The New York Times is Lying About the Holocaust to attack Russia and buttress Ukraine
The New York Times is Lying About the Holocaust to attack Russia and buttress Ukraine
By
David Gottfried
This was sung by Paul Robeson in Moscow in 1949. The words were inscribed by a Jewish Poet, who died at the age of 22 fighting the Nazis. The music was donated by the Red Army.
The New York Times of February 22, 2022 reached new heights of iniquity. In the course of libeling Russia and lionizing Ukraine, it turned the history of the Holocaust on its head, and it implicitly supported the Confederacy’s War against the Union and campaign to perpetuate slavery. However, perhaps I should “chill” because the New York Times has long held the record of being among the world’s most sniveling, cowardly progressives. The great and brave AIDS activist Larry Kramer noted that the Times disregarded AIDS in the beginning (Footnote 1). disregarded the Holocaust until the close of World War Two. and he realized that it was, essentially, a paper run by rich, “liberal” Park Avenue Jews who imagined that with the right mixture of decorum, delicacy and prissy discretion, they could pretend to be White Anglo-Saxon Protestants.
HOW THE NEW YORK TIMES’ CONCEPTION OF INTERNATOINAL LAW BUTTRESSES THE CONFEDERACY.
The New York Times held, on February 22, 2022, that Ukraine opted to secede from Russia and had every right to do so. Of course, it did not use the word secede. If it had used the “S” word, it would have reminded us of the Confederacy of the southern states of the United States.
The North held that the South was not entitled to break away from the union and almost all American scholars, today, claim that the North was quite correct to invade the south to maintain its control of the Southern States. The South called this “The War of Northern Aggression.” Interestingly enough, although America purports to believe in freedom and self-determination, it held that the South was not free to choose its own course and break away from the Union. The North ruled that the South had no right to choose its destiny even though absolutely nothing in the Constitution, or in any federal statutes, held that any or every state in the Union must stay in the union regardless of the wishes of that particular state. Therefore, it is entirely permissible to interpret the constitution as meaning that a state can walk away from the union. Nevertheless, Abraham Lincoln held that every state was perpetually tied to the Union, damned if its citizens wanted out. And today, almost all Americans, IN STALINOID UNIFORMITY, agree with Abraham Lincoln.
If Americans are so damn sure that the South was not free to break away from the Union, then Americans should also realize that Ukraine had no right to break away from Russia.
I actually agree with Abraham Lincoln, even though his position is legally indefensible. Very simply, I know that the law is not as important as doing that which is right. Fighting slavery was the moral imperative of the Civil War and that easily overrode and shot down legal arguments which are trivial things compared to justice.
Americans generally exalt and lionize the Law. That’s understandable because most Americans are not lawyers. Lawyers, like Talmudic scholars, know that the law can be manipulated and contorted into many different positions, many or most of which have nothing to do with advancing that which is good.
Traditionally, American jurists indulged in the fantasy that that which was legal was immutable, could be discerned with almost mathematical certainty and had nothing to do with political biases and personal ambition. This was the position promulgated by Harvard’s Professor Langdell, in the 19th century, and it held that you might not like a legal decision in which tenants had to pay back rent to a landlord even though their apartment building had burnt down and they had been homeless (The Case was in Massachusetts, the year was 1892, the landlord was a protestant and the tenants were Irish Catholics) but since it was a “legal decision” of a “Court of Law” it was invested of a certain impeccable logic that mere mortals who hadn’t gone to Harvard could not understand. (Footnote Two)
—
Russia had every right to recognize the Pro Russian Republics of Eastern Ukraine Just as America and the Soviet Union had every right to recognize the State of Israel
The New York Times holds that Russia committed a grave offense by recognizing the right of another nation to exist. It mirrors the malarky of Prez Biden who says that by recognizing states, Russia has appropriated unto itself something akin to a God-like power. As if G-d decreed what was a state. Biden speaks to us as if we are little children who fail to realize that states are born and die all the time and their life-spans are not determined in some super terrestrial heaven of Biden’s fanciful imagination but are the product of power politics.
Less than one hour after the State of Israel declared its existence, as a new state, in 1948, the United States and the Soviet Union both recognized the State of Israel. (And I am glad they did !)
In any event, since Biden and the New York Times thinks that Russia did a terrible thing by recognizing the Russophile states of the Donbass, do they believe that the recognition of the State of Israel was a mistake ?
—
How dare the New York Times contort the history of the Holocaust to besmirch the friends of Zion and to comfort her enemies.
