~ Gesticht àls Gesticht ter Voorkoming v/d Maatschappelijke Randdebiliteit ~
~ HÉT "progressief" Orgaan Der "Hangmatsocialisten" ~ Gesticht àls Gesticht ter Voorkoming v/d Maatschappelijke & Politieke Randdebiliteit
04-07-2010
Het daget in het westen ...
Blijkbaar begint er
stilaan een lichtje te branden in de hoofden van vele Amerikanen
betreffende de oorlog in Afghanistan. met wat gezond boerenverstand
waren we dr ook al zelf achter gekomen maar hier heb je nog eens alles
op een rijtje en dat is dus GROOT nieuws in de USA. Vergeet vooral niet
het linkje te gebruiken en kijk vervolgens naar de CNN...
Fareed Zakaria
criticized the Afghanistan war in unusually harsh terms on his CNN program Sunday, saying that
"the whole enterprise in Afghanistan feels disproportionate, a very
expensive solution to what is turning out to be a small but real
problem." His
comments followed CIA director Leon
Panetta's admission last week that the number of Al Qaeda in
Afghanistan may be down to just 50 to 100 members, or even fewer. "If Al Qaeda is down
to 100 men there at the most," Zakaria asked, "why are we fighting a
major war?" Zakaria
noted that the war is costing the U.S. a fortune in both blood and
treasure. "Last month alone there were more than 100 NATO troops killed
in Afghanistan.," the CNN host said. "That's more than one allied death
for each living Al Qaeda member in the country in just one month. "The latest estimates
are that the war in Afghanistan will cost more than $100 billion in 2010
alone. That's a billion dollars for every member of Al Qaeda thought to
be living in Afghanistan in one year." To critics who suggest
that we need to continue fighting the war against the Taliban because
they are allied with Al Qaeda, Zakaria countered that "this would be
like fighting Italy in World War II after Hitler's regime had collapsed
and Berlin was in flames just because Italy had been allied with
Germany." "Why
are we investing so much time, energy, and effort when Al Qaeda is so
weak?" Zakaria concluded. "Is there a more cost-effective way to keep Al
Qaeda on the ropes than fight a major land and air war in Afghanistan? I
hope someone in Washington is thinking about this and not simply saying
we're going to stay the course because, well, we must stay the course."
zoek de overeenkomsten...of de tien verschillen...
We zouden er een zomerwedstrijdje kunnen van maken met als eerste prijs
een gratis deelname aa, de volgende IJzerwake in Steenstrate om te
kijken welke Vlaamse politicus naar Steenstrate trekt en de welke naar
de weide in Diksmuide...
Maar dat doen we dus niet want dat wordt
nog een pijnlijk moment voor Vlaanderen tenzij de kibbelende fracties
weer mekaar het licht in de ogen gunnen wat we ten sterkste betwijfelen.
Het Vlaams Nationalisme heeft tenslotte een traditie van onderling
gestook hoog te houden...
We nodigen dus onze aandachtige
lezertjes uit het memorandum van de vakbonden ACV en ABVV te lezen en om
het gemakkelijk te maken de overeenkomsten met het partijprogramma van
de NVA te zoeken....Voor de onervaren Ollandse lezertjes vermelden we er
graag bij dat dit memorandum voor een zeer groot deel terug te vinden
is in het partijprogramma van de Waalse Parti Socialiste waarmee De
Wever Bruno alias bereklauw een sterke federale regering moet vormen.
Brussel, 18 juni 2010
ACV ABVV MEMORANDUM AAN DE INFORMATEUR EN DE FORMATEUR VAN
DE NIEUWE FEDERALE REGERING
ABVV en ACV vragen dat de toekomstige
regering een toekomstgericht project uitwerkt en concretiseert met
solidariteit als sleutelwoord en dus gericht op een rechtvaardige
verdeling van de welvaart. Hun gemeenschappelijke prioriteiten worden
ingeschreven in de koepeldoelstellingen om de ongelijkheden tussen
mannen en vrouwen weg te werken en een duurzame ontwikkeling te
bevorderen.
ACV
en ABVV vragen eerst en vooral dat de nieuwe regering het eigen
actieterrein van de sociale partners ten volle respecteert. Ze vragen:
- erkenning en bevordering van het eigen
initiatief van de sociale partners ( ook inzake het statuut
arbeiders/bedienden) en respect voor de wet en het overlegmechanisme
voor de welvaartsvastheid van de sociale uitkeringen;
- respect voor de vrijheid van
onderhandelingen en het recht op collectieve actie;
- reële inspraak in zowel het sociaal
beleid als het economisch - financieel beleid, via de formele
inspraakkanalen.
ABVV
en ACV leggen volgende prioriteiten voor aan de komende regering.
1. Meer
en betere banen in het kader van een nieuw groeimodel
Het eerste antwoord op de werkloosheid,
zowel als de vergrijzing is een krachtig en doelmatig
werkgelegenheidsbeleid, gericht op een sterke, duurzame groei en een
maximale jobcreatie. Met prioriteit voor de strijd tegen de werkloosheid
en werkonzekerheid bij jongeren.
Een louter defensief verhaal, gericht op
loonkosten en flexibiliteit, moet plaats maken voor een meer offensief
sociaal-economisch beleid:
- dat berust op kwaliteit en concurrentie
door innovatie, onderwijs en vorming: op basis van een geïntegreerde
beleidsstrategie, in samenwerking met de Gewesten/ Gemeenschappen, opdat
België op elk van die vlakken een topplaats
verovert, met grondige evaluatie van het beleid op de verschillende
beleidsniveaus;
- dat de Belgische economie meer doet
opschuiven naar industriële en dienstensectoren, naar producten/diensten en naar exportmarkten met een sterker
groeipotentieel;
- dat voluit het
werkgelegeheidspotentieel benut van de ecologische transitie.
De
ontwikkeling van de loonkosten is een zaak van vrije, verantwoordelijke
onderhandelingen onder sociale partners: geen opgelegde loonnorm, behoud
van de index en
baremieke verhogingen.
Het werkgelegenheidsbeleid wordt al te eenzijdig gericht
op de aanbodzijde van de arbeidsmarkt. De komende jaren moet veel meer
aandacht gaan naar de vraagzijde: meer jobs (werkervaringskansen voor
jongeren, uitbouw van de sociale economie, meer kansen op alternerend
leren-werken), betere jobs en minder discriminaties.
2.
Een sterke sociale zekerheid, met absolute
voorrang voor de eerste pijler
ACV en ABVV blijven opkomen voor een sterke federale sociale
zekerheid die steunt op een goed evenwicht tussen solidariteit en
verzekering.
Bij
voorrang moet werk worden gemaakt van een sterkere eerste pijler in de
sociale zekerheid:
- een verbreding van het financiële
draagvlak, door meer alternatieve financiering, actievere strijd tegen
de bijdragefraude en ontwijkingen een krachtig werkgelegenheidsbeleid
(zie hoger);
- vrijwaring en volledige invulling van het
structurele mechanisme voor de welvaartsvastheid van de
vervangingsinkomens;
- versterking van het wettelijke
pensioenstelsel, zonder optrekking van de pensioenleeftijd;
- een versterking van het wettelijke
pensioenstelsel, wetende dat voor ons de tweede pensioenpijler niet de
toekomst voor ons pensioenstelsel kan zijn, maar enkel een supplement
bovenop het verbeterd wettelijk pensioen;
- geen verhoging van de wettelijke
pensioenleeftijd en geen afbouw van het brugpensioen;
- een kwaliteitsvolle en toegankelijke
gezondheidszorg: omvorming van het stelsel van hulp aan bejaarden tot
een volwaardige federale zorgverzekering, uitgavenbeheersing maar niet
op rug van patiënten of personeel;
- beperking van de werkloosheidsuitkeringen
in de tijd of afschaffing van de wachtuitkeringen is onbespreekbaar.
3.
Sterke openbare diensten
Economie en samenleving hebben nood aan
een goed werkende overheid, met performante overheidsdiensten en
bedrijven:
- een sterkere investering in openbare diensten;
- een verbetering van het sociaal overleg,
met primauteit aan de statutaire tewerkstelling;
- een aantrekkelijke pensioenregeling,
zowel voor ambtenaren (vrijwaring van het ambtenarenpensioen als
uitgesteld loon) als voor contractuelen (onderhandelde regeling
aanvullend pensioen).
De Belgische overheid moet Europees weerwerk bieden tegen de
druk tot liberalisering en commercialisering en steun geven aan de eis
voor een verordening voor de openbare diensten.
ACV en ABVV staan achter een hervorming
van het gerechtelijke landschap, op voorwaarde dat ze beantwoordt aan de
krachtlijnen die de sociale partners gemeenschappelijk hebben bepaald,
d.w.z. met behoud van afzonderlijke, maar vergrote arbeidsrechtbanken.
4. Vrijwaring
en versteviging van de syndicale rechten
De sociaal-economische democratie moet
verder worden uitgebouwd, in het bijzonder:
- erkenning van de vrijheid van
onderhandelingen, zonder inmenging van de overheid;
- verbetering syndicale aanwezigheid in
KMOs;
- adequate bescherming van de afgevaardigden van de werknemers;
- onder geen beding wettelijke of Europese
ingrepen in het recht op staken en ruimer op collectieve acties.
5.
