A British judge has dismissed a case against a South Australian man who is wanted in Germany for Holocaust denial. Fredrick Toben was arrested at Heathrow airport earlier this month while he was in transit from America to Dubai. He is wanted in Germany on charges that he is a Holocaust denier, after his Adelaide Institute website published claims that there was no mass murder of Jews by the Nazis.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has recently described the Holocaust as a “myth”  He has stated:

“They(Israel) have invented a myth that Jews were massacred and place this above God, religions and the prophets,”

The ugly face of Holocaust Denial is still smiling across the globe over 63 years after the last concentration camp was liberated at the end of World War II.  It has become especially virulent in the area of social media where anonymity protects deniers like a white sheet.  Facebook is a prime example. According to this article which initially brought my attention to this issue, the following groups promoting Holocaust Denial are currently active on Facebook (as of the writing of this article).

“Based on the facts….There was no Holocaust”
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2452587161

“Holocaust: A series of Lies”
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=80565100143

“Holocaust is a Holohoax”
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=18701411294

“Holohoax”
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=9371162562

“Holocaust is a Myth”
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=15631489021

Holocaust Denial is not against the law in the United States.  In this country those who believe the Holocaust never occurred or has been over-stated have the public and private rights to their opinions in all media forums including social media.  Or do they?  As we traverse the social media universe stopping at, bulletin boards, Myspace, Digg and Facebook and YouTube we are bombarded with unpopular opinions.  Opinions on subjects such as the Holocaust that  fly in the face of all accepted historical research.  Social sites such as Facebook certainly have the right to allow diverse points of view on these politically and historically sensitive issues. Facebook also has Terms Of Service(TOS) that dictate the limitations on such content.  Facebook’s TOS contains the following limitation on the types of content that may not be posted on its site:

“upload, post, transmit, share, store or otherwise make available content that would constitute, encourage or provide instructions for a criminal offense, violate the rights of any party, or that would otherwise create liability or violate any local, state, national or international law.”

This is an important TOS as it relates to Holocaust Denial because Holocaust Denial does not enjoy the same protection in other countries that it does in the United States.  The advocation of Holocaust Denial is a crime in the following countries: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Israel, Slovakia and Switzerland.  Of those countries, Facebook has an active presence by way of a localized platform in Germany. Do the existence of Facebook groups that advocate beliefs that are crimes in other countries violate Facebook TOS?  Seems to be a straightforward question that Facebook representatives are capable of answering.  Here is the argument for removal of Holocaust Denial groups:

Holocaust Denial is a crime in Germany as well as many other countries. Facebook has an independent presence in Germany. Facebook TOS would seem to prohibit content that violates the laws of the countries Facebook has a presence in. Much of this of course depends on how the words “local”, “state”, “national” and “international law“  are defined. I do not believe the definition of “international law” would trigger Facebook TOS.   It however could be argued that the words “local”, “state” and “national” have defenition implications beyond the borders of the United States. These words are not defined in the Facebook TOS.

I sent Facebook the following email which was a followup to a previous email exchange about copyright issues:

Alex:

The article I am writing is regarding Facebook TOS and Facebook Groups that support Holocaust Denial.  You may or may not know that Holocaust Denial is a crime in many European countries including countries where Facebook seeks to establish a presence such as Germany.  Facebook TOS specifically prohibit such groups from:

“upload, post, transmit, share, store or otherwise make available content that would constitute, encourage or provide instructions for a criminal offense, violate the rights of any party, or that would otherwise create liability or violate any local, state, national or international law.”

I am specifically referring to the following Facebook Groups:

Based on the facts….There was no Holocaust
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2452587161

Holocaust: A series of Lies
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=80565100143

Holocaust is a Holohoax
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=18701411294

Holohoax
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=9371162562

Holocaust is a Myth
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=15631489021

Is there anyone at Facebook I can ask for a comment on why these groups are permitted and/or do not violate Facebook TOS before I write the article?

Sincerely,

Brian  Cuban

To date I have received no response to my email from anyone at Facebook. No action of any kind has been taken even if that action would be to simply explain the Facebook TOS to me and how it applies to such groups. There appears to be a humorous irony in Facebook’s discretionary enforcement of its TOS.  Upload a copyrighted video. Remove it or you are gone.  Post someone’s Facebook profile on a blog.  You are gone.  Deny the Holocaust.  Have a field day.   It reminds me of a quote that is often seen in the context of the Holocaust:

All that’s necessary for the forces of evil to win in the world is for enough good men to do nothing”

To Facebook:  Thank you for doing nothing.

