Quantcast

Jewish Journal

ADVERTISEMENT
PUT YOUR AD HERE

Rudolph Kastner gets a new trial

by Jonah Lowenfeld

April 26, 2011 | 5:49 pm

Rudolph Kastner

Rudolph Kastner

Leave it to the artists and attorneys at Temple Israel of Hollywood (TIOH) to mark Holocaust Remembrance Day by introducing — or reintroducing — a man once considered to have been a Jewish antihero of World War II.

On the afternoon of May 1, instead of hosting a speaker or screening a film or hosting any of the other programs that usually commemorate Yom HaShoah, Temple Israel’s newly established arts council has invited community members to join the jury at a mock trial that will reconsider the fate of Rudolph Kastner, a Hungarian who helped Jews escape the Nazis but was later accused of being a Nazi collaborator.

The trial will feature a cast of characters played by accomplished actors from television and film, all but one of whom are also members of the synagogue, as well as Los Angeles City Attorney Carmen Trutanich and attorney Bert H. Deixler. Congregant Leslie A. Swain, a judge from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, will preside over the proceedings. Alan Rosenberg, the only non–synagogue member in the cast and a former president of the Screen Actors Guild, will play Kastner.

The synagogue expects a full house for the event, which is being held in a room that seats 450.

Though Kastner is little known today, in Israel in the 1950s he was the object of very public condemnation. In 1955, an Israeli judge declared that he had “sold his soul to the devil.” Two years later, Kastner was assassinated.

Stranger still, Kastner — who will stand accused of treason at TIOH — first became the object of scrutiny and criticism because of actions he took during World War II that might have been, under other circumstances, worthy of praise: Kastner helped a trainload of Jews escape from Nazi-occupied Hungary.

“Between April of 1944 and January of 1945, 480,000 Hungarian Jews were exterminated” by the Nazis and their Hungarian collaborators, said Danny Maseng, the cantor at Temple Israel and one of the driving forces behind “The People vs. Kastner.” Maseng described the Holocaust in Hungary as having been fundamentally different from the genocide of European Jewry in other countries — in no small measure due to the rapidity with which Hungarian Jews were deported to Auschwitz and other Nazi death camps.

In this context, on June 30, 1944, Kastner managed to get 1,685 Jews on a train heading in a different direction, bound for the neutral haven of Switzerland.

Although collectively, Kastner’s Jews outnumber even those saved by Oskar Schindler, because the passengers on the train were hand-picked by Kastner, because they included many members of his family, because he negotiated for their lives directly with Adolf Eichmann of the SS, and because he did not sound the alarm about the genocidal fate that the Jews of Hungary were then already meeting — for these and other reasons, Kastner was publicly vilified in Israel after the war.

To say that the story is complicated — morally as well as politically — would be an understatement. “I remember thinking to myself, ‘God, is Kastner a good guy or a bad guy?’ ” Doug Segal, the director of “The People vs. Kastner,” said. Like all but one of the people who came to be involved in the project, Segal, who has directed for TV and for the temple’s day school’s stage, had never heard of Kastner before the project was proposed.

The “good guy or bad guy” question that Segal faced is the very fundamental one first proposed by writer Jonathan Maseng — son of cantor Danny Maseng — who initially suggested that the Kastner case might make for an interesting mock trial. It is also the question that Jonathan Maseng hopes the show’s audience-cum-jury will struggle with.

“What we’re trying to get people to do is put themselves in his position,” Jonathan Maseng said.

An aspiring screenwriter, Jonathan Maseng, 26, works as a religious schoolteacher at Temple Israel and as a legal assistant, and regularly contributes articles to The Jewish Journal. He first came across the Kastner story by chance while reading about the early history of the State of Israel. When he mentioned it to his 60-year-old father, a native of Tel Aviv, Danny Maseng immediately remembered the case.

“I remember my parents telling me that it was a dark time in the history of our country,” Danny Maseng said, remembering the day Kastner was assassinated. He was 7 years old. Kastner was gunned down just four blocks from his grandparents’ home.

It was only recently that this controversial story began to attract attention in the United States outside academia. The acclaimed documentary “Killing Kasztner: The Jew Who Dealt With Nazis” had theatrical runs in Los Angeles and New York last year. NPR and Los Angeles Times film critic Kenneth Turan called the film one of the 10 best documentaries of 2010.

The film’s maker, Gaylen Ross, believes “Killing Kasztner” is part of a wider effort to explain the political context in Israel that led to Kastner’s condemnation and assassination. “It started to happen in Israel over decades, little by little,” Ross said. Two Kastner plays were produced in the early 1980s on Israeli stages, and an Israeli television series followed in the 1990s. All this is slowly rehabilitating Kastner’s reputation and is assuaging the guilt felt by those Jews he saved from certain death. In Israel, during the years immediately following the war, Ross said, Kastner’s Jews had been made to feel that their salvation had come at the cost of the lives of the rest of Hungarian Jewry.