Een rechtvaardig begrotingsbeleid
ACV en ABVV beseffen dat de nieuwe
federale regering voor de uitdaging staat om het begrotingsevenwicht te
herstellen en de schuld af te bouwen. Ze herinneren er aan dat de
verslechtering van de begroting niet de schuld is van de werknemers maar
van diegenen die de financiële en economische crisis veroorzaakt
hebben. Daarom eisen ze dat de gezondmaking van de begroting aangepakt
wordt:
- Door maatregelen en volgens een tempo dat het prille
herstel van groei en werkgelegenheid niet schaadt;
- eerst en vooral door nieuwe inkomsten, in
het bijzonder bij diegenen die totnogtoe meest werden ontzien;
- door de zwaarste lasten op de sterkste
schouders te leggen; met vrijwaring van de lage inkomens en de sociale
uitkeringstrekkers;
- zonder de collectieve diensten te
ontwrichten.
6. Een rechtvaardiger en progressieve fiscaliteit.
Volgens
ABVV en ACV moet de regering en de nieuwe Minister van Financiën het
voorbije wanbeleid rechttrekken en de ruimte benutten voor een betere
verdeling en een betere inning van de belastingen, door;
- een actievere strijd tegen fiscale fraude
en ontwijking: afschaffing fiscaal bankgeheim, afschaffing forfaitaire
belasting zelfstandigen, bestrijding van vennootschappen opgericht om
personenbelasting en te ontduiken;
- een vermindering van de druk op arbeid
door een sterkere belasting op andere inkomens, in het bijzonder een
versterkte vermogensfiscaliteit (vermogensbelasting, vermogenskadaster,
meerwaardebelasting op aandelen en opties ), een belastingadministratie
die over het management, de menskracht en de middelen beschikt om de
belastingen correct te innen;
- heroverweging van alle belastingaftrekken
en verminderingen in functie van rechtvaardigheid en doelmatigheid;
- in geen geval uitholling van de
progressiviteit van de personenbelasting: geen vlaktaks, noch fair taks;
- een stop op de aanhoudende daling van de
inkomsten uit vennootschapsbelasting en aan de ontsporing van de
notionele intrestaftrek.
7. Duurzame ontwikkeling
De federale overheid zal, samen met de sociale partners en de
Gemeenschappen / Gewesten, haar beleid meer dan ooit in het teken moeten
stellen van de duurzame ontwikkeling, met garanties op een
rechtvaardige transitie, in het bijzonder naar de werknemers en de lage
inkomens. In het bijzonder is nood aan:
- een meer duurzame fiscaliteit, die gebruik van milieu-
en energievriendelijke producten en productiewijzen aanmoedigt, met
garanties dat dit de herverdeling niet ondergraaft;
- een energiebeleid dat de economie en samenleving helpt
de omslag te maken naar energiezuinigheid (o.m. programma voor isolatie
woningen) en aanzienlijk meer hernieuwbare energie, zonder in vraag
stelling van de wet op de kernuitstap;
- de toegang tot energie garandeert voor allen, door een
sterkere regulering van de gas- en elektriciteitsmarkt die bijdraagt tot
een betere marktwerking (met correcte prijszetting);
- een duurzaam mobiliteitsbeleid: meer en beter openbaar
vervoer, aangepast aan de behoeften van de werknemers; overal een
bedrijfsvervoerplan; milieu- en energievriendelijke voertuigen.
8.
Federale solidariteit en staatshervorming
ACV en ABVV verwachten van de komende
regering dat bij een discussie over de staatshervorming:
- voorrang wordt gegeven aan de
herfinanciering van de federale overheid, die meer dan 90% van de vergrijzingskosten moet dragen;
- de interpersoonlijke solidariteit
gevrijwaard wordt door het federaal houden van de
solidariteitsmechanismen: de volledige sociale zekerheid, het
arbeidsrecht en de sectorale en interprofessionele CAOs;
- geen fiscale dumping wordt georganiseerd
door regionale autonomie inzake vennootschapbelasting;
- de samenwerking
tussen de overheden versterkt wordt.
ABVV en ACV willen niet voor voldongen
feiten worden geplaatst voor domeinen die tot hun kerntaken behoren.
Hervormingen die volgens hen geen reële verbetering inhouden voor de
werknemers en niet actieven in de drie gewesten of deze met elkaar in
concurrentie plaatsen of de inter-persoonlijke solidariteit aantasten,
zijn niet aanvaardbaar.
9. Een actieve Europese en internationale rol
De federale regering moet in volledige
transparantie en in overleg met de sociale partners sterker investeren
in de beïnvloeding van het Europese beleid en dat van de internationale
instellingen en in de internationale samenwerking. Het Europees
voorzitterschap vanaf 1 juli is daartoe een uitgelezen kans.
België moet Europees ijveren voor onder
meer:
- een gecoördineerd Europees relanceplan;
- een evenwichtige uitvoering van de
strategie Europa 2020, met eenwicht tussen de economische, sociale en
ecologische beleidsdoelstellingen en zonder het sociale beleid te
versmallen tot armoedebestrijding;
- een verordening voor de openbare
diensten;
- een herziening van de arbeidstijdenrichtlijn, zonder opting out
(mogelijkheid van uitstap);
- maatregelen tegen fiscale dumping,
versterking en uitdieping van de spaarrichtlijn en invoering van een
minimumtarief in de vennootschapsbelasting;
- de effectieve invoering van een belasting
op de financiële transacties;
- een krachtig beleid voor herregulering en
een verbeterd toezicht op de financiële markten;
- waarborgen tegen sociale dumping (inz.
versterking van en samenwerking tussen inspectiediensten).
Internationaal zijn prioritair:
- een aanhoudende inspanning van België ten
belope 0.7 % van het BBP voor ontwikkelingssamenwerking;
- een volgehouden actie voor de
milleniumdoelstellingen, met meer aandacht voor werk en sociale
zekerheid als hefbomen tegen de armoede, inz. door de ontwikkeling van
een internationale sociale bodembescherming;
- een verankering van de doelstelling van
waardig werk in het beleid van de financieel-economische instellingen
(IMF, Wereldbank, OESO, WHO);
- een billijk beleid van humanitaire
immigratie, met regularisatie van reeds hier aanwezige mensen zonder
papieren op basis van objectieve criteria
en hier vind je de partijstandpunten van de NVA. Wij zouden
het in jullie plaats kunnen doen maar het is echt te warm en om de
overeenkomsten te vinden is het zoals met de naald en de hooiberg...
Dat is natuurlijk niet de reden waarop De Wever Bart geen
vooruitgang boekt in de regeringsvorming...
RIGA - Extreemrechtse groeperingen mogen
donderdag in de Letse hoofdstad Riga een herdenkingsmars houden voor de
invasie van de Duitse troepen in 1941. Het hof van beroep heeft het
oorspronkelijke gerechtelijke verbod opgeheven.
Minister-president Valdis Dombrovskis
en minister van Buitenlandse Zaken Aivars Ronis verklaarden dat ze door
de uitspraak van het hof 'verrast en geschokt' waren. Met alle respect
voor de mensenrechten en de onafhankelijkheid van de rechtbanken kan de
'vrije meningsuiting niet worden uitgebreid tot nazipropaganda',
verklaarden beide staatsmannen nog.
De herdenkingsmars vindt
plaats vier dagen voor een bezoek van de Israëlische minister van
Buitenlandse Zaken Avigdor Lieberman. Die zal zondag een ceremonie
bijwonen om de vernietiging van bijna alle Joden uit Riga tijdens de
holocaust te herdenken.
De directeur van het
Simon-Wiesenthal-Center in Jeruzalem, Efraim Zuroff, verklaarde: 'De
nazi-invasie vieren betekent ook de massamoord vieren van alle Letse
slachtoffers. Dit waren voornamelijk joden, maar ook communisten,
zigeuners en geesteszieken.'
Riga, the capital of Latvia, was officially founded in 1201. In common with many other places in
eastern Europe, the city came to be ruled by a variety of different
nations. Although the name Livonia still describes a region of
modern-day Latvia, the State of Livonia (Livland), dominated by the
Order of the Teutonic Knights (Fratres militie Christi de Livonia)
and covering much of the territory of modern-day Latvia and Estonia,
effectively ceased to exist in the late 16th century, when Riga became a
part of Poland. Polish rule lasted only a few years, for following a
lengthy war between Poland and Sweden, the city fell under Swedish rule
in 1621. In 1710,
as part of an ongoing war between Sweden and Russia, the city was
incorporated within the Russian Empire, where it was to remain until 1918. Riga developed enormously both in terms of
economic importance and population during this latter period, becoming
the second largest city in north-western Russia after St Petersburg. During the course of WW1,
in 1917 the city was occupied for a short
time by German forces. After an armed struggle with the then newly
created Soviet Union lasting two years, the Republic of Latvia was
declared in August 1920, with Riga as its
capital. On 17 June 1940, Soviet forces
occupied Latvia, which was renamed the Latvian Soviet Socialist
Republic.
Having first settled in Riga in the 17th century,
Jews were expelled from the city in 1742,
but were later permitted to return. By 1935
the flourishing Jewish population of Riga numbered 43,000, representing
about half of the total Jewish inhabitants of Latvia and 11% of the
citys total population.