The NFL’s New York Jets and  New York Giants are in the mist of naming right negotiations for their new 1.3 billion dollar  stadium slated to open in 2010. The rights are expected to bring the teams between 20-30 million dollars per year.   While involving big bucks there normally would be just a behind the scenes ho-hum series of negotiations culminating with a press-release, sports page coverage and maybe a low key obligatory news conference.  The teams can only dream in retrospect that this could have been the scenario

The leading contender for the naming rights was  Allianz.  Allianz is a Germany based Insurance Company. Allianz was founded in 1890.  It is the largest financial service provider in the world.  Allianz already has has it name on Allianz Arena in its home city of Munich.  It was home to the 2006 FIFA World Cup.

Allianz also has significant historical ties to Nazi Germany. This is nothing new in terms of  Nazi history. Many currently reputable companies based in Europe played either direct or tangential roles in providing materials and services to the Nazis in aid of the war machine.  Allianz falls into a unique group. Their business relationships with the Nazis were not related to advancing the war effort.  Their services directly aided in advancing “The Final Solution”.  The genocide of all Jews in Europe and ultimately the world. According to noted historian Gerald Feldman, Allianz had given money owed to Jewish beneficiaries of their life insurance policies to the Nazi authorities instead. They also insured the construction of concentration camps.  Feldman has written that Allianz sold life insurance policies to Jews with knowledge that Jews were being murdered in mass.  They knew there would be very little if any chance of ever collecting.  Allianz allegedly further collaborated with the Nazis to hide the fraud being committed on the Jews from the outside world portraying what Feldman termed “business as usual”.  As an interesting media side-note the Allianz ties to Nazi Germany was dramatized in a Law and Order Episode entitled ” Blood Money“.

The the thought of driving past or entering “Allianz Stadium”  with the ghosts and memories of 6 million murdered Jews emanating from it created an uproar not only the Jewish community but many local New York and New Jersesy community leaders. Allianz has responded to previous complaints and accusations by stating that it has made restitution to Holocaust victims and has therefore atoned for its sins.  It should not be held further accountable in its business dealings.   There are those that disagree. Elan Steinberg, the former director of the World Jewish Congress said Allianz still owes Jewish beneficiaries some $2 billion dollars.  Steinberg is notable for negotiating the 1998 multi-billion dollar global Holocaust settlement from Swiss and other international banks and business interests holding assets belonging to Holocaust victims.  Interestingly Allianz allegedly held up insurance payments to 9-11 victims, finally paying when confronted with threatened government action.

In the end the Stadium Authority decided that the public relations disaster barreling towards them like a tidal wave and the collateral good will and public relations damage that would ensue was not worth taking the highest bidder.  There were certainly millions to be had from other interested parties with less sordid corporate pasts. The Sports Authority issued a brief statement that negotiations with Allianz for naming rights had terminated.

Was Allianz treated unfairly?  As a descendant of Russian Jews I am acutely aware of the historical, moral and personal connection that Jews feel to the Holocaust and intentional an unintentional  actions that diminish the inhuman magnitude of horror that it represents.  I believe the Stadium authority did the right thing in rejecting the Allianz bid.  The bid should not have been rejected because of what Allianz represents as a company. They represent a  successful  financial services company trying to maximize their exposure and profits.  Good for the Giants and Jets.  Good for Allianz.  Good for the local economy. Sound business sense.  Allianz should not have gotten the bid because of what the name “Allianz” represents as a “historical brand”   Whether they like it or not the Allianz  historical brand presently carries a significant current Holocaust taint to it.  As long as that taint exists to the brand Allianz has a responsibility to  wield their brand with sensitivity and restraint. Companies have a duty to consider the historical taint when doing business with Allianz.   When history and world opinion finally dictates that the Allianz historical brand has been cleansed to the extent to it ho longer carries the ghost of 6 million dead, then and only they can should they expand the marketing of that brand to areas bringing the public conscience into play  as compared to the individual consumer purchase.

There will certainly be a day when the Allianz brand is cleansed and ready to re-enter the business world marketing to the public consumer and the public conciense without guilt or a historical flogging.  Today is not that day.

Would it surprise anyone to learn that there were upwards of 150, 000 soldiers of partial Jewish descent serving in the Nazi army during World War II? I had no idea until I attended a lecture by Bryan Mark Rigg discussing his book entitled Hitler’s Jewish Soldiers. What is even more startling is that Adolf Hitler was aware of this and for a while allowed them to serve. In most cases these soldiers had no knowledge of the Holocaust killing machine. From their point of view they were simple German patriots fighting for their country. Many did not even consider themselves Jewish. Some were unaware of their “Jewish blood”. According to his book, at least 20 soldiers of “jewish blood” were awarded The Knights Cross. Included in the ranks were two field marshals and fifteen generals. The most prominently known of these commanders of Jewish descent was General Erhard Milch who had one Jewish parent. He was deputy to Herman Goring, the head of the Luftwaffe(German Air Force).

