Wednesday, February 03, 2010

Response to C. Yeager

by Joachim Neander, PhD
Dear Mrs. Yeager, on January 24, 2010, you published, at the Revisionist blog Inconvenient History, a critical look on my analysis of Irene Weisberg Zisblatt’s memoir The Fifth Diamond,[1] published here on the Holocaust Controversies blog on January 9, 2010.[2] I feel your essay deserves a response, and I have chosen for it the form of an “open letter.”

Let me first thank you for having pointed to the fact that, according to research done by Auschwitz scholars, Camp Commandant Liebehenschel had the standing cells torn down,[3] which his predecessor, Rudolf Höss, had ordered to install — a fact that slipped my notice. Though the material I am having at hand does not give a date, one can conclude that the demolition of the standing cells must have occurred between November 11, 1943, and May 15, 1944, in which period of time Liebehenschel was commandant.[4] That means that they did no more exist when Mrs. Zisblatt arrived at Auschwitz. Her whole standing cell story, therefore, can safely be relegated to the realm of fantasy, together with the repeated ingestion of water mixed with bodily excretions, which I, by the way, mentioned only ironically, a point you obviously overlooked.

On the other hand you speak of “alleged” standing cells. You refer to a Wikipedia article that mentions Stehzelle only in connection with Maximilian Kolbe, a fact that makes you doubt whether Stehzellen did exist at all. Now Wikipedia is a good thing, but not The Gospel. Let me assure you that, in the Auschwitz archives, there is ample material about the standing cells, not only from survivors. For example, 275 reports and 110 orders for punishment, issued by the camp authorities, have come down to us.[5] They are only a small fraction of the original set, but if I counted correctly, twenty-eight of the 275 reports speak of Stehzelle meted out as punishment. Among the unfortunate there were seven Reichsdeutsch citizens, all of them Jews. E.g. Egon Stiassny from Vienna, camp no. 98241, was sentenced to “five times Stehzelle and five times Strafarbeit (punitive labor)” on May 19, 1943.

You criticize that I did not confront the various versions Mrs. Zisblatt has told about her Holocaust experience (with the exceptions of her “near lampshade” and “near gassing” adventures), such as you did in your essay “A Special Jewel in the Genre of Holocaust Horror Stories,” published in five parts on Inconvenient History between January 6 and 18, 2010. Such a diachronic comparison certainly has its merits, but I decided to focus on an in-depth analysis of her book, which is a generally accessible document and, once published, cannot be altered any more. What is more, it can be assumed that its manuscript underwent a process of writing and re-writing before publication, and that the published book is the fruit of thorough reflection, free from the contingencies of an interview or a film scene shot live.

You further find fault with my analysis that I did not mention all errors, exaggerations, and implausibilities in Mrs. Zisblatt’s narration, calling it “smoothing over” or “an oversight” on my part. I admit frankly that I, for instance, could have mentioned that it is utterly implausible that a “fourteen-year old girl” with no more than an unfinished elementary school education speaks “seven languages” (but no English; The Fifth Diamond, pp. 92,89, and 107). But my essay was already long enough, and as I did not want to run the risk that the reader, bored by minor details, will stop reading before the end, I concentrated on those issues which I found to be crucial.

One of these is certainly the assigning of correct dates — or dates in general — to events. I mentioned in my analysis that it is quite common in survivor memoirs to be unable to do so and to make errors, but that this as such does not speak against the survivor. You firmly disagree: “Yes, it does,” and add, “just because it is common among dishonest survivors doesn’t excuse it” (emphasis mine). This remark shows that you are deeply ignorant of how life was in a concentration camp, especially for the great majority of prisoners who did not have a “job” as clerks in one of the administrative departments or who held a high position in the so-called “Prisoner self-government.” You really should read some good literature about this (non-Revisionist, of course).

Let me only mention that not more than a handful of privileged prisoners were allowed to have watches or calendars, or had the possibility to occasionally receive a newspaper copy or hear a radio transmission, but that for the average prisoner even the possession of paper and pencil — to take notes, to write a diary — was a “crime” punishable by severe flogging, Stehzelle, or, if the SS man had a bad day, by killing on the spot. The majority of the “prisoner proletariat” quickly lost all feeling for time, all the more as time did not play a role in the everyday routine of camp life. No, Madam — not those prisoners who do not remember dates or confuse them are “dishonest,” but those who call them so.

