The never-going-away ghost of antisemitism

[freetobe]

Jaga,
The earliest attacks on Jews occured from 175BCE-165BCE see www.wordiq.com/definition/History_of_anti-Semitism#ancient_animosity_towards
My point is simply that it's existed for centuries, waxing and waning as circumstances warranted. Why do we have to be politcally correct? Because we don't want to offend a religious/ethnic/racial, etc. group that has been victimized since victimization is a very bad thing. I think history should be revised as more becomes known about events. But do we have to draw conclusions about why the bad guys did what they did? Does anyone really know. One learned member of the intelligentsia is accusing another of blaming an entire nation. The accused replies that is what happened and because it was part of the nations "dark past" it is something that nation needs to conceal to protect its reputation or national conscience. this is an example of intelligentsia out of control. It happened, period. No person or nation is without flaws. The sooner we as people and nations get over our selves,keep trying to make a better life and let the past go, they better we will all feel.

[holaola]

freetobe,
You make a good point. People are what they are, life is what it is, no nation and no ethnic group is fully good or fully evil – time to move forward.
Yes, but unfortunately that is not how it works because with clockwork regularity there is yet another accusation launched against the non-Jewish Poles from some quarter. And if it is not “another” accusation in the full sense of the word, then it is an old accusation revisited.

The problem of the non-Jewish Poles is that in spite of their huge losses in people and, for half a century, sovereignty, their tragedy is still not deemed worthy of even minimal note. Astonishingly, even by a segment of Polish society, itself.

It’s ironic isn’t it, that every time one tries to talk of non-Jewish Poles in the war the discussion is re-routed, quickly and inevitably, to the Jewish Holocaust. Time and again.

And the issue doesn’t finish here, because what becomes ever more obvious is that far too many non-Jewish Poles do not really know what happened in their own nation in those times, or to their people, so they themselves cannot understand why certain events occurred! Nor can they defend themselves where accusations are unjust – because there have been unjust accusations, too.

And there is more: the killings and burning of people in barns was not a once-off occurrence – and it didn’t happen only to Jews, nor did it happen only in Poland. And yet, if we take a look at the vast majority of books published about the war it is this distorted exclusivist view that appears.

Consider the figures: World War II cancelled fifty five million people from the face of the planet – these were all people who wanted to live and had something to say, do and give. But for the past sixty years all we have ever been told to concentrate on is five million of these victims: is that ethical?

There is also another point: anti-Semitism isn't a necessary fact of life like eating and sleeping. There is no need for it - it should not exist. And yet not only does it exist but it is extraordinarliy long-lived. Thousands of years. Why? It is only by the dispassionate discussion of such an issue that some sort of comprehension can be arrived at, and I'm sure that that would be of benefit to all.

[justjohn]

holaola said:

just john,
Although I cannot understand what exactly the revisionists are trying to revise seeing how systematic the Germans were with their documentation of their annihilation of people, this idea of not being able to take a closer look at certain matters from a different perspective, let alone speak about them, is far too close to Orwell's "1984" for comfort. So what are people afraid of? That some little unknown truth will come to light?

January 29, 2008
Memo From Berlin

Germany Confronts Holocaust Legacy Anew

By NICHOLAS KULISH

BERLIN — Most countries celebrate the best in their pasts. Germany unrelentingly promotes its worst.

The enormous Holocaust memorial that dominates a chunk of central Berlin was completed only after years of debate. But the building of monuments to the Nazi disgrace continues unabated.

On Monday, Germany’s minister of culture, Bernd Neumann, announced that construction could begin in Berlin on two monuments: one near the Reichstag, to the murdered Gypsies, known here as the Sinti and the Roma; and another not far from the Brandenburg Gate, to gays and lesbians killed in the Holocaust.

More here:

^{www.nytimes.com/2008/01/29/world/europe/29nazi.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin}

[Jaga]

freetobe said:

Jaga,
The earliest attacks on Jews occured from 175BCE-165BCE see www.wordiq.com/definition/History_of_anti-Semitism#ancient_animosity_towards
My point is simply that it's existed for centuries, waxing and waning as circumstances warranted.

this is a typical website which shows Jewish people as constant victims. Read the bible and see how Jews were fighting against other peoples in Holy Land. They were not always the victims!

