribe on my website which is right there, gum Road and what's the other one, subscribe Star and if you do that, you will get access to the audio file. So head on over to the pekan Yonashow dot com. You'll see all the ways that you can support me there. And I just want to thank everyone. It's because of you that I can

put out the amount of material that I do. I can do what I'm doing with doctor Johnson on two hundred Years Together and everything else, the things that Thomas and I are doing together on condinal philosophy, it's all because of you. And yeah, I mean, I'll never be able to thank you enough. So thank you. The Pekanyonashow dot com. Everything's there. I want to welcome everyone back

to the Peking yonas show Thomas is back. We're going to take a little bit of a detour, as we do very often, to talk about a subject that's spent at the forefront of Thomas's mind recently, the que unquote trial of Adolf Eichman. So Thomas take it away, please.

third Reichen revisionism. It came up because I was talking to Burden and he was talking about how odd it is that not just formal representatives of Lekud, but apologists for Israel all in Sundry, and even people aren't Jewish, they speak of Israel as being synonymous with the Jews as a people, and they talk about Israel as being the formal instantation of the which people at international law. And that's not just a colloquialism or some odd convention

that developed over time for ideological reasons. That's very much coded into the world system, and that was put to the A lot of things are put to the test with the trial of ad Off Aikman, including this sort of special dispensations Israel has at international law, and it also it also had the force of solidifying and establishing as precedent for all time this anti fascist convention whereby people can be held into court for allegedly having been

involved in what's declared to be what was unilaterally declared to be criminal acts and in the service of the acts powers. And there was weird intrigues around Eikman and his apprehension, and he was something of an odd target, you know, to be clear. And Hannah Rent gets into this. Her book I Come in Jerusalem is a mixed bag. I'm the one that's very critical of Israel and it's not and it's bliger refueled to a observed due process. But in the other there's some weak spots of it.

And it was very much written for a mass audience, and it was very much written according to the convention of political correctness of that time, which was the ear Lane sixties. Remember people who think political correctness just appeared one day in nineteen ninety or something. They don't understand this country. Okay,

it was around before any of us were born. And I judge it particularly contra both the origins of Sotalitarianism, which is a really great book, and the titles misleading that's actually not what it's about at all, you know, and it very much has to do with the deep sociology of how and why this has profound enmity developed between the Jewish minority in Europe and and you know European people, particularly as the nation state deteriorated in favor

of supernational structures, you know, as a superpower error emerged. And that's an important point that's not well understood, particularly in America, even by historians or somewhat critical of mainstream narratives. The meaning that Third Reich was that it was a

pan European tendency. The whole point of it was to create a new order whereby Europe became a superpower and that process that gave rise to, you know, the the establishment of the Third Reich and the Soviet Union, and that you know, in historical capacities, allowed the United States to martialists resources into an incredible degree of power projection

aside of the scene. That was the approximate cause of this horrendous violence that, to be clear, emerged from both sides, you know, between Jews and Germans, and Jews and Russians, and ultimately, you know, Zionists turned their violent attentions to darl Islam and the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, and that that's actually very much an earned nolty point that Hana Rent made and that's no surprise because you know, she was a heightier accolade, just like Ernstnulty was, you know,

and they absolutely crossed paths. How close or they were, you know, it is questionable. I don't believe they're particularly friendly, but they definitely shared epistemological assumptions and things. But that's that's why this is important. And to understand the present situation, you've got to understand the Kman trial as precedent, because the international military tribunal that committed at Nuremberg, that that established the configuration of the global regime's legal order that

was only finally fully realized in nineteen eighty nine. But the Aikman trial that established the special dispensations and you know, exclusive privileges of the Jewish state within that system, and that's not well understood. Not a lot is well understood about Iikman either. Obviously they needed some sort of figure to burn in verbial effigy, and because they're outside of you know, men who've served as general officers in the Vermachta of Offen SS. There wasn't you know, the Nationals,

his leadership didn't really exist anymore. They'd been executed or they died, so deciding Iikman, they what they hung on him. The label was he's the quote architect of the Holocaust. That's really really strange for all kinds of reasons, not the least of which Iikman was a fairly irrelevant person. He he was a young guy, you know, when the war ended, he was only about forty or he just turned forty one. He was born March nineteenth, nineteen oh six.

