Halpern: Convictions for history

I'm thinking

by Micah D. Halpern

The trial of John Demjanjuk is underway in Germany. The proceeding will not run smoothly if for no other reason than the advanced age and failing health of the man many still believe to be the infamous Ivan the Terrible of Treblinka.

To look for justice at this point and in this trial is to reach too high. The trial should be viewed as an educational tool, a way to expand our knowledge and increase world awareness about the Holocaust. The masses have an interest in learning about the horrific crimes perpetrated during the Holocaust and trials are more effective tools than books. That’s not to say that we should not hope for a conviction — anything less feeds into the mantra of Holocaust deniers and will do a tremendous disservice to the memory of those who perished. The Holocaust does not lend itself well to a courtroom situation. Even the Israelis failed at offering the necessary proof to have Demjanjuk convicted. Testimony is emotionally laden and today, so many years later, eye witness accounts are very problematic and more often based on creative memory than historical memory. Add to that the excellence of Soviet forgers, notorious for creating archives filled with false documentation, which is what saved Demjanjuk and why his conviction was overturned in Israel.

The defense claimed that he could not be Ivan the Terrible of Treblinka because he was not in Treblinka — he was in Sobibor. It was a perfect argument and it was held up by Israel’s Supreme Court. He didn’t murder Jews in Treblinka because he was a mass murderer in Sobibor. The charge was very specific and when Soviet archives were opened, reasonable doubt emerged. Demjanjuk was returned to Cleveland where he had been quietly living for many years. His own defense was used against him when the United States accused Demjanjuk of lying about his past when he entered the country — and that is how John Demjanjuk found himself deported to Germany and why he is now standing trial.

Today, his argument is that all Ukrainians who were captured by the Nazis either served or were killed. This defense is both obscene and insulting. Demjanjuk is blurring the lines between being a victim and being a mass murderer.

When Demjanjuk’s trial opened in Jerusalem, Israelis were shocked by the amount of international coverage and local attendance it generated. The original venue for the trial was Beit Ha’am, the location where Eichmann was tried as the “Man in the Glass Booth.” In the end, the much larger Binyanei Ha’uma barely proved large enough to hold the crowd, many of whom were high school students who skipped school to come to Jerusalem.

Germany is experiencing a similar phenomenon. This trial is stimulating great interest in Europe among youth who are curious even though almost totally ignorant about the Holocaust — for them it has always been a word, not a reality.

Israel put Adolph Eichmann on trial not to prove the guilt or innocence of a single person. Israel put Eichmann on trial for the purpose of maintaining a historical and legal record. That explains why testimony was given for 14 weeks from April through August, why 1,500 documents of evidence were presented and why 100 prosecution witnesses were called. The transcripts were volumes and volumes long. Eyewitness testimony in 1961 from people in their late twenties and early thirties was far more reliable than any testimony that is given today.

When Israel tried Eichmann they knew what we have forgotten — history cannot be proven incontrovertibly in a courtroom. I hope the Germans learned the lesson of the Eichmann trial, not the earlier Demjanjuk trial. I hope that this time John Demjanjuk is convicted, but even if he is not, let this trial serve as an educational lesson and as a moral message.

Micah D. Halpern is a columnist and a social and political commentator. Read his latest book THUGS. He maintains The Micah Report at www.micahhalpern.com