Argentina's top court finds 80 boxes of Nazi materials in its basement
Argentina's justice system found hundreds of documents and membership cards for Nazi organisations in seven boxes stored in the Supreme Court archive relating to a case initiated in 1941.
Photo:
Handout / ARGENTINA'S SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE / AFP
Dozens of boxes of Nazi material confiscated by Argentinean authorities during World War II were recently rediscovered in the Supreme Court's basement, the court said on Sunday.
The 83 boxes were sent by the Germany embassy in Tokyo to Argentina in June 1941 aboard the Japanese steamship "Nan-a-Maru," according to the history that the court was able to piece together, it said in a statement.
At the time, the large shipment drew the attention of authorities, who feared its contents could affect Argentina's neutrality in the war.
Despite claims at the time from German diplomatic representatives that the boxes held personal items, Argentine customs authorities searched five boxes at random.
They found postcards, photographs and propaganda material from the Nazi regime, as well as thousands of notebooks belonging to the Nazi party. A federal judge confiscated the materials, and referred the matter to the Supreme Court.
It was not immediately clear why the items were sent to Argentina or what, if any, action the Supreme Court took at the time.
Eighty-four years later, court staffers came across the boxes as they prepared for a Supreme Court museum.
"Upon opening one of the boxes, we identified material intended to consolidate and propagate Adolf Hitler's ideology in Argentina during the Second World War," the court said.
The court has now transferred the boxes to a room equipped with extra security measures, and invited the Holocaust Museum in Buenos Aires to participate in their preservation and inventory.
Experts will also examine them for any clues about still-unknown aspects of the Holocaust, such as international financing networks used by the Nazis.
Argentina remained neutral in World War II until 1944, when it broke relations with Axis powers. The South American country declared war on Germany and Japan the following year.
From 1933 to 1954, according to the Holocaust Museum, 40,000 Jews entered Argentina as they fled Nazi persecution in Europe. Argentina is home to the largest population of Jews in Latin America.
-
Reuters
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
9 hours ago
- RNZ News
US Supreme Court to review death row inmate's intellectual disability ruling
By John Kruzel , Reuters Photo: 123RF The US Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear an appeal by Alabama officials of a judicial decision that a man convicted of a 1997 murder is intellectually disabled - a finding that spared him from the death penalty - as they press ahead with the Republican-governed state's bid to execute him. A lower court ruled that Joseph Clifton Smith is intellectually disabled based on its analysis of his IQ test scores and expert testimony. Under a 2002 Supreme Court precedent, executing an intellectually disabled person violates the US Constitution's Eighth Amendment bar on cruel and unusual punishment. The justices are due to hear the case in their next term, which starts in October. Smith, now 54, was convicted and sentenced to death for the 1997 murder of a man named Durk Van Dam in Alabama's Mobile County. Smith fatally beat the man with a hammer and saw in order to steal his boots, some tools and $140, according to evidence in the case. The victim's body was found in his mud-bound Ford Ranger truck in an isolated, wooded area. The Supreme Court's 2002 precedent in a case called Atkins vs Virginia barred executing intellectually disabled people. US President Donald Trump's administration backed Alabama's appeal in the case. At issue in Smith's case is whether and how courts may consider the cumulative effect of multiple intelligence quotient (IQ) scores in assessing a death row inmate's intellectual disability. Like many states, conservative-leaning Alabama considers evidence of IQ test scores of 70 or below as part of the standard for determining intellectual disability. Supreme Court rulings in 2014 and 2017 allowed courts to consider IQ score ranges that are close to 70 along with other evidence of intellectual disability, such as testimony of "adaptive deficits." Smith had five IQ test scores, the lowest of which was 72. A federal judge noted that Smith's score could be as low as 69, given the standard of error of plus or minus three points. The judge then found that Smith had significant deficits from an early age in social and interpersonal skills, independent living and academics. The Atlanta-based 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the judge's conclusions in 2023, setting aside Smith's death sentence. This prompted Alabama officials to file their first of two appeals to the Supreme Court in the case. In November, the justices threw out the 11th Circuit's decision, saying that the lower court's evaluation of Smith's IQ scores can be read two ways, and requires clarification. Ten days later, the 11th Circuit issued an opinion clarifying that its evaluation was based on "a holistic approach to multiple IQ scores" that also considered additional relevant evidence, including expert testimony. This prompted a second appeal by Alabama officials to the Supreme Court. Alabama in its filing to the Supreme Court argued that the lower courts in the case applied the wrong legal standard in establishing Smith's intellectual disability and urged the justices to take up the appeal to provide clarity on the issue. Friday's action by the court was unexpected. The court had planned to release it on Monday along with its other regularly scheduled orders, but a software glitch on Friday prematurely sent email notifications concerning the court's decision in the case. "As a result, the court is issuing that order list now," said court spokesperson Patricia McCabe. It is not the first time the court has inadvertently disclosed action in sensitive cases. Last year, an apparent draft of a ruling in a case involving emergency abortion access in Idaho was briefly uploaded to the court's website before being taken down. That disclosure represented an embarrassment for the top US judicial body, coming two years after the draft of a blockbuster ruling rolling back abortion rights was leaked. - Reuters
