Uncategorized
What we get wrong about how Germany has reckoned with its Nazi past
On a recent Freakonomics episode about the German film director Werner Herzog, host Stephen Dubner voiced a familiar assertion about postwar Germany’s confrontation with the Nazi past — an assertion shared by many Americans but one that is, in fact, a partial myth.
“It’s always impressed me,” Dubner said to Herzog, “the way that Germany, after the Second World War, assessed what had happened and in its schools and its institutions tried to come to grips with why and how, and to educate its successive generations.”
What’s wrong with this statement? At its core, it recycles a narrative crafted by the United States and its anti-Soviet allies during the Cold War — one designed for geopolitical purposes and carried into the 21st century.
Though it’s true that German schools have been admirably rigorous in teaching the history of the Third Reich and the Holocaust, and Germany has taken many other historic steps to make amends, German government agencies spent decades avoiding a full confrontation with their own past. Files documenting the depth of Nazi continuity within the postwar civil service were kept under lock and key well into the new century.
In my book, Nazis at the Watercooler: War Criminals in Postwar German Government Agencies, I reveal how West Germany hired seriously incriminated ex-Nazis for civil service positions and tell the story of a reckoning that took nearly six decades to begin — a chapter in Germany’s confrontation with its past that still receives too little recognition.
For decades, ministries shielded their records from public view. The first major breakthrough came in 2005, when Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, appalled to discover that his ministry’s internal newsletter had been publishing glowing obituaries for diplomats implicated in Nazi crimes, established an independent team of historians to examine the Foreign Office archives. Their report, released five years later, documented not only the involvement of German diplomats in the machinery of the Third Reich but also the ease with which many resumed their careers in the West German state.
Over the past two decades, virtually every major German government institution has followed the Foreign Office’s lead — commissioning historians to examine old files and arriving at similarly disturbing conclusions. There was foot-dragging along the way; the Chancellor’s Office, the nerve center of the German government, did not release the findings of its own self-examination until last year.
These long delays raise a question that reaches beyond Germany. If a nation widely praised for its moral clarity took more than half a century to confront the actions of its institutions, what might that suggest about how the United States will one day confront the legacy of Donald Trump and the MAGA movement?
Of all the West German government agencies in the first postwar decade, none — with the exception of the foreign intelligence service — was a more welcoming harbor for ex-Nazis with blood on their hands than the Bundeskriminalamt, or Federal Criminal Police Office, a German version of the FBI known by its initials, BKA. The depth of this infiltration was exposed by Dieter Schenk, a security specialist at the BKA who quit over the West German government’s cozy relationships with right-wing dictators.
While at the BKA, Schenk heard hushed rumors about investigators with dark pasts. After resigning, he began to dig. He uncovered documents that exposed about two dozen of the BKA’s top employees who had served with Nazi units that committed war crimes and were never put on trial.
Schenk published his findings in a 2001 bestseller titled Auf dem rechten Auge blind: Die braunen Wurzeln des BKA (Turning a Blind Eye to the Right: The Brown Roots of the BKA). Several years later, the BKA commissioned its own panel of historians, who reached conclusions similar to Schenk’s. Their findings were published in 2011.
More inquiries followed.
Even the super-secretive Federal Intelligence Service, the BND, opened up about former SS officers who landed jobs at the West German spy agency, some with the assistance of American intelligence, despite having served in Nazi units that committed war crimes. One of the most stunning revelations was that in the late 1950s and early 60s the BND had on its payroll one of the most sought-after war criminals — Walter Rauff, hiding out in Chile.
Historians hired by the Justice Ministry found that in the late 1950s about half the senior employees had been card-carrying Nazis, including lawyers who attended meetings planning the Holocaust. A 2016 report documented how senior officials helped former Third Reich jurists paper over their pasts.
A 2018 Interior Ministry report exposed networks of ex-Nazi administrators who resumed their careers with the help of testimonials they wrote for one another. These testimonials were dubbed Persilscheine, or “Persil notes,” after a popular laundry detergent — making an ex-Nazi’s past appear as clean as fresh laundry.
One section of the report catalogues the excuses job candidates used to whitewash their wartime acts: They were coerced into joining the party; they needed a steady income; they had worked for the Third Reich to protect Jews; they were secretly in the resistance; they looked like loyal Nazis on the outside but hated Hitler on the inside. In the Interior Ministry’s culture department, researchers found that 43% of reviewed employees had concealed incriminating elements. They found no evidence that anyone was disciplined for lying.
Which brings us to Trump’s America.
America in 2026 and West Germany in the early postwar years are very different. The German democracy was just getting started; American democracy has existed for 250 years. Still, it would be a mistake to dismiss the German experience as offering no lessons. In the early 1950s, there was no certainty that the new German democracy would take root. In Trump’s America, there is no certainty that democracy will endure in the form we have known.
