Nuremberg
I deleted this:
-
At the Nuremberg Trials, Adolf Eichmann's deputy Dieter Wisliceny (subsequently executed as a war criminal), testified:
The Mufti was one of the initiators of the systematic extermination of European Jewry and had been a collaborator and adviser of Eichmann and Himmler in the execution of this plan. ... He was one of Eichmann's best friends and had constantly incited him to accelerate the extermination measures. I heard him say, accompanied by Eichmann, he had visited incognito the gas chamber of Auschwitz. Palestinefacts: Grand Mufti
Wisliceny gave no such testimony at the Nuremburg trial, nor in any other public forum. The transcript of his evidence is readily available, see [1], [2], [3], [4] . As far as I know, al-Husayni was not mentioned at Nuremburg by anyone at all. There are two sources of this story in the literature. One is a journalist Stein who claimed to have heard it from Wisliceny, and another is that Rudolph Kastner claimed to have heard it from Wisliceny. According to Philip Mattar's biography of al-Husayni, it became clear at the Eichmann trial that Wisliceny had confused al-Husayni with another Arab; I can't verify that. In any case, the independent evidence is that al-Husayni had little relationship of any sort with Eichmann and Himmler, and the first claim in this "quote" is completely ridiculous. Try to find a mainstream Holocaust historian who takes it seriously; there aren't any. --Zero 12:03, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
-
Zero0000, the transcripts are oral testimony only and not include the affidavits made out by Wisleceny and others. Testimony in a court includes both the oral and written statements. The web is a poor source for Nuremburg, the quantity of material from those trials is so large that much has not been placed on the web (yet, if ever). A number of these are referenced in Eichmann's trial. By then Wisleceny was dead...having been executed in Bratislava in 1948. Wisleceny was Eichmann's deputy. One source denying Husseini's role the article from Institute for Historical Review, an organization that folks can judge for themselves. OneVoice 04:21, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
-
-
No need to change anything I wrote on that basis. If there was such an affidavit of Wisliceny it would have been quoted by the historians who have written on this subject. If you believe there was one, find it. --Zero 04:45, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
-
Regarding the maximalist statements of Husseini's views we have this from the Eichmann trial:
-
It has been proved to us that the Mufti, too, aimed at the implementation of the Final Solution, viz., the extermination of European Jewry, and there is no doubt that, had Hitler succeeded in conquering Palestine, the Jewish population of Palestine as well would have been subject to total extermination, with the support of the Mufti. [5]
-
The above quote is from the judgement, the findings of the court. The article on Husseini needs to reflect this. OneVoice 04:25, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
-
-
The Eichman trial prosecution was under orders from the government to bring al-Husayni into it even though he was barely relevant to the trial. The statements made about him were not established by testimony in the trial and were pure politicking. --Zero 04:45, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Zero0000, do you have some basis for such a statement? This seems patently wrong. One would have to have prepared Wisliceny's statements before his (Wisliceny's) execution. Years before Eichmann was located, much less brought to Israel to stand trial. Please bring documentation to support such a slanderous charge. OneVoice 06:23, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
-
Do your own homework. The Eichmann trial is peripheral to this page. There is a large literature on the behind-the-scenes goings on at the trial. Go and find it. --Zero 06:40, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Zero0000, you make allegation and then call on others to prove you wrong. This is certainly not professional. If you have supporting documentation, please cite it, otherwise please do not make claims that you refuse to support. Testimony regarding the plans of Husseini by individuals that worked with him for several years is suitable for a page on Husseini. OneVoice 07:03, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
AH advocated extermination of Jews before WW2
I deleted this:
-
Husayni, before World War II repeatedly, advocated the massacre of all Jews in Palestine and later the extermination of all Jews.[6]
This is a maximalist anti-Husayni position that cannot be supported by any direct evidence. The first part is pure invention on the part of OneVoice, since it is not even claimed in the source he gives. The second part is claimed without evidence in that source, and the place it comes from (Encyclopedia of the Holocaust) gives no evidence either. Finally it comes from a book of Maurice Pearlman (writing under the name of Waters) that features a drawing of al-Husayni on the cover with sharpened nails dripping with blood. Just the place to find carefully researched historical facts (NOT). Many pro-Zioinist writers have attempted to establish al-Husayni held these views but the best they have come up with (except for some outright lies) is inuendo and claims about what some more innocuous statements really meant.