Anti-semitism is the same as anti-minority problem. When did the attack began? In Egipt where Jewish were the minority. By the way, these are only the accounts in bible since no any proof of Jewish exodus from Egypt was ever found for now.

I do not want to minimize anti-semitism, but the same was happening to almost any minority living in foreign country. Good that Jews as a nation survived it, not every nation did.

Jewish people are lucky to have a strong lobby reminding and their martyrology all the time, other peoples do not.

Did you hear about the Prussians (Balts) - they were completely killed by Teutonic knights? There is nobody to remind their martyrology now.
The last representative of old Prussia died in XVIII century.

[bescheid]

admin said:

freetobe said:

Jaga,
The earliest attacks on Jews occured from 175BCE-165BCE see www.wordiq.com/definition/History_of_anti-Semitism#ancient_animosity_towards
My point is simply that it's existed for centuries, waxing and waning as circumstances warranted.

this is a typical website which shows Jewish people as constant victims. Read the bible and see how Jews were fighting against other peoples in Holy Land. They were not always the victims!

Anti-semitism is the same as anti-minority problem. When did the attack began? In Egipt where Jewish were the minority. By the way, these are only the accounts in bible since no any proof of Jewish exodus from Egypt was ever found for now.

I do not want to minimize anti-semitism, but the same was happening to almost any minority living in foreign country. Good that Jews as a nation survived it, not every nation did.

Jewish people are lucky to have a strong lobby reminding and their martyrology all the time, other peoples do not.

Did you hear about the Prussians (Balts) - they were completely killed by Teutonic knights? There is nobody to remind their martyrology now.
The last representative of old Prussia died in XVIII century.

I wish only to add to your post and comments pertaining to the Israeli people with their rise and fall through the ages.

For not always are the Israeli people peaceful and noble within the eyes of today. For in their early time of approximately {1200 BC} they were powerful warriors and conquerers. {It is all written in the Bible}.

For their conquering of the promised land. This land was peopled by a series of city states, one of such that is famous {Jericho}{City of Palm trees}. Under the leadership of Joshua, this city was destroyed in total. For it was to be a demonstration of power to the remainder of city states to concede to the Israeli military or face of their own annihilation of that, all people/animals were destroyed, for this was war.

This area at present is recognized as {Tell es-Sultan}.

What is important of today: The people and their cities have changed, but not the land in-self. What is equally important, is the knowledge gained from the successful battles fought by the ancients, is equally valid today. For these battles fought in those times, is excellent terrain for use of modern tank war-fare of today.

People of today are much more kind, then of the ancients, for the loser of those battles were very often killed to the man/woman/animals and slaves, other then those captured to be used as slaves. In this manner, it was a protection of the winning military, against survivors with long memories and hatred, to form an underground military and strike back at their captures.

Very often, with my early studies, I was so struck of the accuracies of the biblical maps that I used them for my papers.

The bible is a very accurate book of history, it is just the interpretation that presents some questions.

Charles

[pieter]

Charles do you knopw this guy?

Martin van Creveld

Martin van Creveld (born 1946) is an Israeli military historian and theorist.

He was born in the Netherlands but has lived in Israel since shortly after his birth. He holds degrees from the London School of Economics and The Hebrew University in Jerusalem, where he has been on the faculty since 1971. He is the author of fifteen books on military history and strategy, of which Command in War (1985), Supplying War (1977, 2nd edition 2004), The Transformation of War (1991), The Sword and the Olive (1998) and The Rise and Decline of the State (1999) are among the best known. Van Creveld has lectured or taught at virtually every strategic institute, military or civilian, in the Western world, including the U.S. Naval War College, most recently in December, 1999 and January, 2000.

The Transformation of War
In this treatise of military theory, van Creveld develops what he calls the non-trinitarian theory of warfare, which he juxtaposes to the famous work by Clausewitz, On War

Clausewitz's trinitarian model of war (a term of van Creveld's) distinguishes between the affairs of the population, the army, and the government. Van Creveld criticizes this philosophy as too narrow and state-focused, thus inapplicable to the study of those conflicts involving one or more non-state actors. Instead, he proposes five key issues of war:

1. - By whom war is fought - whether by states or by non-state actors
2. - What is war all about - the relationships between the actors, and between them and the non-combatants
3. - How war is fought - issues of strategy and tactics
4. - What war is fought for - whether to enhance national power, or as an end to itself
5. - Why war is fought - the motivations of the individual soldier.

