Appeal funds for the rescue of Jews in Europe, I said, 'NO!' and I say again,
      'NO!' ... one should resist this wave which pushes the Zionist activities to
      secondary importance."
      In January, 1943, the leadership of the absorption and enlisting fund
      decided to bar all appeals on behalf of rescuing Jews. It is explicitly stated
      in the "Sefer Hamagbis" (Book of Appeals) that the reasons for this prohibition
      were because of other obligations in Eretz Yisroel.
      In the beginning of February, 1943, Yitzchak Greenbaum addressed a meeting
      in Tel Aviv on the subject, "the Diaspora and the Redemption," in which he
      stated:
      "For the rescue of the Jews in the Diaspora, we should consolidate our
      excess strength and the surplus of powers that we have. When they come to us
      with two plans - the rescue of the masses of Jews in Europe or the redemption
      of the land [in Palestine] - I vote, without a second thought, for the
      redemption of the land. The more said about the slaughter of our people, the
      greater the minimization of our efforts to strengthen and promote the
      Hebraization of the land. If there would be a possibility today of buying
      packages of food [for Jews in Nazi captivity] with the money of the "Keren
      Hayesod" (United Jewish Appeal) to send it through Lisbon, would we do such a
      thing? No! And once again No!" (Reb Moshe Shonfeld, The Holocaust Victims
      Accuse: Documents and Testimony on Jewish War Criminals, 1977, p. 26, emphasis
      added)
      Mr. Schwalb expressed the complete Zionist ideology and stated clearly and
      openly the politics of the Zionist leaders in the area of rescue: the shedding
      of Jewish blood in the Diaspora is necessary in order for us to demand the
      establishment of a "Jewish" state before a peace commission. Money will be
      sent to save a group of "chalutzim" (pioneers), while the remainder of Czech
      Jewry must resign itself to annihilation in the Auschwitz crematoria. (Reb
      Moshe Shonfeld, The Holocaust Victims Accuse: Documents and Testimony on Jewish
      War Criminals, 1977, p. 28, emphasis added)
      We have previously quoted the words of Yitzchak Greenbaum, chairman of the
      "rescue committee" of the Jewish Agency in Eretz Yosroel, who refused to
      allocate even one dollar of United Jewish Appeal funds for food to those who
      were fighting off the pangs of hunger. This approach was totally in consonance
      with his famous slogan, to the effect that, "one goat in Eretz Yisroel is more
      important than an entire community in the Diaspora." How could he thus
      withhold a package of straw from a Holy Land goat in order to send food to a
      starving infant? But if that is not enough, the Zionists acted like the fiend
      who declared that he not only would not give, but he also would not let others
      give (whom our Sages called a "rosho" - a wicked person). The Zionist leaders
      weren't satisfied merely with the crime of sitting idly by and doing nothing.
      They labored with all their might to forcefully prevent others from helping the
      sufferers in the ghetto. (Reb Moshe Shonfeld, The Holocaust Victims Accuse:
      Documents and Testimony on Jewish War Criminals, 1977, pp. 44-45)
      One cow in Palestine is worth more than all the Jews in Poland. (Yitzchak
      Greenbaum in Reb Moshe Shonfeld, The Holocaust Victims Accuse: Documents and
      Testimony on Jewish War Criminals, 1977, p. 116)
      The Antonescu Offer. Reb Moshe Shonfeld's book documents several instances of offers being
      made, sometimes by the Nazis, to release Jews for a fixed price, and of the offers being
      declined by Zionist leaders. The Romanian government, for example, offered 70,000 Jews at $50
      apiece. These Jews could have been transported to Palestine via Turkey - a few days' ride by
      truck. The Romanian offer was confirmed by the U.S. State Department. The offer would become
      void once Romania was occupied by the Germans - an occupation that was imminent. Ben Hecht in
      his book Perfidy relates placing the following ad in New York newspapers:
      FOR SALE
      70,000 JEWS
      AT
      $50 APIECE
      GUARANTEED HUMAN BEINGS
      Zionist leaders, however, denied the existence of such an offer and sabotaged fund-raising
      efforts. As a result, the 70,000 Romanian Jews perished. Ben Hecht's indignation is
      unrestrained:
      But in 1943, we, who called out the plight of the Romanian Jews to the
      world, were discredited by the Zionist unions, the established Zionist
      leadership and their associated philanthropies, as scandalmongers. Our attempt
      to get the Jews out of Romania before the Germans came was scotched.
