Randy's Corner Deli Library

04 June 2009

Intel Firestorm: GOP Reveals Briefing Info

Intel firestorm: GOP reveals briefing info
Posted: 06/04/09 09:45 PM [ET]

Republicans ignited a firestorm of controversy on Thursday by revealing some of what they had been told at a closed-door Intelligence Committee hearing on the interrogation of terrorism suspects.

Democrats immediately blasted the GOP lawmakers for publicly discussing classified information, while Republicans said Democrats are trying to hide the truth that enhanced interrogation of detainees is effective. 

GOP members on the Intelligence Committee on Thursday told The Hill in on-the-record interviews that they were informed that the controversial methods have led to information that prevented terrorist attacks.

When told of the GOP claims, Democrats strongly criticized the members who revealed information that was provided at the closed House Intelligence Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations hearing. Democrats on the panel said they could not respond substantively, pointing out that the hearing was closed.

In the bowels of the Capitol Visitor Center, members of the panel gathered behind locked doors on Thursday morning to begin a series of hearings on the interrogation of terrorism suspects.
 
What began as a remarkably quiet and secretive hearing had, within a matter of hours, exploded into a political brawl over intelligence matters and national security.
 
Despite the weeks-long furor over how the Central Intelligence Agency came to use enhanced interrogation techniques, and what members of Congress were told about their development and implementation, the committee’s first hearing on the issue during the 111th Congress almost came and went without notice. The hearing was announced publicly but was not open to the public.
 
According to Republicans, that was by design.
 
“Democrats weren’t sure what they were going to get,” said Rep. Pete Hoekstra (Mich.), ranking Republican on the Intelligence panel, referring to information on the merits of enhanced interrogation techniques. “Now that they know what they’ve got, they don’t want to talk about it.”
 
The hearing was publicly described only as a subcommittee hearing on “Interrogations.” A committee spokeswoman would not comment on whether the development and use of controversial interrogation tactics were discussed.
 
But Republicans on the panel said that not only did the use of interrogation techniques come up Thursday, but that the data shared about those techniques proved they had led to valuable information that in some instances prevented terrorist attacks.
 

Hoekstra did not attend the hearing, but said he later spoke with Republicans on the subcommittee who did.  He said he came away with even more proof that the enhanced interrogation techniques employed by the CIA proved effective.
 
“I think the people who were at the hearing, in my opinion, clearly indicated that the enhanced interrogation techniques worked,” Hoekstra said.
 
Rep. John Kline (R-Minn.), a member of the subcommittee who attended the hearing, concurred with Hoekstra.
 
“The hearing did address the enhanced interrogation techniques that have been much in the news lately,” Kline said, noting that he was intentionally choosing his words carefully in observance of the committee rules and the nature of the information presented.
 
“Based on what I heard and the documents I have seen, I came away with a very clear impression that we did gather information that did disrupt terrorist plots,” Kline said.
 
Neither Hoekstra nor Kline revealed details about the specifics of what they were told Thursday or the identity of the briefers.
 
Democrats lambasted their Republican counterparts for discussing the information that was provided behind locked doors.
 
“I am absolutely shocked that members of the Intelligence committee who attended a closed-door hearing… then walked out that hearing – early, by the way – and characterized anything that happened in that hearing,” said Intelligence Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chairwoman Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.). “My understanding is that’s a violation of the rules. It may be more than that.”
 
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes (D-Texas) said, “Members on both sides need to watch what they say.”
 
Both Schakowsky and Reyes accused GOP members of playing politics with national security.
 
“I think they are playing a very dangerous game when it comes to the discussion of matters that were sensitive enough to be part of a closed hearing,” Schakowsky said.
 
Asked about the validity of Republican contentions that information shared in Thursday’s hearing showed the effectiveness of enhanced interrogation techniques, Schakowsky said she could not comment on what was discussed at a closed hearing.
 
Reyes responded by saying he did not attend the entire hearing.
 
“I wasn’t at the whole hearing,” Reyes said. “As the chairman my view is we need to get the facts about how the enhanced interrogation techniques came about, not just the results.”
 
That task has become complicated for Democrats, as has the task of proving any effectiveness, or not, of waterboarding and other similar methods of interrogation.
 
While Democrats, led by President Obama, have firmly labeled those methods torture, cast doubt on their utility, and called for their abolition, Republicans, led by former Vice President Dick Cheney, have consistently said they have worked.
 
Cheney has called on Obama to declassify CIA information that he says will show that enhanced interrogation techniques have made the U.S. safer.
 
Since Obama’s release of the Bush administration legal memos justifying the use of many of those enhanced interrogation techniques, Democrats have been on the defensive on an issue they hoped would place them on the political and moral high ground.
 
And at the center of the storm has been House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).
 
Pelosi has been dogged for weeks about how much she was told by CIA officials about the development and use of waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation techniques.
 
Pelosi last month accused the CIA of lying to Congress about its treatment of suspected terrorists and detainees.
 
Republican leaders have since demanded that Pelosi either back up those claims or apologize.
 
House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) on Thursday pressed the issue.
 
 
“It’s been three weeks since I asked Speaker Pelosi to back up her allegations that the CIA lied to her or purposely misled her,” Boehner said at his weekly press conference. “Allowing this to hang out there is unconscionable. And I just think the silence from Speaker Pelosi is deafening.”
 
On Thursday Pelosi was asked if she was still receiving intelligence briefings.
 
“I’ve said what I’m going to say on that subject,” she immediately replied.
 
Before the reporter could repeat the question, Pelosi answered, “Yes I am. Yes I am.”
 
As part of their line of attack, Republicans have called not just for open hearings on interrogations, but for an inquiry in which Pelosi would testify about what she was told by the CIA, as well as for the release of still-classified documents they say will back up their claims that waterboarding and other methods have yielded valuable intelligence.
 
“We’ve asked for hearings,” Hoekstra said. “Clearly the chairman and I are of different thinking on this. But I think a whole lot of questions would be answered if those materials would be released.”
 
Reyes contended that the committee is acting appropriately.
 
“We want to know everything there is to know about interrogation, wherever that leads us,” Reyes said. “This was just the first hearing.”
 
“They can talk all they want and they can continue to make a political issue out of it,” he said of Republicans. “We will continue to do our work.”