He'd his final rank was over stromb on Field, which was the SS equivalent of a lieutenant colonel in the NATO rank system. At base, he was a policeman and he served the r s h A, which was the right Secure TOMP, the Reichmane Security Office. He ended up becoming the chief of Department for BE four, which was

Jewish affairs. He'd come up initially through the SD and the Security Police as being assigned to spying on Freemasons and fraternal organizations that were considered to be subversive, which again was a pretty middling detail. And he was some sort of logistics savant he could that was a real strong suit. And that's what's remarkable about him. He had a genius for logistical planning and crunching the numbers in

his head. That entailed moving mass amounts of human beings and material as needed in under conditions of you know, war, peace time, and varying degrees of mobilization, and that owes to the Holocaust and narrative places of premium on well, these this moving around of populations at massive scale, These people are being delivered to their doom, and Eichman the savant was delivering them to their death and mass. So

that part of it makes sense. With this idea that he was this important personage in the German Reich is totally off base and just odd at to understand what is rank would have been, or i mean, his cloud or relative power within the executive of the the Reich. You know Himler was under Heinrich Mueller, who came eve known as Gestappo Muller, who's the head of the Gestapo.

Gestappo Mueller served directly under Ryinod Heydrich, who was chief of the SD and the chief of the RSHA and after he was murdered, Ernst Carlton Berner came into the role. Heidrich and the later kalten Berner served under Himmler. Himmler technically was second only to Hitler because he was the reichs Farrss. But Hitler and Himmler were not close. They weren't friends. They didn't socialize, They seldom saw each other.

They're you know, they didn't associate socially. Himler was a bit of a loose cannon who Hitler reviewed as being radically dedicated to the cause. He was an old fighter, he'd been at Munich in ninety twenty three. He'd come up through Rohm's Free Corps. So his credentials spoke for themselves in terms of his willingness to sacrifice for the party. But you know that that was it. There wasn't a

personal relationship to speak between Hitler and Himler. This idea that this idea that Aikman was some approximate to the fur had great power. That's that that that doesn't make any sense. That'd be that'd be like taking some kind of random career homely in security man and declaring that he's the actual power behind Donald Trump or something. You know, I'm just for context that it doesn't really make any

sense what I believe happened with Aikman. And this is pretty well substantial by this point by people who want to dig into the record. Ikeman after the war, like a lot of people who'd served the Access Powers, and not just Germans, but Italians, Croas, Japanese, Slovaks, you know, all manner of people, they found a new home in Latin America, particularly Argentina. But Argentina also is a very European coded place culturally, and the Prone government was very

friendly to National Socialists, as was the Strassner government. So after the war, Iikman, just by virtue was a membership in the SS and you know, particularly the RSHJ meant that he would be a wanted man, but it wasn't really a private He wasn't really anybody's radar for years. Then what happened was there's the publication of what came

to be known as the Aikman Papers. Now this came about because in Argentina there's a man named Wilhelm Sassen who came to know Iikman, and he also probably came to know Mengola personally, Mengol is a lot more sympathetic of a figure than Iikman in my opinion, because he Mengela literally got transformed into this into this horror movie monster by propaganda. It's totally totally bizarre. And Mengola drowned when he was swimming as an elderly man and his

identity wasn't confirmed for some years. But so, I mean, he he escaped the vengeance of the Jewish state and of the Justice Department's OSI, but I'm sure he didn't have a happy way where he was living out his twilight years. But because it may the deal with wil Hum Sassen billm. Sassen was that he was a Flemish National Socialist and from Holland, and he joined the s S as a as a work correspondent and as a as a Dutch language propagandist on behalf of the the

NSD A p and Uh. He was on deck with documenting a lot of antipartisan action, so he witnessed some pretty severe stuff and he may have he may have participated in it in a direct action capacity. You know, I'm talking about mass shootings and non combatants and the kind of stuff that was common to the ost front on both sides. But Sasen he was an incredibly shady guy and he was almost certainly some kind of intelligence asset for the boond this Republic or British intelligence or

the CIA. You know, he probably did this for cynical reasons. He it's hard to imagine a man like him having any principles. But what Sassen did was he Eikman was kind of a naive person. He was almost autistic by all accounts. Sassen befriended Aikman and he said, I want to I want to help you draft your memoirs because you were an important man who was witnessed to history, and you know, we need to set the record straight.

