Scrapbookpages Blog

April 3, 2011

A picture is worth a thousand words

Filed under: Dachau, World War II — Tags: , , — furtherglory @ 9:38 am

Rabbi Moshe Isaac Hangerman with German soldiers in the background

The photo above was shown in the Dachau Museum from 1965, when the Museum first opened, until 2003, when the Museum was enlarged and changed.  This photo was removed because it has nothing to do with Dachau.

The photo currently hangs in the Yad Vashem museum in Jerusalem and according to the museum, the photo was taken by a German soldier in the Polish town of Olkusz on July 31, 1940 during a reprisal action against the townspeople after a German policeman named Ernst Kaddatz was killed by members of the Polish resistance on July 16, 1940.

In the photo, men are shown are lying face down on the ground while German Wehrmacht soldiers in the background smile for the camera. Rabbi Moshe Isaac Hangerman is shown, barefoot and wearing tefillin (phylacteries), as he appears to be praying.

One Jew and two Polish men were killed during the reprisal action and all the men in the town, from 15 to 60, were forced to lie on the ground from early morning until noon as punishment.

The Polish resistance was fighting as illegal combatants; reprisals were legal under the Geneva Convention of 1929.

20 Comments

  1. Interesting, is it not, that it can be blandly stated that it would be lawful for reprisals to be taken against civilians by way of retribution for ‘illegal actions’ against an occupying power. In other words, ordinary people, having maybe no truck with the conflict … people who have mothers, fathers, wives, girlfriends, children and whatever, can, through absolutely no fault of their own, ( save the cardinal sin of having been born, and being in the wrong place at the wrong time), be taken away and murdered. I used that word – murdered – intentionally. It could have been any one of us, maybe … but because some bastard with a toothbrush moustache and maybe syphilis to boot decides to invade us … and then someone, also unconnected with us, commits what is seen by others to be a crime … we .. you or I …can be arbitrarily removed from our family and our settled life, stood against a wall, maybe, and shot. Christ on a bike … who in God’s name has the right to do this to us? It is asinine and banal to talk about ‘lawfulness’ and ‘legality’ and ‘rules’ and ‘Conventions’ and the like in this context. Just as some might contend that it would be lawful to detonate a thermonuclear device above a city of their choice and incinerate innocent men, women and children simply to satisfy the blood-lust of politicians and military people, and call it a lawful act of war. One has to hope that there is a very, very special place in hell for the wicked bastards of this world who would select innocent people for murder. It is an empty intellect that would justify the murder of innocents, ( for that is what they are ), by way of so-called lawful retribution, a precept presumably thought up by some other exceptionally nasty people who believe they have the right to act as Gods and treat us as something worthless.

    Comment by David Neale — April 5, 2014 @ 11:52 am

  2. I have noticed an interesting trend from all the postings on this blog. Most of the comments are coming from well-informed people, due to their personal research. The list starts with the webmaster, who has researched the subject over few decades (Am I right, Further Glory?).
    These people are presenting a different version of WWII history, collecting bits and pieces of original documents, testimonies of eyewitnesses and scientific data.
    I don’t know their names or ages and what is their background. But, I could feel, that all of them, who are often called “the deniers”, Nazi fanatics”, etc, in fact are pro-peace.
    Can this be true? The people, who doubt the holocaust and who are allegedly “the jew-haters”, want peace? Yes, that is correct!
    I am a PRO-PEACE person, but I understand very well how the injustice could start a war. You force German population living on their own soil in 1938, to speak “Czechoslovakian” or Polish languages and you got the war. You destroy 1000 Palestinian houses in East Jerusalem and built 1000 houses for the Jews and you will get another war. This is the news of today, April 4th of 2011.
    And there are a few trolls, or rather provocateurs, who are appearing here and there. They are attacking viciously everyone and making provocative statements, in order to bring this website down and frame everyone committing “thoughtcrimes”. Yes, I have read Orwell’s “1984”.
    This time, those provocateurs want a war with Iran, because Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is another “holocaust denier”. Dr. Ahmadinejad has PhD in Civil Engineering and is still teaching senior class at the University of Tehran. Would you explain to him how millions of people could be exterminated in small areas? This is what late Joe Sobran could not figure out, as well. (Oh well, he knew the real answer.)
    http://www.sobran.com/fearofjews.shtml
    Maybe, he should ask Dr. Ahmadinejad for some clarifications and receive a negative response.
    Reader Lucien brought up to my attention the book of Freda Utley. I have read about her in Wikipedia and it appears, that she was a pro-peace person. No wonder that Deborah Lipstadt called her a holocaust denier.
    Thank you, Lucien for this information.
    The bottom line is:
    The people who are promoting “holocaust” agenda want vengeance, even more than had been inflicted already. These does include more reparations, houses in East Jerusalem for useful idiots, and more money for Rothshilds in London and the Jewish bankers in New York.
    This brings us to the paradox. The people, who are “deniers”, nathzees”, jew-haters” are indeed the
    pacifist, while all those supporting “extermination” story, are pushing for another World War.
    Sometimes, I am wondering if this layout was also true in 1939?
    Well, I am not “wondering” about it any longer, I do know that is true.
    Where did I read that: “The Vengeance is Mine”?

