To the editor:
A lot of flapdoodle has been published about the proposed release by Library and Archives Canada of a list prepared by the Commission of Inquiry on War Criminals, headed by Mr Justice Jules Deschênes. Supposedly, this document identifies “Nazi war criminals.” In truth, it provides information about persons investigated by the Commission but against whom no evidence of wartime criminality was found.
Mr Justice Deschênes’s public report is available online and has been for years. Let’s consider a few cases.
For example, take Case No. 190. Winnipeg’s David Matas, representing B’nai Brith Canada, tabled the names of a couple denounced in an unsigned letter. Its author insisted they be investigated. They were "recluses.” The Commission determined that “no persons of an age that could conceivably have participated in World War II war crimes” resided at the address Mr Matas provided.
Another anonymous denunciation resulted in two persons (Case No. 179 and Case No. 180) being scrutinized. These shop owners were reported because they “behaved curiously regarding the sources of the store’s goods.” On page 249 they were further described as “bearing a German name, living in a secluded place under the protection of two black dogs and offering old European furniture for sale.” Investigators determined the gentleman had died by 1977. And when the Commission’s sleuths checked out the shop, they concluded the complaint was “entirely spurious and unfounded.” Similarly, Case No. 599 involved a man said to be “a war criminal because he was an eccentric and suspicious person of German background,” yet another charge examined thoroughly, then closed.
Then there was Case No. 417, submitted by the RCMP, involving a man who bragged about how he had served in a "Nazi Death's Head Unit." This confession was voiced when the fellow was being arrested for impaired driving. Case closed.
Case No. 186, also tabled by the RCMP, was based on information provided by a private individual, about a subject who “admitted…he had been a doctor in a Nazi war camp.” It turned out the man was not a physician, “…indeed it would not be reasonable to believe that an individual born in 1928 could have been a doctor between 1939 and 1945.”
Another probe initiated by the RCMP, Case No. 303, involved “grave allegations” about a person condemned for involvement in “numerous executions in a town in an Eastern European country.” It turned out he came to Canada in 1926, when he was about 2 years old.
Or what about Case No. 588, tabled by the Canadian Jewish Congress? It was based on a phone tip about an individual "rumoured" to have a "Nazi past and a swastika tattoo." Whoever submitted the subject’s name could not be found, nor was even "a suspicion of involvement in a particular war crime" uncovered.
Case No. 589 was that of a man another tipster alleged “was a Nazi who had contact with people from a South American country.” This European citizen certainly visited Canada but his birthyear, 1928, made “involvement in war crimes doubtful.”
Case No. 671 involved a man whom Canadian police identified as having “bragged about his supposed involvement in war crimes in an Eastern European country.” Investigators determined that “the subject is mentally deranged and that his self-incriminations are false.” Likewise, Case No. 54.1 began after it was alleged a man had been an SS official in a West European country who “boasted of killing Jews and others.” The citizen who submitted this subject’s name proved to be “of an advanced age and for some time had been in a state of confusion.”
Over 80 cases were initiated by Simon Wiesenthal, about veterans of the “Galicia Division,” often through correspondence with the Honourable Robert Kaplan. Almost monotonously, and in dozens of these cases, Mr Deschênes noted “no specific allegation or evidence that the subject had been involved in war crimes, apart from Mr. Wiesenthal’s assertion that [the person] was a member of the Galicia Division of the Waffen-SS,” was submitted. He also remarked: “The Commission requested Mr. Wiesenthal to provide additional information… he was unable to do so."
As for the Los Angeles-based Simon Wiesenthal Center, Justice Deschênes observed (page 58) it was: “…a source of names of individuals alleged to be war criminals… however, it must be stated that the Center’s information was long on allegations and generalities, and short on evidence and specifics.”
And what about this one, the rather morbid Case No. 732, based on a Canadian Jewish Congress claim that a man "admitted killing Jewish girls and eating and selling human flesh." The snitch remained incognito. No “cannibal” in Canada was found.
As Mr Justice Deschênes remarked (pages 248-249), a detailed examination of each of the 774 names on the Commission’s “Master List” had brought about a “dramatic decrease” in the number of alleged war criminals because, “for many of them, the allegations on the surface could not bear scrutiny.” Indeed he publicly excoriated those who, like Sol Littman, “grossly exaggerated” the alleged numbers of “Nazi war criminals” purportedly in Canada.
Reviewing the cases found in the Commission’s Part 1: Public Report demonstrates that many Canadians were surreptitiously proscribed by purveyors of hearsay and prejudice. Yet while the Commission took the information it received seriously, most files were closed for lack of proof. If Alti Rodal, the Commission’s director of historical research, today claims these cases were “not well researched” one has to wonder what she was paid for.
Most of the Commission’s subjects are long dead. They cannot defend themselves. Of those who came under official scrutiny 96% had no idea they were even under investigation. Any disclosure of their names would expose family members and descendants to unwanted and unwarranted obloquy. Mr Justice Deschênes understood what was at stake when he wrote: “The Commission has not been created to revive old hatred that once existed abroad between communities which should now live in peace in Canada.” That is why he ordered the names be kept confidential. This was not a cover-up. It is evidence of Mr Deschênes’s judiciousness and good sense.
Editor's note: Lubomyr Luciuk is a professor of political geography at the Royal Military College of Canada