So what was produced was this six hundred pages of documents, which is mostly conversations between Sassen and Eichman about the war years, about the structure of the ss ON on the SD side and the r SAHA side, which at then at that point was little known. There wasn't much written about it, and the men who'd served the organization were very secretive about it. And within the pages of this testimonial, Aikman says some pretty incriminating stuff but not

of the sort that people might think. And what Sasen did was he proceeded to sell these pages to a Life magazine, obviously without Aikman's knowledge. And then subsequently, what's you know what lands like a bomb in English speaking media markets On the front page of Life magazine is this picture of Aikman in his SS uniform and in bold letters to interview with the devil, the architect of the Holocaust. And so suddenly Eichman is on people's radar

and sausted all but disclose exactly where Aikman lived. And to be clear, Aikman, to his credit, he was still married to his wife, you know, who he'd brought with him. He actually had a young child, you know, who arrived late in life, you know, and he was working as some sort of office job. I think he was working as an accountant for some small machine firm or something, you know, and living in the Buenos Aire suburbs, just

kind minding his own business, you know. I mean, he was living under an alias, but it's not like he was under deep cover or something. And when when this kind of entered the public mind, you know, very suddenly the question became, why is this man free. Why isn't he facing justice? You know this, this man is the

most evil personal life. He he was the architect of the Holocaust, you know, so very, so very quickly this became a priority of them, SAD two capture him and avail him to a show trial, but first and foremost to interrogate him and and sort of fill in the

gaps of what they wanted to know. And during the Cold War, and you know, all information of this sort was valuable, even though it might not seem so to a layman, but also if you're somebody engaged with the historical process, whether as a secret policeman or an intelligence agent, or a military man, or just a nobody kind of documentarian like me, this is a valuable score a person like Eikman. And what's interesting is Simon Wisenthal, who has

proven to be a total liar. I'm not talking about what he alleged about events in World War Two, although that obviously wasn't credible either, but he made a whole career out of making up stories about being involved in capturing these Third Reich figures. And he claimed that he located Iikman. That's complete nonsense. He He'senthal was that nobody who built a career on bullshit and presenting himself as as some sort of Frederick Forsyke novel character. You know,

this was completely confabulated. And like I said too, Iikman wasn't really hiding number one and number two such that he was under light cover. That was all over by the time Sasen sold his testimony to Life magazine. So on the evening of May eleven, nineteen sixty Iikeman, you know, is on his way home from work like any other night, and he gets grabbed by Masad operatives, you know, thrown into a car, subdued with some kind of drug. You know.

Nine days later, he's been flown to Israel and thrown in a jail cell when a veiled to interrogation for the next eleven months, and on April eleven, nineteen sixty one, he found himself in district court in Jerusalem, being arraigned on fifteen counts, including the allegation that, together with co conspirators, he committed crimes against the Jewish people, as well as crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the usual litany of charges. At first solid of the day at the International Military

tribunal a decade and a half prior. But what was significant and what was novel, was this claim that Aikman had offended against the Jewish people as a people, and that Israel was the the jury representative at international law of the Jewish people as as an ethnos or as a confessional and sectarian community and as a matter of law. That's problematic, and interestingly, a lot of these Jewish organizations in America, in the Bunue Republic, in the UK this

wasn't the case. But a lot of these American Jewish mngos said, wait, wait, wait a minute. You know, the government in Tel Aviv is isn't the representative of all Jewish people. That's that's not the way we want to proceed, and that's probably not even legally cognizable, you know, this idea that like that to be clear too, that the claim of the Jewish state in this context, it wasn't that they govern in Tel Aviv is the representative of

Jewish people the nation of Israel. The claim was that it literally was the representative of the Jewish people as the Jewish people on this planet, whatever their nation of origin and whatever language they speak. And if you with specific intent to harm the Jews as a people, offend against them. Their legal representation. The their legal representative as a matter of law is the Jewish State, and they can stand in for the Jewish diaspora as a matter

of law. And like bern and I were talking about, this is why when these you know, it's not just wackos like Mark Levin or extremists biggests like Dershowitz, when these people claim that if you're attacking the Jewish State, you're engaged in anti Semitism. That's not just a colloquialism or a polemical device. They're saying, as a matter of law, if you're opposing the Jewish State, you're opposing the Jewish people. And if you're opposing the Jewish people, you're doing it