    Comment by Gasan — April 4, 2011 @ 10:17 pm

  3. “This picture is a drawing. The two different prints are not the same if compared in enlargement. The anatomical proportions of the soldiers are wrong. The soldiers all have too short legs. One leg is missing on the second soldier from the right, the other one is too thin. Officer’s trousers are definitely wrong. The distance between the “Rabbi” and the “photographer” is so small that no dead people could lie between them, and as such, the pose of the “Rabbi” does not fit the scene. The building in the background is drawn, the architectural lines do not run parallel to each other, but at different angles.

    Enlarged section and comparison with a skeleton. Note especially the missing leg in this position as well as the height of the crotch. Especially in the enlargement, it is possible to prove that the upper arm is too short, the elbow is therefore situated in the wrong position, and apart from that, the leg is too thin and too skew. Compare the painting of the uniforms, especially the false, or partly missing collar patches, the false position of the buttons.

    Compare the different light reflections between the rabbi and the “police soldiers,” the typical black and white contrasts. ”

    Uniforms compared to a photo of Paul Landwehr,
    SS sturmbanfuhrer and major of the Protective-Police.

    -Udo Walendy, Forged War Crimes Malign the German Nation, Verlag fur Volkstrum und Zeitgeschichtsforsclung D-4973 Vlotho/Weser, Second Edition 1989, pages 49-49.

    Walendy writes that the photo was published without text in two German language books which he cites. One wonders then if the name of the rabbi in the faked photo, Moshe Issac Hangerman, is an invention, too.

    Comment by who+dares+wings — April 4, 2011 @ 8:19 am

    • Thank you for this analysis. You may be right that the photo is a fake and that could be why it was taken down and is not in the current Dachau Museum. There were other fake photos in the 1965 Museum that are not in the new Museum. I got the information for what is shown in the photo from Yad Vashem; it could be totally made up, for all I know. I put up a new photo from the old Dachau Museum today; I hope it is not a fake.

      Comment by furtherglory — April 4, 2011 @ 8:42 am

    • Thank you who dares wings. That photo, along with dozens and dozens of others, can be found in Walendy’s Forged War Crimes Malign the German Nation. But, again, and this is directed at War High as well, please get a copy of Freda Utley’s The High Cost of Vengeance. It’s pricey, but it debunks the Pseudocaust.

      Comment by Lucien — April 4, 2011 @ 11:35 am

  4. Hitler, like Obama, merely went into Poland to protect civilians.

    Comment by littlegreyrabbit — April 4, 2011 @ 2:00 am

    • Do you mean that Hitler wanted to protect the ethnic Germans who wound up as citizens of Poland after part of Germany was given to Poland after World War I? The ethnic Germans were being mistreated by the Poles. I recall seeing a movie scene, from real movie footage taken by the Germans; the scene showed ethnic Germans telling the soldiers about what had happened to them when the Poles took their farms and homes away from them.

      Comment by furtherglory — April 4, 2011 @ 6:35 am

  5. That photo is a fraud. It was exposed years back as an Allied forgery by none other than Udo Walendy.

    As for the legality of Hitler’s invasion of Poland: since when did war have to be legal? Was the Irak war legal? Was the invasion and mass bombing of Afghanistan legal? Was the recent bombing of Libya legal? Better yet, War High, is the ongoing Jewish occupation of Palestine “legal”? By whose standards? Yours? Was Britain’s war against Germany “legal”? Was the Shoah of millions of Germans in Anglo-Saxonist air raids and the postwar aftermath “legal”? Did any of this qualify as “in violation of Geneva”? How about Perfidious Churchill’s Indian Holodomor (he mass murdered no less than 3 million Indians via famine)? Or how about Perfidious Churchill’s commando order, which demanded that Anglo-Saxon agents bash in the heads of victims as well as use glass bottles to tear up their faces? All Geneva-esque eh?