02 June 2009

The Dichotomy of the Failure of GM

The bankruptcy today of GM is instructive for America in dichotomous ways. The first part of dichotomy are the political calculations that had to be a consideration by the President in deciding to shepherd GM, an iconic, albeit ossified American institution, through what is essentially a prepackaged Chapter 11 bankruptcy, while fighting the perception that the bailout money that had been given to GM in exchange for a 60% interest in the company didn't go to "CEOs" and other upper management who rode GM into the ground. The other part of the dichotomy are the questions of leadership that must have been asked by this President. What I mean by this is essentially this: which tough and thoughtful policy decisions -- questions a leader would ask -- were in fact asked by the President, apart from the political considerations, and what principles, what recognitions, undergirded those questions?

First, the political considerations and their ramifications. If President Obama would have left GM simply to completely fail and not have provided the bailout money he did, can there be any question of the immediate economic devastation wrought in the middle part of this country? I think not. Even with more than adequate funding for mass buyouts to auto industry employees, the damage to the social fabric (on a macro level)and the psychology of millions (on a micro scale) would be further harmed. There is already desperation in many areas of the country.

Why is it that the phrase "If it's good for GM, it's good for America" still holds sway in 2010? Quite possibly, it's because this country has been under the delusion, since the victory in WWII, that it can do no wrong. I would argue that we are far enough away from WWII that we need to enter a new phase of American economic history, one which recognizes that unfettered, laissez-faire capitalism in the information age (as opposed to the industrial age) simply does not work. Workers need a decent wage, family leave protection, health care, paid vacation and a pension. If these things are at all questionable these days, I cannot understand why, unless you believe that workers who do not take vacations regularly are more, not less, productive, that workers who are healthy are less productive, and the promise of some kind of retirement at retirement age are rights that the government should somehow ensure are in place for workers is likewise disposed to disincentivize workers. On the contrary. These things incentivize workers to greater productivity. We cannot go back to what labor standards and ways of viewing industry as a whole, to the end of WWII.

While it's true that there has been significant workers' rights legislation, what hasn't worked is the way companies like GM do business in 2010 until catastrophe was "this close" to millions of families.

GM in 2010, as opposed to its halcyon days when to have an American car was a point of pride, not necessarily shame, is a shell of its former self. It got used to Americans buying American because of the simple fact that we were, and are, Americans. Sooner or later, even Barnum's sucker, born every minute, gets sick of getting hit over the head with a mallet while the Germans and Japanese, and to some extent, the Italians, have taken what we in America used to do pretty well, and have improved on it to the extent that they do it better.

So the questions that had to be asked by the president were: should America figure out something else to make? From that question arises a slew of others: what will be the product(s)? What kind of workers do we need for this industry if it is to succeed on the order of BMW, Mercedes or Toyota or Nissan and the like? What kind of management retraining will be required of those new MBAs in or just coming out of school who will head these organizations in the future? Are they taking lessons from Toyota and BMW, or is jealousy and embarrassment getting in the way of admitting failure and taking advice from those who have succeeded in doing what you only wished you could do?

The resolution of the dichotomy, in which on one hand we consider the political ramifications of putting millions of Democratic voters into a further state of shock, all the while fighting a battle against the perception that the money given went straight into the pockets of undeserving "CEOs" and other upper management, and on the other what must be the knowledge on the part of the President and his advisors that, for example, the plant at Ypsilanti, Michigan, which used to turn out B-24 Liberators and other items of war during WWII, is not the future of this country unless massive institutional change in the way that American automotive manufacturers do business. World War II is over. It's time to recognize that ways of doing business "the American way" isn't always without its faults.

I imagine that based on what is happening now, it will take at least another five to ten years for this country to redefine its manufacturing bases. At this point, we are floundering. The bankruptcy of GM is simply a symptom of a deeper issue that no-one was paying attention to until fairly recently: the need to wake from the hubris-inspired way of doing business that was the result of out-manufacturing every country in the world and winning WWII. Time to get lean and mean again, and that will not be without pain.

Randy Shiner

01 June 2009

North Korea's 'Calculated Chess Move'

CHINESE POLITICAL SCIENTIST SUN ZHE

North Korea's 'Calculated Chess Move'

Sun Zhe is a professor at the Institute for International Studies at Beijing's Tsinghua University. In an interview with SPIEGEL, he discusses North Korea's recent nuclear tests, the friction they have caused with China and how China and the US can bring North Korea to the negotiating table.

SPIEGEL: Despite China and North Korea being close allies, Beijing failed to stop Kim Jong Il from conducting another nuclear test. Has China lost its influence over its former comrade in arms?

North Korean leader Kim Jong Il (center, front) visits an air force unit at an undisclosed location in North Korea.
REUTERS

North Korean leader Kim Jong Il (center, front) visits an air force unit at an undisclosed location in North Korea.

Sun Zhe: The North Koreans certainly did not listen to us. They currently don't view their relations with Beijing as a strategic priority. Their policies are completely oriented toward the Americans. There, they are playing a high-stakes game of poker.

SPIEGEL: What do the North Koreans really want?

Sun: They want to be treated as an equal partner by the US and by the other Western countries. And they absolutely want to have diplomatic relations with Washington.

SPIEGEL: And for that you have to detonate atomic bombs?

Sun: On the face of it, it indeed seems very strange. But it is a precisely calculated chess move. The North Koreans want to be noticed; they want to show something. However, with their tests, they disregarded the fact that the world is currently preoccupied with the financial crisis and swine flu.

SPIEGEL: What should Beijing's reaction be?

Sun: The stated policy of the Chinese government is to bring North Korea back to the negotiating table of the six party talks, which aim at a Korean peninsula free of nuclear weapons.

SPIEGEL: But that goal doesn't appear terribly realistic.

Sun: The question is whether Beijing will react to this unpleasant surprise any differently than it usually does. In the 1990s, Beijing sent secret emissaries to Pyongyang to prevent North Korea's leadership from taking any radical steps and to urge them to cooperate with the international community. When that didn't help, some stern warnings followed.

SPIEGEL: But they didn't seem to help much.

Sun: The only way to exert pressure on Pyongyang is to cut off deliveries of energy and food.

SPIEGEL: Is that what will happen now?

Sun: No. I don't think that our government will radically alter its policies toward North Korea. It is in a particularly bad position. If it goes along with international sanctions, it gives the impression that it is serving as the handmaid to American foreign policy. It won't let that happen under any circumstance.

SPIEGEL: Will China do anything to antagonize the North Koreans?

Sun: More than anything, Beijing wants to prevent Japan from using the situation in North Korea as an excuse for becoming a nuclear power itself.