In his analysis of Latvian-Jewish
relations in the pre-WW2 years, the historian Frank
Gordon comments inter alia: The two decades of
independent Latvia's existence are remembered by both Latvians and Jews
as the 'good years'. Latvians were masters in their own land and
governed well, and Jews and other minorities were guaranteed all the
rights envisioned by the League of Nations for ethnic groups in eastern
Europe. Jewish religion, culture, and national aspirations were not
hampered or fettered in these years. The majority of Jewish inhabitants
supported the new Latvian state, with about 1,200 Jews taking part in
the Latvian war of independence.
The years 1934-1940 were the years of the authoritarian
regime. Karlis Ulmanis, who
proclaimed himself "Tautas Vadonis" (Leader of the Nation), was not only
"populist" in his propaganda, but also quite popular with the people,
especially among the farmers. Two fascist organizations openly
advocating anti-Semitism, the National Club and Perkonkrusts
(Thundercross) had been operating semi-legally. Immediately after the 15 May 1934 Coup they were declared illegal, and
heavy penalties imposed for open, aggressive anti-Semitic propaganda.
During the authoritarian regime the police actively pursued illegal
groups, such as the communists and Perkonkrusts.
The Latvian
historian Uldis Germanis stated:
"Independent Latvia was a state that respected
human rights, that gave asylum also to the Jews persecuted by Hitler (who were turned away by
humanitarian Sweden)."
Further, the Israeli historian Dov Levin commented: "It is impossible to understand the Holocaust without
knowing what happened in the western Soviet territories in 1939 to 1941. Although it is true that only a
small proportion of the Jewish community took part in the excited and
joyful demonstrations that welcomed the Red Army into Latvia, there were
very many Jews who shared a feeling of relief and concord with that
army, because of their fear that, in the international political
constellation of those days, the only other alternative was the Nazi
domination of Latvia."
What led so many Baltic Jews to
welcome the hordes of Soviet militarism, of Bolshevik totalitarianism,
of, one might even say, Red fascism? It is true that fear of the other
alternative, Hitler's Germany, and
illusions about the "essentially internationalist" nature of the Soviet
regime played a large part. But the traditional complex or syndrome of
"mimicry in self-defence," characteristic of the Jewish Diaspora in
various troubled periods, also came into play. It is a fact that Jewish
communities in those regions where a strong nation oppressed a weaker
one, tended to support the stronger nation, not side with the weaker
one. For example, it was so in Austro-Hungary, where Bohemian Jews sent
their children not to Czech, but German schools; Galician Jews
identified with the Polish upper class, not with Ruthenians
(Ukrainians); and Transylvanian Jews even now consider themselves to be
not Rumanian, but Hungarian Jews. The conspicuous position of the Jews
in the new regime and its political and administrative apparatus caused
the Latvians to identify the whole of the Jewish community with the
hated Soviet regime which had been imposed upon them by the Red Army,
rather than specific individuals.
The actual numbers of
Latvians deported and shot by the Bolsheviks in their first year in
power are estimated to be 30,000 and 1,488 respectively. Unfortunately,
Latvians in Latvia noticed only that the perpetrators were not just
Russians and Latvians, but also Jews - "again those Jews!". And this
stuck in their memory. Moreover, on the invasion of Soviet territory,
one advantage for Germany was the state of public feeling in the Baltic
States. An overwhelming majority of Lithuanians, Latvians, and Estonians
-- perhaps more than 95% -- looked upon the Germans as liberators. Such
real sympathies as the Germans met in the Baltic countries immediately
after their conquest had certainly not come their way since Hitler's assumption of power. No one could
mistake the spontaneity of these heartfelt feelings.
Despite
the hopes engendered by their invasion of Latvia, the assumption of
German good intentions on the part of Latvians was not fulfilled;
Latvia's independence was not restored. The German occupiers
incorporated this land, called Generalbezirk Lettland, in a
completely new administrative unit, the Reichskommissariat Ostland.
This was essentially a German colony, with even less rights than the Protektorat
Böhmen und Mähren, the former heartland of Czechoslovakia. On 17-18 September 1941, in one of his confidential
conversations (Tischgespräche), Hitler
declared: "But now we have no interest in
maintaining the Baltic States."
Ruins in Riga
German
forces occupied Riga on 1 July 1941.
Although some Jews had fled the city eastwards in the wake of the
retreating Red Army, many others who had taken refuge from the invaders
in Riga were now trapped there. On the first day of the occupation,
Latvian collaborators began arresting thousands of Jewish men and
imprisoning them in the Centralka
and Terminka jails, as well as in
police headquarters and at the premises of Perkonkrust. The
prisoners were first brutalized, then approximately 2,700 of them were
murdered in the nearby Bikerniecki
Forest. A further several thousand Jewish males were killed in Bikernieki Forest and at other locations
during the course of July. On 4 July,
Latvian volunteers set fire to the Chor
synagogue, killing an unknown number of Jews who were locked
inside the building, and later burned all other synagogues with the
exception of the Pietstavas synagogue,
which was left standing since adjacent buildings were occupied by
Latvians.
Reichskommissar für das OstlandHinrich Lohse governed his territory from
Riga. Under him was Generalkommissar für LettlandOtto-Heinrich Drechsler. Lohses superior
was Minister für die besetzten Ostgebiete (Minister for the
Occupied Eastern Territories) Alfred Rosenberg,
in Berlin.
Riga's streets
were renamed. Brivibas (Liberty) Street
became Adolf-Hitler-Straße. Another
street was named for Walter von Plettenberg,
grand master of the Livonian knights. Completely obscure Germans such
as Carl Schirren, Karl Ernst von Baer,
and Victor Hehn had streets named
after them, while the Latvian epic hero Lacplesis,
eminent poet Janis Rainis, and
national awakening era leader Krisjanis
Valdemars lost theirs. All signs and notices had to be first
in German (above), and only then in Latvian (below). Germans were
allocated larger food rations than Latvians, who were restricted to 700
calories a day. Rations for Jews were even more inadequate.
Einsatzgruppe
A, initially commanded by SS-BrigadeführerFranz
Walter Stahlecker, operated in the Baltic states, with Einsatzkommandos
1a (headed by SS-StandartenführerMartin
Sandberger and 2 (initially headed by SS-SturmbannführerRudolf Batz, subsequently by SS-ObersturmbannführerEduard Strauch, then SS-SturmbannführerRudolf Erwin Lange) responsible for
Riga. The headquarters of the Security Police and the SD for the
Eastern Territories (BdS Reichskommissariat Ostland) were also
situated in Riga. Odilo
Globocniks representative in Riga was SS-ObersturmführerGeorg Michalsen.
Although
referring to events in Daugavpils (Dünaburg),
there can be no doubt that the events described in Einsatzgruppen
Operational Situation Report No.24 concerning the collaboration of
Latvian auxiliaries, applied to an even greater extent to Riga, where by
early August the Auxiliary Police (Schutzmannschaft)
already numbered some 2,799 men (see Volunteer
Auxiliaries):
Making
Jews look like Fools
The auxiliary police force consists of former police
constables, members of the former Latvian Army, and members of the
former ATZSARGI organization (Organization for Self Defence) By 7 July the Latvians arrested 1,125 Jews, 32
political prisoners, 85 Russian workers, and 2 women criminals, the
greater part during the last days. This is due to the EK backing the
Latvians. Actions against the Jews are going on in an ever-increasing
number. Conforming to a suggestion of the EK, the Jews are being
evacuated by the auxiliary police force from all houses still standing.
The apartments are being allocated to non-Jewish inhabitants. The Jewish
families are being driven out of town by the Latvians; most of the men
have been arrested The arrested Jewish men are shot without ceremony
and interred in previously prepared graves. Until now the EK 1b has shot
1,150 Jews in Daugavpils.
Over the next three months, a reign of terror was introduced for the
Jews of Riga. Many were driven from their homes and had their
possessions confiscated, others were rounded up for forced labour. Jews
were forced to wear the Star of David, forbidden to use public
transport, walk on the pavements, frequent public places, receive any
schooling, or practice their professions. They were only permitted to
purchase their restricted food rations from three stores. Physical
assaults became commonplace.
Riga Ghetto
Riga "Rest-Ghetto"
On
the order of OberbürgermeisterHugo
Wittrock, the Gebietskommissar, a ghetto was
established in the "Moscow quarter" ("Moskauer Vorstadt") of Riga on 25 October 1941. As elsewhere, the extremely
congested area of the ghetto was deliberately chosen for its dilapidated
housing and inadequate sanitary conditions and supply of water. At
least 29,602 Jews were incarcerated in the sealed ghetto (some sources
suggest as many as 32,000), which was surrounded by a high fence and
guarded by Latvian auxiliaries. An Ältestenrat (Council of Elders) was
appointed, with Michael Elyashov as
its head and a Jüdischer Ordnungsdienst (Jewish Police Force) was
formed, commanded by Michael Rosenthal.
The Ältestenrat did its best to make living conditions bearable.
A hospital, medical clinic, pharmacy and home for the aged were
established. Men and women were supplied to the Germans for forced
labour, including the construction of the Salaspils
concentration camp near the city. Quite often the ghetto was
visited by Germans and Latvian policemen who plundered the Jews. They
took everything: furs, pictures, crystal, blankets, linen, and musical
instruments. Only some of these things were sent to Germany as a gift
from the Latvian nation for the Germans who fought against the
Bolsheviks. Most of the stolen Jewish property was taken by Latvians
and Gestapo men.