Another point is that you, in a futile attempt to whitewash the perpetrators, doubt that the atrocities reported in The Fifth Diamond did happen sometime, somewhere in the Holocaust. For all of them there is enough evidence, by far not only from potential victims who survived or from bystanders, but also from the perpetrators themselves, who more often than not boasted with their misdeeds before comrades-in-arms or family members. There are even extant documents from German military and SS courts that tried soldiers or SS men for such crimes, because in the eyes of their superiors it was an undignified behavior. It seems that you, Madam, suffer from a lack of knowledge in this matter. The “stereotypes” I mentioned in my essay refer to a generalization of such events, which is as dishonest as their blunt denial. Fighting for the truth has always been a war on two fronts.

I mentioned in my essay that doubtlessly a multitude of unethical, cruel, and even outright criminal medical experiments were performed on prisoners in the concentration camps. Your remark: “There is little clear evidence for this” again shows your deep ignorance. Did you ever hear of Dr. Sigmund Rascher and his deadly experiments on prisoners of Dachau? When he overstepped the mark, an SS court sentenced him to death. He was executed shortly before the Americans arrived. Or Dr. Waldemar Hoven from Buchenwald? Equally sentenced to death by an SS court, commuted by Himmler to service at the Eastern front, but carried out by the Americans after the war. Or do you think that the experiments on mass sterilization of Dres. Clauberg and Schumann at Auschwitz, about which a thick paper trail exists, were “ethical”? And do you know the ethnicity of the vast majority of the victims of Rascher, Hoven, Clauberg, and other SS doctors? You should inform yourself better before making statements that only unveil your ignorance of the facts.

It seems that you have to grind an axe with “the Tribe,” to use your words. You allege that “the hateful attitude of Germans vs. the innocence of all Jewish victims is [Mrs. Zisblatt’s] theme,” you accuse her of “a special intent to blacken the German nation,” of presenting “the Germans” as “the cruelest people on earth” and the SS as “cruel monsters, and so are even non-German Gentiles . . . they have all become Nazis.” Sure, Mrs. Zisblatt’s rhetoric here is not “balanced,” contravenes the “be-nice-to-one-another” ideology of “political correctness.” But are you really surprised after all that a fifteen to sixteen-year-old Hungarian Jewish girl had lived through under Nazi occupation, in Auschwitz, Gross Rosen, and on the two death marches? Imagine a German woman of Irene’s age, having experienced for herself at the age of sixteen the “liberation” of East Germany by the Red Army, as described by Aleksandr Solshenitsyn, Vassily Grossman, or Anthony Beavor, and who survived this horror. Be honest: would you expect from her another attitude towards “the Russians” than that of Mrs. Zisblatt towards “the Germans”?

I think I made it clear enough in my analysis that Mrs. Zisblatt’s book is not only fiction as such, but what is more, that it is bad fiction and should be withdrawn from circulation. I also emphasized that Mrs. Zisblatt, by telling a story that is not hers, does more harm than good to the undoubtedly noble cause she wants to promote: a gradual collapse of prejudices, racial hatred, and xenophobia. You, Madam, have only harsh and disparaging words for her: “insane, mentally retarded, or a congenital liar . . . an egotist and a business woman.” In my eyes, Irene Weisberg Zisblatt is a confused old lady with an undoubtedly rich fantasy but also with an apparently dysfunctional memory. Therefore she deserves our pity, but never contempt.

[1] Carolyn Yeager, Holocaust Scholar Finds “Fifth Diamond” to Be a Work of Fiction. Accessed January 31, 2010.
[2] Joachim Neander, Irene Zisblatt, the “Diamond Girl” – Fact or Fiction? Last edited January 10, 2010.
[3] More information and sources are given by Alexander Lasik, “Organizational Structure of Auschwitz Concentration Camp,” in: Długoborski, Wacław, and Franciszek Piper (eds.), Auschwitz 1940-1945. Central Issues in the History of the Camp, vol. I, Oświęcim (Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum) 2000, pp. 145-279, here p. 212.
[4] Ibid., pp. 154-155.
[5] Auschwitz archives, file D-AuI-2/1-877 nr inw. 165352.