For that reason, Ross said she is outraged at the idea of putting Kastner on trial again at the synagogue. “Using the political arguments from 1954 to retry a man who was a victim of a murder is insensitive at best and outrageous at worst,” she said in a recent interview.

Ross said she offered the synagogue the chance to screen her film on Yom HaShoah in lieu of the mock trial. It will be screened at the Jewish Community Center in Washington, D.C., this year and was shown on Holocaust Remembrance Day at Yad Vashem in 2009.

“People didn’t argue it,” Ross said of the 2009 screening in Jerusalem. “They didn’t have a trial. There was a new understanding in Israel; there was a new understanding of the scholarship in Israel — and this is happening in America.”

Danny Maseng believes it is important to teach people about Kastner, but that it is even more important to get people to care about his story in the first place. “The Holocaust has been relegated to a heavy region — or worse — for a younger generation,” he said. “It has become history in the worst sense of the word — something dry, something not immediate, something that doesn’t have any relevance to my life today.”

As for Ross, Danny Maseng said she was misinformed about what the event would entail. “She does not know what we’re doing nor does she know how we’re doing it, nor does she appreciate the fact that we’ve done months of preparation and research,” he said.

He also said he’d be happy to screen “Killing Kasztner” after the mock trial.

Ross, for her part, remains unconvinced. “It’s a kangaroo court,” she said, “and it’s very upsetting.”

Nevertheless, Ross is having an indirect impact on the TIOH project. At least one of the actors, Bob Odenkirk, who can be seen on the AMC television series “Breaking Bad,” said that he had seen “Killing Kasztner” and that it would help inform his performance.

At TIOH, Odenkirk will take the witness stand as Malchiel Gruenwald, the amateur journalist who, in 1953, set into motion the events that would result in Kastner’s assassination, when he published a pamphlet accusing Kastner of being a Nazi collaborator.

Because Kastner held a position as an Israeli government spokesman, the government, which was then led by David Ben-Gurion’s left-wing Mapai party, took up his defense and sued Gruenwald for libel. After a two-year trial, the judge not only acquitted Gruenwald, he effectively turned Kastner into the defendant and excoriated him for having dealt with Eichmann.

Today, with the benefit of distance and additional historical scholarship, Kastner no longer seems to Odenkirk and others like the man who “sold his soul to the devil.”

“From our point of view, and from a distance, it’s kind of easy to say he was a hero,” Odenkirk said. “He negotiated and saved 1,600 Jews, so what’s the fight? Why does anybody have anything against him?”

Odenkirk, whose two children attend Temple Israel’s day school and who was recruited to join “The People vs. Kastner” by one of the synagogue’s rabbis, said that looking closer at the materials that he was using to prepare for his role helped him to better understand where Gruenwald and others were coming from.

“For somebody like Gruenwald, whose family died, pretty much all of them,” Odenkirk said, Kastner “just looks like this guy who hung out with Nazis and saved not too many people — and mostly saved people he knew.”

Although all the actors have been given materials to keep their performances in “The People vs. Kastner” fact-based, the actual performance of the mock trial will be improvised. Odenkirk, who got his start in sketch comedy, has a great deal of experience with improv. “I’m not going to be making facts up,” he said. “What I have to do, and what everyone has to do, is present your character, what they care about, their emotional state and their argument.”

Ross’ documentary, Odenkirk said, “lets you into people’s very conflicted feelings about their own government at the time in Israel and Ben-Gurion, feeling that he was more of compromiser than they wanted him to be.”

But, in playing a witness, Odenkirk said his job was to make the jury’s decision as difficult as possible.

“I’m just worried about playing Gruenwald,” Odenkirk said of his character who, more than half a century ago, accused Kastner of having betrayed the Jews of Hungary.

“My goal is to have everyone who hears me agree with me when I’m done — or, at the very least, understand how I can feel that way.”

For more information, visit tioh.org; for reservations, e-mail .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address), or call (323) 876-8330 ext. 1007.

Tracker Pixel for Entry

COMMENTS

We welcome your feedback.

Privacy Policy
Your information will not be shared or sold without your consent. Get all the details.

Terms of Service
JewishJournal.com has rules for its commenting community.Get all the details.

Publication
JewishJournal.com reserves the right to use your comment in our weekly print publication.

The article is misleading and the mock trial is bogus. Kastner was not a defendant and never had a trial. It says that over halfway into the article but it contradicts everything before it and doesn’t compute.

This is like the English case where Deborah Lipstadt wrote that David Irving was a Holocaust denier; Irving sued Lipstadt for libel. The case ended up proving that Irving was in fact a Holocaust denier and the libel charge was effectively dismissed.

Why not just hold a mock trial that recreates the actual case, and try to factually re-prove that Gruenwald libeled Kastner, and forget about understanding Gruenwald’s feelings and Israel’s conflicted feelings etc.?