out of some kind of insidious prejudice. Because the reason why this arrangement exists and why they're permitted these defensive structures that lack precedent and incomparable iterations with respect to other populations, is because the Jewish people are uniquely susceptible to violence from others. So there's a whole set of epistemic priors. And I'm not offering legitimacy to this perspective

because it's insane. But the reason why these polemicists invoke that conceptual vocabulary is for this reason, and that's important understand. And world opinion, I mean, obviously excluding the East Bloc, but you know, during the Cold War, it was the opinion of the free world, that is what was considered valid precedent. And then when the wall came down, obviously that became global president everybody in the Free world, as

it was called. I mean, there were objections here and there, particularly among some carely sing with personages, but there wasn't some formal protest from the Bond government or from the London government, or from Washington or something. So that's just what stood, you know. Iikeman pled not guilty to each count, but he qualified it. He said, I'm not guilty in the sense of the indictment, and interestingly, the judge didn't

initially question him what he meant by that. Iikman's lawyer, abiding the same convention as Nuremberg and the Doctout trials, Iikman was allowed to select counsel of his choice, and the Israeli government paid him for his time and flew him out there but that's really where due process ended, just like a Nuremberg. But Iikeram his lawyer was a man named Robert Servadis, who is native the Cologne, and

he was a heavy hitter. But what he explained to the court later when the court asked, what did your client mean by this, Servadis said, Aikman feels guilty before God, but not before the law. And whatever Iikman did or whatever he ordered, first of all, Servadis said, Iikman didn't murder anybody. Ikman's never murdered a Jewish person or a non Jewish person or any person. So he objected on

substance of grounds to Iikman being accused of murder. If you wanted to accuse him of conspiracy, fine, will fight that charge. But produced one instance, produce any inculinary evidence, documentary or direct testimonial, anything else of Iikman murdering anybody. And interestingly, the court the prosecution tried to do that and they couldn't. What they came up with was during the occupation of what's now Serbia and parts of Boston, Herzegovina abudding, what was the ndah Iikeman as an sd man.

It was within his purview to be responsible. That leaves in a you know, at least in the capacity of at least in the advisory capacity on how to how to handle anti partisan efforts. So there's a memo that Aikman signed off on incidents to the minutes of a meeting where he suggested continuing a policy a decimation where

for every German soldier killed, hostages would be murdered. You know, the hostages in the instant case being ethnic Serbs and Jews who were presumed to be sympathetic to the Chetniks and the Communists. And that was what they came up with, saying, see, Eichman was capable of murder at least capable of it, which was trivial in the context, not just because of the gravity of what they were alleging, but you know

it it suggests a real it. So just that even within the arbitrary parameters of the court in Jerusalem where a show trial was being held. In the purest sense, Servadis was a serious guy. He attacked where he could, and he made the prosecution what foolish where he could. But to bring it back, Iikman's position was that anything he did or didn't do in his role as an over stump and field of the SS serving the s

D in ther Sha. These were acts of state, So healing him into court for murder and grants of acts of state would be like hailing Curtis LeMay into court and charging him with one hundred thousand counts of murder for firebombing Tokyo. And as Servadas said, mister Aikman is here because he committed acts for which you are decorated if you win, and you go to the gallows if you lose, which was true, which is why as well, this sort of narrative of the Vansi conference becomes so relevant.

That wasn't particularly emphasized here, but what was is very interesting, and I can get into that in terms of the evidence presented, both particularly direct testimony. But the way that the International Military Tribunal fifteen years before had gotten around this challenge was, as I think we've discussed in earlier episodes, they alleged, well, this wasn't a normal government and these

weren't act committed pursuing to exigencies of war. This was a criminal conspiracy and from inception, the raison detra of the German Reich was to murder the Jewish race, and that's really the only reason it existed. And the Van Si Conference was the formalization of that intended purpose, manifest as a conspiracy by key actors in the executive branch of the National Socialist Party state. That's an incredibly specious argument, and in the normal court, I don't even think you

would be admissible. Generally, I'm not gonna bore everybody with evidentiary rules and the nuances generally at criminal law, and there are I'm saying generally, because there's nuances every state, and then there's the federal system too, But generally what is admissible is evidence of plan, motive, design, in choate aspects that relate to intent. That removes it from being categorically treated as propensity evidence, which is almost always excluded.

