The Final Solution began with Wanasee Conference in 1942.  It ended 6 million deaths later. It will play out one more time in what will probably be the last  major Nazi war Crimes trial of our lifetimes. It may be the most publicized since 1962 when  Adolph Eichman was tried in an Israeli court for  crimes against humanity and war crimes. He was convicted and hanged.  His trial was televised around the world.

A German Court has issued a warrant seeking extradition or deportation of retired Ohio autoworker John Demjanjuk. He  was charged with 29,000 counts of acting as an accessory to murder while working as a guard at the Sobibor Nazi death camp in occupied Poland.  Demjanjuk, 88, lives in a Cleveland suburb.  He  denies involvement in the deaths and claims he is too sick to travel if deported or extradited.

Demjanjuk’s apparent final travel stop in a German court has followed a bizarre and lengthy  path.  He  was wrongly convicted of being the Nazi death camp guard “Ivan the Terrible” and sentenced to death in Israel.  The Israeli Supreme Court later overturned the conviction, saying another man was probably “Ivan,” a sadistic guard at the Treblinka death camp where 870,000 people died.  He returned to the United States and had his citizenship restored.  He was stripped again of his U.S. citizenship again in 2002, with a judge ruled that he had worked as a guard at other death camps. The problem up to now has been that no country would take him.  Edward Nishnic, a spokesman for Demjanjuk’s family once stated:

“This is taking it to the ridiculous……. It’s another form of harassment against a very and very frail man.”

His wife Vera told told a German newspaper:

“His brain is not functioning correctly. One day he recognizes everything, the next day he has forgotten it all. He goes to the doctor for injections once a week, otherwise he wouldn’t be around much longer.”

There is no doubt that there is sympathy and support for Demjanjuk due to his age and failing health.  Should there be?   Should the passage of time mitigate punishment for war crimes so heinous that they shock the conscience?   I personally do not think so.  The United States should grant extradition of John Demjanjuk or deport him.  He should be forcibily removed from this country on a stretcher if need be.  The  ultimate conclusion of the Final Solution at a minimum should require that John Demjanjuk be forced to look into the eyes of the few still  alive who witnessed his brutality.  If none are alive then their decsendants.  That is the minimum that justice requires.

According to Fox News, a survey of around 1,000 Britain high school students aged 11 to 16 found 10 percent of youngsters were unsure of what Auschwitz was and 2 percent thought it was a brand of beer.  For those of us actually in the know Auschwitz was a Nazi concentration/extermination camp in which over 1 million Jews and other undesirables were worked and gassed to death.

I do not find this survey suprising. It makes perfect sense to me.  It is not because Brits are any less intelligent, their teachers any less educated or the schools are any less educationally efficient in world history.  IMHO  none of these are the reason.   The reason is simple.  British parents and grandparents who lived through the Nazi terror are sick and tired of talking about it. They lived and breathed the wrath of Hitler when it mattered most.  They feel they have been beaten over the head with Hitler and the Holocaust for over 60 years.  They want to move on. They are therefore diminishing it in the schools and to their children.  How do I know this?  They have told me. I have written quite  few blogs on  the Holocaust and Hitler.  Without exception, after each one is written I will get emails from people in the U.K asking me why I find the material intersting and telling me they find it tiresome.  While they acknowledge the importance of the events, they feel like they are being held “historically hostage”   Whats the logical follow?  Schools stop talking about it to students.  Grandprents and parents stop talking about it to their children.  Is that the right way to go?   That is not for me to say.  I find the subject of the Holocaust fascinating and  believe it should be a historical imperative in  secondary education.   I however did not live through the bombing of London.

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.