I am currently reading Leonkadia (Lorraine) Justman’s account [1]) about her time in the ghettos of various Polish cities, her escape to Innsbruck, and her further life in the “Third Reich.”

I was particularly moved by this passage about Janusz Korczak, a Polish military and pediatric doctor, children’s book author, and educator who ran an orphanage in Warsaw and moved with it into the ghetto:

Janusz Korczak was a bachelor who had lovingly devoted himself to the orphans of Warsaw for years. He wrote for and about them; he played with them and fulfilled their every wish. He was their everything, and they were his one and greatest love. When a friend offered him safe refuge within his four walls, he declined. He did not want to be separated from his children and accompanied them into the ghetto to share their fate and ease their lives. No one who met these lively little beings would have thought they were orphans. Their sunny disposition, their love of music, and their many interests were proof of the cheerful atmosphere in which they were raised. Surrounded by his charges, one could easily have mistaken Janusz Korczak for their devoted father.

Janusz Korczak’s orphanage in the Warsaw Ghetto, Chłodna Street 33

“It’s quite warm today,” he remarked… “Summer is striving toward God. Hopefully, the next year will embrace us just as warmly so that I can take my little darlings out into nature. Into the green forests, to the golden fields, onto the colorful meadows. To show them the beauty of God reflected in the brook or river.”

“That will be great!” exclaimed the freckled Henryk. “Then we’ll walk along the railway tracks, far, far away from the ghetto to the land of true happiness.” Henryk was a dreamer and loved inventing stories about a beautiful future. But wasn’t that precisely what was needed in these times, when the present was so terrifying and hopeless? Lewin cleared his throat. “Let us pray for this great day of peace,” he added with the pathos of a preacher. “It will bring the end of the war and the end of all cruelty, for all of us.”

“Peace…” Janusz Korczak’s blue-gray eyes gleamed with the radiance of youth. “That will be a great, great day!”

Janusz Korczak had not the slightest idea what would happen a year later. He could not foresee that he and his children would then be transported in dark, stifling cattle cars into the unknown. He could not know that he would use the same words about the beauty of nature—the tall trees, the clear rivers and streams—to comfort his frightened charges, whose fate he shared to the very end. How could he ever have imagined that exactly one year later, instead of great freedom, the great gate to the land of horror and death would be waiting—the diabolical, inhuman machinery of deranged minds—the land of the gas chambers of Treblinka?

Janusz Korczak was murdered with the entire population of the orphanage when it was sent to the Treblinka extermination camp during the Grossaktion Warschau of 1942.

1. Leonkadia Justman’s survival story was turned into a book as part of a project at the University of Innsbruck and is available both as a hardcover book and as an eBook: Brechen wir aus!: Als polnische Jüdin auf der Flucht in Tirol. Eine autobiografische Überlebensgeschichte (Let’s Break Out!: A Polish Jewish Woman on the Run in Tyrol. An Autobiographical Survival Story. A briefer earlier version is available in English, as hardcover only: In Quest for Life: Ave Pax [↩]

I do not understand people who can say with a straight face,

“Should we throw the first stone at Putin when almost everything that the West did was also morally wrong.”

Two crucial aspects of American Exceptionalism under Donald Trump are (1) the conviction that obligations entered under international treaties are mere suggestions and can be disregarded at will, and (2) the United states can always make and discard it’s own rules at will.

This incredibly powerful and deadly accurate speech[1] was delivered in the French Senate on March 4, 2025 by French Senator Claude Malhuret[2]. This may some day take its rightful place alongside the best of Sir Winston Churchill and President John F Kennedy.

“President, Mr. Prime Minister, Ladies and Gentlemen Ministers, My dear colleagues,
Europe is at a critical turning point in its history. The American shield is crumbling, Ukraine risks being abandoned, Russia strengthened.

Washington has become the court of Nero, a fiery emperor, submissive courtiers and a ketamine-fueled jester in charge of purging the civil service.

This is a tragedy for the free world, but it is first and foremost a tragedy for the United States. Trump’s message is that there is no point in being his ally since he will not defend you, he will impose more customs duties on you than on his enemies and will threaten to seize your territories while supporting the dictatorships that invade you.