But to extrapolate that convention and say, well, there was this meeting, and this meeting is demonstrative of the fact that the cordiological purpose of a state government was to carry out a criminal act at massive scale, owing to

nothing beyond malice and perverse moral frailty. You know, like I said, I can't it's hard me to put myself in the position of a judge, because I really don't have any respect for judges, and I agree with what Oliver Wendell Holmes Junior said, judges rendered decisions based on the political climate and a little else. At the same time, I'd be curious as to how an argument like that would be structured. Assuming it was, you know, an issue of first impression, I'd probably let it pass. But I

I've got sympathy for the devil, you know. But that's uh, you know, this is highly significant. It's not it's not just a question of lawyer ball and word games. And Aikman's trial was a show trial in two sentss was a show trial in the obvious since and that it

was ideological theater who passed off as jurisprudence. But also this was the days of international news, you know, so people weren't seeing live what was happening in Jerusalem because in nineteen sixty one there weren't these the satellite feeds that facilitated that wasn't perfected yet. And then a few years later when it was, it was it was an arduous process. It was Elvis's Aloha from Hawaii that I it was one of the first mass broadcast satellite events

all of this planet. But on the evening news people were seeing footage from I coming on trial, and legal experts were weighing in on what was happening, you know, And that's substantially that's that's a whole different animal then going to the movie theater in ninety forty seven saying movie tote news clips of of you know, they're five seconds long of Herman gearing on the stand, when you

can't even hear his testimony. There's just you know, a voiceover as it were, you know, offering color or proffering color commentary. So there was the Jerusalem Court had a tougher road to hoe. And also Iikman was the only

defendant on deck. It couldn't the bait and switch wasn't possible whereby you know, if if the prosecuting attorney was best at on you know, by a witness, they could shift their attention to a weaker link and the proverbial chain the leg was possible at at Nuremberg and we had to talk on stuff, you know, so they that too. And also the social engineering regime hadn't I mean, yeah, a lot of New Deal propaganda had had an incredibly toxic effect, and already and American public opinion had been

substantially warped. But this process hadn't really come to fruition yet. And there's a lot of people who either on to social prejudice or because they were politically sophisticated, didn't particularly like Jews, didn't like the state of Israel, didn't think particularly considering that the Cold War was absolutely raging then that World War two is some great thing. So there was something of a delicate minuet here. And back then,

unlike today, Zionis propaganda was pretty sophisticated. It wasn't You didn't have him noxious idiots like Mark Levin running around acting like some their Sturmer caricature. You know, it's pretty slickly presented. And if you get on YouTube, I'll try and put together what I think are sort of key

clips that are available on the Kland trail. Obviously, these guys and these women were kind of out front representing these really government like a lot of them have heavy European or Middle Eastern accidents, but they're well put together. They I mean, they look ethnic, but they don't look particularly alien. You know, it was very it was clear that like who they selected to be on camera, things like that. You know, obviously they're trying to telegraph See,

these are people like you. They're they're they're respectable white people who share the same habits you do. They they just have a different religion. You know, all of that.

like that. You know that, That's what I meant. Yeah, the this uh, the sort of cycling of elite from the Jewish state to America and the deep interdependence there. You know, we were talking about earther with a fella. It's like why why why are IDF people training you know, the Minneapolis Police Department. You know, I mean stuff like that. It's really very very on the nose. But I and what's interesting too, this I'll bring it back because this is truly tangential. But you know, the on the nose.

culture of the zion Of State. You there weren't a lot of those guys, And I find that interesting mostly down I can't remember. He might have had a similar background, but it's the exception. You know. I just find that kind of thing interesting. Most people would probably find that apurplete nothing. But in any event, uh Ikman had uh he had more support than people might think. You know, and again, Ikman the man, he didn't come out as picking a villainous. He came off as kind of nerdy

and almost a caricature of the meticulous German. But you know, he at the same time, he didn't come off as particularly sympathetic or charismatic either. There's a very well renowned French attorney Ramone and Ramon Jeffree. I'm probably butchering that pronunciation. But he was a really interesting guy, and he was a true advocate in the sense that is supposed to characterize the men who sit at bar as defense council. He defended a bunch of there's a there's a right

wing fascist militia in France. That was some of these guys were on the side of the Reich. Some of them weren't. They were sort of like their ideology was sort of like the action Francis had been under morass, but obviously the action of Francie didn't have a direct action capability. But these guys, uh, these guys are real bomb throwers. And I mean basically they were odds with with both most of them odds with the Reich and the Allies. Obviously, but some of them are, you know,

national socialists. Jeffrey came to the defense of these guys and defended many of them pro bono, and he made the case in the court of world opinion, which is an important point, not just in terms of the due process of his clients in the era, but as a matter of historical fact. There was no VC France. There was France. It's the government in VCI was the government of France. Batan had massed support. De Gaulle had no support. And this idea that Batan with some client of Adolf