      The 70,000 Jews who might have been saved were herded into barns by the
      Germanized Romanians under General Antonescu, hosed with gasoline, ignited, and
      shot down when they came blazing and screaming out of their cauldrons.
      Was it for this the conspirators of Silence had been holding their
      high-level meetings, fraternizing with presidents and prime ministers and
      keeping intact Weizmann's ... policy of an 'exclusive' ... Palestine? This
      Silence, this wretched business of Jewish leaders lying about the slaughter of
      Europe's Jewry - trying to hide it, soft-pedal it - for what?
      These organizations, these philanthropists, these timorous Jewish lodge
      members in Zion, in London and America - these Zionist leaders who let their
      six million kinsmen burn, choke, hang, without protest, with indifference, and
      even with a glint of anti-Semitic cunning in their political plannings - I sum
      up against them. These factotums, these policy-makers, the custodians of the
      Jewish future in Palestine ... these Zionist men and women - I haul into the
      prisoner's dock of this book. (Ben Hecht, Perfidy, in Reb Moshe Shonfeld, The
      Holocaust Victims Accuse: Documents and Testimony on Jewish War Criminals,
      1977, p. 102)
      The Eichmann Offer. The war afforded more than one opportunity to save Jews. Here is another
      significant opportunity, the offer this time coming directly from Adolph Eichmann:
      So I am ready to sell you - a million Jews. ... What do you want to save?
      Virile men? Grown women? Old people? Children? Sit down - and talk. ...
      Now I am going to prove to you that I trust you more than you trust me. When
      you ... tell me that the offer has been accepted, I will [as an initial
      demonstration of good faith, even before you make any payment] dissolve
      Auschwitz and move 10 percent of the promised million to the border. You take
      over the 100,000 Jews and deliver for them afterwards one thousand trucks. And
      then the deal will proceed step by step. (Adolph Eichmann, quoted in Raul
      Hilberg, The Destruction of the European Jews, 1985, p. 1133-1134)
      Eichmann's initiative, according to his testimony in Jerusalem, had been
      influenced largely by the propensity of rival SS factions to negotiate with the
      Jews. He was going to confine the offer to freeing 100,000 Jews, but then
      thought that only a major gesture, involving a million, was going to have any
      impact. When Himmler approved the scheme, Eichmann was actually surprised.
      (Raul Hilberg, The Destruction of the European Jews, 1985, p. 1134)
      However, Joel Brand, attempting to negotiate this exchange, met with no support, either from
      representatives of the Allied nations, or from Jewish representatives. When he realized that
      the offer would not be accepted, he burst out with:
      Do you know what you are doing? That is simply murder! That is mass murder.
      ... [O]ur best people will be slaughtered! My wife! My mother! My children
      will be first! (Raul Hilberg, The Destruction of the European Jews, 1985, p.
      1137)
      Among the objections was not that the deal would fail, but rather that it was undesirable that
      the deal succeed:
      "But Mr. Brand," the British host exclaimed, "what shall I do with those
      million Jews? Where shall I put them?" (Raul Hilberg, The Destruction of the
      European Jews, 1985, P. 1140)
      The plain fact was that there was no place on earth that would have been ready
      to accept the Jews, not even this one million. (Adolph Eichmann in Raul
      Hilberg, The Destruction of the European Jews, 1985, p. 1140)
      A similar comment was made with respect to the above-mentioned Antonescu Plan:
      The British Foreign Office ... was concerned with the "difficulties of
      disposing of any considerable number of Jews" in the event of their release
      from Axis Europe. ... [W]ithin the Foreign Office there was fear of large-scale
      success.... (Raul Hilberg, The Destruction of the European Jews, 1985, P.