On the other hand there is no doubt at all that al-Husayni contributed to the Holocaust. He did this by campaigning to stop the Nazis from sending groups of Jews to Palestine, which in a few cases cost them their lives. I will add details of one or two such cases when I get to that part of the article. --Zero 12:26, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
The sentences about the attempted assassination are from the 1984 paper of Mattar listed in the references. Mattar quotes from Foreign Office archives and notes confirmation from Irgun members. One thing I need to look up is whether Raziel was still officially the leader of the Irgun. There was another person (Hanoch Kalai?) in charge while Raziel was in prison but maybe that other person was only "acting" leader. This story needs to be given context according to what al-Husayni was up to in Iraq; I'll do that. --Zero 08:09, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
More notes. The Handschar (or Handzar, but definitely not Hanjar) division was raised in 1943 then went to France for its training. In France it was the only SS division that ever had a mutiny, apparently in response to the contempt shown to the Muslims by the German officers. It returned to (the puppet state of) Croatia and started operations in Feb 1944. A list of their operations is here. There is also a book about them (search Amazon for "George Lepre"). By that time, Feb 1944, almost all of the Bosnian Jews were already dead or in camps, apart from those fighting with the partisans. Since the Handschar was not involved with the camps as far as I can tell (but I ordered Lepre's book and will check when it arrives), it had no opportunity to conduct atrocities against Jews. However, the campaign against the partisans involved one atrocity after the other against the civilian population as we know. Towards the end of 1944 the division had practically disintegrated due to massive desertions, and the rump that was sent to Hungary mostly consisted of German/volkdeutsche members. In Hungary it was put into front-line fighting against the Russians. The Kama division was broken up after 5 months of recruitment failed to raise enough soldiers. It never saw action. On the Skanderbeg division's Jewish actions, see [7]. Other pages on these divisions: [8] [9] [10] [11]. -Zero 13:05, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
-
Zero0000, millions of non-Jews were killed in Holocaust. That the Muslim Nazi units were not able to kill more Jews is due to that work having been done by others already. They did their part in targeting Greek Orthodox and other groups. The Holocaust is not only Jews. Jews were 6,000,000 of 11,000,000 dead. OneVoice 04:09, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
-
-
That's why I deleted what you wrote. Actually the atrocities attributed to the Handschar were against Christian villages. --Zero 04:45, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
-
-
Zero0000, the article is about Husseini, not about Jews. His creation of units of Muslims that slaughtered Christians, his visits to the units demonstrates the individual's considerations. Perhaps you are too focused on Jews...there are a lot of other people out there...they have suffered horrible atrocities at the behest of this man as well. OneVoice 05:00, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
The word "indecisive" concerning the British decision to not indict al-Husayni is nearly a direct quote. The judgment of the material presented according to internal documents of the Foreign Office was "the material ... is very vague and would certainly not be considered as decisive evidence against the Mufti for having participated in any atrocities against the Jews", and "he is not responsible for any acts of atrocity according to our official information". --Zero 13:05, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
The pogrom of old Yishuv is anti-Zionist riots??