On 11 October
1941, SS-ObergruppenführerFriedrich
Jeckeln was appointed Höherer SS- und Polizeiführer für
das Ostland (HSSPF), and thus became the person responsible for the
carnage that ensued. Jeckeln met
with Heinrich
Himmler on 10 or 11 November 1941,
when, according to Jeckelns
post-war testimony, Himmler said:
that all Jews in the Ostland had to be destroyed
to the last man.
Jeckelns
predecessor, Hans-Adolf Prützmann,
had indicated to Himmler that Lohse was against the liquidation of the
Riga Ghetto, but Jeckeln was ordered
to carry it out anyway. Himmler went on: You
tell Lohse, that is my order, which
is also the Führers wish!
Deportation
*
The Ghetto *
On 19 November 1941, working Jews were
separated from the rest of the ghetto population and moved to a section
in the northeast corner of the ghetto that had been cleared for the
purpose. This area became known as the Small Ghetto. On the night of 29-30 November, the western section of the
Large Ghetto was surrounded and the Jews gathered into groups of
1,000. The Jews had been told that they were simply being sent to a new
camp nearby and to pack a 20-kilogram suitcase for the trip. Some people
who had heard about the resettlement and interpreted this in fact to
mean the physical liquidation of the Jews, decided to commit suicide.
The next morning the groups were taken to the Rumbula
Forest, 8 km from Riga, and shot. Large pits had been
prepared for the purpose. Many people were killed on the ghetto streets
or in their houses in the course of the Aktion. The drunken
Latvian policemen, commanded by Herbert Cukurs,
a famous former Latvian pilot who in 1933 flew over Africa and during
the war was a German auxiliary police officer known as The Butcher of
Riga, killed all the elderly Jews from the old peoples home. On that
day, and continuing on 8 and 9 December,
the entire population of the Large Ghetto was murdered, including most
of the members of the Ältestenrat, the historian Simon Dubnow, and Rabbi Manahem Mendel Zak, the Chief Rabbi of
Riga. In total, 27,800 Jews were killed in the Rumbula
Forest in these Aktionen. One of the few survivors
was Frida Frid-Mikhelson: Our column was divided up and everyone was ordered to
undress The Germans kept prodding us with their rifle butts closer and
closer to the pit Jews were already walking there one at a time, and
vanishing behind the precipice one could only hear the rattle of
automatic rifles I ran up to the officer who was in charge of the
execution He hit me in the head with his pistol, and I fell down. I was
right next to the pit where the dead were being thrown. I pressed myself
to the ground and tried not to move. A half hour later I heard someone
shout in German: `Put the shoes here! By this time I had already
crawled back a little. Just then, something was being thrown at me. I
opened one eye slightly and saw a shoe lying next to my face. I was
being covered up with shoes Shots resounded quite close to me, and I
could distinctly hear the last cries of people, the moans of the wounded
who were thrown alive into the common grave. Some died cursing at their
executioners, others died remembering their children and parents,
others read prayers aloud By evening the shooting had stopped I
decided to crawl out from under the pile of shoes I crawled over to
another pile it was mens clothing I put on someones trousers and
jacket and tied a big kerchief around my head I came across a blanket
cover, wrapped myself in it and began to crawl Frida Frid-Mikhelson was sheltered by two
Latvian families, the Berzins and Mezulis, and later by a group of Seventh
Day Adventists, who hid her and supplied her with food throughout the
entire period of German occupation.
In addition to the killing
sites at Rumbula and Bikernieki, concentration or labour camps
were established in the vicinity of Riga at Kaiserwald
(Mezaparks), Salaspils and Jungfernhof
(Jumpravmuita), where executions were also carried out.
On 11 October 1941, Stahlecker
visited Drechsler and informed him
that in accordance with a wish of the Führer, a big
concentration camp was to be established near Riga for Reich Jews. Lange (of Einsatzkommando 2)
telephoned Drechsler on 21 October to report that it was planned to set
up a camp (Salaspils) for 25,000 Reich
Jews about 18 km from Riga. Lange
then wrote to Lohse on 8 November confirming his conversation with Drechsler. When the Reichskommissariat
political expert RegierungsratTrampedach
contacted the Ostministerium in Berlin
to urge that the transports be stopped, he was informed by the chief of
the ministrys Political Division, Dr Leibbrandt,
that there was no cause for worry, as the Jews would be sent farther
east anyway that is, they would be killed.
The Ghetto Fence *
After the Aktionen of November and
December 1941, some 4,000 Latvian Jewish men were left in the
Small Ghetto, as well as a number of Latvian Jewish women
seamstresses, who were accommodated in two houses at Ludzas 68 - 70, which became known as the
Womens Ghetto. The arrivals from the Reich were placed in the
Large Ghetto, now named the German Ghetto. The two ghettos were now
quite separate, each with its own institutions, those of the Small
Ghetto being headed by A.Kelman.
Although their eventual fate was never in doubt, to an extent the Jews
of Riga had been murdered in order to make room from deportees from the Reich.
It is considered most probable that in mid-September
1941, after much procrastination, Hitler
tentatively approved of the deportation of the Jews of the Reich,
a decision confirmed in early October.
Their destinations were to be Lodz, Minsk,
Kaunas (Kovno), and Riga. Between 27 November and 15 December 1941, 10 or
11 transports departed from Berlin, Nürnberg,
München, Stuttgart, Wien, Hamburg, Köln, Kassel, and Düsseldorf for Riga. They were followed between 9 January and 21 February 1942 by
another 10 or 11 transports from Terezin
(Theresienstadt), Leipzig, Dortmund,
Münster, and Dresden, as
well as further transports from Berlin
and Wien. It had been intended to
deport 25,000 Reich Jews to Riga. In the event, the first five
transports scheduled for that destination were rerouted to Kovno (Kaunas), so that the total number
actually deported to Riga was 20,057. Only 3 - 4% of them were to
survive.
The Ghetto Fence *
The first transport of German Jews from Berlin
arrived in Riga on the morning of 30 November
and were immediately killed at Rumbula.
Himmler had ordered that the
deportees be temporarily lodged in the space made available by the
murder of Latvian Jews. Himmler
telephoned Heydrich
in Berlin at 1:30 p.m. on 30 November noting in his telephone log: Jewish transport from Berlin.
No liquidation. It was too late; the Berlin
Jews were already dead. The following day Himmler
told Jeckeln: The Jews resettled in the Ostland are to be dealt with
only according to the guidelines given by me or by the RSHA acting on my
behalf. I will punish unilateral acts and violations.
Thereafter, Jews from the Reich were settled in the Riga Ghetto
or in the nearby camps of Salaspils
and Jungfernhof, with two
exceptions. The second transport from Terezin
(Theresienstadt), departing on 15
January 1942, was liquidated on arrival. And the transport
leaving Wien on 6 February was met by a gas van; 700 of the 1,000
deportees were immediately murdered. Among those on this transport was Gertrude Schneider, who recorded that the
train was met by Lange, who had a
little more than two weeks earlier had been present at the Wannsee
Conference. Heydrich,
impressed with the efficiency with which Lange
had organised the slaughter of the Latvian Jews of Riga, had invited
him to the conference. Lange told
the arriving deportees that those unwilling or unable to walk the 7 km
to the ghetto could make the journey on trucks which had been
especially reserved for them. Gertrude
Schneiders account continues: It
was an extremely cold day forty-two degrees below zero to be exact
and so the majority of the hapless, unsuspecting Jews from Wien took his advice and lined up to board
the trucks. They did not know that those greyish-blue trucks had been
manufactured by the Saurer Works in Austria especially for the
implementation of the `Final Solution. These trucks were the famous
gas-vans, which were used from time to time despite the fact that the SS
did not especially like them because they always had mechanical
problems.
One of more than 1,500 Jews deported from Wien on 11 January
1942 was Liana Neumann. She
recalled: There was no water. The coaches
were sealed, and we could not leave them. It was very cold, and we
chipped off some ice from the windows to have water (On reaching Riga)
we were received by SS men, who made us run, and beat us up. Liana Neumann was sent to work in a
hospital, where it was her job to disinfect the clothing of murdered
Jews.
In an undated report of early 1942,
Stahlecker outlined the condition
of the Reich Jews: Of the Jews from the
Reich only a small portion are capable of work. Some 70-80% are women
and children as well as elderly persons incapable of work. The mortality
rate is also climbing steadily, as a result of the extraordinarily
harsh winter In individual cases infectious Jews were separated and
executed under the pretext of being sent to a Jewish old peoples home
or hospital." Within a few months 50% of the Reich Jews sent
to Riga were dead.
According to Jeckeln,
even in late January 1942, Himmler was still uncertain about how to
kill the remaining Reich Jews in Riga. He told Jeckeln there would be further transports
arriving but that he had not yet decided in which
way they were to be destroyed to be shot in Salaspils
or to be chased off somewhere into a swamp. Jeckeln replied that shooting would be an easier and quicker death.
Consequently, in February, and in
particular on 26 March 1942, large
selections took place in both Jungfernhof
and the ghetto. Almost 3,000 people regarded as unfit for work fell
victim to these selections. Under the pretext that they would be taken
to a camp in Dünamünde (which did
not actually exist), where the working conditions in a preserved food
factory would supposedly be easier, the victims were transported to the
mass graves in the woods of Bikernieki
and executed.