Van Creveld notes that many of the wars fought after 1945 were low-intensity conflicts (LICs)which powerful states ending up losing. The book argues that we are seeing a decline of the nation-state, without a comparable decline in organized violence. Moreover, in his view, armies consistently train and equip to fight a conventional war, rather than the LIC they are likely to face. Consequently, it is imperative that nation states change the raining of their armed forces and rethink their weapon procurement programs.

The book's significance is attested by its inclusion into the list of required reading for United States Army officers, the only non-American entry on the list.


Views on current affairs

In addition to writing on military history, van Creveld also comments, often pointedly, on contemporary societies and politics.

In a TV interview in 2002, he expressed doubts as to the ability of the Israeli army to defeat the Palestinians:

They [Israeli soldiers] are very brave people... they are idealists... they want to serve their country and they want to prove themselves. The problem is that you cannot prove yourself against someone who is much weaker than yourself. They are in a lose/lose situation. If you are strong and fighting the weak, then if you kill your opponent then you are a scoundrel... if you let him kill you, then you are an idiot. So here is a dilemma which others have suffered before us, and for which as far as I can see there is simply no escape. Now the Israeli army has not by any means been the worst of the lot. It has not done what for instance the Americans did in Vietnam... it did not use napalm, it did not kill millions of people. So everything is relative, but by definition, to return to what I said earlier, if you are strong and you are fighting the weak, then anything you do is criminal.

In a September 2003 interview on Israel and the dangers it faces from Iran, the Palestinians and world opinion van Creveld stated:

We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets for our air force…. We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under.

In the August 21, 2004 edition of the International Herald Tribune van Creveld wrote, "Had the Iranians not tried to build nuclear weapons, they would be crazy." which was quoted by Noam Chomsky and cited by John Pilger.

In 2005, van Creveld made headlines when he said in an interview that the 2003 Invasion of Iraq was "the most foolish war since Emperor Augustus in 9 BC sent his legions into Germany and lost them", a reference to the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest, (which actually took place in AD 9). His analysis included harsh criticism of the Bush Administration, comparing the war to the Vietnam war. Moreover, he said that "Bush deserves to be impeached and, once he has been removed from office, put on trial."


In 2007, van Creveld commented that

Iran is the real victor in Iraq, and the world must now learn to live with a nuclear Iran the way we learned to live with a nuclear Soviet Union and a nuclear China.... We Israelis have what it takes to deter an Iranian attack. We are in no danger at all of having an Iranian nuclear weapon dropped on us.... thanks to the Iranian threat, we are getting weapons from the U.S. and Germany.

[kaima]

bescheid said:

The bible is a very accurate book of history, it is just the interpretation that presents some questions.

Charles

Hi Charles -

Ah, the history that different interpretations of that book has caused!

In my posting in 'Polonia' on 'Advantage of a Second Language' the author of that article mentions "Biblical scholars have to understand Hebrew, Aramaic, Latin and Greek to pass on the accurate meaning of our Judeo-Christian scriptures."

For a retired professor to make such a statement, I must say the gentleman is an optimist! I come from the Land of America where for the last decades it seems Evangelicals have held a lot of political sway, and they all seem to graduate from the bible school of 10,000 arrogant interpretations! So translations that "pass on the accurate meaning" is a bit hopeless of a task.

As a historian I look upon history as a nice-story. Even events I have witnessed and later seen written up in the local news seemed to be 15% accurate; if these contemporaneous reports are the best source for historians, what hope is there of ever assembling the true history? Then taking the new testament, written hundreds of years after the fact, ... you have to be a True Believer that the words are really God Inspired in order to accept it as accurate.

It took decades, but I came to respect the idea that history is very flexible!

Kai

[kaima]

pieter said:

Charles do you knopw this guy?

Martin van Creveld

Martin van Creveld (born 1946) is an Israeli military historian and theorist.