Editor's note: also see:

Yeager vs. Neander

Carolyn Yeager and the ANSWP

CODOH's "Inconvenient History" blog - just another antisemitic outlet [about Yeager's neo-Nazism]


Teutonsuet said...

"Above: Irene Zisblatt talks with seventh- and eighth-graders at the Emma C. Attales School in Atlantic City after her presentation in April 2009."

The photo above this caption found in Carolyn Yeager's essay on Irene Zisblatt at the Inconvenient History site proves Ms.Yaeger's point that the woman is a prevaricating and reprehensible hate monger. She should be prevented from going into schools and scaring impressionable children with her horror stories .

Nathaniel said...

This doesn't change the fact that Yeager is an ignorant fuck who doesn't know the first thing about proper historical research and is doing nothing but following her own preconceived notions.

Stupid as stupid does. Apparently, Yeager's fans share her trait of shutting out any evidence (the ones mentioned by Dr. Neander, for example) that doesn't fit in their ideological bubble. The only "horror stories" around here are the baseless ones spread by "revisionist" fanatics like Ms. Yeager and yourself.

Sergey Romanov said...

Yeager's Wikipedia argument is an instant classic!

Balsamo said...

I agree and really appreciate the Neander essay.

But what's the point in all that ?
That "Inconvinient History" is full of fascists ? and Yeager a rude and dirty nazie ?
It's so obvious it was not worth such an essay to proove it.

The point is why do people like Zisblatt keep telling fiction pretending it is history?

How is it it was published ?

How can she be invited to teach children?

There are too many of them, and it only bring breed to denial. Frankly they should be punished or at least publicly blamed.

Deniers already have Wiesel, and a couple of more like the polish who wrote huge memory from Switzerland, or this Belgian girl who was supposed to travel Europe with her Wolves, and that is only what i remember

Jonathan Harrison said...

You want to 'punish' someone who had a spell in Auschwitz?

In a population of survivors of any event, you will get a small minority who embellish or even fabricate part of their experience. Educators should be more cautious when putting them into schools - there should be more rigorous pre-screening - but as such screening processes are not an exact science, and the benefit of the doubt will understandably go to the survivor, some will slip through.

So, what do you do? Abandon any education program that uses survivors? I don't think so. Kids may hear some false survivor memes in these programs but they will also gain an interest which, when they start doing proper reading, will lead them eventually to sort the wheat from the chaff.

Sergey Romanov said...

> You want to 'punish' someone who had a spell in Auschwitz?

These folks don't understand how deranged they look in sane people's eyes.

Balsamo said...

Ok punished was maybe a bit hard...that is why i added publically blamed...It would "cut the grass under the feet" from the Yeagerlike...

There have been too much false stories that HURTS the cause of the suvivors!
This site is chasing forgeries and this is one...

And it is not to be "mentally derranged" to recognize that there have been too many "false survivors" which in my opinion is IDEED a crime. I don't know about Zisblatt, but the real fakers commit arms to the one who suffered and offer weapon for nazies like miss Yeager!! Primo Levy does not need to lie to make you cry!

Serguey, please, don't judge anyone who could ask you questions or doesn't share all your views to be an ignorant idiot.

I DO KNOW survivors, several member of my family were sent to KL, some (most) of them died, other survived, one of my friend lost his parents in Auschwitz...I AM NOT A BASIC DENIER...

But i don't undertand your stands on someone who could be a survivor and write bullshits that diserve all the real ones! Pity her ? She is more counter productive to your fight that this bitch of Nazie!!!

And if she can't recall what happened to her, she should not write and invent. Or the only result will be that "her spell in Auschwitz" to be questioned!

And the problem, Jonathan, is that NO ONE is cautious with holocaust stories!
Hollywood was ready to make a film from Misha Defonseca "A Memoir of the Holocaust" lies!!! She wasn't even jewish!

Do you realize the joy for all the Yeagerlike ????????