SPIEGEL: Then, there would be three nuclear powers in East Asia. After this second nuclear test, many of your colleagues have been calling on the government in Beijing to confront Kim (Jong Il) a bit more aggressively.

Sun: I have also advocated an escalation in our warnings. We could summon the North Korean ambassador for a serious talk, dispatch a delegation to Pyongyang and then indicate that our food and energy deliveries are not guaranteed.

SPIEGEL: The North Koreans don't really seem all that bothered by sanctions.

Sun: Right. And that's why I think it is more important for our government to start talking with the Americans again.

SPIEGEL: To what purpose?

Sun: President Barack Obama should resume normal relations with North Korea, send some professors to Pyongyang and do something. That's the only chance for bringing North Korea to its senses. In Washington, there are more and more voices calling for a rethinking of America's policies toward North Korea. China should also work on this issue through talks with the US. We don't need hard sanctions; we need a strategy of "soft landing" for East Asia.

Interview conducted by Andreas Lorenz

The Unbearable Narcissism of the Settlers

View from a booth: It's not only narcissism, it's idolatry toward the land. The settlers are Zionism's worst enemies.

Randy Shiner



The Unbearable Narcissism of the Settlers

01 Jun 2009 02:09 pm

From Yediot, further ridiculousness from settler leaders, who have no sense whatsoever about the actual threats facing Israel, and no sense at all of how they sound to the world, and to their fellow Jews:

The demand to prevent natural growth in settlements is unreasonable and is akin to Pharaoh's demand that all firstborn sons be thrown into the Nile River," said Science and Technology Minister Daniel Hershkowitz ahead of Sunday's weekly cabinet meeting.

"What will we say to a family living with one child, which now has four or five children? That the children will move to Petah Tikva? The Americans must understand that this is an unreasonable demand, and we must confront them firmly," he added.
Where to begin with this nonsense? With the implicit accusation that Barack Obama is pharaoh (which makes Hillary his vizier, or something)? Since the United States partially underwrites Israel, it has the right to make certain demands; since this demand is something that the majority of Israelis, in any case, understand, it's hard to see this as something akin to slavery. Here's the thing: The settlers are arguing that their human rights would be violated if they were made to move to Israel. That's right. It used to be that a person could fulfill his Zionist destiny in a place like Petah Tikva, but no more: Now, it's a sin against God, apparently, to live anywhere but in a government-subsidized trailer on a barren hill in the mountains of Samaria.

I don't have any problem with the American demand for a settlement freeze; the settlements are an impediment to peace, they are a security burden, and they are petri dishes for the worst sort of fundamentalist messianism (and therefore profoundly anti-Zionist, at least according to the Zionist vision of men like Herzl and Ben-Gurion).

Now, of course, there should be some delineating going on here -- everyone knows that most settlements would actually become part of Israel in a final peace deal. So these settlements should probably be allowed natural growth. But only if the settlements beyond the security barrier, the settlements in the heart of the Arab West Bank that everyone and his rabbi knows will soon dissapear, are frozen in place, and only if Israel acknowledges that the security fence marks the de facto border of the state of Palestine.

Israel and its friends in America know that the only hope for a two-state solution come in the form of an empowered and moderate Palestinian Authority. Is there a good chance that the Palestinian Authority isn't, in fact, moderate? Is there a good chance the Palestinian Authority will never be powerful? Yes. But this is the only hope. And one of the the surest ways Israel, and America, could help make the Palestinian Authority more powerful is to freeze settlements now. Israel faces a threat to its existence in the form of the Iranian nuclear program. It doesn't face a threat from the demand that a small number of Israelis eventually leave the West Bank and live in Petah Tikva.

Beginning of the end of Orthodox hegemony

View from a booth: Double yay to the State of Israel for slowly wresting the power away from the Jewish mullahs who have controlled the religious institutions of Israel for too long, the result of which has been utter disaffection of Jews worldwide with Israel itself. What is the point of having a Jewish state if the majority of Jews are not recognized as such "officially" by the "home of ALL the Jews". It's time to stop living in the past and move forward so that Israel truly becomes the home of all Jews, not just haredim, who have wished, for the longest time, to maintain control over all religious institutions in Israel and the money that goes with it. Power is not easily given up, but in this case, the fact that it will have to be taken away from the power-greedy haredi mullahs is a good thing for the long-term survival of the Jewish people. Thanks to Joel Katz of Religion and State In Israel for this article. Randy Shiner

Last week, in a landmark ruling, the High Court of Justice ruled that the principle of equality obligates the state to fund the services provided by non-Orthodox as well as Orthodox religious denominations. In response to a petition by the Israel Movement for Progressive Judaism, a panel headed by Supreme Court President Dorit Beinisch ruled that the state cannot discriminate against Reform conversion classes by providing funding only to Orthodox ones.

The implications of this for Israeli society, indeed for world Jewry, cannot be overestimated. We are witnessing the beginning of the end of Orthodox hegemony - increasingly, it has been Orthodox tyranny - over Israel's Jewish populace. The forces of darkness are receding: slowly, perhaps, but surely.

Since the state's creation, the Orthodox rabbinate has held uncontested sway over all personal-status issues - marriage, divorce, burial and, generally, the privilege of determining who is a Jew. This arrangement was tolerable for a while, but now is breaking down. The rabbis made the classic blunder of overreaching. The centrist Jewish Orthodoxy of the state's founding generation gave way to a stricter, narrower, hard-line ultra-Orthodoxy, with Jewish law being interpreted in an ever-more rigid and exclusionary fashion. The low point came last autumn, when a rabbinical court in Ashdod - in a shocking, unprecedented and halakhically questionable ruling - annulled a conversion retroactively, 13 years after it took place, because the woman was not living an Orthodox lifestyle.
Advertisement
The outcry in Israel was huge, and even the centrist Orthodox sector was outraged. But I will admit that I was pleased, feeling in my gut that the ruling was so bad, it was good. When even moderate modern Orthodox in places like Ra'anana and Modi'in feel alienated from the religious establishment, clearly the Rabbinate has gone too far. The backlash was inevitable, and Beinisch was only signaling its beginning.

