The Pete Quiñones Show - The Trial of Adolf Eichmann - w/ Thomas777 - Complete

Episode Date: May 13, 2026

3 hours and 2 minutesPG-13Thomas777 is a revisionist historian and a fiction writer.This is the complete audio to the series on the trial of Adolf Eichmann.Radio Free Chicago - T777 and J BurdenThomas777 MerchandiseThomas' Buy Me a CoffeeThomas' Book "Steelstorm Pt. 1"Thomas' Book "Steelstorm Pt. 2"Thomas' WebsiteThomas on TwitterThomas' CashApp - $7homas777Pete and Thomas777 'At the Movies'Support Pete on His WebsitePete's PatreonPete's SubstackPete's SubscribestarPete's GUMROADPete's VenmoPete's Buy Me a CoffeePete on FacebookPete on TwitterBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-pete-quinones-show--6071361/support.

I want to welcome everyone back to the Pekina 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 been at the forefront of Thomas's mind recently, the, what, unquote, trial of Adolf Eichmann. So, Thomas, take it away, please. Yeah, it's an important subject matter. It's not just a question of trivia relevant to people who were into the things.

Third Reich and revisionism. It came up because I was talking of burden. And he was talking about how odd it is that not just formal representatives of Likud, 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 Jewish 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 Adolf Eichmann, including the sort of special dispensations Israel has at international law, and it also had the force of solidifying and establishing its precedent for all time

this anti-fascist convention whereby people can be held into court for allegedly having men in the court, having been involved in what's declared to be, what was unilaterally declared to be criminal acts and in the service of the acts as powers. And there was weird intrigues around Eichmann and his apprehension. And he was something of an odd target. You know, to be clear, and Hannah Arendt gets into this her book i come in in jerusalem is a mixed bag and the one that's very critical of israel and it's not and it's and it's bligered refueled to observe 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 early 1960s. And for people who think political correctness just appeared one day in 1990 or something, they don't understand this country. It was around before any of us were born. And I judge it particularly contra, her book The Origins of Totalitarianism, which is a really great book, and the title's 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 such profound enmity developed between the Jewish minority in Europe and European people, particularly as the nation state

deteriorated in favor of supernational structures, you know, as a superpower era 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 of the 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 the, the, the establishment of the Third Reich and the Soviet Union. And that, you know, in historical capacities,

allowed the United States to marshal its resources into an incredible degree of power projection. The side of the scene, that was the proximate cause of this horrendous violence that, to be clear, emerged from both sides. between Jews and Germans, Jews and Russians, and ultimately,

you know, Zionists turn their violent attentions to Darryl Islam and the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. That's actually very much an Ernst Nolte point that Hannah-Orent made. And that's no surprise, because, you know, she was a higher accolite, just like Ernst Nolte was.

You know, and they absolutely crossed paths. How close or they were, you know, it is questionable. I don't believe they were particularly friendly. But they definitely shared epistemological assumptions of things. But that's why this is important. And to understand the present situation, you've got to understand the Eichmann trial as precedent because the International Military Tribunal that came in at Nuremberg that established the configuration of the global regime's legal order that was only finally fully realized in 1989. but the Eichmann trial that established the special dispensations and, you know,

exclusive privileges of a Jewish state within that system. And that's not well understood. Not a lot is, well, understood at Eichmann either. Obviously, they needed some sort of figure to burn in proverbial effigy. and because they're outside of, you know, men who've served as general officers in the Vermeck of Vofness, there wasn't, you know, the National Socialist leadership didn't really exist anymore. They'd been executed or they died. So deciding Eichmann, 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, Eichmann was a fairly irrelevant person. He was a young guy. You know, when the war ended, he was only about 40, or he just turned 41. He was born March 19, 1906. His final rank was Obersternbanfeel, which, which was the SS equivalent of a lieutenant colonel in the NATO rank system. At base, he was a policeman.

And he served the RSAHA, which was the right security time, the Reichman, the Reichmanian he ended up becoming the chief of department 4B4, 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 and under conditions of, you know, war or peacetime

and varying degrees of mobilization. And that owes to the Holocaust narrative, places a premium on, well, this moving around of populations at massive scale, these people were being delivered to their doom. And Eichmann, the savant, was delivering them to their death en masse. So that part of it makes sense, with this idea that he was this, important personage in the german rike is is is totally off base and just odd it um to understand what is uh rank would have been or i mean his clout relative power

within the executive of the reich you know himmler was under heinrich muller who came known as Gestapo Muller, who was the head of the Gestapo. Gestapo Mueller served directly under Reinhardt Heidrich, who was chief of the SD and the chief of the RSAJ. And after he was murdered, Ernst Kaltenbrenner came into the role. Hydric and then later Kaltenbrenner served under Himmler. Himmler technically was second only to Hitler because he was the Reichsphere SS, 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 him there was a bit of a loose canon who hitler viewed as being radically dedicated to the cause he was an old fighter he'd been at munich in 1923 he'd come up through rams free corps so his credentials spoke for themselves in terms of his willingness to sacrifice for the party, but, you know, that was it. There wasn't a personal relationship to speak of between Hitler and Himmler. It's this idea that, this idea that Eichmann was some approximate to the furor had great power. That's, that doesn't make any sense.

That'd be, that'd be like taking some kind of random career, Homeland Security man and declaring that he's the actual power behind Donald Trump or something. You know, just for context, it doesn't really make any sense. What I believe happened with Eichmann, and this is pretty well substantiated by this point, by people who want to dig into the record. Ikemen after the war, like a lot of people, who'd served the Axis powers and not just Germans,

but Italians, Crocs, 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 Peron government Was very friendly to national Socialists As was the Strassner government So after the war Eichmann

Just by virtue of membership And the SS and, you know, particularly the RSAJ meant that he would be a wanted man. But it wasn't really a prior. He wasn't really in anybody's radar for years. Then what happened was there's the publication of what came to be known as the Eichmann papers. Now, this came about because in Argentina, there's a man named Wilhelm Sasson, who came to know Eichmann.

And then he also probably came to know Mengela personally. Mengela is a lot more sympathetic of a figure than Ikeman, in my opinion, because he, Mengelai literally got transformed into this horror movie monster by propaganda. It's totally, totally bizarre. And Mengela 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 uh the vengeance of the jewish state and of the uh justice department's o's i i'm sure he didn't have a happy life um where he was living out his twilight years but because

it may the deal with wilhelm sassen philmissan was that he was a flemish national socialist and from Holland. And he joined the Vof and SS as a war correspondent. And as a Dutch language propagandist on behalf of the NSDAP. And he was on deck with documenting a lot of anti-partisan action so he witnessed some pretty

severe stuff and 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 Ostfront on both sides

but Sassen he was an incredibly shady guy and he was almost certainly some kind of intelligence asset for the Bundes Republic or British intelligence or the CIA. You know, he probably did this for cynical reasons. It's hard to imagine a man like him having any principles. But what Sassin did was he, Eichmann was kind of a naive person.

He was almost autistic, by all accounts. Sossin befriended Eichmann and he said, I want to, I want to help you to draft your memoirs because you were an important man who was witnessed in history. And we needed to set the record straight. So what was produced was this 600 pages of documents, which is mostly conversations between Sossin and Eichmann about. the war years about the structure of the SS on the SD side and the RSA 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 Eichmann says some pretty incriminating stuff but not of the sort that people

might think. And what Sossin did was he proceeded to sell these pages to Life magazine, obviously without Eichmann's knowledge. And then subsequently, what lands like a bomb in English-speaking media markets, on the front page of Life magazine is this picture of Eichmann in his SS uniform. And in bold letters, it says, interview with the devil, the architect of the Holocaust. And so suddenly Eichmann is on people's radar. And Soss at all but disclosed exactly where Eichmann lived.

And to be clear, Eichmann, to his credit, he was still married to his wife, you know, who he brought with him. he actually had a young child, you know, who'd arrived late in life, you know, and he was working 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 Aires suburbs, just kind of 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 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 man is the most evil person alive. He was the architect of the Holocaust. You know, so very quickly, this became a priority of them, SAD, to capture him and avail him to a show trial, but first and foremost, to interrogate him and sort of fill in the gaps of what they wanted to know. and during the Cold War, any and 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 Eichmann. And what's interesting is Simon Wiesenthal, who was proven to be a total liar. I'm not talking about what he alleged about events in World War II, 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-right figures. and he claimed that he located Ikeman. That's complete nonsense. Wiesenthal was a nobody who built a career on bullshit

and presenting himself as some sort of Frederick Forst-like novel character. This was completely confabulated. And like I said, too, Eichmann wasn't really hiding, number one. And number two, such that. that he was under light cover that was all over by the time Sassen sold his testimony to Life magazine. So on the evening of May 11, 1960, Eichmann, you know, was on his way home from work like any other night. and he gets grabbed by Mossad 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 and available due interrogation for the next 11 months. And on April 11, 1961, he found himself in district court, Jerusalem being arraigned on 15 counts, including the allegation that together with co-conspirators, he'd committed crimes against the Jewish people, as well as crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the usual litany of charges that for a solid day at the International Military Tribunal, a decade and a half prior, but what was significant and what was novel was this claim that Eichmann had offended against the Jewish people as a people, and that Israel was the jury representative at a national law of the Jewish people as an ethno, as a confessional and sectarian community.

community. And as a matter of law, that's problematic. And interestingly, a lot of these Jewish organizations in America, in the Bundes Republic and the UK, this wasn't the case, but a lot of these American Jewish NGOs said, wait, wait, wait a minute, you know, the government in Tel Aviv isn't the representative of all Jewish people. That's, that's not the way we want to perceive. and that's probably not even legally cognizable. You know, this idea that, to be clear, too, that the claim of the Jewish state in this context, it wasn't that the government 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, whatever language they speak. And if you with specific intent to harm the Jews as a people, offend against them, 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 Bernard and I were talking about, this is why when these, you know, it's not just wackos like Mark Levin or extremists, bigots 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.