Balsamo said...

I should add that Misha Defonseca (a belgian girl, De Waele,) really did loose her parents who were resistants...So she suffered as well in a way...But that doesn't mean that "pretending to be a jew who survived the holocaust" more acceptable.

Sergey Romanov said...

Sorry, but if you think your comments help, think again.

And we're well aware of the false/dubious survivors problem.

Jonathan Harrison said...

"This site is chasing forgeries and this is one..."

And embellished autobiography is not a forgery. And we've exposed it with Dr Neander's article. We have discharged our responsibilities.

If you wish to pursue her as a 'criminal', that's your job, not ours. Ms Yeager would presumably applaud you.

Balsamo said...

Sorry but i can only comment on one subject at a time. Does it help ? I don't know what you mean.

Your site provide a "Leave a comment" area that i used...

I realy liked Neander's essay debunking the book...I just don't share his conclusion, that we should pity her. That doen't mean that i excuse Yeager language (frankly i had to force myself to finish the reading).

What worried me is that despite her rudeness, she made her point, Neander doesn't refute the lie, he only does excuse her.

And as i think of it, yes i do think it can help if we do debunk forgeries on both sides and condamn it the same way.
Because what the story ? 60 years later, the victim had to tell her story ? Teaching in school? But having forgotten the facts, just wrote a compilation of the best known nazi's atrocities?

And now, her story get bursted on Wiki (this crap most of people believe it is as reliable as the Britanica encyclopoedia ?)

All those false "horror stories" do dammages, they raise questions specially among the teenagers that doesn't know nothing about WWII but Schindler list and Brother in arms...Never lie to a teenager...

I know, because (even if you think i am an idiot, i am still someone who studied history at University for 6 years + a MIA in international politics) that you are providing real studies on what happened. Really you are doing a great work, i can't even consider spending so much time on this!
But that's why i cannot understand how you can "defend" someone who is doing such damages to your cause.
The "TRUTH" is the only weapon against "LIES". So if LIES is used to fight against LIES, it is really damaging. And too many lies have been told already, and it's a shame, because THIS HORROR SHOULD NEVER HAPPEND AGAIN...But it will if we don't take care...And in some ways ("toute proportions gardées) it IS happening again...As the source of everything is when "ALL humans are not equal" is accepted...

So please, don't give loaded weapons to the Yeanderlike!

Well i am not an english speaking guy, so it's not always easy for me to express myself the right a foreign language

Sergey Romanov said...

> Neander doesn't refute the lie, he only does excuse her.

"To understand" is different from "to excuse", time you understood this, or you're without excuses, even as a non-English speaking guy.

Jonathan Harrison said...

Criticism of someone like Zisblatt, who has gone through Auschwitz, must be tempered with empathy. This does not mean that lies are defended or excused, but it means they are placed in the context of the person's life. That is what Joachim does but Yeager refuses to do, because she lives in a parallel universe where there was no Holocaust.

Balsamo said...

Well none of you seem to listen or even try to understand what i am trying to say. It is a Pity...

Now as for the difference to "excuse" and "understand" is is quite small...and in comparaison to your stands, Neander show less pity than you do.

You can't say, "I understand why he kiled the man, but i don't excuse her"

And YES, Jonhattan a "embellished biography IS a forgery" when it pretends to be the truth! what do you think? the term is quite this make the reality worse tha what she lived in these time of "Holocaust controversies" is quite a THING.

We all agree that Yeander is some kind of nazi thing that doesn't even diserved to be read.

How you guys does not see that giving this kind of bitch a chance to be "right" (at least for her partisans) is something ?

Because it raises from a denier point of view the question "Has she ever been to Auschwitz?" kind of questions. Or worse, by the teenage that make some research on the internet at home after HER speech!!! In our times, it IS devastating!

Of course, (if) she is a victim of the nazi, i pity i pity the victims of all "human barbary", but that is not the point of what i said.

Sorry if you did not understand it

Balsamo said...


If she has been in Auscwitz...i mean she as well as millions have been victim of the Nazi...whatever she suffered, she suffered it...

Sergey Romanov said...