West Germany was still reeling from the war in the 1950s. A top priority of the victorious allies was capturing and punishing Nazi perpetrators — through the Nuremberg trials, denazification, and the imprisonment of thousands of soldiers and Nazi officials. But the populace rebelled against what they called “victors’ justice,” placing massive political pressure on Chancellor Konrad Adenauer. The United States and West Germany struck an unspoken bargain: suspending the pursuit of war criminals in exchange for Adenauer’s alignment with the United States and NATO in their emerging Cold War confrontation with the Soviet bloc.
Backing away from punishing Germans for the crimes of the Third Reich may have been a factor in the new democracy’s eventual success. But it came at a price. Adenauer was certainly no Nazi, but he was not above employing tactics reminiscent of those of the old regime — including using the foreign intelligence service to spy on his political opponents. And while an untold number of Germans complicit in Nazi abuses were able to resume their lives without consequence, including postwar civil servants who concealed their Third Reich misdeeds during the hiring process, their victims and victims’ families were never given the justice they deserved.
There will be a post-Trump era, but we have no idea what it will look like. What is clear is that calls for accountability are already accumulating — for corruption, for intimidating federal judges, for using the Justice Department to pursue Trump’s political enemies, for obstructing congressional oversight, and for violating migrants’ due-process rights in his sweeping deportation campaign, among other alleged abuses. The question is not whether a reckoning will be demanded, but how it might be pursued.
Like West Germany in its formative years, America will face difficult choices: whom to punish, how they should be punished, and how to keep the coming reckoning from deepening fractures within the country rather than healing them.
The post What we get wrong about how Germany has reckoned with its Nazi past appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
They met on a Birthright trip then married. Now this American Israeli couple’s internet fame has turned to infamy.
Ethan and Hila Klein first met at Yad Vashem — Israel’s Holocaust museum — in 2007, a meet-cute they recounted, giggling, years later for their millions of YouTube followers.
“I think I went up to her and said something like, ‘They had it coming, don’t you think?’” said Ethan, known for his edgy humor and infamous internet trends, including Vape Nation and Papa Bless. “No I didn’t say that. I wonder if you would have laughed though.”
They were on a Birthright trip, Ethan an American and Hila an Israeli soldier on leave to join the group. Soon after the trip ended, Ethan moved to Israel to be with Hila, and the two began making videos under the name H3H3 Productions (the H for Hila and the 3 standing in as an E for Ethan). They married, moved to America, and started a popular podcast.
A Jewish love story, until Thursday, when Hila, now mother to their three children, accused Ethan publicly of having a months-long affair.
“The betrayal I feel is immeasurable,” Hila said in an Instagram post. “My only family on this side of the world. How do I even begin to make sense of this?”
Ethan reposted her statement.
Their podcast is run by a handful of crew members who often chime in and participate in various skits and bits. The crew also shared a statement saying they stand with Hila and refuse to work with Ethan, though they added they don’t know what this will mean for the future of the show.
A couple roiled by Oct. 7
The left-leaning, secular couple’s videos and podcasts focused primarily on pop culture, internet drama and general politics, not Jewish or Israeli issues.
Both Ethan and Hila would make statements sometimes when tensions in Israel flared, and they would occasionally speak out against IDF actions that upset them.
In 2021, Ethan started a podcast with political commenter Hasan Piker, a controversial left-wing influencer, called Leftovers, a nod to their leftist politics.
Then came Oct. 7.
Ethan, an American Israeli dual citizen like Hila, was horrified by the attacks but quick to call the IDF genocidal in the aftermath. In their first episode together after Oct. 7, Ethan and Piker said the show would continue through their disagreements. The episode was tense, and it was their last.
As Piker’s rhetoric on Israel intensified and became at times antisemitic, the two began a nasty internet feud, culminating in a nearly five-hour livestreamed debate.
Piker posted about the news of the affair on X, sharing a video of Ethan and expressing disgust for men who cheat.
“Now this is a high caliber man [with] good morals,” Piker said sarcastically. He also posted “Judge me by my enemies” after sharing Hila’s statement.
Hila, who owns a makeup and clothing company, increasingly came under scrutiny by Piker and others after Oct. 7 for her service in the IDF. Artists refused to work with her. One model she hired publicly disavowed her after finding out she was Israeli.
The couple was harassed, sometimes online, sometimes in-person, as they attempted to take what they viewed as a nuanced stance in the aftermath of Hamas’ attack on Israel and the ensuing war in Gaza. The united front seemed to fortify their relationship, as Ethan, ever outspoken, routinely came to his wife’s defense.