For as the ultra-Orthodox men who took over the Rabbinate are steadily narrowing its approach, the Israeli public - according, for example, to a recent Market-Watch survey - is becoming more open, more diverse in its Judaism and more nuanced. The non-Orthodox movements are all growing, and spiritual teachings and pluralistic Jewish learning are on the rise. The Supreme Court justices live among us, after all, and are also witnesses to the intolerable conflict between the Judaism dictated by the Rabbinate and the Judaism of the people. The ultra-Orthodox segment of the population, while growing, still constitutes less than 15 percent of Israel's Jewish population. But in trying to impose its worldview on the rest of us, it has drawn fire, not just from the tiny non-Orthodox streams, but now, increasingly, from mainstream Orthodoxy as well. Already 20 percent of Israeli Jews opt out of getting married legally in Israel because the only way to do so is through the auspices of the state Rabbinate.

Israel's High Court has been, over the years, a bulwark against the worst Orthodox affronts to our civil liberties. But until now, the court's favorable progressive rulings did not challenge head-on the core issues of religious freedom, even as they were expanding the rights of non-Orthodox movements to receive public funding for non-religious programs, such as education and immigrant absorption. Coincidentally, the same day that the High Court issued its landmark decision last week, it also ordered the infamous Ashdod rabbinical court 90 days to justify its own draconian action. My own Reform community - Kehilat Yozma in Modi'in - was the beneficiary of an interim ruling in 2007 that led to the establishment of the first-ever government-funded non-Orthodox synagogue in the state's history.

So, we've been chipping away at the edges of Orthodox hegemony, but until now, not at its core. Last week's ruling, though, constituted a fundamental victory for religious pluralism. Progressive (Reform) Judaism is now a valid religious expression here. The ruling states that even though these conversions may not be recognized by the Rabbinate, the state sees them as a valid gateway for membership in the Jewish people, especially given the size and importance of Reform Jewry in the Diaspora.

The ultra-Orthodox political establishment is predictably fuming, and vows to override the ruling with legislation. But that's why democracies have courts, and I believe that inevitably, if fitfully, the state will cease to abridge the rights of Jews to practice their religion according to their beliefs.

Ultimately, this slowly unfolding pluralism will not only change Israeli society at its very core. It just may be the catalyst for a renewed interest in Israel among the increasingly disaffected legions of Reform and Conservative Jews abroad. Many of them have never been comfortable with the fact that their movements in Israel are still widely perceived as semi-underground insurgencies. Maybe now, as the non-Orthodox streams blossom, they'll give us a closer look.

Tonight, as thousands of Reform Jews all over Israel gather for late-night Shavuot learning, they will do so with a renewed sense of satisfaction and encouragement. They now know that with determination and investment, full acceptance of liberal Judaism throughout all sectors of society is just a matter of time.

Jay Shofet is a member of the Executive of the Israeli Movement for Progressive Judaism and the Chairperson of the Reform community Kehilat Yozma in Modi'in. He is on the staff of SHATIL, the New Israel Fund's Empowerment and Training Center for NGOs working for social change.

Detroit's 6 Mistakes and How Not to Make Them

On the day that General Motors filed Bankruptcy, I thought it'd be a good time to revisit the reasons why GM got to this point, courtesy of the Harvard Business School.

Randy Shiner


Detroit's 6 Mistakes and How Not to Make Them

4:06 PM Tuesday November 18, 2008

Tags:Strategy

The end of Wall St. as we know it? Scary - but just the beginning of a larger tsunami of economic reinvention, as our forecasts at the Lab have predicted for the last several years. Now that Wall St.'s been eviscerated, it's Detroit's turn to play the meltdown and bailout game.

So what should we demand from a bailout of Detroit? There's a bigger point raised by the serial destruction of Wall St. and Detroit. The roiling, seething 21st century demands nothing less than a new economic roadmap: new rules for new kinds of institutions.

To begin making that roadmap concrete, let's highlight the six critical mistakes Detroit made by following yesterday's rules, to draw out some of the new rules of 21st century business - new rules that you can use to start reconceiving, reinventing, and revolutionizing your own organizations.

1. Old rule: Choose evil. Industrial era business is unrepentantly and almost sociopathically evil: shifting costs onto others, while striving to internalize benefits. Detroit chose lobbying, marketing wars, and low-cost hardball - to always and everywhere try to socialize costs and privatize benefits. Never was this truer than Detroit's lobbying against public transport throughout the 20th century. Why does public transport in the States suck? Because Detroit's lobbying machine doesn't.

New rule? Choose good. In the 21st century, every moral imperative is also a strategic imperative: doing good - for customers, employees, suppliers, or society - is a radical strategic choice that unlocks new pathways to innovation and growth. The opportunity cost of defending evil for Detroit was never learning how to choose good - and that's a crucial mistake other auto players didn't make. Tata chose to make a car that was accessible to the world's poor. Porsche and BMW chose to invest in talent, people, and imagination. Honda and Toyota chose to invest in renewables and partnerships with the public sector. All opened new avenues to growth for an industry at the brink of extinction.

2. Old rule: Selfishness is self-interest. What's strategic is supposed to be what's in the firm's self-interest. But how do we define self-interest? Consider for a second the fact that as recently as this year, Detroit's lobbyists were hard at work, opposing stricter fuel efficiency standards. That's 20th century self-interest at its finest - not authentic interest for one's own long-run outcomes, but simply a childlike selfishness, both myopic and narrow, where cutting off the nose to spite the face is as rational as mutual nuclear annihilation.

New rule? Purpose is self-interest. The 21st century demands a more enlightened self-interest: one factoring in a longer timescale, fuller contingencies, and an honest and broad consideration of hidden and unintended consequences to people, society and the environment. When we understand all that, have begun to develop a purpose - a way in which we will change the world radically for the better. By confusing selfishness with self-interest, Detroit vaporized it's own purpose - and will stay trapped in a wilderness of economic meaninglessess until it rediscovers it.

3. Old rule: Maximize destructiveness. The goal of orthodox strategy is to destroy the ability of others' to imitate or commoditize you. And Detroit was a master of the art of destructive strategy: patenting, trademarking, and litigating; playing hardball to control distribution channels, defending brands with disproportionately steep marketing investment, and building entire new marques to gain share in key markets and segments. The point of all these tired, stale 20thcentury strategic moves was the same: strategy as an exercise in exclusion, isolation, and barrier-building.

New rule? Get constructive. True 21st century businesses can be judged in the blink of an eye: how intensely do they put the "co" in constructive? Can they let demand spark and fuel co-creation, can they co-produce from a pool of shared resources, are they capable of letting value activities be co-managed, are they tuned tocooperate? Detroit can't get constructive because it's spent the better part of a century playing the games of destructive strategy.