You have a bee in your bonnet and I don't care what it is, but you're getting tiresome. I indeed don't get what is it you want from us.

Balsamo said...

I want nothing from you. All you can give is provided by your blog...

Thanks for the link you gave and glad you are aware of the problem.

the fact you don't gave a dam of all those lies and their consequences is beyond me...

Nice for you to have a forum restricted to you and your friends...

have fun

Sergey Romanov said...

1. It's not restricted to me and my friends, but you are indeed not welcome.

2. One of the reasons you're not welcome is your distorted black-is-white view of reality, demonstrated by your claim that I "don't gave a dam of all those lies and their consequences".

Balsamo said...

It's not restricted to me and my friends, but you are indeed not welcome.

Is not that pure nonsense ? Forum should be a place of discussion, and as i am not part of any denier site, nor am i a denier myself, it just show that you are only willing to the ones who agreed with you.

"distorted black-is-white view" well...what can i i read your debate over all the fake/flase one ever talked over the consequences of those.

It is indeed your fight,
all i wanted is to warn you is that double standard dealing with lies is a dangerous game...

All the names Nick Terry and all of you identified...whom was it meant to be addressed ?

It is a terrifying fact that science is loosing the battle you are so sure to win everyday. Antisemitism (though i prefer anti jew sentiment) is stronger than ever! More and more people doubt about the Holocaust! And i mean by that the suffuring of a people because of its "race", "religion"...

and you are loosing this battle, dispite YOUR effort and common wisdom, because of all those bullshits.

That is my point.

Now the EU is going to forbid any takk about it. Nothing is better to persuage the agnostic that the denier are right, especially if it applies on only one side. Faurrisson lost many lawsuits, but the fake survivors, or the ones who "embellished" (non-sense as they in reality make things more ugly (as it needed to be ?!?) have to be considered to be "understandable"...It's breed for the ones that defend a "jewish conspiracy" theory...!!!

So that is maybe the bee in my head...or sorry, as i am supposed to be a my bonnet...

Sergey Romanov said...

You still don't get it. We don't need any schmucks, whether denier or not.

Our forum is not closed to deniers in principle, and we have one denier member (though he doesn't post, but that's his choice).

Here, read this again:

See, explaining even this simple thing took so much time. Why should we deal with this at the forum? It was created specifically to keep off trolls (incl. concern trolls), dumbos etc.

Anyway, try RODOH.

Balsamo said...

Lets talk about trolls...there are all the forums you are participating...RODOH and the like...

Sorry, i had a bad day yesterday...You see i currently kind of studying the "anti-zionism" blogs...and it is scary...

Now here is a new structure :
- It all starts with Israel politics

- the misery of the Palestinian people.

Which gather lots of indignation, rightly IMHO

Then sooner or later, you'are draught to Wall Street and the crisis, the CRIF and Sarkozy...And you finish ending up with a video of Leon Degrelle (that's just an exemple)...and a critics of the "Wolf girl"...

that is poisonous combination, mucj more erffective that any "deniers websites forum"

There have never been so many deniers in France, specially among the youth in the muslim community, and doubts is in many minds.

So i guess i overreacted last night, but i still think those fakers are giving ammunition to the ennemy... Anyway maybe i had an internet craps overdose

Balsamo said...

I am curruntly reading your discussion on your forum about how to indentify and deal with the fakes...very interresting and i wish yu good luck as it is a Titan's work...

I read that Neander ask this question :
Joachim Neander wrote:
That's another question, admitted.
My question is: How can we protect Holocaust remembrance from distortions from the "right" (deniers) and from the "left" (impostors and self-aggrandizers)?
I see dangers for the truth from both sides.
What is your opinion?

And Nick Terry answering

"On balance, the greater danger is from the 'left', since some of the distortions can be so widely promoted or become so influential, and from my perspective as a university teacher, the greater annoyance is surely the potpourri of misconceptions and myths which students bring with them from school or their general knowledge, than denial, which is consistently rejected as loony (albeit by history undergraduates who have chosen to study something of modern European history, so a biased sample). "

Did i say anything different than this ???

Jonathan Harrison said...

Yes, Nick is not asking that people like Zisblatt be 'punished'.

Balsamo said...