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 to understand. And world opinion, I mean, obviously, excluding the East Block, but 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 precedent. Everybody in the free world, as it was called, I mean, there were objections here and there, particularly among some, Carolistinguid 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. Eichmann 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. meant by that. Eichmann's lawyer, abiding the same

convention as Nuremberg and the Daukow trials, Eichmann 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 at Nuremberg. But Eichmann's lawyer was a man named Robert Servadus, who was native to 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, Eichmann feels guilty before God, but not before the law. And whatever Eichman did, or whatever he ordered, first of all, Sarvada said Eichmann didn't murder anybody. Eichmann's never murdered a Jewish person or a non-Jewish person or any person. So he objected on substantive grounds to Eichmann being accused of murder. If you wanted to accuse him of conspiracy, fine, we'll fight that charge.

But produce one instance, produce any inculatory evidence, documentary or direct testimony or anything else, of Eichmann murdering anybody. And interestingly, 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 Bosnia, herzegovina abutting what was the NDH. Eichmann as an SD man, it was within his purview to be responsible that leaves another. you know, at least in the capacity of, at least in an advisory capacity, how to, how to handle

anti-partisan efforts. So there's a memo that Eichmann signed off on incident to the minutes of a meeting where he suggested continuing a policy of decimation, where for every German soldier killed, hostages would be. murdered. You know, the hostages in the instant case were 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, C. Eichmann 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 suggests 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 process prosecution would foolish where he could. But to bring it back, Eichmann's position was that anything he did or didn't do in his role as an Obershtembefiel of the SS serving the SD and the RSA, these were acts of state. So, hailing him into court, for murder and grounds of acts of state would be like hailing Curtis LeMay into court and charging him with 100,000 counts of murder for firebombing Tokyo. And as Servadis said, Mr. Eichmann 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. True, which is why as well this sort of narrative of the Vancey conference becomes so relevant. That wasn't particularly emphasized here, but what was is very interesting, and I'm going to get into that, in terms of the evidence presented both direct, particularly direct testimony.

but the way that the International Military Tribunal 15 years before had gotten around this challenge was as I think we discussed in earlier episodes they alleged well this wasn't a normal government and these weren't acts committed pursuant to exigencies of war this was a criminal conspiracy and from inception the raison d'etre of the German Reich was to to murder the Jewish race. And that's really the only reason it existed. And the Vancey 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 a normal court i don't even think it would be admissible generally i'm not going to bore everybody with evidentiary rules and the nuances generally at criminal law and there are i'm saying generally because there's nuances to every state and then there's the federal system too but generally what is admissible is evidence of plan motive, design, intro 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 core ideological 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 Jr. 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 but I've got sympathy for the double, you know. But that's, you know, this is highly significant. It's not, it's not just a question of lawyer ball and word games. And Eichmann's trial was a show trial in two senses. It was a show trial in the obvious sense in that it was ideological theater who passed off

as jurisprudence, but also this was the days of nascent international news. You know, so people weren't seeing live what was happening in Jerusalem because in 1961, there weren't the satellite feeds that facilitated that, wasn't perfected yet. And then a few years later when it was, it was an arduous process. It was Elvis's Aloha from Hawaii that was one of the first mass broadcast satellite events all over this planet. But on the evening news, people were seeing footage from Eichmann on trial and legal experts were weighing in on what was happening. you know um and that's substantially that's a that's a whole different animal than going to the movie theater in in 1947 and seeing movie tow news clips of of you know

they're five seconds long of herman garing on the stand when you can't even hear his testimony there's just you know a uh a voiceover as it were you know offering color com for offering color commentary so there was a the the Jerusalem court had a tougher road to hoe and also Eichmann was the only defendant on deck he couldn't the debate and switch wasn't possible whereby you know if if the prosecuting attorney was bested done, you know, by a witness, they could shift their attention to a weaker link in the proverbial chain. The leg was possible at Nuremberg and plus where we had to talk on stuff. You know, so there was that too.

And also, the social engineering regime hadn't, I mean, yeah, a lot of New Deal propaganda had an incredibly toxic effect 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 onto 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 II was something. great thing. So there was something of a delicate minuet here. And back then, unlike today, Zionist propaganda was pretty sophisticated.

It wasn't, you didn't have obnoxious idiots like Mark Levin, running around acting like some Der Sturmer caricature. You know, it was 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 of the Eichmann trial. Obviously, these guys and these women were kind of

out front representing the Israeli government, like a lot of them have heavy European or Middle Eastern accents, 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 were trying to telegraph. You know, obviously, we'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 just have a different religion you know all of that we still we still suffer that today it's oh sure there's a reason why netanyahu went to school in the united states oh no of course but a guy like mark levin doesn't exactly relate to middle

America well or make Jews look good. Yeah. I mean, like that's... I mean, that was my point. Like, back then, some guy if we're working for the AGC or the ADL even, or some or some guy

or some lady, you know, who is deciding who from the Nesset would appear on, on, on, on, on, on the five o'clock news, they'd have been mortified if, if some guy like Mark Levin was, you know, acting like that, you know, that's what I meant.

Yeah, the, this, the sort of cycling of a lease from the Jewish state to America and the deep interdependence there. You know, we're talking about the deal with the fellas. It's like, 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, I saw, I see what you did there. That was actually, I didn't actually intend that as a double entendre, but since, but yeah, I'll, I'll take credit for it.

That's funny. But, um, Ariel Sharon, I believe he was an Oriental Jew. His family was from Palestine. He wasn't an Ashkenazim or Safaridim. He wasn't one of these guys from Brighton Beach, who moved to the Jewish state after Plan D had genocided the coveted territory. And that was comparatively rare, at least among the core of what became

the political culture, the Zionist state. There weren't a lot of those guys. And I find that interesting. Moshe Dan, I can't remember. He might have had a similar background. But it's the exception. I just find that kind of thing interesting. Most people would probably find that apropos of nothing.

But in any event, Eichmann had, he had more support than people might think. You know, and again, Eichmann, the man, he didn't come out with a very 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, Ramon, M. Ramon and Jafreve. 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 counsel. He defended a bunch of, 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 Francie had been under Maras, but obviously the action franca had never a direct action capability.

But these guys are real bomb throwers. And, I mean, basically, they were at odds with both, most of them had odds with the Reich and the allies, obviously. But some of them are, you know, national socialists. Jafri came to the defense of these guys and defended many of them pro bono. 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 in the era but as a matter of historical fact there was no vichy france there was france it's the government in vichy was the government of france baton had mass support de gaul had no support and this idea that

the time was some client of adolf hitler the pan you want to how many times patan met adolf hitler once. And but for our purposes, I mean, there's a discussion in another day. I've written some

about that, but I don't think we've ever discussed it on your platforms. But Jafri, that was the crux of his defense, was not, not just of these fascist partisans

in the, you know, prior to the, prior to the Senate, to the Patent government, the capitulation to Germany, but the guys who served the Patan's regime, you know, 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 in de Gaulle, who nobody had ever heard of, who is quite literally a client of a foreign power declaring himself to be the right president of France. You know, that's absurd. And Jeffrey was respected as one of the preeminent legal minds in Europe. And he'd actually sat in an advisory capacity on the Allied Control Council during the Nuremberg trials and then subsequent. his old point was there wasn't there was neither personal nor subject matter jurisdiction over eichmann vis a vis a state of israel and he said even if there was you know if israel had a claim to jurisdiction

the correct way to proceed according to convention and i mean an international law can never be compulsory because that's a logical fallacy among other things 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 court's 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 1933 and 1945 and a state. First of all, you can't

be held liable for committing crimes against an ethnic group or a race. Even if that were possible, Israel isn't the representative of Jewish people, the Jure for all time. And finally, venue matters.

The alleged offenses were committed in Poland and Belarus in Ukraine and Russia. You know, why why isn't Eichmann being hailed into court in Poland? You know, none of this is precedented. None of this

can be rationalized by appeal to precedent or common sense. You know, and finally, um, Jafri didn't emphasize this as strongly as

Eichmann's counsel did. But Jeffrey said, do we really want to start talking about where the acts 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 U.S. Department of Justice has proffered the equivalent of an amicus curate. on behalf of the Jerusalem court, with respect to their prosecution of Eichmann, when this is the same government that being the Isaiah'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 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. and homicidal pogroms periodically. There's a whole series of assumptions one must accept in order to consider the Israeli case for jurisdiction over Eichmann to be legitimate. But again, the Eichmann 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 trials. 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 be interested in this as Oteric if you add 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 in very concrete capacities

not just as some sort of curiosity um and that's um you know and that um that goes to show too I mean I can't imagine I mean these days you

there wouldn't you wouldn't find a man who had the kind of prestige of Jafri taking such a position and contrary the Jewish state. I mean, you'll find Europeans, to their credit,

they'll attack the Jewish state for, you know, it's racialism and its hostility to other populations and the categorical violence it avails them to. But that's mostly framed as a matter of, you know, appeal to Nuremberg logic or the purported hypocrisy of the Jewish state, it's really sort of a token objection. I mean, don't mean, don't mean 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 think you know what I mean. It's a fundamentally different scope and character and the motivations are different. The prosecution also, 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 fact that, record, witnesses were contradicting each other. There were people testifying about things such as gas chambers at Ravensbrook or Docow. And even then, even within the narratives that were extant and considered to be historical as well as legal precedent, it was stipulated that,

you know, there weren't gas chambers at Ravensbrook and things. Obviously, two, there's the white elephant in the room. If there's a witness declaring, I was at, I was a death camp inmate, and this is what Eichmann was directing. If you were at death camp inmate, how are you here? I mean, was this the most incumbent death camp ever? So the prosecution was charged with calling

witnesses who'd served in the SS and SD, the most prominent of whom are pretty obviously intelligence assets or double agents, to testify, you know, contra Eichmann and seek to establish liability based on things like the Unsubsgroup actions they themselves have participated in and these guys uh just you know they'd been a similar they'd been a similar um litany of these sorts of witnesses called to testify against rudolph hoist who's the commonon of auschwitz burkinaw and it was the same kind of thing you know i these are the most evil men who ever lived and they're liars but you've got to trust them and it 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 30 million. Not a single person has ever said that, written that, alleged that, other than this bizarre turncote and probable double agent who testified against Eichmann and somehow despite admitting to participating in the murders of tens of thousands of people was never indicted for any of these things you know and that this is one example to see that parrot it all the time on social media or there'll be some midwit conservative saying like well you you're saying it's okay to exterminate slabs you you anti-white horrible man who says that some some guy

he was a paid witness against against Adolf Weichmann, some guy who, you know, was on the payroll of a secret intelligence service while he was a serving officer in the SD. You know, who is saying these things? And 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, be like, oh, that's just boomers be bullshit. No, I'm talking about like 30-year-old guys who know better. And when I challenge them on these grounds, they'll say, first I'll say I'm an idiot. Then they'll say, quote, everybody knows this. What does that mean? Who's everybody? And what do they know? You know?

