@cstross @SonofaGeorge I have to say to though that your summation of the West German denazification doesn’t align with my understanding. To excerpt from Fred Taylor’s “Exorcising Hitler: The Occupation and Denazification of Germany”, in part I must admit for my own future usage (I’m re-reading it on temporary loan from https://archive.org/details/exorcisinghitler0000tayl which doesn’t seem to be OCR’d),

While Pfeiffer was minister (until December 1946(, the tribunals reclassified at least 60 per cent of the officials formerly dismissed by the Americans. It got so bad, from the Americans’ point of view, that in October Premier hoegner had to be warned to report improper behaviour by the tribunals to the US authorities.

The fact was, Germanized denazification rapidly descended into a farce, and not just in Bavaria, as Clay himself was forced to admit. Nazis, often comfortably situated and able to hire clever lawyers to represent them at the hearings, ran rings around the untrained and often relatively uneducated members of the tribunals. A forrent of denazification certificates — popularly known as Persilscheine (‘Persil certificattes’ — after the well-known detergent produced by Henkel & Co., which naturally washed white) — descended on the guilty in Bavaria and elsewhere in the American Zone. The tribunals, hated as they were in many circles, in fact proved so forgiving that they were known satirically as ‘follower factories’, producing from once-rabid Nazis hundreds of thousands of mere political passengers of convenience or compulsion who were deemed worthy of the mildest punishments.

There was evidence, as American intelligence realised from censoring letters send abroad from the zone, as well as listening in on phone calls, that the tribunals were in many cases not only incompetent and politically lax, but corrupt. CIC Region IV Munish reported in August 1946: ‘Censored letters make clear the existence of a black market in securing statements of innocence for former Nazis, dozens of intercepted communications seem to indicate that Nazis trade endorsements of their guiltlessness and mutually certify to their anti-Nazi attitude and anti-Nazi activities in the past.’ The reporte continued damingly in a snapshot of the bleak situation in the tribunals and a Bavarian government machine that was rapidly becoming a tool of the conservative-nationalist CSU:

Letters from smaller communities seem to indicate that the CSU very commonly gives aid and comfort to former [Nazi] party members. In several letters the CSU is called the CNSU, i.e. the Christian National Socialist Union. Many communications complain that former Nazis still occupy leading positions in Bavaria. … Worse, even if Nazis were properly arrainged, there were problems with proportionality in their punishments. The system of fines, for instance, took no account of the almost absolute worthlessness of the post-war Rech mark. Fifty Reich marks, which before the war might have constituted, for around two-thirds of German works, the loss of almost two weeks’ wages, was now small change. Earlier in the summer of 1946, an editor at Hans Habe’s Neue Zeitung, Robert Lembke, complained to a government press conference: It is apparent from very man letters to our editorial department that people do not understand tribunal verdicts that inflict a fine of 50 Reich marks. They say, for 50 Reich marks we could have indulged too [i.e. we could have been Nazis]. If people are really guilty of so small an offense, maybe it would be better if we let them work off the penalty — rather than penalising them with this sum of 50 Reich marks, which feels like an absolute mockery, what these days almost anyone would spend on a pack of cigarettes. … Soon, the denazification tribunals were overcome by a tidal wave of ‘mitigating circumstances’ — alleged favours done to dissidents and anti-Nazis, kindnesses shown to the poor and persecuted Even dyed-in-the-wool Nazis could usually come up with someone to speak for them. … Almost a million Germans resident in the American Zone were subject to the attentions of tribunals during the course of the denazification process, although not all had to appear in person. Of these, a mere 25,000 were classified as ‘major offenders’ or ‘offenders’, which involved mandatory exclusion from public life and from offices of responsibility. Almost 600,000 were put in the category of ‘lesser offenders’ or ‘followers’ and suffered mostly temporary suspensions from responsible employment, supplemented by fines, which were payable in near-worthless Reich marks. According to one set of AMG figures, one-third of ex-Nazis in the American Zone were dismissed from their employment between 1945 and 1947 — although almost all had been re-employed by the end of the latter year.

@LAGilman @cstross @DemocracyMattersALot

We are all supposed to help Israel, but what is the core principle that is presumed to be behind this?

That Jews help Jews.

Ask yourself: ‘What would the Israel of today do for me?’ And the answer is likely: Nothing. Nothing whatsoever. That’s the answer I get.