Hitler Baton. I don't know how many times Batan met Adolf Hitler once and but for our purposes, I mean, that's a discussion another day. I've written some about that, but I don't think we're ever discussed it on your platforms. But Jeffree, that was the crux of his defense was not not just of these fascist partisans in the UH you know, prior to the prior to the ascendency the Batan government and the capitulation to the Germany, but the

guys who served the Baton's regime. You know how you can't you can't bring these guys up on charges for treason when they were serving the government of France at war. That's perverse as a matter of law. And this idea that there's a man in exile and de Gaulle, who nobody'd ever heard of, who is quite literally a client of a foreign power, declaring himself to be the rightful

president of France. You know, that's that's absurd. And Jeffree was respected as a one of the pre eminent legal minds in Europe, and he'd actually sat in an advisory capacity and the Allied Control Council during uh the Nuremberg trials and then subsequent. His old point was there wasn't there was anither personal nor subject matter jurisdiction over Eichmann if he's a the state of Israel. And he said, even if there was, Israel had a claim to jurisdiction.

The correct way to proceed, according to convention and international law can ever be compulsory, because that's a logical fallacy, among other things. But convention is the source of legitimacy, particularly we're talking about penal jeopardy, where you know, somebody's on trial for their life, but also just in terms

of due process with respect to any course authority. You know, the correct protocol would have been to appeal to Argentina for extradition, and the Israeli rebuttal was that, well, Argentina famously refuses to extradite people. Okay, well, why is Israel have jurisdiction over the man of the subject matter? Anyway, there was no Jewish state between ninety and thirty three

and ninety forty five, and a state. First of all, you can't you can't be held liable for committing a for committing crimes against an ethnic group or a race, even if that were possible. Israel isn't the representative of Jewish people the jury for all time. And finally, venue matters. The alleged offenses were committed in Poland and Belarus, in Ukraine and Russia. You know why why is an Iikman being hailed into court in Poland? You know? No, none

of this is precedented. None of this can be rationalized by appeal to precedent or common sense, you know. And finally, Jeffree didn't emphasize this as strongly as Aikman's council did. But Jeffree said, do we really want to start talking about where the ex of state doctrine ends and where

a liability for homicide begins. When you know, the Israeli state was founded quite literally in mass ethnic cleansing, and the US Department of Justice has proffered the equivalent of an amica'st curate on behalf of the Jerusalem Court for this back to their prosecution of Iikman. When this is the same government, that being the isaaia's government that wage nuclear war against Japanese civilians, you know, that raises some questions that people probably don't want to address in these terms.

But again, the rebuttal was was an appeal to conceptual prejudices and epistemic priors about the unique and vulnerable situation of the Jewish people and the existential threats they face based on immutable traits that they possess and irrational animosity that culminates in homicidal programs periodically. There's a whole series of assumptions one must accept in order to consider the

Israeli case for jurisdictions overre Aikmen to be legitimate. But again, the Aikman trial was the litmus test of these things, and that's why it's significant and arguably in discrete terms of respect to the fortunes of the Jewish state. It's absolutely more significant than the Nuremberg Trial. Obviously the former facilitated the latter, but this is basically the appeal. This is what's being relied upon when you hear about the special status of the Jewish state or the right to

exist of a Jewish state. This is what it's relying upon. So I assume people who are into my content don't do things like ask questions like why does this matter? Because you wouldn't. You wouldn't be interested in this as a terror if you had those sorts of objections to it. But if anybody is on deck harbors those concerns, well, this is why it matters. Okay, this is why it's contextually significant and very concrete capacities, not just as some