So, and the rot is deep. And in some ways, as I said, at least, at least, in the present conditions, that being, you know, life during wartime, you know, like talking head's song. I'm not being 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 situation, I'm not being flippant about it. But that's why I wanted to focus on Eichmann, 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 what I do my wife. These are my research concentrations. But I need even one other episode on this because I want to get into the case in chief against Ikeman. And then we can return to a regular schedule of programming if that's okay. Sure.

I think one of the special dispensation for the Jewish people is, you know, I'm no fan of Chris Christie, but I think he's like legitimately a funny guy. And no, he is. And he's also a man so fat that his last name, he ate his first name. But he, um, he tells a story about how the, the Kushner family, how he became the enemy of the Kushner family and it kept him out of the Trump administration. And the thing in that story that, that I just, well, I will never forget, I'll take to the grave

is when he's Jared Kushner telling Chris Christie that these charges you had brought up on my father they shouldn't have been handled legally you should have brought them to the rabbis. Yeah, that's absurd. It's election fraud. Yeah, you're not talking about

you're just talking about some minor tax issue or something. Yeah, election fraud. There was a tax issue. extortion. No, that's what I mean, like real criminality. It wasn't just, you know, cooking the books a little bit. Like, unfortunately, it's kind of the norm, you know. Yeah, I kind of, if people, you know, taxation and stuff like that,

I have a tendency to be like, eh, is it really a crime? But, you know, these other things that are just, when you hear the whole story of what Kushner did, is pretty fucking diabolical. And they want this, they want this just. Yeah. Yeah, and you're just supposed to overlook it like what, you know, like, you know, like I said in the Jeffrey Epstein files, you know, let the Goyam live in the real world. Yeah, exactly. Well, no, that's why I like that film people I know with Al Pacino.

You know, Robert Redford directed it and it is actually a really subversive movie. And it made a lot of people mad. It got very limited distribution. But I remember when it came out, like Pacino would start as the first. Merchant of Venice around the same time. Pachino was awesome, unlike Faggot Rit Tartreau, Robert De Niro. Like, Pacino actually is an amazing

actor, but he played Shylock in the Merchant of Venice. You know, there's kind of a mini Shakespeare revival in the very early 2000s. As I should remember. So Puccino was like caught a lot of heat for, you know, making

all these anti-Semitic movies. But, yeah, I highly recommend people I know. It's a slow burn, but it's really compelling. And, you know, that was just after, there was months after 9-11. 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. Let me put it badly. All righty. So we'll get a part two ready for this. And I will remind everybody, go to Thomas's work, go to a substack. Thomas and I have started streaming every Thursday afternoon at 1 o'clock. One o'clock central, the real time zone.

Yeah, link in that show notes if you would. Yeah, I will. And go to Thomas's substack, real Thomas 777.substack.com and Thomas 777.com, the T is a 7. And you can connect to him there and, yeah, find him on substack. It's probably the best way to get in touch with him. Yeah, I mean. Yeah, thank you, buddy. All right, thanks, Thomas.

Appreciate it. I want to welcome everyone back to the Pekino show. Thomas is back and we are going to launch into part two of the trial of Adolf Eichmann. Thomas, how are you doing today? I'm doing pretty well. This is an important precedent and I think a lot of people don't understand entirely why. This was very calculated and it wasn't just for the sake of it, you know, which is why Eichmann was shanghai in the first place. I mean, the office of special investigations of the Department of Justice and their counterparts

and occupied Europe, until the 2000s, they'd spend their time looking for people to indict for, you know, confabulated crimes carried out in the service of the German right. Eichmann, however, the narrative that was devised around him, that that was very that was very particular and I'll get into this in a moment I don't think people fully realize the degree of which

the design estate was was bankrupt and they were being supported by this reparations regime that they were extorting from the Bundes Republic the DDR of course refused to recognize Israel's legitimate state and they certainly, and concomitant with that, the entire Warsaw Pact,

they claimed that, you know, they're the ones who vanquished fascism, and they weren't going to acknowledge some discreet victim category for any ethnos. You know, they just didn't abide the Holocaust narrative at all. You know, that's why it's something important you know to this day and this is a bit tangential people don't really understand russia as a culture the russians as a people and i'm not some expert on bazaanthia i'm i'm not a regional studies guy at all

but i i know a lot more about i know a lot more about darrell islam in in japan for example than i do about russia but when the when the russians talk about anti-fascism they're not they're not talking about holocaustianity you're not talking about woke stuff it's not going to do with that it's its own ideological imperative and historical narrative this should be obvious but for some reason it's not and you know that's that's an important point and that's one of the reasons why i mean the wars up pact is literally at war with israel for decades you know and I I believe that included

DDR elements on the ground although that's never been acknowledged but um it absolutely was a state of open warfare but as it may you know the the Jewish state by the time Ikeman was on trial

these billions and reparations were slated to end and Israel had virtually nothing in terms of currency reserves it had the infrastructure profile of a totally underdeveloped country

it had no meaningful economy to speak of and also the Cold War was causing certain aspects of the Norberg narrative to be suppressed in the public court of public opinion because it was imperative to rehabilitate the Bundes Republic as it seemed as if World War III was going to arrive

just as a foregone conclusion. So there were material considerations and political ones for putting Eichmann on trial and then pretending that Eichmann was this mastermind of some murder conspiracy when in reality he was a basically irrelevant personage. and interestingly you know like when it wasn't a coward or whatever you can say about him he was a limited guy

and that really comes out if you review some of the footage he was so intellectually curious he became fairly competent in in reading Hebrew and he could speak a Yiddish

although not totally fluently and he studied he studied Judaism and Jewish cultural practices and heritage part of that owed to his role as a policeman

which is where he was at base and a desire to excel at the role assigned to him but he wasn't ignorant he was just kind of limited and he wasn't a man who commanded respect really and

when he was sentenced to death he had opportunity to the court and he didn't ask for mercy and he obviously wasn't afraid but he said essentially that posterity will acquit me you know he said um like all men that who've served governments at war i've done some very immoral things but i've never killed anybody and this idea that i'm some mastermind of the architect of the architecture of mass homicide is laughable One of the assistant chief prosecutors to the American delegation who worked closely with Justice Jackson, well before and subsequent. He was this German Jew who'd served the Prussian Interior Ministry.

And during the years of struggle, as a national socialist called it, he became an arch-opponent of Hitler. And then obviously after the National Socialist Revolution, he was dismissed from his post. He emigrated to America became this big nude dealer partisan. But he subsequently wrote a book that cast Eichmann. It was called something like Eichmann and his henchmen, where he cast Adolf Hitler as some sort of cipher. And Eichmann was the secret overlord of the Third Reich. It's laughable.

It's like something out of a comic book or a cheat novel. But this is the degree to which the propaganda apparatus got underway. You know, and it didn't seem to occur to anybody in America. French media, interestingly, was a lot more critical. I think I got into that last time, or last episode. It didn't seem to occur to anybody in America. How come nobody had ever heard the name Edolph Aikman until 1960? if he's supposedly this this sort of shadow furor of the german rike who's devising plans to

annihilate entire races of people and secretly pulling the strings of of the access powers on the second world war and the whole thing's laughable but again it wasn't it wasn't just typical designist hysterics or the need to give anti-fascist ideology a proverbial shot in the arm in the public mind. I mean, obviously that was part

of it, but this was very deliberate and very necessary to sustain Israel in terms of its ability to extort concessions from you know, the Europeans as

as well as from America. And obviously, a house divided, circa 96, 1961, vis-a-vis Washington and Israel and the U.K. And on the matter of the Buddhist Republic and its legitimacy, the Soviets were all too eager to exploit that. And, you know, they did so to great effect. But I want to get into the accusations against, they come in and some of their political meaning as well.

Because there's more general claims relating to the Holocaust narrative that emerged here. And I think people generally don't know what the source of a lot of this testimonial evidence was. I suggested last episode a lot of what was entered into the record as factual evidence at Nuremberg and at the Tocco trials. the Dago trial was very different. I mean, it had to do with the Malamani massacre first and foremost. It didn't have to do with the camp at Daco. It was simply held there. But in both instances, what was entered into the record to substantiate the elements of the indictments,

it was testimony by witnesses whose claims contradicted. one another as well as the factual record as a you know committed to paper by the allied authorities and others and the case of the six million we got into i think when we were discussing the aftermath of the second World War, Justice Jackson was essentially approached in Washington by an FBI liaison and representatives of the Zionist International, the American Jewish Committee, and they essentially decided on this number. And that was true. And the Eichmann trial, what was relied upon was the ultimate source of that initial figure. And that was a, that was a, an SS overgroup in fear, von denbeck Zelowski.

He was a general Lavaf on SS and he was an Idenstitz group commander. And he was probably a British intelligence asset, which is why he wasn't prosecuted in Nuremberg. Later, Zolevsky was indicted by the Bundes Republic for a series of murder. was carried out during the 1934 rom purge, Zaleski murdered a couple of people who probably weren't at all implicated owing to personal vendettas and things. And he served about three years, I think.