Gertrude Schneider
and her family were taken to Jungfernhof,
where there were continual selections. She was present at the one
that took place on 26 March 1942. The
following day several trucks were unloaded in the ghetto: Their cargo was an assortment of personal effects of the
people who had been resettled. There were clothes that had been taken
off hurriedly by their owners still turned inside out stockings
attached to girdles and shoes encrusted with mud. The trucks also
yielded nursing bottles, childrens toys, eye-glasses, bags filled with
food, and satchels containing photographs and documents ...(As
women worked at sorting the effects) they recognized many of the
clothes, some by the names that had been sewn into them, some by the
identity cards still in their pockets, and there were of course,
dresses, coats, and suits which they had seen on their friends and
neighbours when they had left the ghetto only a few days before Soon
everyone in the ghetto knew about the cargo that the trucks had brought
and about the condition of the clothes. It did not take any great
imagination to understand what had happened to their owners. No longer
did anyone scoff at the tales of the Latvian Jews nor think that this
could happen only to `Ostjuden [eastern European Jews] and never to the
Jews from Germany. In many houses in the ghetto, `Kaddish, the Hebrew
prayer for the dead was recited. The German ghetto was plunged into
despair.
A number of discussions had occurred in Nazi
circles in late October 1941 concerning the
possible construction of an extermination camp in Riga. On 25 October, Ostministerium Jewish expert Erhard Wetzel drafted a letter for Rosenberg concerning conversations he had
had with Viktor Brack of the Führer
Chancellery and Adolf
Eichmann of the RSHA. According to Wetzel,
Brack was ready to aid in the construction of gassing
apparatuses in Riga. Brack
offered to send his chemist, Dr. Kallmeyer,
to Riga, where he would take care of everything. Eichmann
had confirmed that camps were about to be set up in Riga and Minsk to receive the Reich Jews.
Those capable of labour would be sent to the east later, but there
would be no objections if those Jews who are not
fit for work are removed by Bracks
device. Wetzel testified
that at their meeting, Brack had
told him that this was a question of a Führer
order or a mandate of the Führer. In the event, Kallmeyer did not go to Riga. Instead, in mid-December 1941, two small Diamondgas
vans and one large Saurer gas van were brought from Berlin to Riga for the use of the BdS
there. According to the deposition of an official named Trühe, head of the supply section at BdS
Riga, a total of six gas vans were eventually dispatched by the RSHA in Berlin to BdS Riga, of which at least one
or probably two were utilised in Riga itself. Dr. August
Becker, responsible for supervising the use of gas vans in
occupied Soviet territory, saw one of these vehicles in Riga in June 1942. Another eyewitness, a Jew from Riga
named Mendel Vulfovich testified:
In February 1942, I
saw with my own eyes 2,000 elderly Jews from Germany, men and women,
being loaded into special gas vans. These vans were painted grey-green
and had a large closed cargo compartment with hermetically sealed doors.
All those inside were killed by gas.
The Kommandantur
On 8 February 1942, 380 Jews from Kovno (Kaunas) were deported to Riga, to
be followed by a further 300 on 24 October.
Once again, an attempt was made to restore some semblance of normality
to life in the ghetto; a clandestine grocery and bakery was set up, a
school for the few remaining children was established and cultural
events were organized. A resistance group was also established in the
ghetto. At the beginning of 1942, the
advocate Jewelson issued a slogan
calling on the Jews to organize themselves. Small groups of fighters
were created and the members of the resistance gathered weapons and
food. Jewish women who worked as tailoresses in German factories
smuggled German uniforms into the ghetto. The resistance groups were
preparing to escape from the ghetto and to join units of Soviet
partisans. Because of treason on the part of one Gestapo provocateur,
all of the plans were discovered and monitored by the Germans. On 28 October 1942, when a large group of fighters
tried to escape from Riga, the Germans stopped their truck in the
suburbs. All of the members of the group were killed during the ensuing
battle altogether, 105 people. Because the Gestapo knew that
Jewish policemen were among the organizers of the resistance, they
decided to take their revenge mainly on them. On 31
October, all Jews from the Small Ghetto were gathered for a
selection. 108 Jews classified as unfit for work were shot. 39-40 Jewish
policemen were executed at the courtyard of the commandants house. The
entire resistance organisation had been liquidated by the Gestapo.
On 1 November 1942 the Small
Ghetto was incorporated into the German Ghetto". There was now a
single ghetto divided into two sections: Section R for Jews from the Reich
and section L for Latvian Jews. A joint ghetto council was
established and the Ordnungsdienst unified into a single body. In
the increasingly fraught atmosphere, many Jews began living at their
place of work. Gradually, the ghetto emptied of its inhabitants. In the summer of 1943, some of the Jews still living in
the ghetto were transferred to the Kaiserwald
camp or to other labour camps in the region. That November,
large-scale Aktionen were carried out in the ghetto and at the
places where Jews were employed.
As the Soviet Army advanced
towards Latvia in 1944, the Germans began Sonderkommando
1005 operations in the Riga area. In order to obliterate the
evidence of the crimes that had been committed, Jewish prisoners were
forced to exhume and cremate the corpses of victims at the killing
sites. In April 1944 more than 500 Jewish
women from Hungary were sent to Kaiserwald.
In June 1944, when Soviet forces were
already at the Latvian border, Aktionen took place in which many
Jews of Kaiserwald and its satellite
camps were killed. The remaining Jews were sent to concentration camps
outside of Latvia, chiefly to Stutthof.
It has been estimated that 15,000 prisoners were incarcerated at the Salaspils camp during its existence. Just
192 of them are known to have survived.
Not all Latvians were
collaborators or bystanders. Several dozen Jews were sheltered by Yanis Lipke in a cave he had dug under his
henhouse. In addition to providing shelter for the hidden Jews, Lipke smuggled food and medicine into the
ghetto. He also found three other men to help him save the Jews of the
nearby village of Dobele Yanis Undulis, and the brothers Fritz and Yan Rosenthal. Two of the Dobele Jews were hidden in a haystack at Yan Rosenthals farm. Several more were
hidden at a farm belonging to Fritz Rosenthals
aunt, Wilhelmina Putrinia. Lipke
was not finished. He rescued Isaak Dryzin,
his brother and another man, Sheyenson,
from the ghetto itself on Yom Kippur, 10
October 1943. Lipke took them
to the nearest doorway, tore off their yellow stars, gave them
peasants hats to put on, and drove them to the farm of another friend,
where they were hidden in barns and haystacks. He told the Dryzin brothers: Tomorrow I will go to the ghetto again and will keep
bringing people here every day. which is exactly what he
did. Lipke had witnessed a
brutal massacre of Jews on 1 December 1941
and resolved to do everything possible to save Jews from further
atrocities. He left his job as a dockworker and joined a Luftwaffe
civilian organisation so that he would be able to fetch Jews from the
ghetto to work at Luftwaffe sites in and around Riga. He then
arranged for trusted Latvian friends to fix Jewish badges to their coats
and enter the ghetto, replacing the Jews who had been spirited away. In
this way, the number of workers leaving and returning to the ghetto
tallied. The following morning the Latvians removed the badges and left
the ghetto together with other Latvian contractors. Lipke would visit labour camps in the Riga
area, providing some of the prisoners with jewellery and money that had
been left in his care by the relatives of imprisoned Jews for the
purpose of bribing guards. He devised a plan to smuggle Jews across the
Baltic to Sweden, and prepared a boat for that purpose, but the
authorities suspicions became aroused, and the idea had to be
abandoned. Lipke and members of his
family continued to rescue Jews for almost three years, from December 1941 to October 1944. In recognition of
his outstanding heroism, Lipke and
his wife Johanna were was recognized
as a Righteous Among the Nations by Yad Vashem.
The Soviet
Army liberated Riga on 13 October 1944. A
few days later 152 surviving Jews, including a few children, emerged
from their hiding places and were taken by the NKVD (precursor of the
KGB) for interrogation. The NKVD asked them only one question how had
they survived? The Russians suspected them of collaboration with the
Germans. In addition, those survivors who organized a commemorative
ceremony at the Jewish cemetery were under suspicion. Many of the
survivors were arrested and deported to Siberia. Among them were German
Jews who had survived the occupation in Riga. Under Soviet rule, for
many years the mass executions sites in Rumbula
and Bikernieki Forests were the forgotten places of the
Holocaust. Even when memorials were built, Jews from Riga could not
organize official commemorative events there.
About 600 Jews
had survived in the whole of Latvia, with a further 400 Latvian Jews
surviving in German concentration camps. In the post-war years, the
authorities encouraged citizens from other regions of the Soviet Union
to settle in Riga. Today (2005) there are
an estimated 9,000 Jewish inhabitants of the city out of a total
population of 800,000. Memorials were erected to the victims of Rumbula in 1962,
and to those of the Bikernieki Forest
in 2001. The Salaspils
Memorial Park was opened on 31 October
1967. The most recent memorial at Kaiserwald
was dedicated on 29 June 2005. Following
the collapse of the Soviet Union, Latvia regained its independence in 1991, and in 2004
became a member of both NATO and the European Union.