The New York Times published an article, on February 22, 2022, which said that the Jews of Odessa are frightened. The article suggested that the Jews are afraid of a Soviet invasion because a Soviet Invasion could prompt a second Holocaust. Of course, if one read the article closely, one would know that they were afraid because given the exceptionally traumatic history of the region, and the tendency of almost all political factions to harbor paranoid fantasies that Jews are at the heart of every intrigue, plot and scandal, the Jews of Odessa fear that the conflict could re kindle anti Semetism; they certainly don’t believe that Russia’s enmity toward Ukrainian nationalism has anything to do with hostility toward Jewry.
However, most people who read the New York Times are no brighter than the people who read papers in Peoria, Illinois. Most people who read the New York Times merely skim news stories as they are primarily interested in fashion and how to be a proper bitchy, witchy New York show off, and so they will scrutinize those articles which will tell them how they should wear their scarfs, their satin dresses etc. They will read only enough of the aforementioned article to form one fallacious takeaway: I guess the Jews are worried because they fear that the big, bad Russians will bring a second Holocaust. This is how the Times is able to distort public opinion without being guilty of making any explicit lies: The body of an article by and large tells the truth; however, New York Times’ Headlines, and introductory paragraphs, contains the biases The Times wishes to propagate.
I once represented the Jasenovac Research Institute, an organization which researched and investigated Croation-Nazi persecution of Serbs, Jews and Roma people (gypsies) and the Croats construction and administration of the Jasenovac Concentration Camp. In the course of my work, I traveled to Belgrade and met a Serbian Jew, one Aleksander Mosic, who edified me about the political fault lines of Eastern Europe.
He told me that only two political movements mattered in Eastern Europe in World War Two: Fascism and Bolshevism. Ergo, any Jews who had any sense had to stand with the Communists and with the Soviet Union. We in the West may fancy that there can be a third way, or a moderate, decent, Democratic movement which may be free of the ideological poles of Moscow and Berlin, but in those days, Moscow and Berlin were the only forces that had any credibility.
Of course, after Poland fell to the panzers, there was something known as the Polish Home Army, and it was a “resistance” organization that allegedly was aligned with London, but it spent more time helping the Nazis hunt Jews than it did in fighting the Nazis. It looked the other way when the Nazis killed the Jews of the Warsaw ghetto. By contrast, the Polish People’s Guard , which was the Marxist underground resistance organization, sent a radiogram to Moscow beseeching the Soviets for support, and I read that Moscow did “attack” or “bombard” German positions besieging the ghetto (I don’t know if this is true and it would have been difficult for Moscow to send forces or drop bombs there as at that time the front was many hundreds of miles to the East; The Warsaw ghetto uprising began April 19, 1943 (The first night of Passover), and Leningrad, aka St. Petersburg, aka Petrograd, was under siege until January 1944.)
But back to Odessa. As I said, the New York Times said that the Jews of Odessa are worried about Russian incursions into Ukraine, attempting to foment the idea that Russia seeks to make war on the Jews.
The Jews of Odessa did suffer. They suffered because of Rumania and to a lesser extent Germans and Ukrainians.
Rumania was an ally of Hitler, and Rumanian soldiers occupied Odessa and slaughtered the Jews of Odessa.
Rumania is now in NATO, and as a Jew I don’t like the idea of NATO attempting to coddle Rumania, and I am wholly supportive of Putin’s condemnation of NATO’S incorporating, into its war machine, states that slaughtered Jews and Russians.
The Times article had little or nothing concrete to report regarding just what the Jews of Odessa endured. It might make sense to hunt for the cold, hard facts:
A) “The registration carried out by the Romanian administration in late 1941 counted about 60,000 Jews in Odessa. This number included persons having only one Jewish ancestor. Jews were required to wear a special distinctive badge, a yellow hexagram (Magen David, the Star of David, a symbol of Judaism) on a black background.
“On November 7, 1941, an order was issued, making it mandatory for all male Jews from 18 to 50 years old to report to the city prison.
“I order:
Art. 1 All men of Jewish origin, aged 18 to 50 years, are obliged within 48 hours from the date of publication of this order to report to the city prison (Bolshefontanskaya road), having with them the essentials for existence. Their families are obliged to deliver food to them in prison. Those who did not obey this order and found after the expiration of the indicated 48-hour period will be shot on the spot.
Art. 2 All residents of the city of Odessa and its suburbs are required to notify the relevant police units of every Jew of the above category who has not complied with this order. Coverers, as well as persons who know about this and do not report, are punishable by death.
— Head of the Military Police: Hor. Odessa Lieutenant Colonel M. Niculescu”
See: Borovoi, S. Ya.; Volsky, S.A.; Glyadkovskaya, A.I.; Gotlov-Gotlib, A.G.; Dobrolyubsky, K.P.; Sosnovsky, I.A. (2011). Odessa. An outline of the history of the city-hero to the 150th anniversary of the foundation. Essays. Odessa: Optimum. p. 322.