The king of the deal is showing what the art of the deal is all about. He thinks he will intimidate China by lying down before Putin, but Xi Jinping, faced with such a shipwreck, is probably accelerating preparations for the invasion of Taiwan.

Never in history has a President of the United States capitulated to the enemy. Never has anyone supported an aggressor against an ally. Never has anyone trampled on the American Constitution, issued so many illegal decrees, dismissed judges who could have prevented him from doing so, dismissed the military general staff in one fell swoop, weakened all checks and balances, and taken control of social media.

This is not an illiberal drift, it is the beginning of the confiscation of democracy. Let us remember that it took only one month, three weeks and two days to bring down the Weimar Republic and its Constitution.

I have faith in the strength of American democracy, and the country is already protesting. But in one month, Trump has done more harm to America than in four years of his last presidency. We were at war with a dictator, now we are fighting a dictator backed by a traitor.

Eight days ago, at the very moment that Trump was rubbing Macron’s back in the White House, the United States voted at the UN with Russia and North Korea against the Europeans demanding the withdrawal of Russian troops.

Two days later, in the Oval Office, the military service shirker was giving war hero Zelensky lessons in morality and strategy before dismissing him like a groom, ordering him to submit or resign.

Tonight, he took another step into infamy by stopping the delivery of weapons that had been promised.

What to do in the face of this betrayal? The answer is simple: face it.

And first of all, let’s not be mistaken. The defeat of Ukraine would be the defeat of Europe. The Baltic States, Georgia, Moldova are already on the list. Putin’s goal is to return to Yalta, where half the continent was ceded to Stalin.

The countries of the South are waiting for the outcome of the conflict to decide whether they should continue to respect Europe or whether they are now free to trample on it.

What Putin wants is the end of the order put in place by the United States and its allies 80 years ago, with its first principle being the prohibition of acquiring territory by force.

This idea is at the very source of the UN, where today Americans vote in favor of the aggressor and against the attacked, because the Trumpian vision coincides with that of Putin: a return to spheres of influence, the great powers dictating the fate of small countries.

Mine is Greenland, Panama and Canada, you are Ukraine, the Baltics and Eastern Europe, he is Taiwan and the China Sea.

At the parties of the oligarchs of the Gulf of Mar-a-Lago, this is called “diplomatic realism.”

So we are alone.

But the talk that Putin cannot be resisted is false. Contrary to the Kremlin’s propaganda, Russia is in bad shape. In three years, the so-called second largest army in the world has managed to grab only crumbs from a country three times less populated.

Interest rates at 25%, the collapse of foreign exchange and gold reserves, the demographic collapse show that it is on the brink of the abyss. The American helping hand to Putin is the biggest strategic mistake ever made in a war.

The shock is violent, but it has a virtue. Europeans are coming out of denial. They understood in one day in Munich that the survival of Ukraine and the future of Europe are in their hands and that they have three imperatives.

1. Accelerate military aid to Ukraine to compensate for the American abandonment, so that it holds, and of course to impose its presence and that of Europe in any negotiation. This will be expensive. It will be necessary to end the taboo of the use of frozen Russian assets. It will be necessary to circumvent Moscow’s accomplices within Europe itself by a coalition of only the willing countries, with of course the United Kingdom.
2. Second, demand that any agreement be accompanied by the return of kidnapped children, prisoners and absolute security guarantees. After Budapest, Georgia and Minsk, we know what agreements with Putin are worth. These guarantees require sufficient military force to prevent a new invasion.
3. Finally, and this is the most urgent, because it is what will take the most time, we must build the neglected European defence, to the benefit of the American umbrella since 1945 and scuttled since the fall of the Berlin Wall.

It is a Herculean task, but it is on its success or failure that the leaders of today’s democratic Europe will be judged in the history books.

Friedrich Merz has just declared that Europe needs its own military alliance. This is to recognize that France has been right for decades in arguing for strategic autonomy.

It remains to be built. It will be necessary to invest massively, to strengthen the European Defence Fund outside the Maastricht debt criteria, to harmonize weapons and munitions systems, to accelerate the entry into the Union of Ukraine, which is today the leading European army, to rethink the place and conditions of nuclear deterrence based on French and British capabilities, to relaunch the anti-missile shield and satellite programs.

The plan announced yesterday by Ursula von der Leyen is a very good starting point. And much more will be needed.