Trials and
Retribution:
In 1919, Herberts Cukurs was a Bolshevik
sympathizer. In independent Latvia he became famous as a pilot. Between 1924 and 1936 he designed and constructed
a number of airplanes, and in 1933-1934 he
flew from Riga to Gambia and back in one of his own planes, the C-3
(Gambia in West Africa, had been a colony of the Duke of Kurland in the
17th century). Two years later he flew from Riga to Tokyo. He also
visited Palestine, and his reports of the visit were coloured with
strong anti-Semitism. As soon as the German army entered Riga, Cukurs joined those who were shooting
Jews. At the end of 1941 he personally
participated in the shootings in Riga's Ghetto and Rumbula,
killing infants and dancing with joy by the graves. After the war Cukurs found refuge in Brazil, running a
boat and plane rental service on the Rio de
Janeiro beach, and later owned a banana plantation. On 24 February 1965, he was killed in Uruguay's
capital, Montevideo, by members of a
group called Those Who Do Not Forget. It is said that they were
agents of Mossad, the Israeli secret service.
Rosenberg was arraigned before the IMT at Nürnberg, found guilty on all counts and
executed on 16 October 1946; Lohse was arrested in 1945, sentenced to 10 years imprisonment in 1948, but released in 1951
on the grounds of ill health. He died in 1964.
Stahlecker was killed in 1942 in a battle with Soviet partisans; Sandberger was sentenced to life
imprisonment by a U.S. tribunal in 1948,
but released in 1953; Batz
committed suicide in 1961 whilst on
remand; Strauch was sentenced to
death by hanging at the Einsatzgruppen trial, extradited to
Belgium and condemned to death again. The execution was stayed because
of insanity. Lange is believed to
have been killed in the battle for Poznan
(Posen) in 1945; Jeckeln was tried in Riga, sentenced to
death on 3 February 1946 and hanged that
afternoon. Brack was a defendant in
The Medical Case at Nürnberg, was
sentenced to death by a U.S. tribunal and executed in 1948.
DDR Case Nr.1015 Crime
Category: Denunciation, Other Mass Extermination Crimes, Other NS-Crimes
Accused: Steins, Stanislavs
Life Sentence Court: LG/BG Potsdam
791001 Ob. Gericht der DDR 791207 Country where the crime was
committed: Latvia Crime Location: Riga Crime Date: 4107-4112 Victims: Civilians, Jews
Nationality: Latvian Office: Lettische Sicherheitshilfspolizei
(Latvian Auxiliary Security Police) Riga, Ordnungsdienst (Order Police)
Riga Subject of the proceeding: Denunciation of Latvian students
who had been members of the Communist Party. They were arrested and a
number of them were killed. Arrest and guarding of Jewish men who were
forced to clear the war damage during the early days of July 1941. Arrest of Jewish business owners.
Arrest and shooting of communist officials and activists in the Bikernieki Forest near Riga. Participation
in the killing of altogether 1,000 Jewish inmates of the Riga prison in
the course of 10 execution operations by securing the transports to the
execution sites and as member of several execution squads.
Participation in the liquidation of the Riga Ghetto - in the course of
which 27,000 Jews were shot - by leading the victims to the execution
site in the Rumbula Forest. Shooting
of ten Jews who had collapsed during the march from the ghetto to the
execution site. BRD (Western Germany) Case Nr.307 Crime
Category: NS-Crimes in Detainment Centers Accused: Migge, Kurt Richard Rudolf life sentence R., Rudolf Wilhelm Erich Acquittal Seck, Rudolf Joachim life sentence T., Otto Heinrich 1 Year 8 Months
Court: LG Hamburg 511229
Country where the crime was committed: Latvia Crime Location: Riga,
HS AEL Salaspils, HS KL Olai, HS KL Schlock,
HS KL Gut Jungfernhof (Jumpravas Muiza) Crime Date: 42-43 Victims: Jews Nationality:
German, Latvian, unknown Office: Polizei Sipo Riga,
Haftstättenpersonal AEL Salaspils,
Haftstättenpersonal KL Gut Jungfernhof
Subject of the proceeding: Selection and transportation of Jews from
the Riga Ghetto to the nearby woods, where they were subsequently shot.
Shooting of 40 Jewish-Latvian order policemen in the Riga Ghetto after
the discovery of a hidden weapons depot. Mishandling and shooting of
members from the Jewish labour commandos from the Riga Ghetto and of
Jewish prisoners from AEL Salaspils.
Shooting of prisoners from the labour commando Olai,
of KL Gut Jungfernhof, as well as
of KL Schlock. Selection of about
3,500 Jewish prisoners of KL Gut Jungfernhof
(prisoners unfit for work and ill prisoners, as well as mothers with
children) within the context of the extermination action 'Dünamünde' Case Nr. 701 Crime
Category: Other Mass Extermination Crimes Accused: Helfsgott, Walter Ernst Acquittal Kir., Fritz Karl Acquittal Soh., Hans Friedrich 4 Years Zie., Fritz Otto Karl 2 1/2 Years
Court: LG Stuttgart 690313
BGH 710817 Country where the crime was committed: Latvia, CIS
Crime Location: Kiev (Babi-Yar ravine), Uman,
Kamenez-Podolsk, Nikolajew, Zamocz, Belaja Zerkow, Woskresenskoje, Riga
Crime Date: 44 Victims: Jews,
prisoners Nationality: Soviet, unknown Office: Sonderkommando
1005A, Sonderkommando 1005B Subject of the proceeding: Shooting of
- mostly Jewish - prisoners put to work on the exhumation sites of the
mass graves at the Babi-Yar ravine near Kiev,
at Uman, Kamenez-Podolsk, Nikolajew, Zamocz, Belaja-Zerkow,
Woskresenskoje and in and around Riga Verfahren
Lfd.Nr.789 Tatkomplex: Andere Massenvernichtungsverbrechen
Angeklagte: Die., Emil von
Strafe abgesehen (§47 MStGB) Jah.,
Friedrich Urteil vom BGH aufgehoben, dann verhandlungsunfähig
Neu., Max von Strafe abgesehen
(§47 MStGB) Tuchel, Otto
lebenslänglich Gerichtsentscheidungen: LG Hamburg 730223 BGH 740709
Tatland: Lettland Tatort: Riga Tatzeit: 4112
Opfer: Juden Nationalität: Lettische Dienststelle: Polizei
Pol.Btl.21 Verfahrensgegenstand: Liquidierung des Rigaer Ghettos.
Erschießung von mindestens 25,000 lettischen Juden im Wald von Rumbuli Verfahren Lfd.Nr.820
Tatkomplex: Massenvernichtungsverbrechen durch Einsatzgruppen
Angeklagte: Bes., Arno von
Strafe abgesehen (§47 MStGB) Trü., Heinz
Georg Theodor Freispruch Gerichtsentscheidungen: LG
Hamburg 750311 Tatland:
Lettland Tatort: Riga Tatzeit: 4107
Opfer: Juden, Zivilisten Nationalität: Lettische
Dienststelle: Einsatzgruppen EK2 Verfahrensgegenstand:
Erschießungen von jüdischen und nicht-jüdischen Letten durch das EK 2,
sowie durch Letten unter Beteiligung des EK 2 Verfahren Lfd.Nr.843
Tatkomplex: Massenvernichtungsverbrechen durch Einsatzgruppen
Angeklagte: May., Gerhard Kurt 4
Jahre Gerichtsentscheidungen: LG Hamburg
770802 Tatland: Lettland Tatort: HS KL
Gut Jungfernhof (Jumpravas Muiza), HS AEL Salaspils, Riga
Tatzeit: 420102, 420130, 420205, 4203
Opfer: Juden Nationalität: Deutsche, Lettische, Österreichische,
unbekannt Dienststelle: Einsatzgruppen EG A, Polizei Sipo Riga
Verfahrensgegenstand: Selektion von Wiener
und Berliner Juden im Rigaer
Ghetto, die anschliessend in der Nähe Rigas erschossen wurden.
Massenerschießung von mindestens 2,000 arbeitsunfähigen Juden in Riga
und von mindestens 4,000 arbeitsunfähigen Juden auf dem Gut Jungfernhof. Einzelerschießung von
Juden im AEL Salaspils wegen
mangelnder Arbeitsleistung oder nach einem Fluchtversuch Verfahren
Lfd.Nr.856 Tatkomplex: Andere Massenvernichtungsverbrechen
Angeklagte: Arajs, Viktor Bernhard
lebenslänglich Gerichtsentscheidungen: LG Hamburg 791221 Tatland: Lettland
Tatort: Riga Tatzeit: 411208
Opfer: Juden Nationalität: Lettische Dienststelle: Polizei
Lettische Hilfspolizei Riga ('Kommando Arajs')
Verfahrensgegenstand: Massenerschießung der im Großen Ghetto von Riga
lebenden Juden im Wald von Rumbula
Verfahren Lfd.Nr.883 Tatkomplex: Massenvernichtungsverbrechen
durch Einsatzgruppen Angeklagte: Tol.,
Karl 3 1/2 Jahre Gerichtsentscheidungen
We snuisteren weer eventjes rond bij de
slimme-meter-lobbyisten. Ze hebben een leuk vriendenclubje Esmig dat erg
nauwe banden onderhoudt met de Europese Commissie. Zo nauw dat ze
eigenlijk, voor zover wij het kunnen zien bijna het ganse
beslissingsproces rond de slimme meters netjes kunnen "sturen".
Duidelijker uitgedrukt betekent dit dat er( in feite weinig democratisch
beslist wordt in het belang van de burger-consument. Alleen het belang
van de betrokken firma's telt of wat men dus een lobbygroep noemt...