      1140)
      And a similar reaction with respect to discussions concerning the rescue of Bulgarian Jews:
      Hull raised the question of the 60 or 70 thousand Jews that are in Bulgaria and
      are threatened with extermination unless we could get them out and, very
      urgently, pressed Eden for an answer to the problem. Eden replied that the
      whole problem of the Jews in Europe is very difficult and that we should move
      very cautiously about offering to take all Jews out of a country like
      Bulgaria. If we do that, then the Jews of the world will be wanting us to make
      similar efforts in Poland and Germany. Hitler might well take us up on any
      such offer and there simply are not enough ships and means of transportation in
      the world to handle them. (Harry Hopkins in Raul Hilberg, The Destruction of
      the European Jews, 1985, P. 1122)
      The role played by Jews in the Allied indifference was, to repeat, one of support of inaction:
      There is considerable difference of opinion among the Jewish people as to the
      policies which should be pursued in rescuing and assisting these unfortunate
      people, and no one course of action would be agreeable to all persons
      interested in this problem. (American Secretary of State Hull in Raul Hilberg,
      The Destruction of the European Jews, 1985, p. 1125)
      The Rudolph Vrba Accusation. The reports above of American Jews and world Jews doing little to
      save their coreligionists under Nazi occupation, or of even obstructing efforts to save them, or
      reports of the Antonescu Offer, or of the Eichmann offer - these do not exhaust the accounts
      leading to the conclusion that the Jewish role in saving Jewish lives during World War II fell
      short of heroic, and perhaps was typically complicitous or collaborative, and sometimes even
      becoming criminally so. Rather, other such accounts can be found, among them the one offered by
      Dr. Rudolph Vrba in the Oshawa Times account below. Vrba's accusation standing by itself falls
      short of totally convincing, and would need to be bolstered by substantive detail before it was
      given full credit. Nevertheless, Vrba's accusation is reproduced below to demonstrate that the
      accusations of Jewish non-assistance focus on many events in many parts of the world, and
      because it heightens the probability that further investigation would credit some of these
      accusations:
      Jewish Council Blamed For Deaths of 400,000
      FRANKFURT (AP) - A Canadian professor contends that 400,000 jews killed by
      the Nazis at the Auschwitz extermination camp could have been saved had the
      Budapest Jewish Council warned them in time instead of co-operating with the
      Nazis.
      Dr. Rudolph Vrba, 43, associate professor of pharmacology at the University
      of British Columbia, in an interview gave an account of his escape from
      Auschwitz and his efforts to warn the world of the fate threatening more than
      1,000,000 Hungarian Jews.
      Vrba testified last Friday at the trial here of two former SS (Elite Corps)
      colonels charged with the mass murder of Hungarian jews during the war.
      Vrba, a native of Czechoslovakia and a Jew by birth, said he was deported
      to Maidanek concentration camp near Lublin, Poland, in June, 1942, and two
      weeks later transferred to Auschwitz.
      In the spring of 1944, he heard that 1,000,000 Hungarian Jews were to die
      at the notorious camp and decided to flee and tell the world about the crime
      that was going to be committed.
      Together with another prisoner, he hid in early April, 1944, underneath a
      pile of construction wood within the outer security zone of the camp which
      usually was not closely guarded.
      After spending three days in their hideout with hardly any food the two
      family [sic] made their getaway and eventually crossed the Slovak border.
      In Cadca, Slovakia, he informed the Jewish Council which in turn passed on
      the information to the Bratislava and Budapest Jewish councils, Vrba said.
      But, he said "The Budapest Jewish Council were co-operating with the Nazi
      authorities who promised them that they would allow some 2,000 select Jews to
      travel to Switzerland if they hid from the Jewish community the truth about
      what was in store for them at Auschwitz."
      Thus, he added, Hungarian Jews did not put up any resistance when they were
      taken to the Auschwitz death camp, believing that they were merely being
      "resettled."
      Vrba continued that only after Swiss newspapers June 22, 1944, published
      his story about the Hungarian Jews and copies of his report were sent to U.S.
      President Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Pope, protests from several
      governments, including the U.S., British and Swedish governments, forced the
      Hungarian head of government, Admiral Horthy, to stop the deporting of more
      Jews from the country.
      Vrba was born Walter Rosenberg but changed his name after escaping from
      Auschwitz. (Oshawa Times, December 30, 1968)
      Jewish help compared to Ukrainian help. And so here we are faced with the following
      incongruity. Ukrainians were dying at the hands of the Nazis, were dying fighting the Nazis,
      were dying saving Jews - and yet Morley Safer now brands Ukrainians as Nazis. In contrast,
      American Jews were not allowing the Jewish Holocaust to interfere with their lifestyles, were
      vetoing proposals to assist and rescue European Jews, and yet they are now privileged to accuse
      Ukrainians of being Nazis. People who did next to nothing to save the European Jews, people who
      obstructed the rescue of European Jews, people who acted while not under threat of death now
      turn around and judge those who while under threat of death did not live up to impossibly high
      moral standards.