Iran is the real victor in Iraq, and the world must now learn to live with a nuclear Iran the way we learned to live with a nuclear Soviet Union and a nuclear China.... We Israelis have what it takes to deter an Iranian attack. We are in no danger at all of having an Iranian nuclear weapon dropped on us.... thanks to the Iranian threat, we are getting weapons from the U.S. and Germany.

Thanks for posting Pieter. I will keep my eye out for the fellow, I like his perspective - he seems to take a straight forward approach and certainly does not waste words!

It is surprising - a new idea to me - that Israel would have the European capitols targeted, but I guess a military mission is to be prepared for all possibilities. Now I wish Bush and Boys would read this fellow's writings and let Israel take care of itself. I suspect Bush is messing in the middle east 1) partially to revenge daddy, and 2) to help God along with bringing on the End Times.

In plain English, I think we have a crazy fellow in the White House.

But returning to Creveld's remarks, I found them quite interesting on Vietnam and Iraq.

Well, in a year we can start to rebuild civilization.

Kai

[bescheid]

pieter said:

Charles do you knopw this guy?

Martin van Creveld

Martin van Creveld (born 1946) is an Israeli military historian and theorist.

He was born in the Netherlands but has lived in Israel since shortly after his birth. He holds degrees from the London School of Economics and The Hebrew University in Jerusalem, where he has been on the faculty since 1971. He is the author of fifteen books on military history and strategy, of which Command in War (1985), Supplying War (1977, 2nd edition 2004), The Transformation of War (1991), The Sword and the Olive (1998) and The Rise and Decline of the State (1999) are among the best known. Van Creveld has lectured or taught at virtually every strategic institute, military or civilian, in the Western world, including the U.S. Naval War College, most recently in December, 1999 and January, 2000.

The Transformation of War
In this treatise of military theory, van Creveld develops what he calls the non-trinitarian theory of warfare, which he juxtaposes to the famous work by Clausewitz, On War

Clausewitz's trinitarian model of war (a term of van Creveld's) distinguishes between the affairs of the population, the army, and the government. Van Creveld criticizes this philosophy as too narrow and state-focused, thus inapplicable to the study of those conflicts involving one or more non-state actors. Instead, he proposes five key issues of war:

1. - By whom war is fought - whether by states or by non-state actors
2. - What is war all about - the relationships between the actors, and between them and the non-combatants
3. - How war is fought - issues of strategy and tactics
4. - What war is fought for - whether to enhance national power, or as an end to itself
5. - Why war is fought - the motivations of the individual soldier.

Van Creveld notes that many of the wars fought after 1945 were low-intensity conflicts (LICs)which powerful states ending up losing. The book argues that we are seeing a decline of the nation-state, without a comparable decline in organized violence. Moreover, in his view, armies consistently train and equip to fight a conventional war, rather than the LIC they are likely to face. Consequently, it is imperative that nation states change the raining of their armed forces and rethink their weapon procurement programs.

The book's significance is attested by its inclusion into the list of required reading for United States Army officers, the only non-American entry on the list.


Views on current affairs

In addition to writing on military history, van Creveld also comments, often pointedly, on contemporary societies and politics.

In a TV interview in 2002, he expressed doubts as to the ability of the Israeli army to defeat the Palestinians:

They [Israeli soldiers] are very brave people... they are idealists... they want to serve their country and they want to prove themselves. The problem is that you cannot prove yourself against someone who is much weaker than yourself. They are in a lose/lose situation. If you are strong and fighting the weak, then if you kill your opponent then you are a scoundrel... if you let him kill you, then you are an idiot. So here is a dilemma which others have suffered before us, and for which as far as I can see there is simply no escape. Now the Israeli army has not by any means been the worst of the lot. It has not done what for instance the Americans did in Vietnam... it did not use napalm, it did not kill millions of people. So everything is relative, but by definition, to return to what I said earlier, if you are strong and you are fighting the weak, then anything you do is criminal.

In a September 2003 interview on Israel and the dangers it faces from Iran, the Palestinians and world opinion van Creveld stated:

We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets for our air force…. We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under.

In the August 21, 2004 edition of the International Herald Tribune van Creveld wrote, "Had the Iranians not tried to build nuclear weapons, they would be crazy." which was quoted by Noam Chomsky and cited by John Pilger.