ESMIG completes its 2010 General Assembly by
welcoming 12 new members
25 June 2010 Brussels The European
Smart Metering Industry Group (ESMIG) held its annual General Assembly
this week in Brussels welcoming twelve new member companies.Since its
founding two years ago with 5 members, ESMIG has rapidly grown over
six-fold in membership. This growth not only reflects the increasing
importance of smart metering, but also the recognition of ESMIG as the
voice of the smart metering industry in Europe. Andreas Umbach, who
was recently re-elected President of the group, says ESMIGs growth in
the last couple of years has been nothing short of tremendous. This
increase with such premier companies reflects not only the importance of
smart metering generally, but is also the result of the excellent work
being done by the ESMIG secretariat and the associations members.
ESMIG was formed in 2008 with a core membership covering the emerging
smart metering industry in Europe. Membership has now expanded to 32 and
covers the majority of manufacturers of electricity, gas, water and
heat metering equipment in Europe. Other members cover Wide Area, Local
Area and Home Area Networks for metering systems and member related
interests in system integration, smart grids and smart housing. As the
voice of the industry, ESMIG covers the entire smart metering value
chain. As of 1 July 2010 the following companies are ESMIG members:
ABB, Accenture, Cinterion Wireless Modules, Diehl Metering, Echelon,
Elgama-Elektronika, Elster, EMH, EnergyICT, Görlitz, Hager, IBM,
Iskraemeco, Itron, Janz, Kamstrup, Landis+Gyr, Navetas, Oracle, Prolan,
Sagemcom, SAP, Secure Meters, Sensus, Siemens, Sierra Wireless, Sigma
Telas, StreamServe, Telit Wireless Solutions, Toshiba TRL, Vodafone and
ZIV. In line with the increase in its membership, ESMIGs
involvement in European standardisation and policy discussions has also expanded. The
industry group is actively involved in the European
smart metering standardisation mandate, M/441, where it is chairing the
Smart Metering Coordination Groups ad-hoc working group on
communications. Furthermore, ESMIG is represented in all groups of
the European Commissions Smart Grids Task Force and there chairs the
data security and protection expert group. ESMIG also has a
number of association and cooperation agreements throughout the industry
with partners such as CEN, CENELEC, DLMS, ETSI, KNX, OPEN meter and
ZigBee Alliance. ESMIG membership is open to any supplier of smart
metering or advanced metering goods and services to utilities in the
European Union.
About ESMIG The European Smart Metering Industry Group
(ESMIG) is the European industry association that provides knowledge and
expertise on Smart Metering and related communications at a European
level. ESMIG's members are the leading companies in the European Smart
Metering Market: meter manufacturers, IT companies and system
integrators. ESMIG covers all aspects of Smart Metering, including
electricity, gas, water and heat measurement. Member companies cover the
entire value chain from meter manufacturing, software, installation and
consulting to communications and system integration. By giving support
to European Union Institutions, Member States and Standardisation
Organisations, the industry group aims to assist in the development of
national and European-wide introduction, roll-out and management of
Smart Metering solutions.
Recently ESMIG has been recognised
as an Official Partner of the Sustainable Energy Europe Campaign: www.sustenergy.org
We lezen
ook een artikel over de slimme meters in Engeland en de winsten die
ermee kunnen gerealiseerd worden...natuurlijk zal
het ook allemaal erg meevallen voor de consument... maar vergeten we
toch niet dat de auteurs van dit leuke stukje peptalk deel uitmaken van
ESMIG vermits het hier een "samenwerking betreft met IBM... (http://www.esmig.eu/all-members)
Does
the business case for smart metering stack up?
Written
by: Will Siddall | 18 June 2010
Uplifting: £17 billion benefits vs £9 billion cost
International
comparisons and research back up government figures suggesting the
benefits of smart meters far outweigh their costs, says Will Siddall.
In
the next decade every home and small business in Britain will have
smart gas and electricity meters installed. The plan is the result of a
business case produced by the Department of Energy and Climate Change
(Decc) which forecasts that over the next 20 years the project will cost
in excess of £9 billion, and deliver benefits of more than £17 billion.
This
seems to be exactly the kind of investment Britain needs right now - an
economically advantageous long-term investment in critical
infrastructure, helping the country move to a more sustainable
low-carbon future. But is the business case convincing enough? Are the
proposed costs and benefits consistent with experiences elsewhere in the
world? Who should foot the up-front bill? And is it possible to make
the business case for smart metering even more compelling?
£9.2bn
official cost estimate
It is widely accepted that installing
smart meters will be expensive. Government estimates are that this will
cost £9.2 billion over the next 20 years, and two-thirds of this relates
to the very visible components of the deployment - the purchasing and
installation of meters and communications infrastructure. The remainder
covers new operating costs, the cost of the change programme, and
inefficiencies from operating smart and traditional meters in parallel
during deployment.
To consider whether these estimates are
reasonable, Britain can draw on the experiences of other markets, where
millions of smart meters have been or are currently being installed. IBM's analysis of 27 smart metering projects in
North America shows that the up-front costs for deployments delivering a
similar scope to that proposed for Britain range from £102 to £242 per
meter. This covers the purchase and installation of the meter and
communication assets, IT changes and project management. The estimate
for Britain is £139 per meter.
This appears sensible. Britain has
complexities such as indoor metering, which will increase costs, but
also opportunities to be more efficient - such as deploying smart gas
and electricity meters simultaneously. Britain should also reap the
benefits of expected decreases in smart meter component costs, which IBM analysis shows as falling by 5-10 per cent each
year.
Detailed cost assumptions robust
In a similar
manner it is possible to compare the detailed cost assumptions made. For
example, Decc has assumed a purchase cost of £56 per smart gas meter.
This is a conservative estimate compared with the £43 per meter Italy
has assumed for its planned deployment of smart gas meters with similar
functionality, due to commence in 2012. Further comparisons reveal
similar answers - Decc's assumptions appear robust, with a slight
overall tendency towards being conservative.
These analyses show
that both the overall and detailed cost estimates for Britain appear
reasonable and are consistent with other global deployments. Therefore
the key question should no longer be, "are the cost estimates correct?"
but instead, "are there sufficient benefits to justify the cost?"
£17.4bn
official benefits estimate
The government has identified
£17.4 billion of expected benefits from smart metering over the coming
two decades, the lion's share of which comes from operational efficiency
improvements for suppliers, consumer energy reductions, and carbon
savings. Smart meters enable consumption to be read remotely and
with much greater accuracy.
For suppliers this should mean
reduced manual meter reading costs, and reduced costs associated with
having fewer estimated and inaccurate bills. It should also no longer
ever be necessary to replace the meter when a customer changes supplier
or moves on to a prepayment tariff.
Hard efficiency benefits such
as these are estimated at more than £5 billion. Experience from
elsewhere is that these benefits are achievable. Enel in Italy has
publicly stated that it has seen a "dramatic reduction in cash-cost per
customer", with operational savings of 49 per customer per year - more
than four times the forecast British savings.
Will consumer
behaviour change?
Integral to the smart metering benefits case
is the premise that providing customers with more accurate and timely
information will result in behaviour change: consumers using less energy
and shifting consumption to times when power is cheaper and greener.
This should help save money in the short term and reduce the level of
generation and network asset investment required in the future. The
British business case assumes a reduction in domestic energy consumption
of 2.8 per cent. This is consistent, even slightly conservative, when
compared with publicly available data such as analysis by the US Pacific
North West National Laboratory (PNNL). This estimates a 6 per cent
reduction.
There is, however, a question mark about the longevity
of changes in consumer behaviour, so provision of better information
must be seen as a first step. To ensure that the full potential benefits
are realised, effective consumer incentivisation through
cost-reflective tariffs and smart devices which consume energy in a more
intelligent way are necessary future steps.
When such changes
are put in place, the benefits can increase significantly. A pilot
project run by PNNL integrating smart meters
with smart devices and smart grids delivered reductions of 15 per cent
in peak power demand and 10 per cent in consumer energy bills.
Benefits
achievable
So it would seem that the expected benefits are
achievable; conservative when compared with other deployments; and
sufficient to justify the costs of introducing smart metering in
Britain.
Perhaps the subject that has attracted the most column
inches is who should pay for smart metering. Really, this is not the
right question, because while the benefits to energy suppliers will
cover some costs, ultimately most costs will be borne by the consumer.
The right questions to ask are: who should finance the programme, and
how and when should any costs not paid for by supplier benefits be
passed on to consumers?
Cost recovery from customers
Again,
this is an area where Britain can learn from other markets, such as
Ontario. Here, the regulator considered three payment options - general
taxation, up-front consumer payment, and financing with tariff-based
recovery from consumers. They chose a tariff recovery model. For
Britain, payment through taxation is inconsistent with a competitive
utilities market, and asking consumers for up-front payment would be
unpalatable and hard to enforce. It is therefore reasonable to assume a
similar solution in Britain - industry paying the bill with recovery
over time from consumers.
Nine billion pounds is a hefty bill for
industry to foot, especially at a time of huge investment in areas such
as nuclear power and renewables. This raises the likelihood of new
investors being required. Attracting this investment should be
achievable, but key to attracting finance at reasonable rates will be
ensuring that the investment is seen as low risk. This will require a
clear long-term industry plan, a stable and agreed functional
specification, commercial meter interoperability and regulatory
stability.