Kiwiblog
17 hours ago
- Kiwiblog
Predicting SCOTUS
The Economist reports: This june may be the most harried for the Supreme Court's justices in some time. On top of 30-odd rulings due by Independence Day, the court faces a steady stream of emergency pleas. Over 16 years, George W. Bush and Barack Obama filed a total of eight emergency applications in the Supreme Court ( scotus ). In the past 20 weeks, as many of his executive orders have been blocked by lower courts, Donald Trump has filed 18. Into this maelstrom, The Economist is introducing a tool to help analyse how the high court is acquitting itself under pressure. A year ago Adam Unikowsky, a regular litigator before the justices, enlisted Claude, Anthropic's large language model ( llm ), to decide 37 Supreme Court cases. Claude's decision matched the court's 27 times. Inspired by this example, we tested several models of our own and settled on o3, Open ai 's best reasoning engine for Chat gpt . We fed our scotus bot the main briefs and oral-argument transcripts for ten of the court's biggest pending cases—plus three cases that have already been decided—and asked it to predict how each justice would vote and why. It will be fascinating to see how well the bot does in predicting the Supreme Court decisions. It is possible it might even end up influencing Court decisions. If you're a Supreme Court Justice, you might not like being predictable, and could even end up varying what you decide or write, just so the AI isn't correct!
Otago Daily Times
2 days ago
- Otago Daily Times
Lies a 'stupid knee-jerk reaction': mushroom meal murder-accused
Erin Patterson says her lies to police after cooking a deadly meal for her estranged husband's family were a "stupid knee-jerk reaction" to finding out people had become sick. The accused triple murderer, 50, entered the witness box for a fourth day before a Supreme Court jury on Thursday. She has pleaded not guilty to the murder of her former in-laws Don and Gail Patterson, 70, and Gail's sister Heather Wilkinson, 66, and the attempted murder of Heather's husband Ian. All three died in hospital days after eating death cap mushroom-laced beef Wellingtons in July 2023, at her Leongatha home in regional Victoria. Defence barrister Colin Mandy SC finished his examination in chief of Patterson on Thursday morning by asking about her lies to police. Citing her police interview on August 5, 2023, he asked Patterson if she had lied to police about never having dehydrated food and denying ownership of a dehydrator. "Were those lies?" Mr Mandy asked. "Yes," Patterson replied. He then asked her why she lied to Victoria Police detectives about the dehydrator. "I had disposed of it a few days earlier in the context of thinking that maybe mushrooms that I'd foraged for the meal I prepared was responsible for making people sick," Patterson said. After police told her Gail Patterson and Heather Wilkinson had died, during a search of her home before the interview, she had a "stupid knee-jerk reaction to just dig deeper and keep lying". "I was just scared, but I shouldn't have done it," Patterson told the court. He asked Patterson if her answer to police that she had "never" foraged for mushrooms was also a lie. "Yes, they were both lies," she replied. Mr Mandy then asked if she intended to kill or cause serious injury to each of her lunch guests by serving them poisonous beef Wellingtons. "No, I didn't," she replied. When asked if she intended to harm them, she said no. Crown prosecutor Nanette Rogers SC began her cross-examination of Patterson before midday and went straight into her lies. She put to Patterson that she had disposed of a food dehydrator because she had been using it to dehydrate death cap mushrooms. "I didn't know that I'd done that," Patterson said. Dr Rogers then accused Patterson of having "rushed out" of Monash Hospital, the day after she was released, to get rid of evidence. "No," Patterson said. "You lied to police about never owning a dehydrator because you had used the dehydrator to prepare death cap mushrooms to include in the lunch," Dr Rogers continued. "No, I didn't know that," Patterson replied. "You lied because you knew if you told police the truth it would implicate you in the deliberate poisoning of your four lunch guests," Dr Rogers said. Patterson responded: "No, no, it's not true." As the trial nears the end of week six, Justice Christopher Beale told the jury he could not put a figure on how much longer it would go for but they should make arrangements. He said Patterson may be in the witness box into early next week, and the trial would not sit on Monday, which is a public holiday in Victoria. After this, he said there would be some legal discussions without the jury, and then there could be "more evidence". Closing addresses from the prosecution and defence will follow, and could each take "a couple of days" before he gives directions to the jury, which could take another couple of days. "Then the boot is on the other foot because none of you can tell me how long you will be in deliberations. Take all the time you need," Justice Beale said.