In 2005, van Creveld made headlines when he said in an interview that the 2003 Invasion of Iraq was "the most foolish war since Emperor Augustus in 9 BC sent his legions into Germany and lost them", a reference to the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest, (which actually took place in AD 9). His analysis included harsh criticism of the Bush Administration, comparing the war to the Vietnam war. Moreover, he said that "Bush deserves to be impeached and, once he has been removed from office, put on trial."


In 2007, van Creveld commented that

Iran is the real victor in Iraq, and the world must now learn to live with a nuclear Iran the way we learned to live with a nuclear Soviet Union and a nuclear China.... We Israelis have what it takes to deter an Iranian attack. We are in no danger at all of having an Iranian nuclear weapon dropped on us.... thanks to the Iranian threat, we are getting weapons from the U.S. and Germany.

Gollies Pieter

I was of 18 years of age at this time as I was assigned to {7-GE-Panzer Division}... I think {and only think} I remember of professor van Creveld. I certainly do remember of Israeli Majour General Irrail Tals. For he trained very throughly of Armored Warfare of art of manovour in Panzer Divisional in Weapons Platforms Protection.

We of that time, had most of commanders of the last war as leadership. These people had the experience of Panzer warfare to pass on to us. Then with the various Israeli experienced commanders of the Israeli/Arab wars, they trained of their experience to us.

In our group, there were many Jewish fellows of my age. We were all stuck in the same sinking ship, so we all shared our hardships of together and worked to survive the school for graduation.

I still have then, possessed my Dänischen dialect of that was not much help to keep my loused body out of mischief.. for what is on the mind of a young fellow? Why of course, ladies!!

I think I much earlier have post of my impressions of and un-happiness of life with a darn Panzer...

Our training was of direct manouver of vehicle, fire control, combat speed and accuracy of main gun. Then of platoon streighnth against the Russians use of vehicles. And above all, never, never allow of thrown track.

Charles

[bescheid]

Kai

Yes, I do understand your meaning of historians and of {History and Interpretations} how so very true. For historians as a group are trapped within their own making.

For it is the field work people that find and dig of truth. As exampled of present day Iran/Iraq. For each city state of the ancient world, there will lay a truth of necessity. The city state will by common protection, will have a walled in fortress for the towns people to go for protection, and provide of common protection of siege, add to the ranks of military of the ruler with their own selves for a common battle battle against what ever enemy will be at their gates.

But, as common, each fortress will have at disposal, a dugged tunnel for access to a well for water. Even of the sands of time and of gradual disappearance of the access tunnel and well. These will still be in existence, although of hidden by the time of dirt and blown in sand, non-the-less, those still exist, if known of location. These of hidden, are subject of sand traps to a tracked vehicle and must be avoided by the vehical commander.

The river of the bible as of {Tigress and Euphrates} are still in existence, and as they are, still subject to the movements of drainage waters from the far mountains of Turkey and Iran. Those rivers still flood over and then return to low levels of their seasons.

It was of the Iranians to forget this whilst in their war against Iraq some years back. The Iranians dismissed history,and lost the war against the Iraqi opposition. The Iranian tanks {panszer} bog down in the off season mud and was then overtaken by Iraqi forces. For the mud crust in 1st appearance is substantial to support light armour vehicles, it will not support the full weight of a heavy armoured vehicle, and as such, the tracked vehicle will in first stall, then spin of track to then dig in and become mired down and useless.

The Russians in the last war found out of this in a difficult way whilst attempting to run their heavy {T-34} armoured vehicles into some of the swamped areas at speed with expectation for momentum to carry the vehicle through and was not the case. Many simply dug in and were stuck to be captured and destroyed as they sit.

Charles

[livia]

justjohn said:

On Monday, Germany’s minister of culture, Bernd Neumann, announced that construction could begin in Berlin on two monuments: one near the Reichstag, to the murdered Gypsies, known here as the Sinti and the Roma; and another not far from the Brandenburg Gate, to gays and lesbians killed in the Holocaust.

To tell the truth I find this selective memory really embarrassing. Would the Germans won there would be no Poles!!!

[freetobe]

Jaga,
Which version of the bible should I consult? Based on Kai's remarks, bible history is more open to interpretation than Gross' book. But we seem to be straying from the topic, the never going away ghost of anti semitism. The extermination of the Balts is sad, but the Teutonic Order under Albrecht von Hohenzollern collapsed when the grand master accepted Lutheranism. Thanks to Martin Luther, the Knights were history and the Balts were avenged. So that old saying "what goes around comes around" may very well be true. So be patient. All this furor about Polish anti- whatever is going to come back and bite the accuser in the backside. History says it's so.

[freetobe]

To all you veterans of the anti-semitism pages..... what is the difference between a victim and a martyr. Now I'm going to fold up my tent, steal away quietly in the night and let the rest duke it out.

[holaola]

livia said:

justjohn said:

On Monday, Germany’s minister of culture, Bernd Neumann, announced that construction could begin in Berlin on two monuments: one near the Reichstag, to the murdered Gypsies, known here as the Sinti and the Roma; and another not far from the Brandenburg Gate, to gays and lesbians killed in the Holocaust.

To tell the truth I find this selective memory really embarrassing. Would the Germans won there would be no Poles!!!

Yes - I found that very striking too! But even more striking was this comment from the cited article:

“Where in the world has one ever seen a nation that erects memorials to immortalize its own shame?” asked Avi Primor, the former Israeli ambassador to Germany, at an event in Erfurt on Friday commemorating the Holocaust and the liberation of Auschwitz. “Only the Germans had the bravery and the humility.”

"Only the Germans had the bravery and the humility (to erect monuments)" What exactly is intended here? I would have imagined that only the Germans had cause to erect them - apart from the USSR, of course. I have a feeling that history is slowly (or perhaps not too slowly) being massaged into a very different shape, here, and that the real culprits are being given a gradual veneer of saintliness.

[Jaga]

justjohn said:

On Monday, Germany’s minister of culture, Bernd Neumann, announced that construction could begin in Berlin on two monuments: one near the Reichstag, to the murdered Gypsies, known here as the Sinti and the Roma; and another not far from the Brandenburg Gate, to gays and lesbians killed in the Holocaust.

More here:

^{www.nytimes.com/2008/01/29/world/europe/29nazi.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin}

Livia wrote already a good comment to this quote. I have one extra remark. I was very surprised and a bit angry when I was a BellaOnline host and other Bella hosts advised me to write more about the war in Poland in the context of Jewish holocaust and the Gay/lesbian martyrolgy. When I tried to argue that in Poland there were almost no gay/lesbian prisoners inAuschwizt (all through the war I found the evidence of about 40 peopl dead because of being gay) - a main BellaOnline host was arguing that their death was somehow more significant that priests... because they could not influence their faith.

Here is what I wrote in one of the Auschwitz article, you may check:

culture.polishsite.us/articles/art256fr.htm


There is a strange misconception that the only people who were sent to concentration camps except Jews were... gays and communists, maybe this was a true in Germany but not in the other occupied countries. According to the official records ONLY 48 prisoners in Auschwitz were imprisoned there because there were geys - from over 202 thousands preserved individual records (!) All of the geys came from Germany, 12 of them died in the camp, the rest survived.

The Poles of non-Jewish origin who were sent to Auschwitz and other camps were mainly political prisoners, spiritual leaders, priests, members of intelligentsia or cultural and scientific figures. Nazis wanted to get rid of the most affluent class of people who could influence the rest of Poles since Poles were considered the undermenschen good only for serving the super-race.


Soviet prisoners of war (POW's) were the worst treated people in the Auschwitz camp from all people allowed to stay alive. Their food ratios were the lowest, they died massively of starvation, there was even no grass left in their camp. The survival rate there was almost� zero. Soviet POW�s were serving also as experimental guinea pigs, they were sent first to the gas chambers to test whether the chambers work properly. Soviets should "thank" for their unusually harsh treatment not only to Nazi politics but to the Stalin. Stalin and his regime treated all Soviet soldiers captured by enemy as the traitors of a Soviet state. If such soldier escaped and dare to come back - he was killed by Stalin people. So, no any international treaties about prisoners of war were ever applied to them by Nazi.


Gipsies were kept in one family camp in Birkenau. The conditions there were so terrible and unsanitary that Heinrich Himmler after his visit ordered to liquidate the camp completely and send all of them to the gas chambers. The same fate awaited Czechoslovakian Jews from Theresienstadt who were also kept in the family camp.