Europe will only become a military power again by becoming an industrial power again. In a word, the Draghi report will have to be implemented. For good.

But the real rearmament of Europe is its moral rearmament.

We must convince public opinion in the face of war weariness and fear, and especially in the face of Putin’s cronies, the extreme right and the extreme left.

They argued again yesterday in the National Assembly, Mr Prime Minister, before you, against European unity, against European defence.

They say they want peace. What neither they nor Trump say is that their peace is capitulation, the peace of defeat, the replacement of de Gaulle Zelensky by a Ukrainian Pétain at the beck and call of Putin.

Peace for the collaborators who have refused any aid to the Ukrainians for three years.

Is this the end of the Atlantic Alliance? The risk is great. But in the last few days, the public humiliation of Zelensky and all the crazy decisions taken in the last month have finally made the Americans react.

Polls are falling. Republican lawmakers are being greeted by hostile crowds in their constituencies. Even Fox News is becoming critical.

The Trumpists are no longer in their majesty. They control the executive, the Parliament, the Supreme Court and social networks.

But in American history, the freedom fighters have always prevailed. They are beginning to raise their heads.

The fate of Ukraine is being played out in the trenches, but it also depends on those in the United States who want to defend democracy, and here on our ability to unite Europeans, to find the means for their common defense, and to make Europe the power that it once was in history and that it hesitates to become again.

Our parents defeated fascism and communism at great cost.

The task of our generation is to defeat the totalitarianisms of the 21st century.

Long live free Ukraine, long live democratic Europe.”

1. Source: La Semaine de l’Allier, The Atlantic[↩]
2. Claude Malhuret, born 8 March 1950 is a French physician, lawyer and politician who has served as a member of the Senate since 2014, representing the department of Allier. A member of Horizon, he has presided over the centre-right The Independents – Republic and Territories (LIRT) parliamentary group in the Senate since 2017.[↩]

A friend of mine posted on Facebook[1] that “All I am saying is give war a chance” is the message of “the left” and of all others who are opposed to President Trump’s approach to Russia’s war in Ukraine. Those who used to sing “All I am saying is give peace a chance” have lost their way, and it’s just because they hate Trump.

I will not pretend that I like Donald Trump — but that is not the issue here.

President Trump’s approach to the war is equivalent to telling a home owner who has suffered a home invasion by the bully next door to stop resisting the invader and give up claim to the parts of the house the invader has occupied, with no guarantees that the invader will not push to eventually occupy the entire house.

At the infamous, disgusting “photo op” at the White House last week President Zelenskyj listed a number of ceasefires agreed between Russia and Ukraine which Putin’s Russia has broken, as the reason for Ukraine’s reluctance to enter into yet another ceasefire with the neighbor who 11 years ago “annexed” their front porch and who 3 years ago started the full scale home invasion that is still going on.

I will always be thankful for the American contribution towards ridding my homeland and all of Europe from the madman Hitler and his nazi henchmen; but I am afraid that if President Trump had been around in the 1940s he would have pressured Britain and France as well as all of the other countries occupied by the Germans to enter into a ceasefire that would have cemented the status quo, with the nazi hordes in control of most of Europe.

What President Trump and those who so enthusiastically support him fail to understand is that peace is more than merely the absence of killing; that yielding to the invader is not peace but appeasement and is an invitation to invade another neighbor.

And those of us bystanders who see Trump’s refusal to honor his country’s obligation under the Budapest Memorandum of 1994 to defend Ukraine’s territorial integrity have no confidence that he will honor his country’s obligation to come to the aid of its NATO allies or to honor its obligation to defend Austria under the 1955 state treaty. We see with increasing clarity that Trump is not a man of honor nor a man of his word, and that he does not feel bound by the contractual obligations of his country.

This is NOT the way to make America great again, and neither are the suggestions of his buddy, weathervane Vance, the way to make Europe great again.

1. Facebook Post[↩]

No, my son has not been murdered, but I was just very moved by the testimony of a father whose son was murdered.

On March 10, 2022, 23-year-old elementary school teacher Michael Echaniz was shot to death by 25-year-old Matthew Wiessing. Several months prior to the murder Wiessing’s girlfriend had terminated their relationship and was now dating Michael Echaniz. This so enraged Wiessing that he shot Michael in the head, not once, but three times.