Of course, even a great business case does not always
translate into a successful project that enables the benefits originally
envisaged. Success is dependent on recognising and acting now in key
areas to minimise cost and risk, and maximise benefits.
Timing
One
of the most significant assumptions made is the timing of deployment.
Any delay to the expected 2013 start date will significantly reduce the
benefits achieved. This requires an efficient and effective change
programme with a strong central industry design function. Actions can
also be taken to accelerate the deployment start date - for example,
defining the meter specification now.
Once rollout has commenced,
targets must be set that ensure suppliers do not delay deployment.
Furthermore, Britain should be more aggressive in its deployment
timescales. IBM analysis of 48 global
deployments shows a typical duration of four to six years, and that
additional net benefits of more than £1 billion could be achieved if the
British deployment was delivered in five years, not eight as proposed.
Achieving this would require delivery excellence from suppliers, and
appropriate incentives (and penalties) for them to install in those
timeframes - but again, this is nothing that has not already been
achieved elsewhere.
Consumer engagement
Imperative to
efficient deployment and achieving enduring energy and carbon savings
is effective consumer engagement. Government rightly identifies the
value of consumer awareness campaigns and real-time energy displays in
achieving this, but more is needed. Crucially, there must be greater
awareness of the differences in behaviour among consumers. For example, IBM research shows that 27 per cent of consumers
say that neither money nor environmental concerns will make them change
their consumption of energy. Would installing a real-time energy display
in these customers' homes deliver any benefit? Conversely, 22 per cent
of consumers want to take actions to change their energy usage, but are
constrained by their available income. Should smart meter deployment
target these customers first?
If energy retailers in Britain are
to see engagement with all consumer segments, they will need a range of
approaches, from providing real-time consumption information to those
who want to become engaged, to embedding energy management intelligence
in the consumer goods of those who have neither the time nor inclination
to change their consumption behaviour.
Finally, the opportunity
for smart metering to act as a catalyst for improvements in the
structure and processes of the utilities industry must not be
overlooked. Changes such as harmonising gas and electricity processes
and data flows, improving the time it takes for a customer to change
supplier, and ensuring infrastructure is able to support future smart
water meters, are all changes that should be recognised now, even if
they are delivered in a later phase of work.
So, does this
business case for smart metering stack up? The answer has to be yes. The
responsibility on government and the utilities industry now is to
deliver, and deliver quickly.
Will Siddall is advanced analytics
& optimisation leader, energy & utilities industry, IBM Global Business Services
This is the
fourth in a series of articles on smart metering, brought to you in
association with IBM. For earlier articles in
the series, see
We zullen dat hier niet tot op het bot
analyseren maar er vallen toch onmiddellijk een aantal zaken op:
Iemand
iets gelezen over de diversificatie aan consumentenzijde en
bijvoorbeeld de impact op de laagste inkomens????? Zal hen doodgewoon
worst wezen...
opvallend zijn de weinig onderbouwde argumenten
over zogenaamde "conservatieve schattingen". Een klein voorbeeldje:
"The
British business case assumes a reduction in domestic energy
consumption of 2.8 per cent. This is consistent, even slightly
conservative, when compared with publicly available data such as
analysis by the US Pacific North West National Laboratory (PNNL). This
estimates a 6 per cent reduction."
In deze twee zinnetjes staan
dus twee flutargumenten. Het eerste is een geschatte vermindering van
het huishoudelijk verbruik van 2,8%. Dat is zo een leuk cijfer dat
iedereen dat gelooft maar men vergeet er bij te zeggen dat het
huishoudelijk verbruik in België bijvoorbeeld slechts 30% van het totaal
verbruik vertegenwoordigt. Dat verandert al vlug het plaatje want dan
komen we uit op een reële vermindering van 30% van 2,8 en dus nog niet
eens 1% met een totaal kostenplaatje van 9 miljard pond....wat voor dit
onderdeel dus een ridicule businesscase is als je het vanuit het
standpunt van de consument bekijkt en vanuit de reductie van de
CO2-uitstoot... Maar er is hoop want ze gaan dan maar meteen
vergelijken met Amerikaanse toestanden. Dat is best mogelijk maar we
hadden dan graag geweten over welke streek het ginder dan wel gaat.
Kwestie van wat te kunnen ischatten in welke klimaatzone we daar zitten
want dat wil daar wel eens schommelen wat niet onbelangrijk is voor het
gemiddeld energieverbuik van de gezinnen. Je kan wel denken dat daar
waar bijna het ganse jaar de airco's draaien je met veel hogere
gemiddelden werkt dan elders of dan in Engeland. Onze Engelse buren
staan niet meteen bekend voor hun gloeiend hete zomers... Dus een
vermindering van 6% realiseren op een gemiddeld jaarverbruik van
bijvoorbeeld 15.000kW lijkt ons iets of wat eenvoudiger dan op
bijvoorbeeld 3000kW...
Voilà om jullie maar meteen duidelijk te
maken dat je dergelijke brainwash-artikels dus maar best met een ganse
kom zout neemt.... Maar ondertussen verhoogt deze lobbygroep maar de
druk met dergelijke pseudo-wetenschappelijke praatjes op de politici en
op de brave burger die echt wel iets wil doen aan de opwarming van deze
kluit. Hij zal wellicht weer eens getild worden door de haaien van deze
wereld!
We kunnen het ons niet laten toch een commentaartje te geven op de
fameuze G20. In plaats van het zelf uit ons duimpje te zuigen geven we
liever het woord aan, Naomi Klein in de Huffington Post. Ze zegt veel
kernachtiger wat wij denken....
Award-winning journalist and
author of The Shock Doctrine
Posted:
June 28, 2010 11:58 AM
My city feels like
a crime scene, and the criminals are all melting into the night,
fleeing the scene. No, I'm not talking about the kids in black who
smashed windows and burned cop cars on Saturday.
I'm talking about
the heads of state who, on Sunday night, smashed social safety nets and
burned good jobs in the middle of a recession. Faced with the effects
of a crisis created by the world's wealthiest and most privileged
strata, they decided to stick the poorest and most vulnerable people in
their countries with the bill.
How else can we interpret the G20's
final communique, which includes not even a measly tax on banks or
financial transactions, yet instructs governments to slash their
deficits in half by 2013. This is a huge and shocking cut, and we should
be very clear who will pay the price: students who will see their
public educations further deteriorate as their fees go up; pensioners
who will lose hard earned benefits; public sector workers whose jobs
will be eliminated. And the list goes on. These types of cuts have
already begun in many G20 countries including Canada, and they are about
to get a lot worse. For instance, reducing the projected 2010 deficit
in the U.S. by half, in the absence of a sizeable tax increase, would
mean a whopping $780-billion cut.
They are happening for a simple
reason. When the G20 met in London in 2009, at the height of the
financial crisis, the leaders failed to band together to regulate the
financial sector so that this type of crisis would never happen again.
All we got was empty rhetoric, and an agreement to put trillions of
dollars in public monies on the table to shore up the banks around the
world. Meanwhile, the U.S. government did little to keep people in their
homes and jobs, so in addition to hemorrhaging public money to save the
banks, the tax base collapsed, creating an entirely predictable debt
and deficit crisis.
At this weekend's summit, Prime Minister
Stephen Harper convinced his fellow leaders that it simply wouldn't be
fair to punish those banks that behaved well and did not create the
crisis (despite the fact that Canada's highly protected banks are
consistently profitable and could easily absorb a tax). Yet, somehow,
these leaders had no such concerns about fairness when they decided to
punish blameless individuals for a crisis created by derivative traders
and absentee regulators.
Last week, the Globe and Mail ran a
fascinating article about the origins of the G20.
It turns out the entire concept was conceived in a meeting back in 1999
between then Finance Minister Paul Martin and his U.S. counterpart
Lawrence Summers (itself interesting since Summers was, at that time
playing a central role in creating the conditions for this financial
crisis, allowing a wave of bank consolidation and refusing to regulate
derivatives).
The two men wanted to expand the G7, but only to
countries they considered strategic and safe. They needed to make a list
but apparently they didn't have paper handy. So, according to reporters
John Ibbitson and Tara Perkins, "the two men grabbed a brown manila
envelope, put it on the table between them, and began sketching the
framework of a new world order." Thus was born the G20.
The story
is a good reminder that history is shaped by human decisions, not
natural laws. Summers and Martin changed the world with the decisions
they scrawled on the back on that envelope. But there is nothing to say
that citizens of G20 countries need to take orders from this handpicked
club.
Already, workers, pensioners and students have taken to the
streets against austerity measures in Italy, Germany, France, Spain and
Greece, often marching under the slogan "We won't pay for your crisis."
And they have plenty of suggestions for how to raise revenues to meet
their respective budget shortfalls.
Many are calling for a
financial transaction tax that would slow down hot money and raise new
money for social programs and climate change. Others are calling for
steep taxes on polluters that would underwrite the cost of dealing with
the effects of climate change and moving away from fossil fuels. And
ending losing wars is always a good cost saver.
The G20 is an
ad-hoc institution with none of the legitimacy of the United Nations.
Since it just tried to stick us with a huge bill for a crisis most of us
had no hand in creating, I say we take a cue from Martin and Summers.
Flip it over, and write on the back of the envelope: Return to sender.