After anti-Zionist riots in 1920, in which 5 Jews were killed
I think it is misleading to call a pogrom of old Yishuv "anti-Zionist riots". If you really strive to define fine lines here, I'm sure you know some of those inhabitants of Jewish Quarter were not Zionist. Humus sapiens 04:00, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
-
They were anti-Zionist riots. The proximate cause was the announcement by the British administrator of the intention to implement the Balfour Declaration. Al-Husayni's contribution was to make a speech calling for union with Syria (I'll mention that later in connection with his nationalist politics.) Of course the rioters did not stop to question everyone they attacked as to whether they were Zionists or not; that's the nature of riots and doesn't change the basic facts. --Zero 04:45, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
-
-
Dejavu: anti-Zionism vs. anti-Semitism. The "wrong" Jews were attacked. Why not simply call it what it was: a Jewish pogrom? BTW, I agree with you on the nature of mob violence. Humus sapiens 05:18, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
-
-
The reason for not calling it a "pogrom" is that that word implies that the violence was pre-planned rather than spontaneous. It is at least arguable whether the word should be used for the case of a demonstration that turned violent and then murderous. Of course some people claim this one was pre-planned but that is certainly not the unanimous opinion and such an argument belongs on the page devoted to the incident rather than here. As for what sparked it in the first place, I think it is thoroughly established that was a response to the (real or imagined) intentions of the Zionists. --Zero 06:55, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
-
-
-
Hope you won't object to the way I changed this phrase. Humus sapiens 07:15, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Zero0000, if you would like to re-write the world war ii section, that's fine. all improvements are welcome, of course. but lets not lose the factual material....for instance the SS rank of Husseini...the unit strengths, etc. this rather energetic man worked tirelessly during the war, lets not slight his efforts.
On a different matter, please see what i added above regarding Wisliceny....we need to find a place on the page for his testimony and the court's determination that husseini would have extended the Holocaust to the mandate, if it had been within his power. OneVoice 05:10, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
-
-
There is no hard evidence that Wisliceny ever gave such testimony, nor evidence that it was reported correctly if it was in fact made. But that is not the real issue. The real issue is that it is completely stupid and can't be taken seriously. Find a mainstream holocaust historian who agrees that the Nazis needed al-Husayni to help them decide whether to kill Jews. --Zero 06:59, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Zero0000, the matter is Husseini support for the Final Solution regardless of whether or not him helped develop the concept. Remember we are talking about "Husayni, before World War II repeatedly, advocated the massacre of all Jews in Palestine and later the extermination of all Jews." OneVoice 07:03, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
-
If you want to write about the unit strengths and other fine details, go to Waffen-SS or somewhere else in Wikipedia and write it. For this page it is barely relevant. You obviously don't know anything about it anyway. --Zero 06:43, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Zero0000, the person in the picture is Husseini, the other person in the picture is wearing a uniform of Nazi Germany. How is this not relavent to an article on Husseini. Please calm down. If you wish to discuss the facts that I have added to the page, that's certainly reasonable. OneVoice 06:49, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Zero0000, if you wish to work to improve this page, make it a more complete account of Husseini, please do so. We have little about his activities after WWII. Let's not lose his activities during the war. OneVoice 07:07, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Arguing with hate-filled fanatics is bad for my blood pressure. I'll develop this article off-line and replace this version with my version when it is finished. If anyone out there who actually knows something about the subject wants to help, let me know at User talk:Zero0000.
Comment: The problem with the Wikipedia system is that any ignoramous can copy reams of crap off the web with a few mouse clicks, then demand that other people spend days in the library to refute it, after which they will put it back anyway. Let's face it, anyone who can imagine that the Nazis would allow an Arab cleric to be "instrumental in the organization and formation" of an SS division is either totally devoid of the most elementary understanding of the subject or is so dedicated to his mission that he doesn't care. Either way, I'm not prepared to work with him. --Zero 09:28, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
al-Husayni's approach to Nazi Germany from Bernard Lewis The Crisis of Islam pages viable here via Amazon OneVoice 13:55, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Additional material from The Formation of Palestinian Identity: The Critical Years, 1917-1923 by Rashid Khalidi Professor of History and Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations; Director of the Center for International Studies D. Phil. Oxford University 1974 currently at The University of Chicago. OneVoice 16:59, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Several examples of errors on this page are noted above and not refuted. Since I wrote them, this page has gotten even worse. I can hardly bear to look at it. What about this absolute lie: His Hanjar troopers, a special Waffen SS company, killed 90% of Bosnia's Jews. Why should this crap be tolerated? --Zero 15:21, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
Zero, do you have any manners? Why should this crap be tolerated? -> Wikipedia should not contain inaccurate information -> We should work together to improve Wikipedia and ensure the accuracy of information therein. In the venacular...dude, get back on you meds.