But, you know, for these, for the actions carried out in his official capacity as an Einstein group, commander he never was faced any penal jeopardy but a lot of these figures actually came from him and only him and nobody else he claimed that in 1941 he said that Heinrich himler gave a speech at Vesselberg now there's no record of this speech ever being given and nobody other than Zeletsky ever claimed that it it was delivered He said that, Himmler said that the aim of the, of Barbarossa was to reduce the Slavic population by at least 30 million people and essentially exterminate the Russians. That's where this whole myth comes from that's bandied by these kind of amateur internet historians of Hitler hated Slavs.

Okay, that's the source of it. And a sort of selective calling of, you know, statements from Hitler's table talk. mine comp that purportedly substantiate this intention to murder tens and millions of slavic people um but eric von dem boxilevsky he again he was an onset group commander whose testimony was strongly relied upon to condemn the nuremberg defendants and the reason why he escaped any punishment, you know, again, it wasn't just because he was a cooperating

witness, but he was probably a turncoat that was feeding intelligence to the Allies. You know, and again, nobody has ever substantiated what he's claimed about these things. But interestingly, he

was subpoenaed as a defense witness by Eichmann's counsel and interestingly he uh he proffered his testimony at uh either in berlin or nuremberg and it was right into the record in jerusalem but uh many witnesses were just categorically excluded that likeman wished to call and the israelis made it clear also when his defense counsel proffered a witness list that virtually all the witnesses he intended to call would immediately be

arrested if they set foot in Israel. So I mean, that that's sort of a almost comically obtuse declaration that due process is simply not going to be honored. And, you know, this plays into, I talked about Ramon Joffrey, the French jurist, who was one of the voice. in defense of Eichmann you know he uh Jeffrey if he was anything he was a left winner left winger social Democrat type but he was appalled by the casual dispensing with due process and substantial justice in the matter of Eichmann but um you know I mean the point not just that it was utterly unprecedented to literally kidnap somebody to avail them to personal jurisdiction where there wasn't the you know where no subject matter jurisdiction existed at all and in addition

to that obviously a venue such as Israel would not be a place where considering by their own admission, their unwillingness to allow witnesses they consider to be tainted to participate meaningfully in the process and beyond that, that they, you know, they, they placed them under arrest. You know, that, that was one of the major issues with why it was improper for the menu for this trial to be Jerusalem. And beyond that, the diplomatic convention, and at this time too, obviously, relations had totally fallen apart between Israel and the Soviet Union, brief as they had been, brief as good offices have been maintained between the two states, people were suggesting that Israel is, you know, needs to be accepted as essentially, a Western nation that abides values concomitant with its status. The way things have been done for a better part of millennia in the Western world was that

wanted men are presumed to be able to request asylum in a host nation and the process by which they can be availed to proper jurisdiction to answer for the accusations against them is a matter of diplomacy, whereby good offices reign and the representatives of the host government are approached by their counterparts and a petition to extradite is proffered. and if there's good faith present it usually is the request is usually honored it's it's unprecedented to kidnap defendants even among states that are at war you know and that that was a that's when international law was taken a lot more seriously I mean obviously international law is always permissive it can never be compulsory anybody who claims otherwise is a

a simpleton who simply speaks in moral platitudes, or they don't understand legal process and its origins and how it works. But that said, it was much more of a respected convention, you know, 60 years ago, 70 years ago. And Argentina, obviously, is in the new world, but it was very much a year. European country culturally. I mean, that's one of the reasons why so many, why so many Germans ended up there, you know, as well as Croats and Italians and Slovaks and other people who were, you know,

who served the state apparatus, the militaries of the, of Axis Europe. But this, something that weakened, the central motif, to bring it back a bit, about the six million. It wasn't just that Zolevsky was not a credible witness. And even though he wasn't, even though he wasn't available to be cross-examined, or, you know, I mean,

he wasn't available at all. It's a testimony that was simply entered into the record. People knew what his background was. To say the least, that's an infamous resume. not to be flippant. But the other thing that weakened, even back then, as a decade, you know, there'd been a decade and a half since the end of hostilities.

And prosecutorial authorities, whether they're, you know, they were in Israel, the Bundes Republic or the U.S. Department of Justice, they can no longer simply make hash with the factual record, because a lot of these claims have been successfully impeached. and not just by fringe elements who were animated by racialist imperatives. You know, there was plenty of very mainstream historians who were demonstrating at the time that these claims were considerably exaggerated about what went on during war two.

For example, I think I raised this last time, at Nuremberg and in the aftermath people would casually bandy that at Buchenwald or Bergen-Belsen and Thakow or Malthausen or Ravensbrook that there were gas chambers and these were death camps. I mean none of that is true

and it's not even I mean not even the most staunch proponents of Holocaust lore claim that today you know so there was a a lot of perjured testimony, a lot of confused allegations, a lot of outright fabrications. So claiming that Eichmann not only was this sort of evil genius architect of this murder apparatus,

but that there was this huge network of industrial execution machinery, that was just murdering millions of people in matters of months, that was substantially less credible. I mean, I don't think that's a pretty credible claim anyway, but you understand what I mean, even within the parameters of what the prosecution could allege and consider the most favorable, a lot of these, a lot of this narrative had been effectively rebutted. That's one of the reasons why this testimony of people, like Zelowski became outsized and

ironically because he was in this instance he was subpoenaed as a defense witness basically the reason why to be clear to Zolevsky wasn't he wasn't acting as a character witness or something it was on a very specific issue he was saying that

look I was an Einstein's group commander Eichmann was an SD functionary yeah but he had no command authority over the security police on operational terms. So this idea that I was availed to the whims of a lieutenant colonel who I outranked, who essentially worked on the bureaucratic side of the Algamine SS, despite the fact that

he had an SD patched on his uniform, is laughable. And, you know, he basically, Zolevsky's claim, which was true, was that Eichmann was part of a totally different chain of command. But that move was true. That's accurate. But I mean, ironically, despite the fact that he was testifying contra the prosecuting authorities, the substance of much of what was being alleged derived from his testimony and not a hell of a lot else.

There was also, there was an obstinate. a doctor William Hoddle and he was alleged this wasn't I mean he was openly

alleged to have been a British intelligence asset I think this is a Lefski was just suspected it was the

in January 25th 961 there's a British periodical kind of a news tabloid called a weekend and I just cover it was a

it was a photograph of Wilhelm Hoddle in his uniform that the caption, you know, British Secret Service agent, you know, was a top Nazi leader or something on that order. And he, he was insinuated into a counterintelligence role. That was kind of murky. And the subjects of that is that the DSS, as we getting clear that the ABVA was totally compromised. They took on more and more of this sort of internal security role under offices and counterintelligence to sort of suss out where the leaks were. But of course,

ironically, a hot, in all probability himself was a double agent. He was the other main source of this six million figure and numerous other claims. Hidalvin personally associated with Eichmann because for a time, he was connected with Section 4 of the Reichman security office, which obviously brought him in touch with Eichmann. And the last time he spoke to him apparently was by what he claimed was August 94, this bizarre

statement that's cited, like if you go to Wikipedia or something, or if you crack open these books by people like William Shire, there's this bizarre and macab quote that attributed to Eichmann

where he says, you know, I have millions of dead Jews in my conscience so I can jump into the grave, a happy man. That's such a bizarre thing to say. I can't even imagine anybody saying that in casual conversation or otherwise but a hoddle claims that that little bit of hearsay that came from velhelm hoddle he claimed that ikeman just spontaneously said this because it's natural where people is confessed to committing millions of homicides that you know people that they work with but um and there was another lesser personage uh a young SS man from the he was one of the

one of the one of the Austrian National Socialists um Visletschnie I think they pronounced it he's got those unpronounceable Eastern names

but um I think he actually attested that but a hearsay saying he heard it from Hoddle who attributed it to Eichmann so it's hearsay within hearsay um

in the form of an admission by Eichmann, supposedly during some casual conversation at a residence that Hado was maintaining in Budapest in the closing months of the war. And interestingly, those, that body of testimony, it was addressed by Leon Poliakov. Poliakov was a German Jew. who later, or he was a Russian Jew, forgive me. He was the founder of what's known as the Center for Jewish Documentation,

which is exactly what it sounds like. It maintained war records of European Jewry and attempted to discern the fates of these people and things, you know, not just for the sake of posterity, but also because Jewish population statistics were of a constant concern to the architects of the Jewish state for obvious reasons, because their ongoing obsession was and continues to be demographics and, you know, all things related they're in. you know he said that any any any figure that was you know that that was drawn upon based on on mere testimony you know even where the declarants credible and these and these declarants obviously weren't what would be suspect you know um so he and he said that that this is basically said this is a discrediting design has caused to rely on these kinds of suppositions and then insist that any objection to the attrition figures proffered

is somehow morally objectionable or you know something that should be fought tooth and nail to preserve in the evidentiary record you know I mean that this should be a common sense thing but there's not obviously common sense doesn't prevail when you're talking about this this kind of zealousness you know and it and he wasn't alone

I think I mentioned before the the American Council for Judaism they were more moderate than some of these other Jewish NGOs but they you know they weren't moderate in any objective

for absolute sense. They went as far as the formally protested a Christian Hurter, who was the Secretary of State, serving Secretary of State of the time, objecting to Israel asserting a right to speak in the name of the Jewish people, and, you know, objecting to, objecting to the Eisenhower administration, you know, validating that perspective. and signing off on Israel appointing itself as, you know, the formal representation of all Jewish people at international law for a practical purposes.

And the notion of the Arabian Council of Judaism was the traditional perspective that Judaism is a matter of confession and lineage, but it's not a, It's not a matter of nationality, which is true. You know, the secular Zionism is anomalous. And it's at odds with precedent in all manner of ways. And it's the president of the world Congress at Jews, a guy named Nathan Goldman, he went into immediate damage control, he issued a formal statement in response to the council's formal objection to the state department.