4. Old rule: Seek differentiation. When is a Jaguar really just a Ford? When it's an S-Type. Under Alfred Sloan, GM famously organized itself divisionally - Pontiac, Buick, Cadillac... - for the sole purpose of differentiation. But industrial era differentiation is too often just skin-deep: the same lemons with slightly different marketing, distribution, and branding. So why pay a steep premium for a Buick if it's just a Chevy with slightly nicer trim? Detroit discovered the hard way that in the 21st century, the concept of differentiation is increasingly stale.

New rule? Seek difference. Ultimately, the problem is simple: differentiation is about perception. Difference is about reality. People in the 21st century aren't the zombified, braindead consumers of the 20th century. And so the 21st century demands not mere differentiation - a bean counters' eye view of the world if ever there was one - but true difference. True difference is built by making different choices from the ground up - different in the very essence of the value activities that make the wheels of production and consumption spin. Porsche and BMW strove for difference - not mere differentiation - and it is that choice that is at the heart of their global leadership of the automotive sector.

5. Old rule: Seek agility. Strategy is in many ways simply the avoidance of crisis - the evasion of threat, weakness, and vulnerability. The goal of strategy as the avoidance of crisis is simple: agility. Industrial-era corporations seek agility, in other words, by insulating themselves from real-world economic pressures - that's what Detroit did bar none, by always seeking to game the system: lobbying, marketing, and wheeling-and-dealing it's way straight into oblivion.

New rule? Seek crisis. By insulating themselves from real-world economic pressures, boardrooms also dilute and sap incentives for innovation and renewal. Detroit wasn't innovating because the opportunity cost of strategy as gamesmanship was, ultimately, foregoing innovation itself. In the 21st century, gamesmanship - and its attendant dilution of incentives - is a sure path to near terminal strategy decay. Forget Detroit - just ask big music, big pharma, or big food.

6. Old rule: Advantage happens against. Orthodox econ holds that it is through the pursuit of competitive advantage that corporations create the most value most quickly and reliably. And that's a mistake Detroit made to the hilt. It sought a nakedly competitive advantage - against suppliers, dealers, consumers, and society alike. The result is an industry crippled by structurally antagonistic relationships with labour, buyers, suppliers, consumers, and society alike.

New rule? Advantage happens for. Competitive advantage against bears a striking resemblance to simply bullying. Bullying is easy: just as in the sandbox, any boardroom with market power can jack up margins by forcing others - buyers, suppliers, consumers, society - to bear costs. But if every corporation across the economy is playing that game, the economy's just a game of musical chairs.

In the 21st century, what's far more radical, potent, and disruptive is corporations who can use market power to create an authentic advantage for buyers, suppliers, customers, consumers, and society, not against them - one where everyone is made durably better off. That's a sea change in the nature of advantage: from advantage against all, to advantage forall.

Here's the immediate point. No bailout should go forward if we're simply rebuilding a Detroit that will play by the same old rules - because even if it invests in new technology, it will end up inevitably in the same state of terminal decay a few decades from now. The goal of bailing out Detroit should be to reconstruct an auto industry that can play by the new rules of 21st century business.

  • What are some new rules that you think we can learn from Detroit's mistakes?
  • Can you see these old rules leading to value destruction in your own industry?
  • Can you see how revolutionaries like Google, Apple, American Apparel, and Threadless are following the new rules Detroit didn't - and how following those new rules is letting them redraw the boundaries of value creation?

Fire away in the comments and let's discuss.

Hitler's European Holocaust Helpers

View from a booth:

I am reading the seminal literature by Professor Robert O. Paxton on Vichy France and its role in building the "New European Order" under Germany. The French, Poles, Litvaks, Romanians, Ukrainians were all actively complicit in the "Final Solution" to the Jewish question, but let there be no doubt that it was a purely Nazi idea to kill Europe's Jews. Little do people realize these days, 70 years after the fact, that the Germans' helpers were more than that: they went beyond what even the Germans expected them to do in terms of denunciations, assisting with roundups and transport of Jews to the eastern death camps and generally assisting the Nazis in making Europe judenrein. That the US Army after the war was likewise complicit in shielding many of the major players from prosecution for war crimes once the "true" enemy after the war, Stalin's Soviet Union, was deemed a more urgent matter than trying war criminals since it was they who might be, and were, helpful to the American/British/French in securing what they could of Europe and Germany from Stalin's clutches after the fighting stopped.

The literature is quite clear that nothing would have happened to people like Demanjanjuk had they insisted that they couldn't perform their duties at the camp. Most, like Ivan, helped with no questions asked, and helped willingly. In this writer's opinion, none should ever rest easy until the day they die with the blood of thousands on their hands, regardless of how low on the totem-pole of the Nazi death organization they were.

Germans in general have come to grips with their responsibilty for their role in the Shoah. The rest of their accomplices in the conquered lands, by and large, have not, preferring to sweep their crimes under the rug of time. It's time they came to understand what the fathers and grandfathers did in the name of the "New World Order" under Hitler and the NSDAP.

Randy Shiner




05/20/2009 12:23 PM

THE DARK CONTINENT

Hitler's European Holocaust Helpers

By SPIEGEL Staff

The Germans are responsible for the industrial-scale mass murder of 6 million Jews. But the collusion of other European countries in the Holocaust has received surprisingly little attention until recently. The trial of John Demjanjuk is set to throw a spotlight on Hitler's foreign helpers.

He's been here before, in this country of perpetrators. He saw this country collapse. He was 25 at the time and his Christian name was Ivan, not John; not yet.

Ivan Demjanjuk served as a guard in Flossenbürg concentration camp until shortly before the end of World War II. He had been transferred there from the SS death camp in Sobibor in present-day Poland. He was Ukrainian, and he was a Travniki, one of the 5,000 men who helped Germany's Nazi regime commit the crime of the millennium -- the murder of all the Jews in Europe, the "Final Solution."

He was part of it, if only a very minor cog in the vast machinery of murder. Ivan Demjanjuk stayed in post-war Germany for seven years before he emigrated to the US in 1952 with his wife and daughter on board the General Haan. Once he arrived, he changed his name to John. His time as a supposed DP or "displaced person," as the Anglo-American victors called people made homeless by the war, was over.

DP Demjanjuk had lived in the southern German towns of Landshut and Regensburg where he worked for the US Army. He moved to Ulm, Ellwangen, Bad Reichenhall, and finally to Feldafing on Lake Starnberg. Feldafing belongs to the area covered by the Munich district court, which is why Demjanjuk has been sitting in Munich's Stadelheim prison since he was deported from the US last week. His cell measures 24 square meters, which is extraordinarily spacious by usual prison standards.