B) “On October 22, 1941, in the building of the NKVD on the Marazlievskaya street where the Romanian military commander's office and the headquarters of the Romanian 10th Infantry Division had settled to occupy the city, a radio-controlled mine exploded.
“Responsibility for the explosion was placed on the Jews and Communists.
“On October 23, an order was issued threatening all Jews with death on the spot and ordering them to report to the village of Dalnyk on October 24. In the afternoon of October 24, about 5,000 Jews were gathered near the outpost of Dalnyk. The first 50 people were brought to the anti-tank ditch and shot by the commander of the 10th machine-gun battalion, Lieutenant-Colonel Nicolae Deleanu.
See: Umrikhin, Alexander (3 February 2015). "Odessa: unbroken hero city". TV Center. Retrieved 13 May 2018.
In closing, I realize that I have forgotten to mention one of the most striking and sickening attributes of Ukraine and its sorry history: It is almost universally agreed, by reputable scholars, that Roman Catholic Ukrainians were among the most avid supporters of the Final Solution. Ukraine hoped to be an ally of Hitler; it was never an ally because Hitler had contempt for Ukrainians as they were Slavs. Although Hitler held it at some distance, Ukrainians were very well represented, in numbers completely out of proportion to their numbers relative to Europe as a whole, in the ranks of concentration camp and death camp killers, soldiers and functionaries.
“In total, the Germans enlisted 250,000 native Ukrainians for duty in five separate formations including the Nationalist Military Detachments (VVN), the Brotherhoods of Ukrainian Nationalists (DUN), the SS Division Galicia, the Ukrainian Liberation Army (UVV) and the Ukrainian National Army (Ukrainische Nationalarmee, UNA).
SEE: Alfred J. Rieber (2003). "Civil Wars in the Soviet Union" (PDF). 4/1. Project Muse: 133, 145–147. Slavica Publishers.
By the end of 1942, in Reichskommissariat Ukraine alone, the SS employed 238,000 Ukrainians and only 15,000 Germans, a ratio of 1 to 16.
SEE: Jeffrey Burds (2013). Holocaust in Rovno: The Massacre at Sosenki Forest, November 1941. Springer. pp. 24–25. ISBN 978-1137388407.
-------------------
FOOTNOTE ONE: The New York Times first mentioned AIDS in its edition of July 2, 1981. In next mentioned AIDS in 1983, in an Op Ed article which actually denounced the notion that we should increase spending to combat AIDS. I remember the article well. It said that old people die of pneumonia all the time. Ergo, why should we care if some young men, of suspect morals, drop dead of AIDS. Of course, the Times rediscovered AIDS in 1985 as the entire nation was in a tizzy because it could not imagine how Rock Hudson, who was such a Hollywood hunk, actually managed to get AIDS. It did not mention AIDS again until Larry Kramer and his buddies said Ed Koch ignored AIDS because he was a closet fag, and AIDS activists finally had the sense to raise holy hell at Saint Patrick’s Cathedral, at CDC offices in Bethesda Maryland and at the White House, palace of Tzarina Nancy Reagan.
FOOTNOTE TWO: Actually, the Court did “explain” why a tenant, in an urban area, had to pay rent to his landlord even after his apartment building had burnt down. The Court noted that landlord tenant law was a product of the feudal law of merry old England. In England, when a wretched peasant rented land from a glorious and haughty lord, he generally rented land to grow crops. In England, the tenant had to pay rent to the landlord so long as the land still existed because as long as the land existed the tenant could still farm the land. Accordingly, the obligation to pay rent remained in place until the land ceased to exist, which might transpire in cases of earthquakes or floods. Of course, the tenants in this 1892 case resided in urban Boston, and did not use the land to engage in farming, but the law holds that we must follow the doctrine of Stare Decisis, which holds that today’s cases must be adjudged like the cases that came before the court decades or even centuries ago and is, therefore A DOLTISH, OSSIFIED MULE THAT GLEEFULLY LITTERS SOCIETY WITH UNNJUST DECISIONS. By the way, I have a query for any legal scholars that may be reading this: Why should we ever bother to treat pneumonia. In days of yore, antibiotics did not exist, and people died of pneumonia all the time. If you want to take the doctrine of stare decisis to its logical and absurd conclusion, you will have to consign patients with bacterial pneumonia to death because stare decisis decrees that we cannot liberate ourselves from the manacles of our past.
In any event, because I am a lawyer, I know that the law is often nothing but a web of obfuscations designed to obscure what is nothing but patent theft and injustice. This is the view taken by Marxists and, interestingly enough, by Yale Law School, in the 1930’s, which, in the face of the Great Depression, could no longer entertain bourgeois liberal lies.