Comment by Ben Plonie on 4/27/11 at 7:45 am


Ben, maybe you should read the article again.  The only person in the article who claims Kastner was a defendant was Gaylen Ross—not the author and not the people doing the trial.  The writer says the judge “effectively turned Kastner into the defendant,” which is true. Your analysis is the only bogus thing here.

Comment by Some Sanity on 4/27/11 at 11:27 pm


Some Sanity
You re-read it, and then recheck your sanity. What the hell is wrong with people who have to make everything personal?

The original trial was the government prosecuting Gruenwald for libel. While Kastner’s reputation was being defended, Gruenwald was a civilian. If people don’t like the conduct or the outcome of that case and want to reconsider it, let them recreate the issues, evidenc and trial more rigorously. I don’t say don’t hold a mock trial. I say do the first one right. Maybe Kastner will be a hero now, but don’t shift the focus and obscure the issues in either the trial or the story.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 4/28/11 at 7:28 am


Instead, before we learn about Ross in the story:
- The headline says ‘Kastner gets a new trial’
- The story states ‘Kastner… will stand accused of treason at TIOH’
- the mock trial is named ‘The People vs. Kastner’.
- Odenkirk’s performance will be ‘informed by’ KIlling Kastner.
- finally we get the facts, ‘effectively’ etc. but they are incidental.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 4/28/11 at 7:28 am


Ben—the first trial was a circus.  Why would anyone want to recreate it?  I think people like making things personal because that actually gives them a reason to care.  What a crazy concept!  I think you just enjoy criticizing others instead of doing something productive yourself.  I’ve seen your comments on other stories here, you just criticize criticize criticize.  Get a life.

Comment by Some Sanity on 4/28/11 at 4:01 pm


I think we can fruitfully compare my comments and yours on the Criticism-O-Meter an see who loses. I certainly didn’t provoke you and you demeaned my post. You are still offensive. My life was complete without you in it.

I don’t see how to express this more clearly and simply. If the first trial was a circus, recreate it not as a circus. It’s a mock trial; verify the evidence, disallow whatever should be disallowed. Given the facts of the trial; Kastner’s actions, Gruenwald’s pamphlet and the government’s lawsuit, were the Gruenwald’s accusations true or not? Did Gruenwald libel Kastner or not? We are well past the times, the feelings, the politics etc. Show us the money.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 4/28/11 at 4:28 pm


continued
Everything we think about this event hinges on that. Making a different trial on a different basis is the same as changing the subject. Injecting interpretations is worse.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 4/28/11 at 4:28 pm


I think it’s safe to say that focusing on whether Gruenwald libeled Kastner or not, is really asking whether Kastner was a traitor or not.  If Gruenwald did libel Kastner, then Kastner was innocent.  But if Gruenwald told the truth, then Kastner was a traitor to the Jewish people.  The central question remains—was Kastner a traitor and a collaborator?  It makes perfect sense to me to shift the focus to the man himself.  No one cares about Gruenwald.

Comment by Some Sanity on 5/01/11 at 2:09 am


You were doing okay until “The central question”. The actual central question remains - Was the original trial tainted? Did the judge act improperly? Did the political climate and all that affect the conduct and the result? What needs a new trial is the old trial, not Kastner.

Furthermore, if no one cares about Gruenwald, than why is he being portrayed in the mock trial at all? To mix in his feelings and not his facts, that’s why. It’s much easier to shade feelings which are understood to be irrational rather than facts.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 5/01/11 at 6:42 am


The ‘shift the focus’ of the trial mixes in irrelevancies. Kastner’s alleged treason was not in saving certain Jews or negotiating with the Nazis who after all were the only game in town at the time. It lay in selling his silence to the Nazis and covering up the fate of the Hungarian Jews for his personal family and buddies.

Rabbi Michael Dov Weissmandel tried to buy the lives of Jews with trucks for the Nazis and he was not called a traitor. He begged the Labor Zionists to rescue the Hungarian Jews and publicize the Holocaust. His letter dismissed by Kastner was an exhibit in the trial. Here it is http://www.fantompowa.net/Flame/weissmandel_lublin.htm

Comment by Ben Plonie on 5/01/11 at 6:43 am


Don’t get distracted, but there are many questions for fresh investigation. Underplayed - the government defended Kastner because he was an employee. What? Was poor Rudolph a fall guy for some political decisions or policies and then a liability? Maybe Gruenwald was not the enemy after all. The alleged assassin, Ze’ev Eckstein had been a paid informant for the GSS. From the documentary - Eckstein clearly states that after he fired a blank, Kasztner ran in the dark into the bushes by his apartment. Eckstein fired his two remaining bullets in Kasztner’s direction, and then heard a shot by someone else, after which Kasztner cried out in pain. And so on.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 5/01/11 at 8:06 am


ADVERTISEMENT
PUT YOUR AD HERE