Their show lost thousands of subscribers, but loyal fans stuck with them — fans who now say they are gutted and confused by the news of the affair. Many in disbelief noted that Ethan had Hila’s face tattooed on his arm less than two years ago as a surprise for her.
“The greatest thing a man can do for his children is to love their mother,” says the quote surrounding the tattoo.
The Forward attempted to contact the Kleins through their work emails and did not immediately hear back.
The post They met on a Birthright trip then married. Now this American Israeli couple’s internet fame has turned to infamy. appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
These Jewish college students have some ‘nonnegotiables’ for El-Sayed
At the University of Michigan, first-year student Robert Kashan, 18, and sophomore Jacob Reich, 19, sat behind a large blue sign. “Some things are nonnegotiable,” it declared in all caps.
The sign laid out their requirements for any candidate seeking their support: a commitment to Jewish safety, “including for Zionist Jews,” and supporting Jewish statehood in Israel, among other positions.
“Zionism is a legitimate part of the Democratic coalition, and a lot of us are feeling less represented by the Democratic Party,” Kashan told the Forward.
The students are part of a broader “Nonnegotiable” movement in Michigan, a coalition of Jewish Democrats who are spelling out their dealbreakers for candidates ahead of the Senate election between Democratic nominee Abdul El-Sayed and Republican nominee Mike Rogers.
The movement has attracted national attention, with hundreds of rabbis across 34 states signing on to the “Nonnegotiable” demands. Meanwhile, about 20 students at the University of Michigan have publicly signed, while hundreds more offered support anonymously, according to Reich.
The “Nonnegotiable” supporters aren’t saying whom they’ll vote for if their concerns aren’t addressed — or whether they’ll vote at all. But they are pushing back against the assumption that Jewish voters will, as the saying goes, “vote blue no matter who,” urging El-Sayed to engage with their demands if he hopes to earn their support.
That’s in contrast with two other Jewish political camps, including a group called Michigan Jews for Democracy that endorsed El-Sayed. Their petition, which has garnered almost 1,000 signatures, notes that some signatories hold reservations about El-Sayed but are voting for him nonetheless as a check on President Trump.
“We understand that a vote is not a valentine; it’s a strategic chess move,” the petition reads.
A competing petition, dubbed “Michigan Jews Against Extremism,” has drawn hundreds of signatures from Michigan Jews who plan to vote for Rogers. That petition similarly emphasizes that Rogers voters may still have reservations about the candidate: “Our vote for Mike Rogers does not require that we agree with him on every issue or that we support President Trump,” it reads.
“Nonnegotiable,” meanwhile, rejects the idea that Jewish voters would have to choose between Zionist and Democratic values. Some have criticized the nonnegotiable movement for ignoring the reality of the electoral choice at hand. Others have called it “a veiled attempt to excuse the actions of Jewish Democrats who want to feel validated about voting for Mike Rogers.”
But Kashan and Reich, who met at Hillel and plan to major in political science, said the “Nonnegotiable” movement was the only way they could see themselves engaging in the election, as they felt increasingly pulled between their identities as Democrats and as Jews.
Some Michigan Jews have expressed alarm at El-Sayed’s questioning of whether Israel should exist as a Jewish state and his decision to campaign alongside controversial Twitch streamer Hasan Piker, who has been accused of antisemitic rhetoric. Rogers, who Trump has endorsed, earlier this week called El-Sayed “anti-Jew.”
In a letter to Michigan Jews, El-Sayed has vowed to “stand up against antisemitism and take the threat of violence against our Jewish community incredibly seriously.” He has also hired a Jewish liaison in the final weeks leading up to the election.
This will be the first election when Kashan, who just turned 18, is eligible to vote, and Reich’s first national election after voting in a local primary in his hometown of Palo Alto, California. For both, voting Democratic in their first major election had once seemed like a given.
“I’m a Jewish Democrat, and I want Democrats to take the Senate,” Reich said. “I want to vote for a Democrat in my own state.”
They’re still holding out hope that will happen — and that, with less than two weeks until the Nov. 3 election, El-Sayed will sign on to their petition.
And if he doesn’t? Neither student is ready to say.
The post These Jewish college students have some ‘nonnegotiables’ for El-Sayed appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Does anyone in Jerusalem care what happens to us?
An Israeli think tank has put on paper what most American Jews know in their kishkas: Israel’s actions over there affect our safety here.
So here’s my question: Does anybody over there care?
The report, published by The Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), drew on the input of 20 Jewish leaders from five countries. It concluded that Israel’s actions since the Hamas attack on Oct. 7, 2023 have normalized hostility toward Israel, divided Jewish communities, sapped the political influence of pro-Israel organizations and fueled antisemitism.