He said, well, you know, as the Israeli authorities would admit, this action was obviously an infringement of, you know, not just Argentinian law, but, you know, it smacks of lawlessness generally. And this could establish a dangerous precedent. but, you know, when we're dealing with Nazi fugitives, we're dealing with evil that is so unfathomable and so exceptional and so dangerous that we've got to make room for activities and enforcement actions that otherwise wouldn't be acceptable. So basically there's basically the perspective of mainstream Jewish NGOs and Israeli government and most Zionists, secular Zionists, was that, you know, know the trump card is that when when you're dealing with what you're doing with the enemies of the jewish state or if you're dealing with people who serve the german rike or sympathetic to it it do process it out the window there's no restrictions anything is possible because this is a this is the distilled essence of human evil which is absurd that such concepts are entertained at all a little alone by you know people aren't jewish and who are

are you know committed to rational processes and and the the honoring of the substantive rights of the accused in in a matter of justice um and bengurian's uh david bengurian's statement was even more bizarre he said that well We can argue about whether or not the state of Israel represents world Jewry or not. And we can argue whether or not it was right to capture Eichmann by force rather than by appealing for his extradition. But because Israel exists and because Eichmann is here and we have captured him, we've just got to accept that A, this state is, in fact, a representative of world jewelry. and B, because Eichmann is here and he offended against the Jewish people, and we're the representative of that people on earth, and because Eichmann is now available to our jurisdiction,

even if he was brought here illegally, where, you know, we have jurisdiction over the person and over the subject matter. That's basically a quote of saying, yeah, when you were sleeping, I stole your car, and that was wrong, and, you know, it's an actionable wrong at that, but, well, because your car's now in my driveway, and because I draw it here, I mean, we just kind of have to accept that now it's mine. I mean, that's the same mode of reasoning, or lack thereof. But, you know, and I, to be clear also, what I mentioned, that the outset, and this,

this is a major aspect of it of the eichmann affair you know it was not just the need for a second nuremberg but to beef up the reparations regime or preserve the reparations regime because i mean this was a political problem of of a critical nature you know and these what was called euphemistically the indemnity for which Germany was responsible to Israel in the form of, you know, billions and billions of dollars and damages. This was what was keeping Israel alive, like literally. That's not polemic. And, you know, people forget, too, one of the reasons why Israel in the, or the Zionist element in the closing months of the Second World War, and then, you know, very briefly thereafter, Israel had good offices with the Soviet Union because they're looking for a patron, you know, and obviously a lot of Ashkenazim, you know, the Ashkenazim heartland had been, you know, the pale settlement and the Russian Empire. But as part of that, as part of that paradigm, you know, Israel was very committed for a time to, socialism and the planned economy.

You know, it was a hyper-racialized and militant socialism. But Israel was a basket case for the first years of its existence. I mean, not just because there's really nothing there. And they were, you know, there's an absence of modern infrastructure. But they completely botched the development of a kid. capital base by essentially practicing a variant of Marxist-Leninist economic planning. You know, so really for the first, really from 1951 onward, Israel had only survived only to German reparations. And I mean, there was, there was substantial American subsidies and

organized Zionist NGOs they were very good at fundraising in Britain and France and getting diaspora Jews who were wealthy to pony up money but

the crux of Israel's capital revenue was German reparations and this was To be clear, this came about based on what was called in the Buddhist Republic, the Luxembourg upcoming.

It was formally branded the reparations agreement between West Germany and Israel. It was signed on September 10th, 1952. It officially entered into force in March of 53. and according to the agreement, among other things, the Bundes Republic was required to pay Israel for the cost of, quote, resettling so great a number of uprooted and destitute Jewish refugees after the war to compensate individual Jews for persecution

and essentially to pay for Jewish losses and livelihood and property and to pay for the, you know, the fact that Jews were murdered on mass incident of this incident to this world conspiracy hatched by the German Reich. And there's, there's a bizarre crassness to it. Like, you'll still hear this, maybe like Dershowitz. They'll claim that the Germans stole from us. It's as if they were, as if this elaborate supposed murder conspiracy was devised to steal from people.

You know what I mean? Like it's, it's really, really strange and gross. You know, and I can assure you that even, even if one were to accept these outlandish claims alleged that Nuremberg, or people like Shire, I can assure you that nobody carries out murder conspiracies to steal from people. you know, particularly a global scale. But where these numbers were devised, quite literally, the indemnity payments were calculated,

the methodology they're in, and the decisions around what criteria were going to be controlling. It was determined by the conference, Jewish material claims against Germany or the what's what's short hand is what's called the claims conference. This is an NGO. Okay. I mean, initially it was established by a literal conference, but it's this NGO that was founded in 51 by a delegation of 23 Jewish NGOs plus the Adnauer government in the Bundes Republic. And according to what's called the property law in Germany,

specifically Section 213, the claims conference is considered to be a representative and successor of Jewish people supposedly victimized by the Third Reich, and its job is to collect assets and manage. lawsuits against the German state and individuals availed a liability based on service to the German state to extract payments based on supposed thefts of Jewish property and a litany of other Reperative monetary remedies relating to the the Holocaust myth. I believe Julius Berman, he's a rabbi and a lawyer based out of Manhattan,

who became the director or chairman of the board of the organization since 2020. I believe he's still in the role. So it's still going very strong. Okay, believe that. And, you know, to be clear, too, Adinaur was something of a strange person, you know, who was very elderly by the time he became consular, but he was selected very deliberately. And, you know, he'd been very much at odds with the national socialist government. And he'd essentially been blacklisted for his activities therein.

But he was also this big anti-com. and he was very much searching for a patron after the war and trying to get back into political life but he also frankly he could be bought I don't think it's particularly ideological but Adanauer he very much became a heerance became a lackey of Jewish power Han-Fru-Del famously would only refer to him as Rabbi Ednauer, and I find that hilarious. But within the Edmauer government, there was a lot of ex-national socialists, as well as in the... I mean, the Hans Spiedel was, for all practical purposes, the chief of the Bundeswehr general staff, But in the civilian government, you know, there was, you had people directly under Adonauer

who worked on the Norman race laws and things. The Germans were in a vulnerable, the West Germans were in a vulnerable position, especially considering where colder tensions were at. And they had to proceed delicately. And despite what, you know, this kind of revisionist take that a lot of, a lot of, a lot of Cold War, people are passionate about the mainstream Cold War narrative. The Western government did not have a particularly high degree legitimacy. And there's a reason why, like Ben is now, they'd be locked you in prison if you object to policy.

Okay. It's not, it was not a particularly credible cadre of people. So that was a major, Cold War politics was a major aspect of this as well, and their ability to extort concession. the Israeli authorities initially in 1951 they made an itemized claim to the four powers authorities were in compensation and here's the way they calculated it back then and what became ultimately the reparations regime which well practical purpose is now permanent they based on the They claim that Israel had absorb and resettled half a million, quote, Holocaust survivors. And they calculated that in 1951 money that had cost $3,000 per person, which is equivalent to a little over $37,000 in 20206.

They also claim that they were owed $1.5 billion by Germany, just for Germany's crimes against the Jews as a people. that's about $19 billion today. They also said that they also claim that $6 billion or the Jewish property had been stolen by the Third Reich. But then they also stressed that Germany can never ever satisfy their debt to the Jewish people by material means because what they did is beyond the ability to comprehend evil or loss or suffering. like they literally said this like the third like is more evil than satan is so uncomprehensibly evil that germany must always pay these billions of dollars but their debt can never be satisfied because it's evil beyond comprehension and if somebody uttered something like that the correct response is a laugh in their face or call men in white coats to take them away but you know some

very very silly people in america shows uh instead to solemnly nod and pretend as if that's not ridiculous horseship. You know, and this, then this is what, this is essentially what came to pass, you know, in the form of the reparations agreement. West Germany paid initial stum of, at the time it was around 714 million marks, which adjusting the, which had both,

believe that was a couple billion dollars according to conversion rates at the time and then for the next 14 years um 450 million marks are paid to the world Jewish Congress and the payments were made to the state of Israel that were made to the state of Israel they were uh as a matter of law Israel was the heir to those victims who had no surviving family. So they were collecting on behalf of dead people with no beneficiaries on grounds that Israel is their heir. That's bizarre. That's bizarre. You know, and that that's totally without precedent. And a lot of these sums also, the way it was gone about and the way it has gone about in terms of who takes receipt, a lot of reparations were paid to this office or paid to this office in Cologne,

which acted as the headquarters of what was referred to as the purchase delegation on behalf of the Israeli government. And the delegation would also, they'd make demand, for various industrial goods and, you know, advanced machinery and things that would then be sent to a Tel Aviv-based company and would be utilized and beefing up whatever Israel wanted done in terms of their economic or military sector that, you know, they were prioritizing at the time. You know, it's totally bizarre. You know, just basically, this permanent, there's this permanent delegation that's there from this hyperracist state with a bizarre mythology about itself. And they're there like at the large gas, the occupying

authorities to extort money indefinitely and just declare like things they want, you know, relating to, you know, high tech or or military. war tech or what have you. I'm not sure people really grasp how strange all this is, aside from the obvious other issues. And I mean, to get an understanding of the scale of this, from 1953 until the time of the Eichmann trial, this reparations money,

it started from Germany, It had bankrupted about a third of Israel's electrical system and infrastructure. It had covered nearly half of the total cost of Israel's railways. All this entire electrical grid and occupied Palestine and the entire railroad system in the Zion estate. It was made with German rolling stock, tracks, signaling equipment, machinery, all stuff from West Germany. also too like if you if if germans are these horrible horrible murderers or like more evil and satan i mean would you really want a bunch of german products and and infrastructure around you like i i i wouldn't i mean but i it just seems incredibly at odds with the stated ethos and

ongoing psychological trauma um you know and the Oh, and I mean, just to another factoid, I mean, I don't think this is just trivia. The thing is relevant to understanding the scope and scale we're talking about here. About 15% of Israel's annual GNP was owed directly reparations. You know, and the people who are apologists for the, for Ben Gurian, and for the Jewish state's early experiment. with, you know, planned economics and things, they claim, oh, Israel would have found those, they would have secured funds from other sources, even without the reparations regime.

What other sources? Who was just going to, who was just going to bankroll Israel? No one has everybody able to profit or a meaningful answer to that question. I have posed it to people who advocate this perspective. But, you know, and like I said, yeah, now we're government. in addition to the obvious fact of the occupation and things and the division of the country the Zionists and the occupation authorities really had ad norm by the short hairs um hans globka or globka he was the under secretariature of state and and the chairman of the chancelry and he was basically adenauer's um right hand on particularly matters of foreign policy and war in peace questions.

He was a career Prussian civil servant, and later he directly contributed to the drafting of the Nuremberg race laws. And during Adnard's tenure, about 76% of officials in the Bundes Republic's justice ministry were former national citizens. socialists, you know, and this was a problem, particularly when the Soviet Union, which arguably was at the peak of its ability to influence political cultures, the developing world, and this was well before the schismatic controversies of 1968 and the emergence of a discreet anti-Shtonelanist tendency, you know, the Soviets could point to, well, the Buddhist Republic is just a reconstituted fascist state, you know, and that played directly into, although for very different reasons,

it played obviously directly into Tel Aviv's ambitions and things. Very, very strange situation. Yeah, the book I was talking about at the outside of this was. discussion. It was Robert Kempner. And the book was literally called Ikemen and his accomplices. You know, again,

suggesting that all the outlandish crimes attributed to the Third Reich were carried out not by Hitler, but by this kind of middling lieutenant colonel who worked for the police. You know, I

realized I didn't... And really good. But is this actually strange? I mean, it's just the typical paraticism that we're familiar with. I mean, all of that money could have been provided by wealthy Jews in England, France,

and the United States. Oh, yeah. No, I, what's bizarre is the narrative and the way that it's gone about, and particularly this turning ikeman into this sort of uh in a sort of this demonic entity that that's that's just weird and the fact that the depth of there's a weird convergence of circumstances historical and sociological that allowed this to

happen like before or today like 50 years before like in 1900 that couldn't have happened. And in 2026, that couldn't have happened. There was this weird convergence of the absolute bully pulpit of the regime, the disruptive aspects of modern life and future shock that corrupted people's ability to reason in meaningful capacities on areas of politics, fear of literal annihilation at the you know at the hands of the enemy along to the Cold War

military paradigm people needing some sort of scapegoat for real war trauma I mean that's a dumb term trauma but it does have a there are actual iterations of it and there was quite a few traumatized people

in 1950. And it was all those things. And yeah, I'm not surprised that Zion has acted that way and came to act that way. But the ability to sell that narrative is really, really strange and that people accepted it. And particularly, you know, I, no, it's not weird that people are prone to devising Shibilis

and worshipping strange lesser gods. things of their own devising but i maintained eichmann was a particularly odd choice of targets but that too i mean that was you know he he came on people's radar because a very corrupt man was essentially looking to profit by selling the man's memoirs that he'd sort of surreptitiously put to paper you know and then ikeman entered the public mind you know when his face propped up on the cover of Life magazine and there was a sort of perfect convergence of variables whereby he could be transformed into some sort of boogeyman in the public mind a public mind which the conceptual parameters of which were totally

informed by again an insurmountable bully pulpit the power which has never been duplicated before since. That's what I meant. Yeah. But I, forgive me for not getting into the procedure of the procedural outcomes of Eichmann's trial. That's interesting to me because I used to praise criminal law, specifically post-conviction appeals.

I don't know how interesting it is to other people, but it is important. although there weren't any real surprises in the record, if one understands, you know, kind of how the chips were stacked, as it were, originally speaking. Sure.

Well, we can, you can talk about that in the next episode. Yeah, that'd be great, man. Thanks for hosting me. Of course. I'm going to wrap up. Go check out Thomas at realthomas-777.7.com.

and you can go to his website, Thomas 777.com. The T is a 7. And as always, thank you, my friend. Yeah, thank you,

buddy. I want to welcome everyone back to the Pete Kenyana show. Thomas is back, and we're going to talk more about the Eichmann trial. How are you doing today, Thomas? I'm doing well. Did you have a pleasant Easter? Yeah,

it was restful. Yeah, we just hung out. Yeah. That's good. Yeah, I like Easter a lot. I mean,

it's obviously an auspicious. day, but especially here, you know, it really is when spring announces itself and things come back to life. So you really get a sense of its significance. I think I mentioned earlier, obviously, the seminal treatment other than the various documentaries that have been made because the proceedings in the Eichmann were filmed, you know, pretty much in their entirety. And Simon Wiesenthal launched his career, essentially, by insisting that he was involved in all these intrigues to capture Eichmann, which was a total lie. Simon Wiesenthal was a career liar. people who want to insist that I'm just suggesting that slanderously owing to partisan sympathies,

I can produce all the receipts for the man's decades of lying. You know, that's one of the reasons why he's not much mentioned anymore, even by arts Zionists and apologists for the ex post facto regime of penal jeopardy that hailed these people in the court, in the case of Eichmann, quite literally kidnapped them. But, Hannah Ernst Eichmann in Jerusalem is

really the seminal academic treatment of it. It's not nearly as good as her book, the origins of totalitarianism. It takes quite a bit more of a conciliatory posture towards the Zionists than a lot of her other work product did. I don't think that owes just to her confessional heritage, her ethnocacterian heritage,

because that doesn't seem to color most of her other work product. It was very much unthinkable to openly defend Eichmann. But reading between the lines, the secondary title of the book is The Banality of Evil, which is very overwrought, but again, reading between the lines, this idea of Eichmann, who was really kind of a mediocre personage, he was a police bureaucrat. The idea that this man was the sort of shadow executive of the Third Reich, or at least of the internal security apparatus, is really laughable.

and Eichmann wasn't stupid, but he was just average in every sense. And he ended up in the SD because he admittedly didn't think that he was particularly well cut out for military, conventional military service. He confused the security service, which was the SD Securits-D. He confused that for what was the police. personal security detail of the furor and other personages within the executive chain of command of the party you know so when he volunteered with this kind of duty you know he essentially thought he'd be a police bodyguard to these high-profile personages instead he ended up working as a cop and and writing reports on what freemasons were doing

But he didn't really understand national socialism beyond a very functional sort of bureaucrats aspect of it. And he wasn't an old fighter. So this idea that a man who had no connection to the years of struggle and who deliberately sought out a bureaucratic posting, you know, after he failed to realize his ambition. ambition of, you know, being assigned a glamorous detail outside of the Vermeck. You know, the idea that this man was somehow pulling the strings of this regime is especially ridiculous. And something I'll get into a lot of this mythology that's deliberately promulgated by people for either cynical reasons or out of ignorance,

this idea that the Reich government or aspects of the Schuchstaffel and specifically the SD were allied with Zionism. Really, that comes in the fact that Eichmann's testimony and the testimony of others substantiates this. Eichmann was enamored with Zionism because he didn't really understand national socialism. He didn't really understand Zionism.

he was I believe he attended Theater Herzl's funeral I say that because there's conflicting reports but he held a lot of these Zionist intellectuals in high esteem he sought them out

after he developed a rudimentary fluency in Hebrew and Yiddish he was just out of the loop and for the people who are going to come up with these anecdotal

examples in rebuttal of officers within the SD chain of command quite literally ransoming Jews to some of these Zionist personages and allowing them to emigrate to Palestine that really derived more from personal corruption than anything else. You know, when these neocons or these Chetnik types

insist that the Third Reich was allied with Darla Islam, that actually is true. And we've gotten into that in prior series. The fewer did not have this notion that, well, let's hand Palestine and the Levant, which held for final Jewish strategic significance. Let's hand this over to this organized, hyper-militaristic Jewish cadre, then let them curate military and political power at international law and exploit and dominate our Arab allies

and, you know, kick the Europeans out of the Near East. That's ridiculous. You know, the Madagascar plan, which really had legs until 1943, because the year 1992 changed everything in terms of political and military developments, I mean. But the reason why the Madagascar plan was the favored solution is because

it was intended to become basically this island, this giant island ghetto, whereby European Jewry was going to be locked behind this proverbial and in some ways, in some capacity's literal wall like they were

when you know they were captivated by the umyads you know like that was the intention the intention wasn't I mean let's let's be honest here like people

the way national socialist viewed the Jewish diaspora they didn't view them as undesirable immigrants or something they viewed them as this incredibly dangerous political actor that to utilize the biological metaphors that people of the era favored were like this virulent bacchalus that it attached itself

to the Indo-European cultural organism and was murdering it from within you know this idea of oh the problem with Jews is they're like Mexico and there's too many of them here, or whatever these symbols think, that has no bearing on reality, or the conceptual aspects of the political controversy. So, you know, in the fact, Eichmann was so out of the loop, that's why he actually thought that the Zionist enterprise was somehow viable

from the respect of a national socialism, in terms of policy or in terms of, you know, broader ethics, which is why, too, you know, Eichmann's testimony where he obviously, Arendt gives credibility this perspective, this idea that, oh, Eichmann was feigning ignorance because he was just lying. No, he wasn't. Eichmann was not in the loop. So even these large-scale,

actions involving annihilation therapy and the categorical killing of Jews, why would Eichmann be privy to that? You know, that's not the way military and police chains of command

work. And also, he didn't have the respect or the cloud of the authority or the personal connections to be advised of these things in operational terms so as to curate a truly complete conceptual picture.