      Appropriately did Reb Moshe Shonfeld place on the title page of his book The Holocaust Victims
      Accuse: Documents and Testimony on Jewish War Criminals the quotations "Our enemies will
      subjugate you" (Vayikra) - "Those enemies will be from within" (Chazal). Reading Reb Shonfeld's
      book invites the conclusion that Morley Safer's searching for Nazi collaborators in Ukraine was
      misplaced - perhaps it is the case that the largest repository of unprosecuted Nazi
      collaborators today is to be found in the state of Israel; and invites consideration of the
      further conclusion that Morley Safer's searching for enemies of Judaism in Ukraine is similarly
      misplaced - he might instead have looked for the truly dangerous enemies within - for Jews like
      Simon Wiesenthal, Rabbi Yaakov Dov Bleich, Elie Wiesel, Jerzy Kosinski, and - yes - Morley Safer
      himself. Their misstatements lower Jewish credibility; their hatred incites a reactionary
      anti-Semitism.
      In fact, Morley Safer's accusation of Ukrainian collaboration with the Nazis is not a cry for
      justice nor an advancement of historical truth, but is, rather, a weapon sometimes brandished
      under political motivation even when the facts do not justify its use, and at other times
      sheathed, also for political reasons, even when the facts cry out for its use. Thus, a
      Ukrainian may be prosecuted even though the evidence against him is patently fraudulent, as was
      the case in the trial of Ivan Demjanjuk (Yoram Sheftel, The Demjanjuk Affair: The Rise and Fall
      of a Show-Trial, 1994). A Jewish Zionist, in contrast, may go unprosecuted for very real
      collaboration with the Nazis, though he may be unable to avoid final justice imposed through
      individual action:
      Moldetsky, a leader of the Zionist Workers Party (Poalei Zion), who was
      appointed head of the council of elders in Bedzin, and who, over the course of
      years, chose thousands of Jews for forced labor and extermination, succeeded in
      remaining alive. For the mass deportations, Moldetsky published a decree which
      was completely fraudulent and deceiving, in which he said: "Jews, dress up in
      your holiday clothes and march joyfully to the gathering places mentioned
      above. No one is to remain at home. ..." The Jews, in their innocence,
      obeyed him. The result was that people with large families - as well as the
      elderly - a total of 8,000, were sent to Auschwitz. The babies were pushed
      into sacks by the Nazis.
      ...
      After the war, Moldetsky - by merit of Zionist activities - was
      understandably one of the first to receive an immigration certificate to
      Palestine. His collaboration in the murder of tens of thousands of Jews did
      not make him unfit in the eyes of the officials of the Jewish Agency, who were
      distributing the certificates. He went to Eretz Yisroel where, it has been
      reported, the revengeful hand of the Jews of Bedzin killed him while he was
      taking a trip in the mountains. (Reb Moshe Shonfeld, The Holocaust Victims
      Accuse: Documents and Testimony on Jewish War Criminals, 1977, pp. 122-123)
      A related demonstration of how the accusation of Nazi collaboration is not levelled impartially,
      but is used as a political weapon can be found in the case of Dr. Israel Kastner.
      Comparison 2: Ukrainian Cruelty on Behalf of the Nazis Compared to Jewish Cruelty on Behalf of the
      Nazis
      Morley Safer states, addressing himself to Simon Wiesenthal: "I get the impression from people
      that the actions of the Ukrainians, if anything, were worse than the Germans." What can Mr.