When I look back at my own Jewish Immigrant background, the “specter” of Jews fighting for the Nazis in the traditional sense sickens stomach. My ancestry is much like other Jewish immigrants. Both sides of my family immigrated to the Unites States from Czarist Russia in the early 1900’s. They came to escape the brutal exterminating pogroms of the Russian authorities much like the extermination of Jews by the Nazis. Czarist officials not only promoted pogroms to blame Jews for government failures and economic depressions but also to isolate jews and keep them fearful. They forced the “Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion,” a documents used the to justify persecuting Jews ans stil in circulation now in Middle Eastern Countries to “prove” that Jews controlled World Finance. Moreover, the Czars conscripted Jewish youth as young as 12 to serve 25 years in the army. Some Russian Jews immigrated to Poland only to be ultimately persecuted by both the Hitler regime and their very own. German born Jews treated Eastern Jews as inferior calling them “Ghetto Jews”. Jews of this background constituted the majority of the Jews massacred pursuant to “The Final Solution“.

The common public notion is that no one of Jewish descent would have ever been allowed to serve in the Nazi regime and, if discovered, would be immediately deported to a forced labor or extermination/concentration camp. This was not the case. The Nazi racial classification or “Nuremberg Laws” were complex and bizarre as to who was classified as a “Jew”. (see Nazi classification chart) This classification dispute is responsible for some controversy. Some scholars have complained that the title of Rigg’s book is sensational and misleading because it implies that these Nazi soldiers were Jewish when, in fact, many of them would not be classified as Jews under Jewish law (Young men were considered Jewish if their mothers were Jewish.). Many of the soldiers interviewed did not consider themselves Jewish at all and had been baptized into a Christian tradition. I view this as a simplistic criticism since the overall issue of how Hitler bent and twisted the racial laws of his regime to serve his own bizarre purposes in the face of the Nuremberg laws is a fascinating idea that Riggs explains from a unique perspective. Riggs demonstrates the willingness of the Nazis to bend their own laws of racial classification and Jewish persecution and documents Hitler’s extensive , obsessive involvement in deciding which “Jews” received a pass ,which would be discharged, and which would ultimately be deported. Riggs also explores the historical, religious and cultural individual personal conflicts of “The Jewish Identity”. A very interesting side-note to Rigg’s book is that his research has popped up on Holocaust Revisionist websites as support for their outrageously bizarre claim that there was substantial support for Hitler from parts of the Jewish Community.

While most of Jewish descent were ordinary Wehrmacht soldiers, some rose to very high ranking positions of authority in the Nazi Regime. Some either directly or indirectly participated in the Jewish killing machine. Germans of Jewish descent were fighting for a country whose official policy was that they were regarded as second-class citizens and, in most cases, not even human. Germans of Jewish descent were fighting for a country that was deporting their relatives to concentrations camps for eventual extermination. Germans of Jewish descent were fighting for a country who, some say, planned to ultimately exterminate them also when Germany won the war. How could these “Jews” fight for a country that planned their extinction? Why did Hitler allow this to take place? We know it is not due to the common misconception that Hitler was part Jewish. Scholars universally agree that there is no evidence of this. Rigg’s thesis certainly goes against everything I believed about my identity as a Jew and what it means to be a Jew. Does having “Jewish blood” in itself make you Jewish? While the simple answer seems to be no, it was quite complicated in Nazi Germany.

A fascinating aspect of the lecture and the book is the method by which the Nazis determined who was Jewish and who was not. For racial and military purposes, the Nazi Party classified Jewish people as full Jews, half Jews, and quarter Jews. Each classification was treated differently with regards to whether they could serve in the German military and what rights, if any, they had under German law. As previously mentioned, according to Jewish law, a person is determined to be a Jew if the person’s mother is Jewish.

I would have been a full Jew under Nazi laws. All four of my grandparents on both sides were Jewish. I am also of Russian descent. Not only would I have been prohibited from serving in the German military, I would have in all likelihood been on the first train out to to Auschwitz or some other extermination camp. Jews of Eastern descent or “Ghetto Jews” were also looked down upon and discriminated against by German born Jews as well as the Germans. It was a double whammy. (it was an upper vs lower class type discrimination as compared to the totalitarian discrimination of the Nazis)

Many of those of partial Jewish descent while Jewish by both Jewish law and Nazi racial classification had become so assimilated into the German-Christian society through mixed marriages that they did not consider themselves Jewish. Some were practicing Christians. This was only changed through Hitler’s racial classification system and the Nuremberg Laws which officially made the majority of people of full and partial Jewish descent second-class citizens called “Mischling“, meaning they came from a mixed marriage and had partial Jewish ancestry. Germans of partial Jewish descent who had practiced Christianity all of their lives, were suddenly classified as a “Mischling,” Jews under Hitler’s racial classification laws. They were suddenly stripped of most rights under German law.

Interestingly, the situation was not just a German/Jewish phenomenon. In 1941, Finland joined the war as a “co-belligerent” of Germany. (Finland refused to call itself an ally.) There were 250-300 Finnish-Jews fighting alongside Germany on the eastern front against Russia, and some of the Finnish-Jews were even awarded German battle decorations. Soldiers with Jew ish heritage also fought along side the Nazis when Romania was aligned against the Soviet Union as well as for Italy.

There was a huge ideology gap between what occurred in Finland and Nazi Germany. Finland was not under Nazi rule. Finland, from its perspective, was fighting for its independence from Russia rather than to support any anti-Semitic ideology or German persecution. Finland as a nation refused to endorse the Nazi anti-Semitic policies and refused to deport, persecute or discriminate against its Jewish population. It is quite the paradox that despite this policy their fighting alongside Germany certainly helped Germany achieve military goals and indirectly aided in the Jewish persecutions. The Finnish-Jewish soldiers were not blind to what was going on. It caused quite a bit of internal conflict and tension with the German soldiers. This was also not a racial classification issue. Finland did not discriminate against or classify their Jews. In this situation, full, practicing Jews were fighting alongside the Nazis against the Allies, fighting predominately at Leningrad.

The German racial classification system for Jews and the resulting disparate treatment with regards to military service in the Nazi army highlights some of the fundamental issues of Jewish Identify that exist even today. What does it mean to be Jewish? What qualities and beliefs make someone Jewish? If your mother is Jewish you are certainly a Jews by definition of Jewish Law but that may not be how you may look at yourself if you were not raised in the Jewish tradition. Are we as Jews defined by our culture, our religious practices or how other view us? As an example, several years ago I got into a heated argument when a person who was close to me told me in her opinion I was not Jewish because I did not adhere to Jewish religious practices. I was infuriated. It was and is my belief that my bond to Judaism is through culture, common history and suffering. The bond that all Jews share. That is what defines me as a Jew. She could not grasp this concept. This was the dilemma faced by many of the Mischling in Nazi Germany. This is a historical and religious conflict faced by Jews today as mixed marriages have become much more common and accepted in the United States. Jews argue among themselves over this issue. It is a conflict that transcends time.

*Thank you to my uncle and distinguished author Larry Cuban for helping me with the Russian History aspect of this piece.

* My apologies for a glaring and embarrassing historical error. The Fins fought in support of the Battle for Leningrad, not Stalingrad. My apologies to anyone of Finnish descent the error may have offended

©2008 Brian Cuban

The Holocaust is a subject that is near to my heart, as it is to many descendants of Russian and Jewish immigrants. The historical and emotional connections have created a compelling bond. I am currently trying to identify two ancestors who perished and ensure they are registered at the Holocaust Memorial.

After watching at least fifty independent, mainstream, and documentary releases, I feel a strong personal connection to each tragic figure who suffered.

The Holocaust has always been sporadic material for Hollywood. Every few years a small budget independent or documentary will show up, but mainstream Hollywood rarely invests in a Holocaust masterpiece. If a big budget film about the Holocaust manages to become a reality, the result is generally an accurate account of genocide delivered in epic dimensions. The Holocaust is such a sacred, emotional and controversial subject that it would be Hollywood suicide to make a historically inaccurate or irresponsible film. A film that varies from the basic facts of actual events risks being considered revisionist which would be a disaster for a mainstream film as well as the people behind it.

Hollywood is acutely aware that a Holocaust film, to be accepted on any level, must always stay faithful to basic accepted concepts and historical outlines regarding a specific event or specific issue within that event. It is acceptable to create fictional people and places and subplots around a particular event but to alter a Holocaust event even slightly is very risky and frankly taboo. The Holocaust is such a sacred and risky subject for film makers that while many Holocaust films are done very few released in wide distribution or considered mainstream. Most are, in fact, documentaries.

A formidable documentary on the subject is Imaginary Witness:Hollywood and the Holocaust. It had very limited release and is unfortunately very difficult to locate. If you want to see it you are going to have to get lucky on Ebay.