Those actions include damaging statements by government officials, limits on humanitarian aid to Gaza at the height of the war, widespread damage to civilian infrastructure in Gaza and unchecked settler violence in the West Bank. The authors also cited as inflammatory “the proliferation of images of civilian death and suffering in Gaza” — though the actual civilian death and suffering has also alienated and enraged many outside Israel, including Jews.
“The conflict is not only over there in the Middle East, it is local all over the Jewish world now, and Diaspora Jewry has skin in the game,” said Theodore Sasson, one of the report’s authors, in an interview with JTA’s Andrew Silow-Carroll, who first wrote about the study.
To be clear, the report doesn’t excuse, exonerate or rationalize people who commit antisemitic acts. “Jews and Israelis are not to blame for antisemitism,” the report states.
“What we’re saying is that Israel is not the cause” of antisemitism, Sasson said, “but enlightened Israeli policy can seek to maintain robust Diaspora support for the state of Israel and can deny the antisemites the material that fuels their mostly spurious claims.”
This is not a novel connection. Three previous academic studies, in Belgium, Australia and the U.S. found statistically significant links between Israeli military operations that result in high Palestinian casualties and spikes in reported antisemitic incidents abroad. Not surprisingly, a Mellman group poll found that 56% of U.S. Jewish voters believe Israel’s policies have fueled antisemitism.
None of this means Israel shouldn’t act in its own interest and put the security needs of its own population first. Antisemites would continue to exist even if Israelis did nothing but play backgammon and sip arak. The report is not about eradicating antisemitism, but about Israeli actions that provoke and endanger Jews abroad — and what Israel can do about those.
I get the principled resistance to a report that seems to shift some of the burden of antisemitism onto the Jews. David Bernstein of the North American Values Institute told Silow-Carroll that American Jews aren’t agents of Israel, and that nobody would say an African country’s actions endanger African Americans. That’s not entirely true — the 9/11 attacks increased hate crimes against American Muslims and bigots targeted random Asian Americans during the COVID-19 pandemic. Pretending actions have no consequence even if the reaction is illegitimate is principled, but naive. If Israel can lower the temperature, it should.
But here’s the sad fact about the current Israeli government: it doesn’t even lower the temperature for its own citizens.
Exhibit A is Oct. 7. This is the government on whose watch that horror happened, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has never engaged in a full, independent accounting of what went wrong. How do you prevent future Oct. 7s when you don’t know the weaknesses that enabled it in the first place?
Exhibit B is the flydubai near-disaster, which we in the Diaspora have already mythologized as yet another example of Israeli courage and pluck. It was that, but also a result of a complete breakdown of government responsibility. Israel’s rules should have kept the Omani pilot out of that cockpit, but, as Channel 12 reported, Minister of Transportation Minister Miri Regev took no action despite multiple warnings. Regev, a close ally of Netanyahu, remains in her job.
Finally, Exhibit C: Police under National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir have failed to curb violent crime in Israel’s Arab communities which recorded 252 murders in 2025 — and 2026 is on track to surpass that record.
Israel’s supporters often comfort themselves with the mantra that Israelis love life while their enemies love death. But this government has been pretty cavalier about life.
If that’s how Israel’s leaders treat their own citizens, is it so surprising they fail to be overly concerned about Jews abroad? Last year saw the highest death toll from antisemitic attacks in 30 years, while the agency Israel created specifically to deal with such calamities has been AWOL. The Ministry for Diaspora Affairs and Combating Antisemitism, a Tel Aviv University report found, has “not contributed in any meaningful way to the cause, and in some cases has been an embarrassment.”
All this is happening as the screws are tightening on Jewish communities in Australia, France, Italy, Canada and elsewhere. But Israel, established in part to keep Jews safe, has, under this government, too often increased or ignored the dangers. Zionism is supposed to be the Diaspora’s Iron Dome, but this government, by inexorably, deliberately foreclosing on the possibility of a democratic Jewish state, is functionally anti-Zionist.
The report listed several measures Israel could take to reduce the threat to Diaspora communities, among them controlling the incendiary rhetoric of government ministers and opening a diplomatic path with the Palestinians that stops the slide toward a single, non-democratic state.
One of the report’s recommendations is that Israel set up procedures to assess how its policies affect Jews abroad. In other words, the think tank is asking the government to start caring, formally.
It’s hard to imagine any of that happening unless, on Oct. 27, Israelis vote the current government out.
“Netanyahu cannot be part of the healing process. It is Netanyahu from whom we must be healed,” David Horovitz, the far-from-radical founding editor of The Times of Israel, wrote this week in an editorial titled, “For Israel’s Sake, Netanyahu Has to Go.”
As it turns out, it’s for all our sakes.
The post Does anyone in Jerusalem care what happens to us? appeared first on The Forward.