      Safer possibly mean by such a statement? Does he mean that he knows of a Ukrainian whose
      actions are worse than Hitler's, and another Ukrainian whose actions are worse than Himmler's,
      and another whose actions are worse than Eichmann's, and so on down the line? Surely, this is
      an impossibility, as Ukraine has never been accused either of starting the Second World War or
      of engineering the Final Solution. Surely all that Mr. Safer means is that some Ukrainians can
      be found who were worse than the average German, or the average Nazi, or even the average member
      of the SS. Agreed - undoubtedly such Ukrainians exist, but what of it? Similar deviants exist
      in all groups. Relevant here is that every faithful account of the Jewish Holocaust is peppered
      with statements such as the following:
      Question survivors of the ghettoes and camps. They all certify that the
      beatings they received at the hands of the Jewish 'golden youth' were filled
      with scorn. They fulfilled their tasks with a zeal and cruelty to a greater
      extent than that required by the German commanders. (Y. Efroiken, Sanctity and
      Valor of the Jews, in Reb Moshe Shonfeld, The Holocaust Victims Accuse:
      Documents and Testimony on Jewish War Criminals, 1977, p. 21)
      He [K. Tzetnik] depicts the figure of Eliezer Greenbaum, son of Yitzchak
      Greenbaum, who, thanks to his tactics of acting as informant and displaying
      cruelty - to an extent which amazed even the Germans - was elevated to the rank
      of the bloc commander. (Reb Moshe Shonfeld, The Holocaust Victims Accuse:
      Documents and Testimony on Jewish War Criminals, 1977, p. 21)
      Practically all of the kapo officers were academicians - persons with degrees
      who behaved like wild beasts and at times were more cruel than the Nazis. (Reb
      Moshe Shonfeld, The Holocaust Victims Accuse: Documents and Testimony on Jewish
      War Criminals, 1977, p. 121)
      Is it in the interests of historical truth to allude to the Ukrainian beasts without mentioning
      the Jewish beasts? Does the depiction of one without the other constitute information or
      disinformation, reporting or propaganda? Who commands such bias in the media? Who pays for
      it? These are issues worthy of address by a team of intrepid investigative reporters, should
      any be found.
      Comparison 3: Ukrainians Saving Jews Compared to Jews Saving Ukrainians
      Jews have had many opportunities to save Ukrainians. For example, Jews could have saved
      Ukrainians during the induced famine of 1932-33, during which Jews fared better than Ukrainians
      for several reasons: (1) Jews tended to be urban whereas the famine tended to be rural; (2) Jews
      were more affluent, and money buys food even during a famine; (3) Jews received support from
      other Jews in the West; (4) Jews occupied positions of authority, and in fact can be said to
      have administered the famine. Thus, Jews had ample opportunity to save Ukrainians simply by
      giving them food or by sabotaging the food-confiscation process. Or, in the mass deportations
      and executions, during which Jews again occupied positions of authority, there was again ample
      opportunity for Jews to subvert the process and hide or save Ukrainians.
      We have already seen above innumerable cases of Ukrainians saving Jews, but can we now locate a
      single case of a Jew saving a Ukrainian? Simon Wiesenthal, for example, had his life saved by
      the Ukrainian Bodnar, but did Simon Wiesenthal ever in his long life reciprocate by saving a
      Ukrainian? We saw above that an entire Ukrainian family was shot by the Nazis for hiding a
      Jewish woman, but can we find a single instance of an entire Jewish family being shot by the
      Bolsheviks for hiding a Ukrainian woman? We saw above that the Ukrainian mayor of a town was
      shot by the Nazis for helping Jews, but can we find a single instance of a Jewish mayor - and
      there were many Jewish mayors in Ukraine - being shot by the Bolsheviks for helping Ukrainians?
      We saw above Metropolitan Sheptytsky risking his life and the lives of other Ukrainians by
      hiding Jews on church property, but can we find a single instance of a rabbi risking his life
      and the lives of other Jews by hiding Ukrainians on synagogue property? We saw above
      Metropolitan Sheptytsky writing to Himmler protesting the shooting of Jews, but can we find any
      similar case of a rabbi writing to Lazar Kaganovich protesting the starvation of Ukrainians?
      One would like to see a statement from Morley Safer as to the justification for this double
      standard. When the most rudimentary and obvious comparisons indicate that Ukrainians have been
      disposed to Jews much more favorably than Jews have been disposed to Ukrainians, how can Morley
      Safer justify concluding the opposite?
      CONTENTS:
      Preface
      The Galicia Division
      Quality of Translation
      Ukrainian Homogeneity
      Were Ukrainians Nazis?
      Simon Wiesenthal
      What Happened in Lviv?