Wiessing was arrested a little over a week later, after a family member of his noticed his strange behavior immediately after the murder and a 9mm handgun missing from the family home. On July 1, 2022 Wiessing was indicted by the grand jury and a month ago he was sentenced to 40 years in prison, of which he will serve at least 21 years.

After the sentencing Michael’s father John Echaniz addressed Wiessing at length, recounting his family’s and the community’s shock and pain over this brutal act of revenge, culminating with  quote from the gospel, that there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents, saying that he certainly does not want to stand in the way of “more joy in heaven,” that he forgives Matthew and prays that he will find God’s love in Jesus Christ.

The Echaniz family are Catholics, and while I cannot identify with their enthusiasm for praying of the rosary it is exceedingly clear to me that John Echaniz is a man of deep faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and a shining testament to the power of God’s love.

Here is the article by John Echaniz I came across today: https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2025/02/05/desiring-everyones-salvation-including-my-sons-murderer/, and below is the video of his address to his son’s murderer.

Here is Michael Echinaz with his parents at his college graduation, two years before his death:

Vienna city councilor (ÖVP)  and devout Catholic Jan Ledóchowski [1] laments the fact that the “Right-Wing Extremism Report” [2] of the Documentation Archive of the Austrian Resistance (DÖW) equates terms like “right-wing extremist” and “right-wing Catholic” [3] and mentions him in this context, along with other politically active conservative Christians like Suha Dejmek [4] or Gudrun Kugler [5].

In my opinion, the DÖW, like many other public (state, semi-state, and private) institutions, simply reflects the “political orthodoxy” [6] of the zeitgeist, which does not tolerate opposition to its favored projects (such as abortion rights and the normalization of “alternative sexualities”). An integral part of this political orthodoxy is the premise that political positions stemming from religious beliefs (or religious beliefs not left at the door but leading to political action) are dangerous and potentially violate the separation of church and state, whether they are advocated democratically or pursued by force. For this reason, both conservative Christians and radical Islamists are labeled with the term “fundamentalists”[7] used as a pejorative.

But none of this should surprise us, because around two thousand years ago, the Apostle Paul wrote to his disciple Timothy:

“Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted,”
(2 Timothy 3:12, ESV)

Personally, I would not yet classify the intolerance of political orthodoxy toward religiously motivated beliefs in politics here in Austria (and in most “Western countries”[8] as persecution [9], but it is a precursor that will sooner or later provide the pretext for the coming actual persecution.

1. Jan Ledóchowski is a lawyer, married, and father of five children. As the president of the Platform for Christian Democracy and Vienna city councilor, he advocates for Christian values in politics and for greater political engagement by Christians in Austria.

   [↩]

2. The Right-Wing Extremism Report (Rechtsextremismusbericht) serves to observe and document right-wing extremist structures and includes:

   • Right-wing extremist groups and parties: such as neo-Nazis, fraternities, or the Identitarian movement.
   • Ideological focuses: racism, anti-Semitism, homophobia, nationalism.
   • Crimes: statistics of right-wing extremist offenses (e.g., vandalism, violence, propaganda).
   • Right-wing terrorism and networks: monitoring international connections and potential threats.
   • Internet and social media: the growing role of online platforms in radicalization.

   Until 2001, the report was regularly published by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution and Counterterrorism (BVT). Since then, it has been managed by the Documentation Archive of the Austrian Resistance (DÖW).

   [↩]

3. It is not easy to define these two terms in a way that no one feels discriminated against. The Wikipedia articles on right-wing extremism  provides a good starting point, but (unsurprisingly) it isvery biased. Right-wing Catholicism as a term overlaps with the Christian Right but in its usage in Germany and Austria is more pejorative.

   [↩]

4. Suha Dejmek is a business consultant, evangelical Christian, and ÖVP district councilor in Vienna-Liesing.

   [↩]

5. Gudrun Kugler is a Roman Catholic theologian and lawyer as well as a member of Austria’s parliament representing the ÖVP.

   [↩]

6. “Political orthodoxy” refers to the sum of political and ideological positions and beliefs considered “socially acceptable” in a society; dissenting opinions are stigmatized.