    Oh Wahrheit, I mean War High, you silly Hebrew, don’t you know that Anglo-Saxons and Jews wrote the so-called “rules of war”? The only crime the Germans committed was losing the war. Read Freda Utley’s The High Cost of Vengeance you goofball. Oh, and tell Bibi “hi” for me. *wink*

    Comment by Lucien — April 3, 2011 @ 10:23 pm

    • What did Udo Walendy say about the photo? German soldiers were encouraged to take photos and I don’t think this photo was taken by the Allies. Sometimes the description of this photo is that the soldiers are laughing and making fun of the rabbi, but to me it is clear that they are smiling at the soldier who is taking the photo. Is that what you mean by fake — that the photo has been misinterpreted? The photo was out of place at the Dachau Museum because it was taken in Poland and had nothing to do with Dachau.

      Comment by furtherglory — April 4, 2011 @ 6:29 am

  6. Betrayed few days later, People of Warsaw in happy demonstration under British Embassy in Warsaw just after British declaration of state of war with Nazi Germany.

    The banner says “Long Live England” in Polish.
    These people were expecting that England will be fighting along. I could only imagine their disappointment and feeling of betrayal, when Warsaw capitulated sixteen days later.

    Comment by Gasan — April 3, 2011 @ 1:25 pm

  7. Poor innocent Germans. Of course they were justified in murdering civilians as “reprisals”. The Geneva convention justified murder of innocent civilians? What planet is that on?

    Comment by george — April 3, 2011 @ 1:01 pm

    • This was on planet earth. What planet are you on? According to the Geneva Convention of 1929, a reprisal action for the purpose of discouraging illegal partisan activity was legal. The Geneva Convention of 1929 did not contain any rules that “justified the murder of innocent civilians.”

      The Convention did contain rules regarding the killing of a German policeman named Ernst Kaddatz by members of the Polish resistance on July 16, 1940. In this case, a reprisal was allowed by the Geneva Convention for the purpose of discouraging illegal partisan activity.

      In addition, partisans and guerrilla fighers were not recognized as “belligerents” under the Laws and Customs of War on Land, dated 18 October 1907, known as the Hague Convention.

      Poland never surrendered in World War II after they were defeated by the Germans. They continued to fight as illegal combatants. Both the Hague Convention and the Geneva Convention of 1929 provided a way for legal combatants to deal with the illegal combatants.

      BTW, comments on this blog are moderated. I allowed this comment so that maybe you could learn something from my response.

      Comment by furtherglory — April 3, 2011 @ 1:37 pm

  8. Brief military analysis of the German-Polish war:
    Poland had three modern-built destroyers, which could be an overwhelming force against training battleship “Schleswig-Holstein” of German Kriegsmarine. “Schleswig-Holstein” was able to approach Danzig and shell polish garrison defending Westerplatte. And where were polish destroyers?
    “On 30 August 1939, the Polish destroyers Burza(Storm), Błyskawica (Lightning) and Grom (Thunder) were ordered to activate the Peking Plan, and the warships headed for Great Britain, from where they were to operate as convoy escorts. On 1 September 1939, Polish destroyers met the British destroyers Wanderer and Wallace. The British ships led the Polish flotilla to Leith, and in the night the Polish destroyers came to Rosyth.”

    What we have learned here is, that there was some sort of a PLAN, which was activated two days before Germany attacked. I assume that the “plan” was worked out between Poland and England way before August of 1939. And let be assured: it was not a “peace plan”. Britain, France and Poland DID NOT plan any peace with Germany. However, after the beginning of combat operations in Poland, Britain and France did not do their part and engaged themselves into so called “Phoney War”.

    The Phony War was a phase early in World War II—in the months following Britain’s declaration of war on Germany (shortly after the German invasion of Poland) in September 1939 and preceding the Battle of France in May 1940—that was marked by a lack of major military operations in Continental Europe. The various European powers had declared war on one another but neither side had committed to launching a significant attack, and there was relatively little fighting on the ground, notwithstanding the terms of the Anglo-Polish military alliance and the Franco-Polish military alliance, which obliged the United Kingdom and France to assist Poland.

    Poland was duped into starting the war and Britain and France betrayed her. Polish forces created 21 border attacks, mainly in Upper Silesia region, starting 8 PM August 31, 1939. German forces were ordered to return fire as of 5:45 Central European time on September 1, 1939. In his broadcast speech, Hitler clearly indicates exact time when he gave the order to return fire. He could not be possibly lying to his soldiers, officers and generals, should be that order coming even 15 minutes earlier, right?

    I have also read multiple books and articles regarding poor preparedness of Poland to that war. There are always heart-breaking romantic stories about Polish cavalry fighting German tanks with the swords and spears. Hello there! This is twentieth century warfare. Didn’t they have grenades of “Molotov” cocktails available? Imagine twenty horsemen with the grenades against one tank in a close combat. Guess who wins?