Last Big Nazi Trial in Germany

He faces charges of aiding and abetting the murder of at least 29,000 Jews in Sobibor. The trial could start in late summer, provided Demjanjuk, now almost 90, is deemed fit to stand trial. Witnesses will be called to testify, but none of them will be able to identify him. The only evidence lies in the files, but that evidence is strong. Twice, in 1949 and 1979, former Travniki Ignat Danilchenko, who is now dead, stated that Demjanjuk had been an "experienced and efficient guard" who had driven Jews into the gas chambers -- "that was daily work."

Demjanjuk has denied this charge throughout. He says he was never in Flossenbürg or in Sobibor, never pushed people into the gas chambers. The ex-American has adopted the same tactic of denial as many other defendants who stood trial for war crimes after 1945.

The Holocaust in numbers.
DER SPIEGEL

The Holocaust in numbers.

But it's already clear that this last big Nazi trial in Germany will be a deeply extraordinary one because it will for the first time put the foreign perpetrators in the spotlight of world publicity. They are men who have until now received surprisingly little attention -- Ukrainian gendarmes and Latvian auxiliary police, Romanian soldiers or Hungarian railway workers. Polish farmers, Dutch land registry officials, French mayors, Norwegian ministers, Italian soldiers -- they all took part in Germany's Holocaust.

Experts such as Dieter Pohl of the German Institute for Contemporary History estimate that more than 200,000 non-Germans -- about as many as Germans and Austrians -- "prepared, carried out and assisted in acts of murder." And often they were every bit as cold-blooded as Hitler's henchmen.

Just for example, on June 27, 1941, a colonel in the staff of the Germany's Northern Army Group in the Lithuanian city of Kaunas passed a petrol station surrounded by a crowd of people. There were shouts of bravo and clapping, mothers raised their children to give them a better view. The officer stepped closer and later wrote down what he had seen. "On the concrete courtyard there was blonde man aged around 25, of medium height, who was taking a rest and supporting himself on a wooden club which was as thick as an arm and went up to his chest. At his feet lay 15, 20 people who were dead or dying. Water poured from a hose and washed the blood into a drain."

The soldier continued: "Just a few paces behind this man stood around 20 men who -- guarded by several armed civilians -- awaited their gruesome execution in silent submission. Beckoned with a curt wave, the next one stepped up silently and was (…) beaten to death with the wooden club, and every blow met with enthusiastic cheers from the audience."

Orgy of Murder Like a Lithuanian National Ceremony

When all lay dead on the ground, the blonde murderer climbed on the heap of corpses and played the accordion. His audience sang the Lithuanian anthem as if the orgy of murder had been a national ceremony.

How could something like that happen? For a long time now, this question hasn't just been directed at the Germans, whose central responsibility for the horror is undisputed -- but also at the perpetrators in all countries.

What led Romanian dictator Ion Antonescu and his generals, soldiers, civil servants and farmers to murder 200,000 Jews (and possibly twice that many) "of their own accord," as historian Armin Heinen puts it. Why did Baltic death squadrons commit murder on German orders in Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus and Ukraine? And why did German Einsatzgruppen -- paramilitary "intervention groups" operated by the SS -- have such an easy time encouraging the non-Jewish population to wage pogroms between Warsaw and Minsk?

It's completely undisputed that the Holocaust would never have happened without Hitler, SS Chief Heinrich Himmler and the many, many other Germans. But it's also certain "that the Germans on their own wouldn't have been able to carry out the murder of millions of European Jews," says Hamburg-based historian Michael Wild.

It's a perception that many survivors never doubted. When the Association of Surviving Lithuanian Jews convened in Munich in 1947, they passed a resolution that bore an unmistakable title: "On the guilt of a large part of the Lithuanian population for the murder of Lithuania's Jews."

In the Third Reich with its well-functioning bureaucracy, there were comprehensive registers of the Jewish population. But in the territories conquered by the German army, Hitler's henchmen needed information of the type supplied in the Netherlands by registry offices whose staff went to a lot of trouble to compile a precise "Register of Jews."

And how would the SS and police have been able to track down Jews in the cities of Eastern Europe with their broad mix of ethnic groups if they hadn't had the support of the local population? Not many Germans would have been able "to recognize a Jew in a crowd," recalls Thomas Blatt, a survivor of Sobibor who wants to testify as a witness at Demjanjuk's trial.

At the time, Blatt was a blonde-haired boy and tried to pass for a Christian child in his Polish home town of Izbica. He didn't wear a yellow star and tried to appear self-confident when he ran into uniformed people. But he was betrayed a number of times -- the Germans paid for information on the whereabouts of Jews -- and he always escaped with a lot of luck.

Denunciation Was Common

Denunciation was so common in Poland that there was a special term for paid informants "Szmalcowniki" (previously a term for a fence). In many cases, the denouncers knew their victims. And while the French, Dutch or Belgians could submit to the illusion that the Jews deported to the east from Paris, Rotterdam or Brussels would be all right in the end, the people in Eastern Europe learned through the grapevine what lay in store for the Jews in Auschwitz or Treblinka.

For sure, many counter-examples can easily be found. A senior officer in Einsatzgruppe C, responsible for the murder of more than 100,000 people, complained that the Ukrainians lacked "pronounced anti-Semitism based on racial or ideological reasons." The officer wrote that "there is a lack of leadership and of spiritual impetus for the pursuit of Jews."

Historian Feliks Tych estimates that some 125,000 Poles rescued Jews without being paid for their services. It's clear that the perpetrators always made up a small minority of their respective population. But the Germans relied on that minority. The SS, police and the army lacked the manpower to search the vast areas where the Nazi leadership planned to kill all people of Jewish origin. Across the 4,000 kilometers stretching from Brittany in western France to the Caucasus, the Nazis were bent on hunting down their victims, deporting them to extermination camps or to local murder sites, preventing escapes, digging mass graves and then carrying out their bloody handiwork.

Of course only Hitler and his entourage or the army could have stopped the Holocaust. But this doesn't invalidate the argument that without the foreign helpers, countless thousands or even millions of the approximately six million murdered Jews would have survived.