You know, so I mean, that's the thing to keep in mind, too, is that Eichmann just wasn't that bright, you know, and he wasn't this supreme evil, you know, that was ironically characterized by the banality of a bureaucrat he was what he appeared to be you know and um in the absence of

uh in the absence of an Adolf Hitler or a Gehring or even a Klaus Barbie to burn an effigy and send to the gallows so as to

reinvigorate the Jewish case for martyrdom in the court of global public opinion you know

Eichmann would do and he was who was available you know it's um and that's really what characterized I mean obviously this was the most high profile and the most sort of

spectacular and dramatic and flagrantly criminal you know the kidnapping of the man from Argentina, but there weren't a lot of, there weren't a lot of potential defendants available anymore for these prospective show trials. That's why around the time he was murdered,

he went down fighting, Yakin Piper, he was one of the few high-profile Vafn-SS commanders alive. and when ikeman was shanghaied auntie pavillich was uh i think pavlitz was murdered in 59 59 or 60 he was shot by this chetnik partisan and uh but then he he lingered on in poor health for a year or two and then he died but i mean he was gone um the major war criminals all been hanged at Nuremberg, the Minnesota designated. The Leibstrandert boys had been, for

all practical purposes, manumitted, although not clemency, because the Berlin crisis meant it, you know, it wasn't feasible to pursue that penal strategy against the German with combat experience so obviously we're going to form the core of the the the bundesphere you know

Eichmann was who was around and when he ended up on the cover of Life magazine because Sassen had sold this sensational story

of this man as you know this sort of demonic figure the fix was in and you know tag you're it

with Eichmann being it you know and I the fact of the matter too is I don't think that there was that deep of an understanding of Eichmann's psyche

before he was availed the custodial arrest but the sort of lack of any real impact outside of this fantasy narrative presented by Life magazine and things it stands the reason that these Israelis who back then were pretty adept at propaganda it wasn't like today you know they they knew that they knew that ikeman wasn't going to embarrass any wasn't going to embarrass the court like garing did you know ikeman was kind of out of his depth categorically whatever courtroom he was going to end up in you know and uh particularly uh

you know ikeman ikeman knew he was going to the gallows and yet he he still complimented the Israeli court for being comparatively fair vis-a-vis the Nuremberg proceedings and the Dachau proceedings. He wasn't being ironic. I think Eichmann really was that much of a dummy, but also I think the Israelis

were a bit more slick and how they presented things. Eichmann's lawyer who was Robert Servatius of Cologne, you know, he really was kind of the mouthpiece that

Eichmann needed but he he had a fool for a client you know and um he proffered his zealous defense even considering the absence of meaningful due process you know and he

he stayed in open court that Eichmann was going to go to the gallows for things that you know the IDF and the US Army pin medals on people for if you know they were they were serving in their respective ranks you know ikeman ikeman served a government that lost a war that was characterized as a moral crusade by america and and world jewelry and this is why you know my client is here which are balls especially in um you know literally standing in

uh a courtroom in downtown jerusalem the uh Savatius has wanted the crux of his defense and had Eichmann been more cooperative or had a better understanding of nuance. The way Servatius tried to present the defense nonetheless was that under the existing German legal system, Eichmann had done nothing wrong. you can't you can't charge individual men with acts of state and assign a discrete culpability and scepter therein that's problematic even if you're talking about a sitting executive it's preposterous if you're talking about a you know a mid-level subordinate like ikeman who is under a duty to obey at time of war, you know, because that, there's no precedent for that. And even though Eichmann wasn't serving in the Vermat, he was serving in a critical

military role, you know, in the service of the internal security apparatus, whether anybody accepts as legitimate or not what the government was serving identified as critical and existential national security interest doesn't matter.

The ex-state doctrine doesn't hinge on some appeal to universal reason as to what is necessary improper in times of war. By definition, these things are going to be governed by self-interested and ontological factors that, you know, are historically contingent and related things

that are subjectively imperative and only subjectively imperative. You know, relating to identity and belief structure and way of life and culture and custom and things like that. you know so in other words two if uh ikeman was the only one charged he's the only defendant was charged in this way

two regardless of the i mean the nuremberg indictments were preposterous but they were very clear that they were alleging that a criminal conspiracy existed within the rike leadership and the men so

hailed into court and named the indictment constituted the control group of the Third Reich, okay? And it came to something like the dockout trials, the claim was that Sep Dietrich through Piper

had committed pretty straightforward war crimes. Specifically, the massacre of American POWs at Malmody, the execution of French hostages, and the deliberate targeting of civilians and that the men under piper's direct command

piper being subordinate to sept dietrich in comte roof piper were aware of the illegality of these orders and carried them out anyway this claim that in contrast ikeman was some sort of shadow authority within the Third Reich, who devised and sought the implementation of a murder conspiracy of global proportions, hatched at Vancey, and that acts and omissions that otherwise would be acts of state. He is personally liable for, as a matter of law, owing to the role that he served as an executor of the aforementioned conspiracy, that makes very little sense, even within the sort of perverse logic of what came before.

And this was problematic. And that's one of the reasons I was always attracted to this case. I studied it a lot in law school. and I had this evidence I'd want to drop personal anecdotes that we'll bore people my evidence professor was this guy named Ralph Rubner

he was this orthodox Jew and he had mixed feelings about me because that was one of the few A's I got in law school I did well in that class and we'd engage each other a lot on various subject matter because he was an appeals guy too and as this were my interestly and he'd uh he was gase he's appellate lawyer among other things and um he and i would talk about the

ikeman trial a lot and it uh i mean i was obviously i was i was well aware of it before then you know i I was in my early 20s in law school and my research interests and my political fascinations were already pretty set. But I didn't understand the finer points of procedural nuance and things. But I went to a weird, like, fourth-tier toilet law school because I got a full ride there. But also, you know, I did, the law library that John Marshall shared with the CBA, it was like the Chicago Bar Associational Library as well.

So he had really good resources. And it wasn't even until my second year that we got LexisNexis and Westlaw and stuff. So you were still looking stuff up in these giant, like reference books to find like a squib is the what your case authority was. But they also had a lot of historical materials and things. And so I spent an inordinate amount of time deep diving into the Eichmann trial. And I wrote a paper on it for this international law elective that I took. And thankfully, it's anonymous grading in law school.

otherwise that probably would harm my grade because the teacher was like a DEI hire but um in any event forgive that little anecdotal tangent um ikeman uh as i said ikeman sort of sabotaged his own defense unintentionally by not abiding that theory of the defense and even if there, even if wasn't, isn't deprived of due process in a criminal proceeding that constructively amounts to war crimes, you're basically, you're carrying a, you're carrying an affirmative burden in part, even if that's not formally what is precedented or declared as a matter of law or precedent, because you're always putting on something of an affirmative defense. you know, and they're de facto, there's a shift of the elementary burden.

But Eichmann's own attitude was that he couldn't be indicted for murder because he had nothing, he had nothing to do with murdering anybody, you know, Jewish or otherwise. Or he'd never killed any human being even in military combat because Eichmann never served in Inset's. You know, so the proceedings game bogged. down with the pouring over the sassen documents which were purported to be an admission by party

opponent and thus admissible traditionally so the prosecution was endlessly reading these statements these learned statements that sassin attributed to ikeman i mean stuff that just on his face is incredible like you know i can happily jump into the grave knowing i murdered 5 million keywords, you know, like a stuff that nobody would actually say, you know,

and then in more substantive terms, it became a matter of the Israeli prosecutors digging out endless memorandum and battle space sit reps about the security situation, you know, and. and the seizing of hostages and decimation and retaliation for partisan attacks. And aiming to connect a direct order to kill Jewish civilians that emanated from the proverbial desk of Eichmann. What they came up or they can't remember if I mentioned this in the past, a man in the staff of the foreign office named Franz Rademacher. Franz Radamacher was something of an unofficial liaison to the SD and the foreign ministry because he had knowledge of Yiddish and he was something of a regional expert on the Balkans. And so his work product is scribbled in the margins of a lot of internal documents relating to the situation.

in Yugoslavia, you know, the Bosnia and Bosnia Herzegovina and occupied Serbia, essentially, you know, because the NDH was a sovereign state. There was a note, one of these such notes penned by Radamacher refers to an oral order by telephone, and it essentially reads paraphrasing, quote, Eichmann proposes shooting. With respect to suspected partisan activity, the prosecution claim that, well, the subject matter here is that

Jewish hostages are to be taken and in event of a partisan or Chetnik attack, Serbian hostages or Jewish hostages, respectively, are to be murdered. and, you know, this was by order of Eichmann. The problem was the incident in question, or at least the statement by Radamacher, it took place in the autumn of 1941, as Barbarossa was well underway and German victory appeared to be at hand. but the Serbian part of the former Yugoslavia have been occupied for a good six months already

and the army the here was dealing with a very severe situation relating to partisan activity and asymmetrical warfare and this endured throughout the duration of hostilities until 1945 it's really fascinating because it was like a very different war than the Ust front or what ensued, you know,

after the, in the final war, when France and the German Reich itself became a battlefront. But, you know, it wasn't, Eichmann had nothing to do with the German army's chain of command. He had absolutely no say in how they were to proceed or would proceed with respect to these you know constabulary security matters

and responding to partisan attacks and you know in occupied in territories they're occupying with hostility if Eichmann had deigned to tell some Vermacht Genaal or Feldmarshal how to do things he would have been left at

but that wouldn't even occurred to him you know So it was It was a bizarre sort of reach You know what I mean? I don't find hard to believe that Eichmann was suggesting The categorical destruction of some population Or some hostage group or category

But this idea that Eichmann who basically was a police lieutenant colonel he's not only organizing and plotting the Holocaust he's seeing that it be implemented he's uh you know

some kind of savants who's plotting movements of you know millions of people you know arranging how they're going to be sent to their death he's calculating the numbers in his head he's coming with quotas when he's not doing that he's giving order to the German army he's micromanaging

the the anti-partisan effort in Yugoslavia you know, it's it was this guy Superman or super Nazi. You know, it's ridiculous. You know, and also

something, even most of these bad Vashem types and the like acknowledge, including Raul Hilberg, who, Eichmann's defense team had the good sense to introduce statements from his

writings he wrote the book, The Destruction of the European Jews, which along with, it's slightly more intellectually rigorous than the crap put out by Shire, but it's in the same vein. It's not a really credible book.

But by the metrics of Hilberg and of the Jerusalem court and what was being alleged, even Hilberg acknowledged in the former Yugoslavia in occupied Serbia and Bosnia, The people who were hit the most hard were ethnic Serbs.