      Nazi Propaganda Film
      Collective Guilt
      Paralysis of the Comparative
      Function
      60 Minutes' Cheap Shots
      Ukrainian Anti-Semitism
      Jewish Ukrainophobia
      Mailbag
      A Sense of Responsibility
      What 60 Minutes Should Do
      PostScript
      60 Minutes' Cheap Shots
      60 Minutes peppered its broadcast with distortions and misrepresentations. Here are nineteen
      miscellaneous instances:
      (1) Doctoring the sound track to bring out the evil of torchlight parades. The torchlight
      marchers are not a clear indication of anything, and without some enhancement, the scene would
      have fallen flat, and so 60 Minutes overlaid an exaggerated, rhythmic tramping sound which added
      an ominous militaristic flavor to the scene. In fact, given that it is dark and there is no
      band and the marchers are not singing, it is impossible for any but local groups of them to keep
      in step, and simple leather-soled or rubber-soled shoes could not have made such a sound - it
      would have taken cleated boots. The rhythmic tramping superimposed by 60 Minutes continues to
      be heard even when the paraders can be seen to be walking more than marching. One can see that
      the added sound effects are only imperfectly coordinated with the movements of the feet.
      (2) "Adolph Hitler Square". "The place they're marching in was once called Adolph Hitler
      Square," Mr. Safer tells us, but does not add that it was so called by the Germans and that it
      was not called that either before the Germans came or after they left.
      (3) Gratuitous accusation of mimicking. Mr. Safer informs us of the marchers that "Their chants
      and banners mimic another more fearsome time."
      But this is absolutely gratuitous - neither the chants nor the banners are mimicking anything.
      The marchers are not wearing swastika armbands and their banners do not contain Nazi symbols.
      They are not chanting "Death to the Jews!" but only "Slava natsiyi!" which means "Glory to the
      nation!" and is about as ominous in Ukrainian as "Vive la patrie!" is in French.
      Mr. Safer's syllogism here seems to be: The Nazis sometimes held torchlight parades. These
      Ukrainians are holding a torchlight parade. Therefore, all Ukrainians are Nazis.
      (4) If it sounds like "Nazi," then it must be "Nazi." 60 Minutes broadcast the above-mentioned
      "Slava natsiyi!" several times, but never provided a translation. But as "natsiyi" sounds like
      "Nazi," this invites the listener who does not know any Slavic languages to think that something
      is being said about Naziism, and the context supplied by Morley Safer suggests that this
      something is complimentary.
      (5) The menace of boy scouts and girl guides. Desperate for any images that to a gullible 60
      Minutes audience might be suggestive of undying Naziism within Ukraine, Morley Safer presents
      film clips of Ukrainian boy scouts and girl guides.
      (6) Censorship through muted translation. When a Ukrainian in Lviv says "A Russian shot my
      brother!" 60 Minutes mutes the English translation to the point that it is almost inaudible.
      The critical viewer is left wondering whether the operating principle might not be that when a
      Ukrainian says something that might win sympathy for Ukrainians, omit it; in the case where the
      image has some overriding appeal (that was a pretty craggy Ukrainian, he was pretty excited, and
      the lighting was wonderful), then mute the translation to the point of inaudibility.
      Furthermore, in the 60 Minutes transcript of The Ugly Face of Freedom, the statement "A Russian
      shot my brother!" is entirely omitted, one might imagine following this same principle of
      avoiding attracting sympathy to Ukrainians.
      (7) Who welcomed the Germans? Mr. Safer says that "The same square greeted Hitler's troops
      fifty years ago as liberators," making this seem like another symptom of a Ukrainian addiction
      to Naziism.
      Of course we understand that it was not the square which greeted Hitler's troops at all, but
      rather people in the square, and it was smart on Mr. Safer's part not to draw attention to the
      people, because there might follow the natural question of "What people?" and the honest answer
      would have to be "All people - Ukrainians, Poles, and Jews." Jews welcomed Hitler's troops?
      Yes, so it would appear:
      The prevailing conviction [was] that bad things came from Russia and good
      things from Germany. The Jews were historically oriented away from Russia and
      toward Germany; not Russia but Germany had been their traditional place of
      refuge. During October and November, 1939, that conviction, among other
      things, drove thousands of Jews from Russian-occupied Poland to German-occupied
      Poland. The stream was not stopped until the Germans closed the border.
      Similarly, one year later, at the time of Soviet mass deportations in the newly
      occupied territories, [there was] widespread unrest among Ukrainians, Poles,
      and Jews alike. Almost everyone was waiting for the arrival of the German
      army. When the army finally arrived, in the summer of 1941, old Jews in
      particular remembered that in the First World War the Germans had come as
      quasi-liberators. These Jews did not expect that now the Germans would come as
      persecutors and killers. (Raul Hilberg, The Destruction of the European Jews,