In the killing fields of Eastern Europe, there were up to 10 local helpers for every German policeman. The ratio is similar in the extermination camps. Not in Auschwitz, which was run almost entirely by Germans, but in Belzec (600,000 killed), Treblinka (900,000 deaths) or in Demjanjuk's Sobibor. There, a handful of SS members were assisted by some 120 Travniki men.

Without them, the Germans would never have managed to kill 250,000 Jews in Sobibor, says former prisoner Blatt. It was the Travniki who guarded the camp, drove all the Jews from the railway wagons and trucks after their arrival in the camp, and who beat them into the gas chambers.

Was the Holocaust a European Project?

Such a stupefying number of victims raises disturbing questions, and Berlin historian Götz Aly already started asking them a few years ago: was the so-called Final Solution in fact a "European project that cannot be explained solely by the special circumstances of German history"?

Many Foreign Perpetrators Acted Voluntarily

There is no final verdict yet on the European dimension of the Holocaust. The French and Italians started late -- when most of the perpetrators were already dead -- to deal comprehensively with this part of their history. Others, such as the Ukrainians and Lithuanians, are still dragging their feet; or they have only just begun, like Romania, Hungary and Poland.

Since 1945 the countries invaded and ravaged by Hitler's armies have seen themselves as victims -- which they doubtless were, with their vast numbers of dead. That makes it all the more painful to concede that many compatriots aided the German perpetrators.

In Latvia, local assistance was greater than anywhere else. According to the American historian Raul Hilberg, the Latvians had the highest proportion of Nazi helpers. The Danes are at the other end of the scale. When the deportation of Denmark's Jews was about to begin in 1943, large parts of the population helped Jews to escape to Sweden or hid them. Some 98 percent of Denmark's 7,500 Jews survived World War II. By contrast, only nine percent of the Dutch Jews survived.

Does the Holocaust represent the low point not only of German history, but of European history as well, as historian Aly argues?

There is evidence challenging the widely-held notion that foreign perpetrators were forced to help the Germans commit murder. It's true that local helpers risked their lives by refusing to assist the German occupiers. That applied to the police units and civil servants in occupied Western Europe as much as it did to newly-formed auxiliary police in the east. But it's also true that in many places people volunteered to serve the Germans or participated in crimes without being forced to.

The Holocaust in numbers.
DER SPIEGEL

The Holocaust in numbers.

There is also the often-repeated claim that the governments of countries allied with Hitler had no choice but to hand over Jewish citizens to the Germans. That's not true either. The Balkan countries in particular quickly understood how important the "solution to the Jewish Question" was to Hitler and his diplomats -- and they tried to extract the highest possible price for their complicity.

There's also reason to doubt the assumption that the helpers were pathological sadists. If that were true, they should be easy to identify, for example within the group of 50 Lithuanians who served under the command of SS Obersturmbannführer (Lieutenant Colonel) Joachim Hamann. The men would drive around the villages up to five times a week to murder Jews, and ended up killing 60,000 people. It only took a few crates of Vodka to get them in the mood. In the evenings the troop would return to Kaunas and boast of their crimes in the mess hall.

None of the Lithuanians had been criminals before. They were "totally and utterly normal," believes historian Knut Stang. Almost everywhere after the war, the murderers returned to their ordinary lives as if nothing had happened. Demjanjuk too was a law-abiding citizen. In Cleveland, Ohio, where he lived, he was regarded as good colleague and a friendly neighbor.

It's the same as with the German perpetrators. There's no identifiable type of killer -- that's a particularly disturbing conclusion reached by historians. The murderers included Catholics and Protestants, hot-blooded southern Europeans and cool Balts, obsessive right-wing extremists or unfeeling bureaucrats, refined academics or violent rednecks.

Among them was Viktor Arajs (1910-1988), a learned lawyer from a Latvian farming family who commanded a unit of more than 1,000 men that murdered its way around Eastern Europe on behalf of the Nazis. Or the Romanian Generaru, son of a general and commander of the ghetto in Bersad in Ukraine, who had one of his victims tied to a motorbike and dragged to death.

Anti-Semitism Was Rife Across Europe

And anti-Semitism? In the 1930s, anti-Semitism grew across Europe because the upheaval after World War I and the global economic crisis had unsettled people. In Eastern Europe, the tendency to regard Jews as scapegoats and to try and exclude them from the job market was especially strong. In Hungary, Jews were banned from public office at the end of the 1930s and were forbidden to work in a large number of professions. Romania voluntarily adopted Nazi Germany's racist and anti-Semitic Nuremberg Laws. In Poland, many universities restricted access for Jewish students.

The extent of the hatred of Jews is also reflected in the fact that after the end of the war in 1945, mobs in Poland killed at least 600, and possibly even thousands of Holocaust survivors. However, excessive nationalism appears to have been the more important factor, at least in Eastern Europe. Many there dreamed of a nation state devoid of minorities. In this sense, the Jews were simply one of several groups that people wanted to rid themselves of. As World War II raged, the Croats didn't just murder Jews but also killed a far larger number of Serbs. Poles and Lithuanians killed each other. Romania liquidated Roma and Ukrainians.

It's hard to determine what motivated people to kill. Often nationalism or anti-Semitism were just excuses. During the war, no one had to go hungry in Germany, but living conditions in Eastern Europe were squalid. "For the Germans, 300 Jews meant 300 enemies of humanity. For the Lithuanians they meant 300 pairs of trousers and 300 pairs of boots," says one eyewitness. That was greed on a personal level. But it also featured on a collective level. In France, 96 percent of aryanized companies remained in French hands. The Hungarian government used the assets seized from Jews to extend its pension system and reduce inflation.

Jews Were Scapegoats for Soviet Crimes

Imaginary revenge also played a part. Pogroms in Poland by local people against Jews in 1941 were based on the assumption that the Jews formed some sort of base for Soviet rule, because communists of Jewish descent had for a time been over-represented in some areas of the Soviet bureaucracy. As a result, many people blamed Jews for the crimes committed during the Soviet occupation of eastern Poland between 1939 and 1941. Stalin's secret police the NKWD had actual and presumed opponents of the regime in the Baltic States, eastern Poland and Ukraine shot or deported to Gulags. As the German troops advanced, the Soviets left behind a deeply traumatized society between the Baltic and the Carpathians -- and many fresh mass graves.

Hitler hadn't worked out all the details of the Holocaust from the start, instead assuming he would be able to drive out all Jews from his sphere of influence after a quick victory over the Soviet Union. But the German advance into the Soviet Union started faltering in autumn 1941, which raised the problem of what to do with the people crammed into ghettos, especially in Poland. Many Gauleiter, SS officers and top administrators called for their territory to be made "judenfrei" ("free of Jews" -- which meant liquidating them. The construction of extermination camps began, first in Belzec, then Sobibor, then Treblinka.