I have changed the line as indicated in the change log.
-
I tried to work on this article once and read three full-length biographies and most of the academic literature on the subject in preparation. All this was a waste of time because the fanatics like you came along and destroyed the article again. Now I am not going to edit it at all (for the stated reason) except to ensure that the well-deserved tag at the top is maintained. Deleting that tag is a severe violation of Wikipedia procedures that will not be tolerated. Btw, it's still wrong about the Bosnian Jews. --Zero 11:53, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
Zero, what is incorrect (after the preceding change) regarding Bosnian Jews? It is also incorrect in that it neglects to mention the Christians murdered by Husseini's Waffen SS units.
Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, Edition 1990, Volume 2, Pages 706 and 707, entry Husseini, Hajj Amin Al
It so happened that Husseini made his contribution to the Axis war effort in his capacity as a Muslim, rather than as an Arab leader, by recruiting and organizing in RECORD TIME, during the spring of 1943, BOSNIAN MUSLIM BATTALIONS in Croatia comprising some TWENTY THOUSAND MEN, These MUSLIM VOLUNTEER units, called Hanjar (Sword), were put in WAFFEN-SS fought Yugoslav partisans in Bosnia, and carried out police and security duties in Hungary. THEY PARTICIPATED IN THE MASSACRE OF CIVILIANS IN BOSNIA and VOLUNTEERED TO JOIN IN THE HUNT FOR JEWS IN CROATIA... The Germans made a point of publicizing the fact that Husseini had flown from Berlin to Sarajevo for the sole purpose of giving his blessing to the Muslim army and inspecting its arms and training exercises.
capitalization added, copied from web site, so much easier than typing it in
-
Bosnian Jews are not even mentioned in that paragraph. In fact, except for a small number fighting with the partisans, essentially all the Bosnian Jews were already killed or in camps before the Hanschar division was mobilised. Now, like I promised, you are getting blocked for removing the tag again. Let me make it clear that it is not because of the nonsense you wrote in the article, it is because you are not willing to play by the rules. This article is in dispute so it gets a dispute tag; get used to it. --Zero 22:48, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Let's tone down the flames
"In 1947 the United Nations revealed..." - an absolute lie, like many other things in this "article". It must be one of the most dishonest articles in all of Wikipedia. --Zero 03:51, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Zero, I have re-read your comments on this page, and you are nearly hysterical. You make non-stop insults towards anyone who contributes to this article; you demand that your claims be accepted without any proof, yet when someone merely asks for your sources, you repeatedly demand that they do the research for you. Then you state that everyone else here is a "hate filled fanatic", and you even admit (Feb. 1) that you won't even work with others. This only serves to convince people that you don't have facts to back up all of your claims. (People have been asking you for months, yet you refuse to comply.) The latest comment you make above ("an absolute lie") is only the latest of your attacks. If there is something incorrect about this paragraph, please work with us by citing your sources. Explain clearly and calmly what you think the error is, show your sources, and offer an alternative text. We're willing to politely work with you, if you are willing to politely work with us. RK 14:55, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)
-
Ok, then I will politely mention that my dog leaves less smelly things than this article in my back yard. --Zero 06:10, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- No need to lose patience and to become acerbic, Zero, though I sympathize with your frustrations. With all respect, RK, it is the article, in fact, that is hysterical (and not in the humurous sense). Its propagandist thrust is not too subtle (in dealing so disporportionately with al-Huysani collusion with Nazis; not that this is unimportant, far from it). No mention, for example, of the Munich Agreement that allowed Britain to send a whole division into Palestine in 1938 (they only had 1-2 there in 1936) to quell the Revolt. Pretty decisive stuff that is conspiciously absent. Also, the 1947 UN Documentary claims:
Only through funds made available by Germany to the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was it possible to carry out the revolt in Palestine"
We need more context for this, specifically that "only" needs to be qualified or, at the very least, the origin of the documentary (!). I have read about the Revolt in the past in both British and Israeli historical works that are considered authoritative, and I do not recall this being claimed (it has been a while, but I think this would be something I would have remembered). The burden of proof lies with the contributor, so I think it is unfair to ask Zero to trace the sources for these claims. I will eventually be rewriting the Great Uprising article (so far I only added a picture and made very minor revisions), and I am reading Ted Swedenburg's (rather impressive, though I often find myself in disagreement with it) work:
Though connected to the urban national committees, in general these bands operated independently of the Mufti and the HAC...While popular forces fought the British in the countryside, the notables of the HAC — only one of whom had been arrested — were negotiating with the enemy [Britain] for a compromise to end the conflict (p.490)
To what extent was that (secret?) Nazi funding greater/lesser than funds provided by wealthy Arab landowners, I wonder? Swedenburg dosen't mention this Nazi funding that is purpotedly so essential. Why would that be? (I was under the impression that he was far from being an al-Husayni sympathetic, not to mention Nazi sympathetic). Hmm. Other examples, so I'll end with this one for now (as I have been reading about it recently and it is fairly fresh in my mind), but it still, I think, serves to illustrate some of the underlying problems behind this article. As someone who is all for outlining the history behind the Mufti-Nazi connection, I find this article to be not up to par and far too zelous in its POV agenda. It lacks balance as a biography, it lacks references to claims it makes, some of whom I do not believe are well known in the relevant historiography and it fails to entirely account for these in a scholarly fashion. The question is not whether it an interesting article, but it living up to WP standards. El_C
- There was no such thing as a documentary record produced by the UN in 1947. It never existed. There was a file submitted to the UN by a Zionist advocacy group called Nation Associates that consists mostly of newspaper clippings, a few genuine documents, and a highly nuanced narrative. I have a copy of it. It was part of the propaganda campaign to get the UN to support Zionist demands rather than Palestinian demands in the lead up to the partition vote. After 1947, "Nation Associates" (not the same group as owns The Nation magazine) disappeared. There is nothing in the file that historians have not gone over thoroughly. As far as the Revolt is concerned: active German support started in August 1938 as the Revolt was drawing to a close. To say that this support was essential is clearly nonsense. See Nafi, The Arabs and the Axis: 1933-1940, Arab Studies Quarterly; Spring 1997. --Zero 10:36, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
-
- Incredible(!) So revealed -to- turns into revealed -by- ? If what you are saying is accurate, and I suspect that it is, then this is intellectually dishonest (grossly) at best, and an outright fabrication at worse. I was looking through the famous (and rather comprehensive) עמוד האש (the compilation book), for insights with respect to the Holocaust article and bibliography specifically, but I also looked to see if there was any mention of the al-Husayni-Bosnia connection as stated in the article, there was no mention of it (though plenty on events taking place in the Balkans) — are these claims based on new research? If so, I wish to become privy to these (in the form of scholarly references), please. It also discussed al-Husayni Nazi sympathies, but nothing on getting funds (not to mention decisive funds) from the Nazis for the Revolt. If Nazi funds only began being channelled in 1938, then I failed to see how the Nazis helped the Revolt, considering it was concluded in 1939 largely due to Britain being able to increase their forces in the BMoP by 1/3-to-1/2, owing to the German-British Munich Accord. I think certain contributors (I don't know who, I have'nt really followed this thread beyond a day) have some explaining to do. Hmm. El_C
Al Husseini's Nazi Connections, and their consequences...
I'm new to this thread and will catch up soon. I've seen a few discrepencies I would like to address after doing a little more research and preperation. For the moment, here is a link which has a bounty of reference material. Incidentally, it is provided by a Muslim: href=http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/AminAlHusseini.htm#updated There is material here to address one false assertion, that the riots against Jews weren't a pogrom because the weren't planned. The were planned, as have been most before and since. See the relevant material in the above link.
where should it go?
I read some where that Hussain (sp?) had red hair and that this helped him to gain "friends" among Nazis.
signed CD
- I have also read that Hitler's comment on his hair and eye color was that Husayni must be an Aryan. Sidenote: please sign your messages with 4 tildas, like this: ~~~~ and better yet, register. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 08:19, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Recent revision of initial summary.
from the history: cur) (last) 13:04, 26 Mar 2005 82.38.209.239 (unecessary POV bias: (in German: Grossmufti), - removed. "during his collaboration with the Third Reich removed and replaced with a less POV bias of the nature of the award of the title of Mufti (which he had inherited from his late-father).
The article on Husseini is far from accurate, and appears to have a POV bias running most of the way through it. A few suggestions for immediate revision are below, but there are far more suggestions than I have mentioned here, but have no wish to overwhelm contributors with all suggestions at first. (Little by little, and always in the open, would seem to be the best way forward).
May I suggest that a separate section be added to talk about Husseini's Mufti status, where it could be stated more in depth that Husseini inherited the title upon the death of his father, and that it was Samuel who later awarded the title of 'Grand Mufti' to him, after granting clemency to both Husseini and Jabotinsky for their roles in the Arab Riots in Jerusalem of 1921.
Upon reading the current article, it is clearly obvious to me that there is a POV bias, and that certain 'key elements' of Husseini's have been 'conveniently' left out. These ommissions bring the article's neutrality into dispute.
There is simply NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION given regarding Husseini's leading role in the Arab Riots in Jerusalem of 1920, and again, a POV bias seems self-evident.
To solve this problem, I suggest that an extra section be added to this article. Another 'problem' arises through the current wiki-link to these riots which presents another POV bias, in that they describe the riots as a 'pogram'. In reality, 6 Jews were killed and some 200 injured (some souces say 5 killed and 211 injured). It is unknown how many of those killed were the existing Jewish inhabitants of Jerusalem, and how many were Jabotinsky's self-defence force), and it is also currentlu unverifiable that Arabs had wind of the Jabotinsky's preparations for this riot. To describe these riots as a pogram is wholly misleading to the reader.
Quick Summary of initial concerns upon reading the Husseini Wiki-article:
+ Add a section on Husseini's inheritance of the title of Mufti of Jerusalem with some family history to be included, plus Samuels' intervention, clemency for the 1920 Jerusalem Riots, and the creation of the title 'Grand Mufti'.
+ Add a section on the Jerusalem Riot of 1920, clearly citing the preparations from both Arab and Jewish sides for the riots.
? Consider re-writing of the link to the Jerusalem Riots of 1920, which are currently described from a POV bias as a Jewish pogram - clearly not the case considering there was preparation before the riots from Jabotinsky's self-defence 'army', and knowledge that rumours had been circulating of a Jewish attack amongst the Arabs in Jerusalem prior to that Jerusalem Riot of 1920. The one-sided-ness of telling that tale, does both Jew and Arab a diservice here, and contributes to the general feeling that the Arab perspective worthless. Some form of balance needs to be addressed. But how can one ensure that either both POV are presented at once, or each separate POV is represented ? Would it be an 'impossible task' to divide each incident relating to Palestine/Israel into two separate and clearly marked viewpoints, in order to allow the reader to make up their own mind regarding the numerous POV bias in wikipedia regarding Palestine/Israel or Israel/Palestine conflict ?
! All sensible suggestions gratefully received.
regards, invisibleplanet