sort of curiosity. And that's you know, and that that so that goes to show too. I mean, I can't imagine, I mean these days you that there wouldn't you wouldn't find uh a man who had the kind of prestige of Jeffrey taking such a position contu the Jewish State. I mean, you'll find Europeans who, to their credit, the attack the Jewish state for you know, it's uh, it's it's racialism, and it's uh, it's hostility to other populations

and the category violence that avails them too. But that's that's mostly framed, uh as a matter of you know, appeal to Nuremberg logic or the or the purported hypocrisy of the Jewish state. It's really sort of a token objection. I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm not I'm not going to be down on people if they're standing up for our comrades in Palestine or Iran or anywhere else. But I I think you know what I mean, it's it's it's a fundamentally different scope and character, and the

motivations are different. The the prosecution also, they had they had a problem because initially what they were relying upon, they were relying upon the direct testimony of people who had been in German concentration camps, and this testimony was contradictory relative to the factual record. Witnesses were contradicting each other. There were people testifying about things such as gas chambers

at the ravens Brook or Dachal. And even then, even within the narratives that were extant and considered to be historical as well as legal. President. It was stipulated that you know, there weren't gas chambers at ravens Brook and things. Obviously, Two, there's the white elephant in the room. If there's a a witness declaring I was at, I was I was at, I was at death camp in Meate and this is what Eikman was directing. If you were at death camp in meat how are you here? I mean? But was

this the most incommon death camp? Ever? So the prosecution was charged with calling uh, witnesses who'd served in the SS and s D, the most prominent of whom are pretty obviously intelligence assets, are double agents to testify, you know, contra Iikman and seek to establish liability based on things like the Einstets group actions they themselves have participated in.

And these guys, uh just you know, there's been a similar they've been a similar litany of these sorts of witnesses called to testify against Rudolph Hoiss, who's the common aunt of Oustwitz Berkanhau. And it was the same kind of thing. You know, I these are the most evil men who ever lived in their liars, but you've got to trust them and relevant to this testimony. And this is honestly where a lot of these strange claims come from.

The claim specifically, you know, Hitler demanded that we reduced the population of Slavs to thirty million. Not a single person has ever said that written that alleged that other than this bizarre turncoat and probable double agent who testified against Iikman and somehow, despite admitting to participating in the murders of tens of thounds of people, was never indicted for any of these things, you know, and that this

is one example. Can see that parodied all the time on social media, or there'll be some midwid conservatives saying like, well, you you're saying it's okay to exterminate Slavs. You you

anti white horrible man who says that. Some some guy who's a paid witness against against against off Iikman, some guy who you know, was on the payroll of a secret intelligence service while he was a serving officer in the sd I, who is saying these things And you're just you're just supposed to accept this at face value or something. It's not just boomers either, I know, people

might just wave up like, oh, it's just just boomer people. Shit, No, I'm talking about like thirty year old guys who know better. And when they challenge them on these on these grounds, they'll say, first I'll say I'm an idiot. Then they'll say, quote, everybody knows this, and what do then mean? Who's everybody?

And what do they know? You know? So in the rock is deep and in some ways, as I said, at least uh in the present conditions, that being you know, life during wartime, you know, even talking heads son, I'm not making light of it. It's horrible that our Iranian comrades under assault, but they will prevail. But it's still it's in all the situations. Not being flippant about it, but that that's why I wanted to focus on Eichman, because I think many people don't know this because why

would they. I mean, I know about it because this is my this is might doing, my wife, These are my research concentrations. But I need to go another episode on this because I want to get into the case and chief against Eichmann and then we can return to a regular schedule of programming. If that's okay.

they made a lot of people mad. I got very limited distribution, but I remember when it came out, like Pacino would start is The Merchant of Venice around the same time, and al Pacina was awesome, Unlike unlike Faggott, Ritardo, Robert de Niro, like Pacino actually is an amazing actor, but he he played Shylock in The Merchant of Venice. You know, there's a there's kind of a mini Shakespeare revival in the very early two thousands, asn't she remember.

So Paccino was like Cardlai heat for, you know, making all these anti submitted movies. But yeah, I high recommend people. I know, it's a slow burn but it's it's really compelling. And you know that was just after there was months after nine to eleven and people who were asking difficult questions. To be delicate about it, we're absolutely being drowned out in this kind of sea of war fever and outrage and mourning. But there were fractures appearing in the facade and let me put it badly.