Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4
Holocaust Denial on Trial (HDoT) has an article that assures us that Kristallnacht was not a Jewish conspiracy. As we have learned so far, HDoT’s claim of of Hitler authorizing and not trying to stop Kristallnacht lacks conclusive evidence and is purely speculative. Will it be the same case with this claim? Will there be instances of sources being misrepresented? Will important facts be omitted? Let’s find out.
The following paragrapg is background information about Herschel Grynszpan, the Jewish man that murdered Ernst vom Rath, from HDoT. We learn that Grynszpan’s parents were Polish Jews living in Germany. This is funny considering that in the fact HDoT leaves out the important detail that Germany was responding to a Polish decree that would have made Polish Jews living in Germany lose their Polish citizenship and become stateless.
At the end of October 1938, Herschel learned from Yiddish newspapers that the Germans had rounded up the Polish Jews from his former hometown and dumped them into a ‘no-man’s land’ just over the Polish border. On November 3, he received a letter from his sister confirming the situation. On November 6—one day before he shot vom Rath—Herschel had a final fight with his aunt and uncle over his behavior. Herschel took about 600 francs and left their home.
HDoT does not give a citation for the claim that Herschel took 600 francs from his aunt and uncle. In fact, Wikipedia claims it was 300 francs. There is no source for this claim as well. This is important because Ingrid Weckert questions where Grynszpan got the means to afford a hotel and a gun.
Not only is Grynszpan’s financial situation in question, but also how he was able to purchase a revolver considering the fact that he was living in France illegally. The French Decree-Law of October 23, 1935 restricted the sale of guns to illegal residents. The counter argument is that gun shops were lax and allowed Grynszpan to purchase the weapon despite the regulations. This is an unverifiable claim and also another important detail HDoT omits.
HDoT also tells us that in 1936, when he was 15, Herschel’s parents sent him to Paris to live with his aunt and uncle. Wikipedia says this was out of concern for his safety. Wikipedia also states that Grynszpan had no desire to return to Germany. This coupled with the fact he did not get along with his aunt and uncle creates a picture of Grynszpan not caring too much about his family. This runs against the claim of many orthodox historians that the suffering of his family motivated the murder.
Buried in the paragraph below we have the fact that the International League Against Anti-Semitism provided Grynszpan with a lawyer. A detail so inconsequential that HDoT didn’t even bother to provide the name of the lawyer.
Weckert insinuates that the International League Against Anti-Semitism (LICA), a French Jewish defense organization, funded Herschel’s assassination of vom Rath.[5] However, both the French police and the German Gestapo found no link between Herschel and LICA. There is no evidence that Herschel even knew the LICA existed, much less was seduced to act on their behalf. The LICA did provide Herschel with a lawyer, but it was his relatives who approached the organization for help. The lawyer’s services weren’t free. Dorothy Thompson, a non-Jewish journalist in the United States, raised the money for Herschel’s defense.[6] Weckert also questions how Herschel found the money to buy a gun without external support.[7] But, as stated above, Herschel had about 600 francs when he left his aunt and uncle’s home and the gun only cost 250 francs. (my emphasis added)
I will provide you with the identity of the lawyer: his name was Moro Giafferi. He was a prominent and high-powered lawyer. Here’s what Academic Dictionaries and Encyclopedias has to say about him:
One of the most famous criminal lawyers of his era, he acquired a reputation that was global in scope. He was known as a brilliant orator, and his courtrooms were packed with other lawyers, and the general public, who would come to see his skills on display. According to his obituary in the New York Times, his rhetorical skills were so prodigious that once in 1913, after he had won an acquittal for a highly questionable client, a debate arose among the members of the French bar as to the value of the jury system in general.
Contrary to what HDoT would have you believe, Grynszpan did not have some run-of-the-mill legal defense. Giafferi not giving his services for free and a gentile raising legal funds for Grynszpan does not mean that Grynszpan acted alone. These are all actions that the LICA could have taken to not be so obvious about prior involvement with Grynszpan.
When French police questioned Grynszpan he gave contradictory answers about his motivations. Here are the multiple version as taken from an article by Ingrid Weckert:
Version 1: He did not mean to kill vom Rath. He had wanted to kill the German ambassador but because he did not know the ambassador personally, he shot vom Rath instead by mistake.
Version 2: He had only wanted to kill himself, but wanted to do so directly beneath a portrait of Adolf Hitler. In this way he hoped to become a symbol for the Jewish people, who were being murdered daily in Germany.
Version 3: He had not intended to kill anyone. Although he had a pistol in his hand, he did not know how to handle it properly and it simply went off accidentally.
Version 4: He could not remember what had happened while he stood in vom Rath’s office. All he remembered was that he was there, but did not remember why.
Version 5: He couldn’t understand the question at all. He must have had a complete blackout because he no longer remembered anything.
And finally, version 6, which he gave several years later to German officials: Whatever the French police had written down about his reason was nonsense. The true story is that he used to procure young boys for the German embassy secretary because vom Rath had been a homosexual. And he shot vom Rath because he had not been paid for his services. This is the only explanation which he later retracted during interrogation. However, none of these explanations is correct.
Of course HDoT mentions none of this. Grynszpan can be added to the long list of unreliable eyewitnesses.
None of the information HDoT provided rules out secondary involvement in the murder of vom Rath and the information they leave out casts serious doubt on Grynszpan acting alone.
The second half of he HDoT entry shifts to the Stormtroopers (SA) involvement in Kristallnacht. It will be covered in part six. Stay tuned!