    Why do you think NYPD is using mounted policemen in Manhattan?

    Comment by Gasan — April 3, 2011 @ 12:35 pm

  9. Was the German invasion itself legal? Did the Germans abide by the Geneva convention? Did they do anything wrong in your opinion?

    Comment by Wahrheit — April 3, 2011 @ 10:25 am

    • The German invasion of Poland was legal because there had been several incidents at the border. Some people say that these incidents were faked by the Germans; others think that the incidents were real attacks by the Poles. The Geneva Convention was the rules pertaining to POWs, not the rules pertaining to legal invasions. The Germans did abide by the Convention with regard to countries that had signed the Convention. After the war, the Allies changed the rules so that Soviet POWs were entitled to the protection of the Convention. In my opinion, both sides were guilty of war crimes during World War II, but the Allies were the worst offenders, by far.

      Comment by furtherglory — April 3, 2011 @ 12:02 pm

      • 1) By “others” believing in a Polish attack on Germany, you really mean a hardcore fringe of Nazi fanatics. No serious historian (not even Irving!) takes such seriously. Such is recorded in German military documents from summer 1939 leading up to the invasion. More people believe the world is flat and that the human species is only 2000 years old, but I imagine those fringe beliefs aren’t well received by you.

        2) Never said the German invasion was illegal by Geneva. There were other treaties and agreements in force, a 1934 Nazi Germany-Polish non-aggression pact amongst them.

        3) Doesn’t matter that other countries were not signatories to Geneva, as it still stipulated that the signatory is compelled to follow the treaty. Part VIII Section 1 of the 1929 agreement clearly states “In time of war if one of the belligerents is not a party to the Convention, its provisions shall, nevertheless, remain binding as between the belligerents who are parties thereto.” So Germany was always bound by it, and was not stipulated post-facto to punish the Nazis.

        By the same coin then, as the USSR was not a signatory, would you then allow that the Soviet treatment of German POWs was also legal? I doubt it.

        4) Allies worst offenders by far? Seriously? Do tell. Perhaps make another blog post explaining your reasoning. This should be good.

        Comment by Wahrheit — April 3, 2011 @ 12:38 pm

        • You wrote: Part VIII Section 1 of the 1929 agreement clearly states “In time of war if one of the belligerents is not a party to the Convention, its provisions shall, nevertheless, remain binding as between the belligerents who are parties thereto.”

          I interpret this to mean that if one of the belligerents (Soviet Union) is not a party to the Convention, the provisions remain binding as between the belligerents (America, Great Britain) who are parties thereto. To me, this means that even though the Soviet Union was not following the Convention and was allies with America and Great Britain, the Germans still had to follow the Convention with regard to American and British POWs. The Soviet treatment of the German POWs was not a violation of the Geneva Convention because the Soviets had not signed the Convention. I interpret the rules of the Convention to mean that the Germans did not violate the Geneva Convention with regard to the treatment of Soviet POWs and that the Soviet Union did not violate the Convention with regard to treatment of German soldiers. The Germans were charged with a war crime for their treatment of Soviet soldiers, but the Soviet Union was not charged with a war crime for their treatment of the German soldiers.

          Comment by furtherglory — April 3, 2011 @ 1:03 pm

          • Your interpretation is way off the mark.

            The same article of the treaty (have you read it?) states: “The provisions of the present Convention shall be respected by the High Contracting Parties in all circumstances.”

            ALL circumstances. That is also why the line I quoted in my previous response mentions that, even if a country does not sign the agreement, the provisions “shall, nevertheless, remain binding as between the belligerents who are parties thereto.”

            “As between” is meant to include the application of the law upon a non signatory, not limit its applicability only between signatories. If one signs the treaty (as Germany did) one always has to follow it.

            Comment by Wahrheit — April 3, 2011 @ 1:12 pm

            • If that is the case, then Germany made a big mistake in signing the convention. If Germany had not signed, then they could have killed Soviet POWs legally and not been charged with a war crime. The Soviets were smart not to sign the convention and this made their actions legal. The USA was the smartest of all – Eisenhower changed the name POW to DEF (Disarmed Enemy Forces) to get around the Geneva Convention. Thankfully, he did this in March 1945, so that the Americans did not have to treat the German POWs decently.

              Comment by furtherglory — April 3, 2011 @ 1:54 pm

        • Regarding your point #1: Read Gasan’s comment on this post.

          Comment by furtherglory — April 3, 2011 @ 1:11 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: