HOME  DISINFORMATION  PEOPLE  LITTMAN
Sol Littman   Letter 04   25-Sep-1999   Public Mischief or Querulous Paranoia?
"That you have managed to avoid incarceration or institutionalization for your misdeeds so far is a run of luck that you cannot depend on continuing." — Lubomyr Prytulak
  25 September 1999

Sol Littman
Director, Simon Wiesenthal Center
8 King Street East, Suite 710
Toronto, ON
CANADA,  M5C 1B5

Tel: (416) 864-9735
Fax: (416) 864-1083


Sol Littman:

The Two Publicity Stunts That Led to the Creation of the Deschênes Commission

The two publicity stunts which led to the creation of the Deschênes Commission of Inquiry on War Criminals appear to be: (1) your and Ralph Blumenthal's publicizing that Dr. Joseph Mengele had tried to gain entry into Canada, and (2) your and Simon Wiesenthal's publicizing that Canada harbored thousands of Nazi war criminals.

That the two above publicity stunts were responsible for the creation of the Deschênes Commission is evidenced by the minute of Order No. 1985-348 of the Privy Council of Canada which set up the Commission beginning as follows:

WHEREAS concern has been expressed about the possibility that Joseph Mengele, an alleged Nazi war criminal, may have entered or attempted to enter Canada;

WHEREAS there is also concern that other persons responsible for war crimes related to the activities of Nazi Germany during World War II (hereinafter referred to as war criminals) are currently resident in Canada;
In Jules Deschênes, Commission of Inquiry on War Criminals, 1986, p. 17

Some Details Concerning the First Publicity Stunt — the Littman-Blumenthal Mengele Scare

Begins well enough.  On 20Dec84, you wrote to the Prime Minister of Canada unequivocally affirming that

Mengele, employing the alias of Dr. Joseph Menke, applied to the Canadian embassy in Buenos Aires for admission to Canada as a landed immigrant in late May or early June, 1962.
In Jules Deschênes, Commission of Inquiry on War Criminals, 1986, p. 67

You offered the above statement not as a hypothesis or a conjecture or a possibility, but as a hard fact based on documentation:

The documents we received on Mengele, who has been the object of world-wide search since the close of WW II, produced two shocking pieces of information.
In Jules Deschênes, Commission of Inquiry on War Criminals, 1986, p. 67

Then on 23Jan85, Ralph Blumenthal wrote an article in the New York Times captioned "Records indicate Mengele sought Canadian visa," also reporting that the conclusion was based on documentation and that it could be verified by consultation with Canadian authorities:

Other records indicate that Mengele applied to the Canadian Embassy in Buenos Aires for a Canadian visa in 1962 under a pseudonym and that the Canadians informed American intelligence officials of this attempt.
In Jules Deschênes, Commission of Inquiry on War Criminals, 1986, p. 67

Of course the above conclusions were widely reprinted and broadcast.

But ends poorly.  During the course of the Deschênes Commission, however, both you and Mr. Blumenthal were forced to confess that the information in Blumenthal's New York Times article was not an independent confirmation of the Mengele rumor, but rather was only a repetition of statements that you furnished Blumenthal, and that you had all the time been aware that your conclusion was totally without foundation.  Naturally, Judge Deschênes expressed his disapproval of the Littman-Blumenthal publicity stunt with thinly-veiled contempt:

[T]he Commission must say that it takes a dim view of the attitude of Mr. Littman.  [...]

Littman was, therefore, put on notice [by his own research] that, in view of the paucity of available information, it was dangerous to make the assumptions with which he was playing.  [...]

There is no documentary evidence whatsoever of an attempt by Dr. Joseph Mengele to seek admission to Canada from Buenos Aires in 1962.

The affirmation has come from Mr. Sol Littman, and from him alone.  [...]

The advice which Littman solicited [in the course of his own research] [...] did not support his assumptions, but put him on notice about their fragility.

As stated at the outset, all that Littman could rely on was "speculation, impression, possibility, hypothesis".  Yet he chose to transmute them into statements of facts which he publicized [...].

This is a case where not a shred of evidence has been tendered to support Mr. Littman's statement to the Prime Minister of Canada on 20 December 1984, or Mr. Ralph Blumenthal's article in the New York Times on 23 January 1985.

Indeed Mr. Littman has stated before the Commission:

Well, let me put it this way.  We have accepted the fact that Mengele did not come to Canada and, in all likelihood, never applied to come over to Canada.  We had no difficulty accepting that.

The Commission accordingly FINDS without the slightest hesitation that:

8 —  Dr. Joseph (Josef) Mengele did not apply in Buenos Aires in 1962 for a visa to enter Canada, either under his own name or under any of his several known aliases.
Jules Deschênes, Commission of Inquiry on War Criminals, 1986, pp. 80-82

Some Details Concerning the Second Publicity Stunt — the Littman-Wiesenthal Thousands-of-Nazi-War-Criminals Scare

Begins well enough.  The Deschênes Commission reports the following estimates made by yourself and by Simon Wiesenthal of the number of Nazi war criminals currently residing in Canada.  Although others cited their own figures, the credit for energy and leadership appears to belong to you and Simon Wiesenthal:

DATE  SOURCE  PLACE OF PUBLICATION NUMBER OF
ALLEGED WAR CRIMINALS
LIVING IN CANADA
19May71  Simon Wiesenthal  Toronto Star Several hundred
24Jan84  Sol Littman  London Free Press   2,000
08Nov84  Sol Littman  Toronto Star   3,000
25Jan85  Sol Littman  Toronto Star   3,000
23Aug85  Sol Littman  Report to Solicitor General 2-3,000
16May86  Simon Wiesenthal  New York Daily News   6,000


But ends poorly.  And did Simon Wiesenthal submit a list of 6,000 names to the Deschênes Commission?  Hardly!  He submitted a list of 217 names (and possibly two additional names after that, as the figure is sometimes reported as 219).  In this vast gulf between promise and performance, we already see the mark of either a scoundrel or a fool.  Where did the missing 5,783 war criminals go?  No matter — to a mind as evil as Mr. Wiesenthal's, or as sick, abandoning 96% of his claim is no great setback.

But, as you know, that is not all.  As you know, after investigating the list of 217, the Commission concluded that in not a single case was further investigation warranted, and in every last case recommended that the file be closed.  In other words, not only did Simon Wiesenthal fail to bring to the attention of Canadians the 6,000 war criminals with whose spectre he had unsettled them initially, he didn't manage to produce even 217 war criminals, and he didn't manage to produce even a single war criminal.  This more urgently than before presses upon us the hypothesis that we are dealing here with a scoundrel — a very great scoundrel — or a fool — a very great fool.

And what of your own role in this pitiful affair?  It seems that from your high of 3,000 war criminals and collaborators, you managed to come up with a list of 171.  In this, you outperform your mentor, Simon Wiesenthal, in having to abandon only 94% of your claim.  And what of this 171 — did they all turn out to be war criminals, or did any turn out to be war criminals, or did the Commission conclude that even a single one deserved further investigation?  Unfortunately, the Commission did not summarize the outcome of their investigation of the Littman 171, and it is impossible for a reader to tell because the Commission published no information whatever on the 29 individuals it concluded deserved some further investigation.  Perhaps some of these individuals deserving of further study had been brought to the attention of the Commission by yourself.  But, perhaps not.  Perhaps your record is as dismal as that of your mentor's.  In your letter to me of 21Sep99, you claim that 10 of the 29 that the Commission recommended for further action had been put forward by yourself, but in my reply of 24Sep99, I point out how your claim lacks specificity and is capable of being doubted.  I wonder if you would be so good as to detail for me what use your list of 171 proved to the Deschênes Commission?

In any case, in the years since the Deschênes Commission, not a single individual suspected of Nazi war crimes has been successfully prosecuted under Canadian criminal law, so that we might venture without great trepidation the hypothesis that the contributions of Simon Wiesenthal and Sol Littman to helping the Deschênes Commission locate Nazi war criminals in Canada was exactly nil.  If you have available any evidence which is able to confirm or disconfirm this hypothesis, I will appreciate your bringing it to my attention.

This abuse of his Commission did not pass Judge Deschênes' notice, and — singling out Simon Wiesenthal — he heaps the perpetrators of such abuse with scorn:

Between 1971 and 1986, public statements by outside interveners concerning alleged war criminals residing in Canada have spread increasingly large and grossly exaggerated figures as to their estimated number [...] [among them] the figure of 6,000 ventured in 1986 by Mr. Simon Wiesenthal [...].
Jules Deschênes, Commission of Inquiry on War Criminals, 1986, p. 249

The Commission has ascertained from the New York Daily News that this figure is correct and is not the result of a printing error.
Jules Deschênes, Commission of Inquiry on War Criminals, 1986, p. 247

The high level reached by some of those figures, together with the wide discrepancy between them, contributed to create both revulsion and interrogation.
Jules Deschênes, Commission of Inquiry on War Criminals, 1986, p. 245

It was obvious that the list of 217 officers of the Galicia Division furnished by Mr. Wiesenthal was nearly totally useless and put the Canadian government, through the RCMP and this Commission, to a considerable amount of purposeless work.
Jules Deschênes, Commission of Inquiry on War Criminals, 1986, p. 258

Was it that the Deschênes Commission Was A Whitewash?

Let no one call the Deschênes Commission a whitewash.  Let no one say that evidence was not sought, or when offered was suppressed.  No, the reality is that the Commission was created in response to Jewish pressure under the sponsorship of Jewish Solicitor General Robert Kaplan.  As Solicitor General, furthermore, Robert Kaplan controlled the chief investigative instrument employed by the Commission, the RCMP.  The Commission urgently and repeatedly solicited the incriminating evidence from all sources, and most especially from the world's leading Nazi hunter, Simon Wiesenthal, and from Canada's leading Nazi hunter, yourself.  The commission begged for the evidence.  The Commission pleaded for the evidence.  But neither of you had it.  Nobody had it.  Simon Wiesenthal, in particular, was appealed to for it, but not having it, retreated into a guilty silence:

The Commission has tried repeatedly to obtain the incriminating evidence allegedly in Mr. Wiesenthal's possession, through various oral and written communications with Mr. Wiesenthal himself and with his solicitor, Mr. Martin Mendelsohn of Washington, D.C., but to no avail: telephone calls, letters, even a meeting in New York between Mr. Wiesenthal and Commission Counsel on 1 November 1985 followed up by further direct communications, have succeeded in bringing no positive results, outside of promises.
Jules Deschênes, Commission of Inquiry on War Criminals, 1986, p. 257

The lenient conclusion that one might draw from the above is that when Simon Wiesenthal accuses a Canadian of being a war criminal, then this does not increase the probability that that Canadian will actually be discovered to be a war criminal.  A more accurate but less flattering conclusion is that when Simon Wiesenthal accuses a Canadian of being a war criminal, this comes close to guaranteeing that the accused is not a war criminal.

Or Was it that the Littman-Wiesenthal-Kaplan Trio Succeeded in Whipping the Jewish Community into a Salem-Witch-Trial-Like Mass Hysteria?

Considering the vast number of unfounded denunciations that were brought forward either by you or by Simon Wiesenthal, and considering the vast number of unfounded denunciations that you and Simon Wiesenthal succeeded in eliciting from what appears to be mainly Jews, the impression left behind in the minds of Canadians is of the Canadian government diverting scarce resources toward the goal of pacifying Jewish mass hysteria.  Consider the following excerpts from cases submitted to the Deschênes Commission for investigation as suspected Nazi war criminals, and see if you don't agree.

Below, only an excerpt from each case is provided, and it is mainly the Commission's long list of failed attempts to substantiate the denunciation that has been removed.  In the Commission report, all of the following cases end with only minor variations of the words, "On the basis of the foregoing, it is recommended that the file on the subject be closed."  The selection of cases below is not intended to be representative, but rather is one that upon casual browsing stands out as being particularly comical, pathetic, or alarming depending upon one's mood.  Including representative cases would have made for very poor reading, as the representative case is typically a denunciation presented without specifics, without supportive evidence, and after a failed attempt to substantiate it, is simply dismissed for lack of evidence — perhaps something like, or even duller than, your own denunciation in Case No. 156 below.

CASE NO. 73.  This individual was brought to the attention of the Commission by Mr. Sol Littman.  Mr. Littman made no particular allegation against the subject, but referred to information obtained from a particular individual as the source of the subject's name.  Mr. Littman further indicated that the subject resided at an unspecified address in Canada and had been the object of an extradition request by the government of an Eastern European country.  No particulars of this alleged extradition request were provided.  [...]  The Commission confirmed that an extradition request had not been received by the Canadian government and that the Berlin Document Center had no record on the subject.

CASE NO. 121.  This individual was brought to the attention of the Commission by the RCMP, whose source of information was the Department of the Solicitor General which, in turn, had received the information from a private citizen.  It was alleged that this individual may have been a doctor who experimented on concentration camp prisoners.  [...]  The interview established that the complainant was not in a position to place the subject in a Nazi war camp nor was she in possession of names of witnesses able to connect the subject with wartime criminal activities.  [...]  [T]he subject would have been only 15 to 20 years old during the war, hardly an age to have the position suggested above.

CASE NO. 122.  This individual was brought to the attention of the Commission by an anonymous note.  The only allegation initially made was that the subject was a war criminal and was living at a certain address in Canada.  [...]  [T]he evidence [...] indicates the individual has lived all his life in Canada and was drafted into the Canadian army for a short time in 1942.

CASE NO. 133.  This individual was brought to the attention of the Commission by the RCMP, whose source of information was Mr. Sol Littman.  It was alleged that the subject under investigation had been a member of the SS.  [...]  These investigations revealed that the subject was born in 1933 and would therefore have been between 6 and 12 years of age during the war.

CASE NO. 156.  This individual was brought to the attention of the Commission by Mr. Sol Littman.  Mr. Littman alleged only that the subject had been a "propagandist for the party."  When contacted by the Commission, Mr. Littman indicated that he had no further evidence or information.  [...]  On the basis of the foregoing [itemized investigation], no evidence of participation in or knowledge of specific war crimes is available.

CASE NO. 158.  This individual was brought to the attention of the Commission by a private citizen.  The only allegation initially made was that the subject was a war criminal because he was so wealthy and of German background.  [...]  The Commission was advised [by several German sources] that it had a record of the subject which indicated his membership in the Luftwaffe (air force).

CASE NO. 171.  This individual was brought to the attention of the Commission by [...] the Jewish Documentation Centre in Vienna.  [...]  According to the year of birth, this person would have been only five or six years old at the end of World War II.

CASE NO. 179.  This individual was brought to the attention of the Commission by an anonymous letter.  The allegation initially made was that the subject was the owner of a shop who behaved curiously regarding the sources of the store's goods.  [...]  The subject is the spouse of the individual who is reported in Case No. 180.  Both were denounced in the same anonymous letter.  [...]  The Commission checked the shop itself and concluded that the complaint is entirely spurious and unfounded.

CASE NO. 180.  This individual was brought to the attention of the Commission by an anonymous letter.  The only allegation initially made was that the subject was the owner of a shop who behaved curiously regarding the sources of the store's goods.  [...]  The Commission also checked the shop itself and concluded that the complaint is entirely spurious and unfounded.

CASE NO. 190.  This family's surname was brought to the attention of the Commission by Mr. David Matas [chairman of the Jewish National Legal Committee], whose source of information was an anonymous letter claiming the family came from a foreign country and deserved investigation because they were "recluses."  There was no specific allegation of involvement in war crimes made against this family.

CASE NO. 202.  This individual was brought to the attention of the Commission by the Canadian Jewish Congress, whose source of information was a private citizen.  There was no specific allegation of involvement in war crimes made against this individual, and the information received was irrational.  [...]  The Commission contacted the wife of the subject, who stated that she did not know the citizen (who made the allegation) and that her husband never had any business dealings with a person by that name.  The Commission also tried to locate the complainant but to no avail.

CASE NO. 247.  This individual was brought to the attention of the Commission by the Canadian Jewish Congress, whose source of information was a private citizen.  There was no specific allegation of involvement in war crimes made against the individual.  [...]  The Commission was advised by the German Military Service Office [...] that it had a record of a person with the same name as the subject, which indicated that he was a pilot in the Allied Air Force and had been taken prisoner by the Germans.

CASE NO. 269.  This individual was brought to the attention of the Commission by the Canadian Jewish Congress, whose source of information was a private citizen.  It was alleged that this individual is a physician whose physical description resembles that of the notorious war criminal Dr. Mengele.  [...]  Personal data of the subject taken from various documentation reveal the following in comparison with the information contained in the Commission file with respect to Dr. Mengele:
 

Year of Birth
Height
Weight
Eyes
Face
Chin 		Subject

1913
6'3"+
195-215 lbs
Blue
Oval (from Photo)
— 		Dr. Mengele

1911
5'8"+
Medium build
Brown
Round
Round
  
In addition, the picture of the subject appearing in the various documents received, does not suggest that he resembles Dr. Mengele.  All other search responses were negative.

CASE NO. 431.  This individual was brought to the attention of the Commission by the RCMP, whose source of information was Mr. Sol Littman.  Mr. Littman had forwarded a letter to the RCMP from a private individual.  It was alleged in the letter that the subject under investigation had been in charge of an unnamed camp and was believed to have shot civilians.  [...]  The Commission interviewed the individual who submitted the subject's name to Mr. Littman and was advised that this individual had subsequently determined that the subject under investigation had been a prisoner of war and further that the complaint was unfounded.

CASE NO. 433.  This individual was brought to the attention of the Commission by the RCMP, whose source of information was an anonymous informant.  The only allegation made was that the subject was "a possible German involved in war crimes".  No specific allegation or evidence against the subject was provided.  [...]  The Commission reviewed material available from the RCMP and CSIS, which determined that the subject was born in 1933, and for that reason could not have been involved in the commission of war crimes between 1939 and 1945.

CASE NO. 526.  This individual was brought to the attention of the Commission by the Canadian Jewish Congress, whose source of information was a private individual.  It was alleged that the subject under investigation might be Dr. Josef Mengele.  [...]  The Department of External Affairs reported that it had a record in respect of the individual, but that the individual had been born in 1928 in Canada [...].  [...]  Furthermore, the subject's name is not one of the aliases used from time to time by Josef Mengele.

CASE NO. 561.  This individual was brought to the attention of the Commission by the RCMP, whose source of information was the Canadian Jewish Congress.  It was alleged that the subject was responsible for the deaths of "hundreds of Jews."  No specific evidence of the alleged war crimes was provided.  [...]  Records of the Department of Employment and Immigration [...] indicate that the subject was born in 1941 [...].

CASE NO. 588.1.  This individual was brought to the attention of the Commission by the RCMP, who were investigating the suspicions of the Department of Employment and Immigration officials that the individual might be older than he claims and might be hiding a questionable past, which may have involved the Nazi Party.  [...]  It was verified [through various investigations] that the subject is indeed who he claims to be and that he was indeed born in 1929.  He was barely 10 years old at the start of the war.

CASE NO. 658.  This individual was brought to the attention of the Commission by Mr. Sol Littman and the Canadian Jewish Congress.  Mr. Littman indicated that he had no specific allegation to evidence that this individual had been involved in war crimes, and the source of his information was the Canadian Jewish Congress.  The Canadian Jewish Congress indicated that this individual was alleged by an unnamed source to have been a member of the Gestapo in an Eastern European country.  [...]  The Commission located the subject in Canada in 1986.  [...]  The Commission determined that [...] he was a member of the Luftwaffe.


The impression that not a few observers will be left with after a perusal of cases such as the above is that some Jews have come to believe that the RCMP is an instrument placed at their disposal to investigate a target

on such grounds as that the Jew feels that the target is "a recluse,"

or on such grounds as that the Jew judges that the target is "wealthy and of German background,"

or on such grounds as that the Jew senses that the target "behaves curiously regarding the sources of his store's goods,"

or on such grounds as that the Jew guesses that the target is "a possible German involved in war crimes,"

or on such grounds as that the Jew speculates that the target "might be older than he claims,"

or on such grounds as that the Jew conjectures that the target "might be hiding a questionable past,"

or merely when some Jew is talking to a German whose surname begins with the three letters "M E N," and suddenly the Jew's skin begins to crawl because he is seized with the conviction that he is talking to Dr. Mengele himself, which is my guess as to what happened in the case of target George Menk whom the RCMP subjected to a lengthy and costly investigation for perhaps little better reason than this unlucky overlap of three letters in surnames (Jules Deschênes, Commission of Inquiry on War Criminals, 1986, pp. 69-77).  How much, then, does it take for some unbalanced individual, one imagines a Jew, to denounce some blameless couple to the RCMP as war criminals? — The answer is, not much at all:

A single example: the denunciation as war criminals of a couple bearing a German name, living in a secluded place under the protection of two black dogs and offering old European furniture for sale (cases 179 and 180).
Jules Deschênes, Commission of Inquiry on War Criminals, 1986, p. 249

Thirty denunciations too shameful to talk about.  Above we have seen denunciations for Nazi war crimes which were totally without foundation, or that were palpably false because of the youth of the individual denounced, or because the denounced had been born in Canada, or because the denounced had served with the Allied forces during the war, and even been a prisoner-of-war of the Germans.  Despite this, Judge Deschênes removes certain names from his Master List without providing any information whatever, merely with the comment "Name stricken off Master List," as for example Case No. 108.  Perhaps the reason that all investigation is terminated and all information is withheld in such cases is the following:

[T]he Commission forwarded, with one exception, the names of all its Master List suspects to the Department of Employment and Immigration with a request that the department advise if it had any record of landing in Canada.  The exception was a list of thirty names which were not pursued because the very nature of the allegation was so insubstantial that any follow-up was inappropriate: e.g., individuals too young to have participated in the war, instances where the cause of suspicion was limited to the suspect's appearance, ethnic background, etc.
Jules Deschênes, Commission of Inquiry on War Criminals, 1986, p. 49

But if many instances of gratuitous or frivolous or palpably false denunciations were investigated by the Commission, and were outlined in its Report, why then in thirty other cases were investigations stopped and no outlines provided?  It is unfortunate that Judge Deschênes chooses to censor such information, because such censorship invites the Canadian public to wonder whether among these thirty most senseless of all the denunciations may have been ones far more bizarre than any mentioned above, one imagines like a denunciaton for Nazi war crimes during World Ware II of some Ian McMillan who speaks English without an accent and was born in Toronto in 1955.  If there were thirty denunciations that bizarre, then the Canadian public has a right to know this, and the false denouncers have no right to be protected from shame.

Furthermore, anyone — like yourself — wishing to take credit for being an astute Nazi hunter, should indicate how many of the denunciations originated from him among (1) the 29 that the Commission recommended for further investigation, and (2) the 30 that were too shameful to talk about.

The Deschênes Commission Was a Propaganda Tool of Three Irresponsible Jewish Leaders

The three provocateurs who appear to be responsible for the creation of the Deschênes Commission are Sol Littman, Simon Wiesenthal, and Robert Kaplan.  We have already seen above the role played by yourself and Simon Wiesenthal.  The role played by Solicitor General Robert Kaplan was to revive government interest in war crimes after more than three decades of dormancy, and to serve as a conduit to the Canadian Government of your and Simon Wiesenthal's disinformation.  Robert Kaplan, as has already been mentioned above, simultaneously had authority over the RCMP, the chief agency employed in investigating Canadian residents denounced as Nazi war criminals.

This trio appears to have had the ear of the Canadian government, as it set up the Deschênes Commission for them, and the ear of the press, as it published their denunciations faithfully and uncritically and repeatedly.  The Canadian government did their bidding not only by creating the Deschênes Commission, but also by restricting its attention to "Nazi crimes during World War II [p. 37]."  As the denunciations could be counted upon to come overwhelmingly or even exclusively from Jews, then in effect the Canadian government was limiting the Commission to investigating crimes against Jews.  As the accusations of Simon Wiesenthal featured mainly or exclusively Ukrainians, the targets of the Commission were obviously going to be disproportionately Ukrainians.

Despite disingenuous statements of Judge Deschênes to the effect that the Commission had not targeted any particular group and that it had not been created to revive old hatreds (p. 254), it in fact was mandated from the outset to be primarily an instrument by means of which Jews could smear Ukrainians.  Nothing could be plainer or more incontestable.  If following the German occupation of Ukraine, a Ukrainian police officer in Lviv was commanded by the occupying German forces to guard Jews who were being moved to the train station, then the Deschênes Commission would consider his discovery a Commission success, but if earlier that same summer in that same city of Lviv a Jewish NKVD agent tortured and murdered a thousand Ukrainians, this was beyond the scope of the Commission, since it was mandated to consider only Nazi crimes.  If this is not ethnic discrimination, then I don't know what is.  If there was a more effective way to have a Commission undermine trust in Canadian government and in Canadian justice, I can't imagine what it could be.  If there was a better way to set one ethnic group against another than putting the nation's government and police force and Department of Justice at the service of one group in its malevolent crusade against another, then please inform me of what this better way might have been.

But my chief purpose in adding these further comments is to emphasize more strongly that the Deschênes Commission could not have been a whitewash, this simply because the Deschênes Commission was created at the instigation of Jews — most particularly Sol Littman, Simon Wiesenthal, and Robert Kaplan — and continued under the strong influence of Jews.  The personnel of the Commission was biased in favor of Jews — for example, under Special Advisers are listed Professor Raul Hilberg and Professor Peter Hoffman, and no others, most notably no Ukrainian historians (p. v).  The Commission was monitored by a press that was sympathetic to the Jewish accusers.  But despite the pressure and the bias, what the Littman-Wiesenthal-Kaplan trio found themselves ultimately unable to accomplish is to force the Commission to believe in things for which no evidence could be discovered.

Your Particular Irresponsibility

In reading the Commission Report, one cannot but notice the particular irresponsibility that Judge Deschênes lays at your feet.  In addition to the Littman-Blumenthal Mengele Scare which I have outlined above, and in addition to broadcasting inflated statistics concerning the number of Nazi war criminals hiding in Canada, and in addition to contributing to and orchestrating the flood of baseless denunciations, Judge Deschênes alludes to two other of your misdeeds, each minor and yet when considered together with all other indicators, pointing to a general attitude of high irresponsibility.

You breached the injunction of the Commission.  Judge Deschênes faults you, and throughout his report nobody else but you, for having violated the injunction against publicizing the names of those who have been denounced:

For the protection of reputations, the Commission has made it a duty not to divulge any of those names and has enjoined parties appearing before it in public sittings to adhere to the same policy.  The Commission has received general understanding and co-operation in this respect, though Mr. Sol Littman came very close to breaching this injunction when he gave a press conference in Ottawa and distributed a list of suspects on 30 October 1986.
In Jules Deschênes, Commission of Inquiry on War Criminals, 1986, p. 48

In this instance of your irresponsibility, you may have been saved from severe repercussions by the press refusing to publish the names of the denounced which you had passed around, thus permitting Judge Deschênes to let you off with the wrist slap of only having come "very close to breaching the injunction" when in fact you had breached it utterly.

You padded your statistics.  You seem to have offered the Deschênes Commission a list of 171 denunciations that was uniquely your own, but on top of that you kept on re-submitting lists that had already been offered by others.  Specifically, p. 47 of the Commission Report has you re-submitting the 219 names that had been already offered by Simon Wiesenthal (Vienna), re-submitting the 209 names already offered by the Canadian Jewish Congress, and re-submitting the 63 names already offered by the Simon Wiesenthal Center (Los Angeles).  The effect of re-submitting the denunciation lists of others is that it increases the number of denunciations that you can lay claim to, and heightens the chances of your being able to claim that any Nazi that is discovered was fingered by yourself.

The Damage Caused

I expect that you will agree that society must act decisively to suppress false accusations generally, and false accusations of widespread war criminality in particular, for the reasons that such false accusations:

(1) unjustly damage the reputations of those who are falsely accused (here, mainly Ukrainians);

(2) degrade and corrupt the false accusers (here, mainly yourself and Simon Wiesenthal);

(3) bring discredit upon any who support or promote or disseminate the false accusations (as for example, Solicitor General Robert Kaplan and the Canadian press);

(4) bring discredit upon the entire group to which the false accusers belong (for example, the sponsorship by Solicitor General Robert Kaplan of the Deschênes Commission may have left the impression in the minds of some that when a Jew is given high public office, he is capable of seizing the opportunity to promote not the welfare of the many, but rather the agendas of the less stable of his coreligionists);

(5) drain the public purse of funds that could otherwise have been used for beneficial purposes;

(6) encourage skepticism toward the category of crimes being investigated (as a result of Jewish fiascos in chasing non-existent Nazis, the Canadian public may have developed a distaste for prosecuting any war criminals, such that prosecutorial enthusiasm for investigating self-confessed butchers like Israel Roitman may have been drained); and

(7) bring discredit upon the government that lends a sympathetic ear to such false accusation and that provides a platform for disseminating them (the Jewish staging of the Deschênes Commission deepened Canada's factionalism and disunity by encouraging the view of an unprincipled central government up for sale to the highest bidder).

As might be expected, when a behavior causes such profound and widespread destruction as I have itemized above, society offers interventions aimed at curbing it, which are chiefly criminal prosecution and psychiatric intervention.

The Law Might View Your Work as "Public Mischief"

Criminal prosecution is one of the two leading interventions that society invokes for quelling the sort of destructive behavior that I have been outlining above.  In the case of false accusations of widespread war criminality, the statute on Public Mischief which I reproduce below might be among the most appropriate.  By the way, don't let the word "mischief" fool you into thinking that the law is ready to view misbehavior in this realm as a light joke — the penalty for Public Mischief can be imprisonment for up to five years.  Below, I have emphasized the passages most relevant to our discussion:

PUBLIC MISCHIEF / Punishment

140. (1) Every one commits public mischief who, with intent to mislead, causes a peace officer to enter on or continue an investigation by
   (a) making a false statement that accuses some other person of having committed an offence;
   (b) doing anything intended to cause some other person to be suspected of having committed an offence that the other person has not committed, or to divert suspicion from himself;
   (c) reporting that an offence has been committed when it has not been committed; or
   (d) reporting or in any other way making it known or causing it to be made known that he or some other person has died when he or that other person has not died.
(2) Every one who commits public mischief
   (a) is guilty of an indictable offense and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or
   (b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.


Psychiatry Might View Your Work as "Querulous Paranoia"

Psychiatric therapy or confinement is the second of the two leading interventions that society employs for quelling the sort of destructive behavior that we have been discussing above.  In cases where psychiatric intervention appears appropriate, the diagnosis that might be most fitting is that of Delusional Paranoid Disorder, particularly of the Grandiose and Persecutory Types.  Below, I have emphasized the passages most relevant to our discussion:

Grandiose Type.  Grandiose delusions usually take the form of the person's being convinced that he or she possesses some great, but unrecognized, talent or insight, or has made some important discovery, which he or she may take to various governmental agencies (e.g., the Federal Bureau of Investigation or the U.S. Patent Office).  Less common is the delusion that one has a special relationship with a prominent person, such as being the daughter of a movie star or an advisor to the President, or that one is the prominent person, in which case the actual person, if alive, is regarded as an impostor.  Grandiose delusions may have a religious content, and people with these delusions can become leaders of religious cults.
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Third Edition — Revised), American Psychiatric Association, Washington, 1987, p. 200

Persecutory Type.  This is the most common type.  The persecutory delusion may be simple or elaborate, and usually involves a single theme or series of connected themes, such as being conspired against, cheated, spied upon, followed, poisoned or drugged, maliciously maligned, harassed, or obstructed in the pursuit of long-term goals.  Small slights may be exaggerated and become the focus of a delusional system.  In certain cases the focus of the delusion is some injustice that must be remedied by legal action ("querulous paranoia"), and the affected person often engages in repeated attempts to obtain satisfaction by appeal to the courts and other government agencies.  People with persecutory delusions are often resentful and angry, and may resort to violence against those they believe are hurting them.
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Third Edition — Revised), American Psychiatric Association, Washington, 1987, p. 200

Six Recommendations

From all of the above, the following recommendations appear to be worth considering:

(1) Adopt a more disciplined handling of numbers.

The impression given by the above is of two individuals — Simon Wiesenthal and yourself — using numbers casually and irresponsibly, which diminishes those individuals' dignity and credibility.  The alternative which they should consider adopting is to use numbers in a disciplined and orderly fashion.  Specifically, every number should be the result of a count or of an arithmetical calculation.  Furthermore, numbers should be cross-checked between the members of any team — such as Simon Wiesenthal and yourself — so as to prevent unsightly contradictions.  Any member of the team who is guilty of irresponsible use of numbers should be disciplined or removed.

(2) Urge prosecution

Contact law enforcement officials requesting them to consider prosecuting — as for Public Mischief — any who have supplied, or who will supply, false evidence relating to war crimes.

(3) Caution against bearing false witness

Include in any future calls for evidence concerning war crimes the caution that any who come forward with false information may (1) unjustly damage the reputations of those whom they falsely accuse, (2) degrade and corrupt their own characters, (3) bring discredit upon any who rely upon the false accusations, (4) bring discredit upon the entire group of which the false accusers are members, (5) waste public funds, (6) encourage disbelief in the existence of war criminals in our midst, or even in the existence of the war crimes themselves, (7) bring discredit upon any government which provides a platform for such false accusations, and (8) expose the false accusers to criminal prosecution for Public Mischief.  The last of these should be stressed, as it is possible that accusers to date have been insufficiently aware of their obligation to not harm the innocent, and of their liability to criminal prosecution if they do.

(4) Introduce psychiatric screening and counselling

The nature of false accusations may occasionally fall less into the category of a crime than of a psychiatric episode.  For this reason, all accusations should be subjected to psychiatric screening at a point where they have not as yet done much damage to the accused, or imposed much of a burden on investigative bodies, and in cases of false accusation, psychiatric intervention should be considered where criminal prosecution appears inadvisable.

(5) Publish a list of individuals who have supplied or disseminated false accusations

Various institutions — as for example government war crimes units or the press — need to evaluate the reliability of information that is submitted to them.  If a list of individuals who had originated or conveyed or promoted the dissemination of false accusations in the past was available, the process of evaluating credibility would be facilitated.  Just from the information provided above, included on such a list might be the names of Simon Wiesenthal, Sol Littman, Robert Kaplan, and David Matas.

(6) Publish a List of institutions that have supplied or disseminated false accusations

Just as we reasonably view with heightened caution any utterances of an individual once demonstrated to be undependable, so also we may adopt the same practice with respect to institutions.  If a list of institutions which had originated or conveyed or promoted the dissemination of false accusations in the past was available, the process of evaluating credibility would be facilitated.  Just from the information provided above, included on such a list might be the Canadian Jewish Congress, B'nai Brith, the Jewish National Legal Committee, and the Jewish Documentation Center in Vienna.

Concluding Thoughts

It is a burden of every group that it inevitably contains some proportion of individuals who are excitable and irresponsible to such a degree as to deserve to be viewed as hysterical.  It has been your and Simon Wiesenthal's contribution to the Jewish people to bring forward such a hysterical minority of Jews, and to give them prominence under your leadership, and to present them to the public eye as representative Jews, to the discredit and disgrace of the Jewish people as a whole.  In the Deschênes Commission is memorialized for all to see, and for all time, how reckless Jewish leaders can be, how hysterical Jewish followers can be, and how the calm and responsible bulk of the Jewish people sometimes has not the strength to oppose or resist Salem-witch-trial-like mass hysteria.  Had some Nazis or anti-Semites plotted to discredit the Jewish people and to incite a dislike for Jews, they could have done no better than to create a Sol Littman and a Simon Wiesenthal and a Robert Kaplan to do for them what in fact these three have done.

That you have managed to avoid incarceration or institutionalization for your misdeeds so far is a run of luck that you cannot depend on continuing.  Your actions have been evil, or they have been sick — take your choice — and only the special protection with which political correctness blankets Jewish irresponsibility has kept you out of prison and out of a psychiatric facility.  Beware of the fate that may befall you should that protective blanket be torn away.



Lubomyr Prytulak
HOME  DISINFORMATION  PEOPLE  LITTMAN