   [↩]

7. The term fundamentalism originally emerged in the early 20th century in American Protestantism to signify a return to the fundamental tenets of Christianity. Over time, the term became neutral and then negative, used to describe a dogmatic and uncompromising attitude. It was eventually applied to movements in other religions, such as Islamism, Orthodox Judaism, or Hindu nationalism, and now even to secular ideological movements that take an uncompromising stance.

   [↩]

8. “Western countries” typically refer to nations that share cultural, political, and historical ties to Western Europe and its global influence. These countries are often characterized by:

   1. Geography:

      • Western Europe (e.g., Germany, France, the UK).
      • Countries with cultural roots in Europe, like the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.

   2. Political Systems:

      • Democracies with systems emphasizing individual rights, rule of law, and separation of powers.

   3. Economic Characteristics:

      • Market-oriented economies with advanced infrastructure and industries.

   4. Cultural and Religious Foundations:

      • Historically influenced by Greco-Roman traditions, Christianity, and Enlightenment ideals.

   5. Global Context:

      • Often contrasted with “Eastern countries” or “Global South,” including regions influenced by different traditions, such as Asia, the Middle East, or Africa.

   While the term is widely used, its definition can vary depending on the context, sometimes encompassing cultural, economic, or political factors rather than strictly geographic ones.

   [↩]

9. The European Union defines religious or ideological persecution as follows:

   1. Persecution, as defined in Article 1A of the Geneva Refugee Convention, includes actions that:

      • Due to their nature or repetition, are so severe that they constitute a serious violation of fundamental human rights, particularly those rights from which no derogation is permitted under Article 15(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights, or
      • Consist of a cumulative series of measures, including human rights violations, which are so severe that they affect a person in a similar manner as described in (a).

   2. Acts considered persecution include:

      • Physical or psychological violence, including sexual violence,
      • Discriminatory legal, administrative, police, and/or judicial measures, or their discriminatory application,
      • Disproportionate or discriminatory prosecution or punishment,
      • Denial of judicial protection, resulting in disproportionate or discriminatory punishment,
      • Prosecution or punishment for refusing military service in a conflict involving crimes or acts covered by Article 12(2)’s exclusion clauses,
      • Acts based on gender or directed against children.

   3. There must be a connection between the grounds in Article 10 and the acts defined as persecution in paragraph 1.

   [↩]

I am currently reading through Faye Kellerman’s novel “The Burnt House”, part of her “Peter Decker & Rina Lazarus” series.

Rina is a life-long orthodox Jew, Los Angeles police detective Peter “Akiva” is Jewish by birth but was adopted by gentiles and only came to Jewish faith and observance about 17 years ago in the wake of his love for Rina.

Here is an interesting conversation about faith and doubt as it relates to ultimate justice:

“I certainly hope so. It pisses me off that a murderer has eluded justice.”

“He’ll eventually have to account for his actions. Maybe it won’t be to you or to the criminal justice system, but certainly to a higher authority. What goes around comes around: Middah keneged mid-dah.”

“I wish I believed that.”

“Sometimes I don’t even know if I believe that. But that’s the basis of faith, and I’m a woman of faith.” Rina put down her book. “These cold cases must be frustrating. … I know it upsets you that someone got away with murder, but eventually we all die, and that’s when everyone sees that, ultimately, someone else is in control.”

“But just suppose you die and that’s it?” Decker said. “I mean that’s really it! You’re nothing but maggot food.”

“Maybe that’s the case,” Rina said. “Since no one really knows, I choose to believe otherwise. Even if it turns out that I was sold a false bill of goods, I think believing in God is a healthier way to live. Faith is for the living, Akiva, not the dead.”

Faye & Jonathan Kellerman

I am a gentile, evangelical Christian, not an observant Jew, but I find it fascinating how such “Jewish” conversations resonate with my own experience as a believer. And I generally find “secular” novels with characters who are people of faith, whether Jewish or Christian, even if they are nor portrayed as perfect or saintly, more interesting than explicitly “Christian” novels where the believers tend to be “goody two-shoes” — because, let’s be real: we are not all perfect and saintly, either, and we have our share of crooks in our ranks even though we are quick to either close our eyes to their faults or else to disown them if they are too much of an embarrassment.