You know, this idea that Eichmann was sussing out racial Jews under the Nuremberg laws for annihilation, and of all places, Serbia, that's very much reaching. You know, that just wasn't really, that wasn't really characteristic. I mean, don't get me wrong. excuse me there were ethnic Jewish partisans in Serbia who were actively engaged against the Vermacht and the SSSD security element and there were instances in Agaigar from Yugoslavia of decimation and the killing of hostages. And I'm sure there's multiple instances of the people in question being so categorized only the Jewish race.

But it's just like a bizarre exemplar of a, suppose an evidentiary exemplar of, of Eichmann's bad conduct. towards the Jewish race, if you follow what I mean. So that the testimony and the arguments over evidentiary minutiae became very bogged down with this kind of stuff. You know, and like I said, Eichmann didn't do himself any favors in this regard. And such that there were, such that there were concentration camps, not including Ysinovatch, which was administered by the NDH and the Ustasha,

and was a, that warrants its own discussion. And I don't want to court controversy with a tangential discussion of that right now. Such that there were camps that housed Jewish and Chetnik partisans in occupied Bosnia and Serbia. they've been set up by the military governor of the region who's a very much ginnahal named franzbon and these were male only camps and they exclusively house the jewish and serbian males

who had been accused of uh partisan activity or sympathy you know and again if franz bone who really had the power of, you know, pilot as the, you know, the governor general of occupied Serbia and Bosnia, like the idea that he'd have to seek out a policeman of lesser rank and ask his permission before he shot people in the camps he set up is laughable. In fact, Bon or Baum ran into trouble because he took initiative to deport large numbers of people without consulting other commands, equivalent commands,

so engaged in theater. you know, he, he proceeded, I mean, not only was he not obligated to consult with the SD or Eichmann before he did anything, not only did he substantially outrank Eichmann anyway, but he acted as a law and to himself as he saw fit, as military governors often do when they're dealing with these kinds of occupations. whereby, uh, ongoing hostilities are, are the reality. You know, so it was a particularly, it was a particularly foolish example, uh, or attempt to impeach Eichmann's credibility or to introduce inculpatory evidence. well at the same time rebutting you know was assertion that he never issued a murder order but it goes to show you that

there really was nothing to this case in chief other than a sensationalist article and a lot of conjecture um and plus too the I don't want to I don't sound like I'm playing piggy Clinton lawyer ball but in translation

what the note indicated emergent from the foreign office liaison what it said was that Eichmann quote proposed shooting I mean that's that that doesn't

sound like an order to me so you know and if if the theory of the case is this man had supreme command authority not just that he was party to a in show conspiracy that doesn't rise to the level of satisfying the elements as a matter of law or as a matter of common sense. But, you know, we don't even need to get that far because this was an army affair.

and this is relevant to, not just for obvious reasons, of culpability, but at this time, in part owing to reasons of politics, and part owing to reasons of appearances, and in part owing to maintaining the internal logic of what was claimed at Nuremberg, and subsequently, the prosecuting authorities had very deliberately distinguished, between the Vermathe and the party and the security apparatus that served the party in the form of the Schuchstaffel.

So now being the then present where Eichmann was defending himself under uh well under a penal jeopardy in um jerusalem and the the prosecuting authorities are essentially claiming that there was no such distinction you know the there there was no discrete command structure you know there there was there was no categorically discreet domains of authority which had the effect of categorically implicating the party apparatus and its security apparatus, while largely exonerating purely military chains of command and the men who were so availed to those authorities. So on its face, it's contradictory.

victory um you know and uh franz rockamaker who again he was the he was the right foreign ministry liaison in the balkans he was regularly subordinate to the chief diplomat in theater martin luther who in turn was regularly subordinate to yacquem von ribbentrop who was you know executed at nuremberg but he was a civilian you know so i mean that further confuses things too because not now you're implicating uh you know a civilian chain of command into the into the army and then saying that um ikeman somehow had authority over both it it doesn't make logical sense um rata macher was later tried uh in the Bundes Republic. And it was a strange

convergence of factors that led him to court. His testimony was that regardless of what was said or wasn't said because some of the same testimony was introduced at his trial. You know, he said, quote, the army was responsible

for order in Serbia and had the authority to kill or not kill rebellious Jews by shooting, which is entirely plausible. And the Bundes Republic court, I don't have the record in front of me, but I did read it thoroughly. I could not find a substantive objection to what was alleged therein. you know no state prosecutor swooped in and said well you know

weren't you were you subordinate to Ikemen and both you you and the army were in turn subordinate to the SD and nothing like that this claim starts and dies in Jerusalem you know and

again I realize at criminal law the only there's no true race judicata or collateral estoppel like the only race judicata is the double jeopardy prohibition at least in our system but that i'm talking about the historical record i'm not talking about what arguably can slide by in a court of law owing the you know the odd nuances um that control in terms of precedent um you know and that that imbues it with an independent

significance of historical and factual nature. I hope I'm not boring everybody to death, but this is important here. It's not, it's not, you know, like when autists, you know, play, you know, play ridiculous games with, you know, the chemical composition of the, or the masonry of Birkenau or something. You know, this stuff matters because they're supposed to accept that, you know, what the proceedings like moves available to represent good law that's, you know, well-precedented within the relevant body jurisprudence and it's anything but um you know and that

which this does not beg the question would ikeman have pled guilty if he'd been indicted as a mere accessory to homicide but then again i that that would have been a totally different set of circumstances being alleged and presumably he wouldn't have been facing the gallows um you know and uh ikeman to his credit and is there's an earnestness sometimes the stupidity you know ikeman was testifying as i said that in the house of this conversation or the truth as he perceived it and I you know you can't extricate

the claim of like when representing a supreme command authority within an unprecedented literally global conspiracy of murder from the fact of him being availed this kind of jeopardy

at all you know and that that's what removes it from a question of mere jurisprudence and whether or not due process was honored and all these implications. You know, you're talking about among other things, aside from the basic injustice and peculiar essence of these proceedings and those that came before it, you know, you're, you're talking about what amounts to people making a, an outlandish and at-based theological claim about history and then insisting that this is some sort of rational process

being applied to ensure that man's justice has realized based upon appeal to what they're insisting is a factual record. Meanwhile, they bandy crazy Judaic concepts about burnt offerings and, you know, unprecedented evils and conspiracies of world domination. It's, it's oddly incoherent.

It's, it'd be like, I don't even know what it would be like. Could you just call it myth-making? Yeah, but it's even more, it's even more strange because myth-making happens all the time and people don't pretend that, you know, it's happening within the context of some logical court proceeding. You know, I mean, the law is strange anyway, and particularly the reverence assigned to it, particularly by Jews. But it'd be almost, it'd be like a guy like writing like a, some, like, romantic poem to a math problem or something. You know, it's a collision of methods and framing device, conceptual framing devices that are totally at odds with the essence and purpose of what is underway.

You know, in terms of subject matter and the alleged intention of those convening the proceedings in the first place. And there's something oddly oriental about it, too. The testimony of Theodore Mounds was presented in absentia. He was the Minister of Education and Culture in Bavaria, and he wrote extensively on questions of law and ethics and people's duty of obedience and the burdens of command and things like this. And he famously stated, quote, the command of the furor is the absolute center of the present legal order,

which people then and now hold out and hold similar sentiments out as examples of the bestial and authoritarian nature of, you know, these the Prussian martinet or his Bavarian or Austrian counterparts when in reality I mean that's in

I mean you can say that and be absolutely correct that the command of Abraham Lincoln was the absolute center of the present legal order of circa 1863 in the United States okay but you know this

the idea that Eichmann within that paradigm had some affirmative duty to behave differently or to deliberately strike a posture of insubordination is somewhat absurd. I mean, even if

you know, supposing for a second, you know, we take leave of reason and accept that Adolf Hitler was this homicidal maniac who lived only to launch a world conspiracy of murder against Jewry.

You know, even if I were to lobotomize myself and become enamored with fantasies of Jewish martyrdom, it, the what was just described as constituting the essence of the sovereign legal order during the warriors that's indisputable and this is just otherwise it's

simply not credible. I'm very clear to assign such an affirmative duty to somebody like Eichmann who as we acknowledged in terms of rank in terms of domain and responsibility in terms of the office that he served really was something of a really was something of a of not just not in eminence but really was something of a non-entity within that system but that's about all I got for the unfortunate Edolph Eichmann

cool well that was this was the episode that I think that I got more out of than anything so no it makes me happy and we can we can talk about Eichmann more on the on the stream this week if the subs want to talk about it i want to excuse me i'm sorry i keep coughing i'm i'm feeling like 200% better but i some respiratory stuff is still working itself out you know so i hope it wasn't too annoying or bothersome you are the subs but for the stream this week i i want to talk a little bit about this

cadre I'm trying to build a you know I'm trying to I'm trying to create a among other things a home for guys who are very dedicated partisans but maybe don't fit into the OGC model

or some of these other fraternal organizations who are doing God's work I love the OGC they're my best friends you know but it's not the right fit for everybody and some of the guys who need a place of the verbal table within the new resistance

you know require some sort of formal structured representation I believe and I'm trying to get that off the ground now that I'm feeling well and people are asking questions about sort of where we are in existential terms so we'll talk about that you know that's cool but uh yeah oh I mean I wouldn't if I were you wouldn't want anything to do with OGC. I've been told by people on the internet, anonymous people on the internet, that the OGC is run by American Jewry.

So. That's awesome. All right. Go find Thomas on Substack. That's where he hangs out and posts mostly. That is real Thomas 777.substack.com. You go to his website, Thomas 777. dot com. The T is a seven and we'll be back on the live stream on Thursday and we'll be back with

another episode. I think we have another series we need to finish. Yeah, I'm Paul Potten, Democratic Camp, and then I recommended a subject for you next that I think the subs will be really excited about. Yeah, no, and it's important that relates to the some of the other stuff I just raised. Yeah, no, that's great, man. Yeah. Well, we'll get right into that stuff too. And yeah, thanks again for hosting me. And again, I want to, I want to read up my gratitude to everybody for being patient when I was ill this past month. So I'm trying to put out as much quality content as possible. So be grateful to Pete and burden and the other guys for revealing platforms to me because that's a huge help. Well, thank you, Thomas. Talk to you later.