Brief Holocaust Training Course

It was a gigantic killing program in which most of Poland's Jews, 1.75 million, were murdered. The SS preferred to recruit its helpers among Ukrainians or ethnic Germans in prisoner-of-war camps where Red Army soldiers like Demjanjuk faced the choice of killing for the Germans or starving to death. Later, increasing numbers of volunteers from western Ukraine and Galicia joined the unit. The men had to sign a declaration that they had never belonged to a communist group and had no Jewish ancestry. Then they were taken to Travniki in the district of Lublin in south-eastern Poland where they were trained for their deadly profession on the site of a former sugar factory. In mid-1943 some 3,700 men were stationed in Travniki. Training for the Holocaust took several weeks. The SS men showed the new recruits how to carry out raids and how to guard prisoners, often using live subjects. Then the unit would drive to a nearby town and beat Jewish residents out of their homes. Executions were carried out in a nearby forest, probably to make sure that the recruits were loyal.

At first the Travniki were used to guard property and to prevent supply depots from being plundered. Then their German masters sent them to clear ghettos in Lviv and Lublin, where they were remorseless in rounding up their Jewish victims. Finally they were put to work in eight-hour shifts in the extermination camp. "Everyone jumped in where he was needed," recalled one SS officer. Everything worked "like clockwork."

Historians estimate that a third of the Travniki absconded despite the punishment that entailed if they were caught. Some were executed for disobedience. And the others? Why didn't they try to get out of the killing machine? Why didn't Demjanjuk? Die he allow himself to be corrupted by the feeling of "having attained total power over others," as historian Pohl argues. Was it the prospect of loot? In Belzec and Sobibor the Travniki engaged in brisk bartering with the inhabitants of surrounding villages and paid with items they had seized from the prisoners.

Perhaps there was something else, something even more disturbing that many people have deep in their psyche: following orders from authorities even if they ran counter to their conscience. Total and utter obedience.

Germany Relied on Outside Help in the Monstrous Murder Project

Germany's troops didn't have the whole of continental Europe under the gun to the same extent. Outside the Third Reich and the occupied territories the Germans needed the help of foreign governments in their monstrous murder project -- in the west as well as the south and southeast of Europe. Their support was strongest among the Slovaks and Croats whom Hitler had given their own states. The Croatian Ustasha fascists set up their own concentration camps where Jews were killed "through typhoid, hunger, shooting, torture, drowning, stabbing and hammer blows to the head," says historian Hilberg. The majority of Croatian Jews were killed by Croats.

Anti-Semitism wasn't so deep-rooted in Italy and was ordered by the state out of consideration for the Germans. An Italian military commander in Mostar (in today's Bosnia) refused to chase Jews from their homes because he said such operations "weren't in keeping with the honor of the Italian army." That wasn't the only the only such case. But it's clear that Benito Mussolini's puppet government of 1943 eagerly took part in persecuting Jews. More than 9,000 Italian Jews were deported to their deaths.

Some 29,000 Jews from Belgium were murdered, many after being denounced in return for cash. Denunciations also happened in the Netherlands and France. Local authorities obediently paved the way for the deportation of Jews and later said they hadn't suspected what fate the Jews faced. That excuse was used by henchmen, opportunists and pen-pushing bureaucrats -- a category of perpetrator that was denied for a long time after the war in France as the country sought to build a myth that the entire French people had been involved in the heroic resistance.

France was divided into two parts. Hitler's troops had occupied three fifths of the country but the southern part of the country remained unoccupied until November 1942 and was ruled by a right-wing government based in Vichy that collaborated with the Germans.

How Many Were Betrayed?

The first major roundup of Jews took place in mid-July 1942 in occupied Paris when almost 13,000 Jews who had no French passport where taken from their homes by French policemen. At least two thirds of the Jews deported from France were foreigners. The remaining third consisted of naturalized French citizens and children born in France to stateless Jews. Police "repeatedly expressed the desire" that the children should be deported as well, one SS officer noted in July 1942. Almost all deportations ended in Auschwitz.

In total almost 76,000 Jews were deported from France and only 3 percent of them survived the Holocaust. It's unknown how many of them were betrayed by the local population. In the Netherlands there's a figure that gives an indication of the extent of denunciation. The country had an authority that hunted Jews on behalf of the Nazis and that listed the property of Jews who had gone into hiding or already been deported. The "Household goods registry office" paid 7.50 guilders for every Jew who could be located -- that's about €40 in today's money. Dutch journalist Ad van Liempt has analyzed historical records and estimated that between March and June 1943 alone, more than 6,800 Jews were tracked down in this way, and that at least 54 people had taken part in this hunt once or even several times. "Most of them made this their main occupation for months," he says.

The head of the unit was a car mechanic called Wim Henneicke who evidently had good connections in the Amsterdam underworld. He built up an extensive network of informants who told him where Jews were hiding. Some 100,000 Jews from the Netherlands were murdered in concentration camps, a far greater proportion than in Belgium or France.

However, in contrast with France, Dutch collaborators were quickly punished after the war. Some 16,000 were put on trial by 1951, and most of them were convicted.

Demjanjuk is a different category of perpetrator. He's not a collaborator or head-hunter, not a policeman of the sort that contributed to the Holocaust far away from the actual killing. He was at the scene, prosecutors say in their detailed arrest warrant.

The Terrible World of the Holocaust Helpers

In the coming days doctors will decide will decide whether and for how long Hitler's last henchman from Sobibor can be put on trial. The German government wants him to face trial. "We owe that to the victims of the Holocaust," says Vice Chancellor Frank-Walter Steinmeier.

Those who suffered in the camps under Travniki men like Demjanjuk don't feel any desire for revenge when they talk about him today. American psychoanalyst Jack Terry, who was imprisoned in Flossenbürg concentration camp while Demjanjuk was a guard there, says it would suffice if Demjanjuk "had to sit in his cell for even just one day."

And Sobibor survivor Thomas Blatt says he "doesn't care if he has to go to prison, the trial is important to me. I want the truth."

Demjanjuk could provide information about Sobibor -- and about the terrible world of the Holocaust helpers.

Reporting by Georg Bönisch, Jan Friedmann, Cordula Meyer, Michael Sontheimer, Klaus Wiegrefe