Well Johnathan, that is a tiny difference (remember that i also used " publicly blamed" (or sjould i said denounced?) is indeed a small point considering the threat...

After having read all your reaction, the only difference is to how to react to this threat to the truth.

Now as i said , "THEY should be punished or at least publicaly blmamed" as i was referring to the fakers, as i still don't have an opinion about her...yet...I have her book in my hand, and we'll see...

But if you don't even read the posts, there is nothing i can do...

Balsamo said...

Well i have not yet read the book....but just googling her name, i came into those videos...the two first are amazing...i don't know this Eric Hunt...
So she is telling that her friend told ger that her skin has been selected to be transformed as landshaped (I know Joachim mentioned it), but there she explained that it was her fourth (or thrid) experiment,that there were going to be sent to Majdaneck, that it was because there was this wife Ilse Koch "sadist" wanted to have jewish skins to make gloves, lampshade...
But worth, So the girl went to Majdaneck to heve her skin skined...5 gilrs with two guards...but hey they never meet frau Koch (ah?) so they just went back to Auschwitz, to get THEIR TATOO REMOVED..."Oh cool she said, so they'll never know that we were here if we survive!", "Yes,said her friend, if we survive..."And of course the bas doctor were waiting for them to do leathal injections...


Of course Mengele noticed her...while she was squeletic...he toke her out to the gates(she actually went out the caps to meet a gyspie transport!) to mix her to THE gypsie transport to go to the gaz chambers, immidialtly...But "she was pushing backward while they were entering the Gas chamber... there were too many, so an SS men pull her out (this naked child) to close the door...and of course, forgot about she could hide near the krematorium from where she could hear all the screems...fortunatly, a jewish guy from he sonderkommando came and open the door that the SS had closed...She was saced...and even promoted...well enjoy the rest yourself, if you don't know the rest of this 1995 interview...

Really, i don't know what this girl went through, but as she was included in Spielberg's movie that STATES "Everything IS TRUE"...Do what you want...

So the question is was she ever in Auschwitz ? Because that IS the question that will be asked as well as why Spielberg selected her for his movie!

Now you're right if she was there, even if it's quite hard to support that when hearing her, then i pity her as other of her inmates

Otherwise, she should at least be treated...

Sergey Romanov said...

Balsamo, the fakers are the best friends of deniers? Duh! How did we miss that?


As for Irene and Auschwitz, read Dr. Neander's article more carefully. There are _documents_ mentioning her there.

Balsamo said...

yes sergey

as i said i was glad to know that you were aware of the problem...

I did read Joachim Neander's essay...but still not Her book...

If we know there's a problem, i guess we differ on what danger it represents. (though i temper this assertion after having read your forum). It is on the answer to give to those "pseudo-fiction" that we differ stronly.

I have told that that Joachim did a great job...the only point on which i dont agree is the "understanding" or "pity"

but after having seen Irene's Testimonies...I am more than confused...And my conclusion is that she should be disregarded and publicaly.

Her faith at Birkenau is non-sense...Just listen what she is is almost scary...So that 13 year girl was pointed by the SS to control the entrance of the workers (afcter having sent to the gaz chamber!!) and the SonderKommando...that went back after 5 minutes ("because it doesn't take much time to gaz 500 gypsies!!!

So one question, is she the same girl that WAS at Birkenau that your documents show ?

I don't know yet as i have not read the book...But are YOU sure of it ?

For Christ sake, she appeared on TV, and on the "Spielberg effort"...just have a look on what people say of her work on amazon (could be quite a reference for your research, don't you think?)

Here are some exemple

" could not put this book down. This is a must read for all. I gave my 13 and 17 year old a copy to read and they were very inspired by her story. We even went to the Holocaust Memorial after they read the book. I have met other people who have been in the camps and I applaude her for sharing her story with my children and myself so that we never forget that this has happened. An Amazing women and story!!!!!!!!! "


"Irene Zisblatt is a true icon that I look up to. Her story is amazing as well as inspiring. I have recommended this book to numerous people and they have all loved it. Irene, thank you for sharing your story with the world "

and when someone sane do ask questions ?
Here is the anwer

"I do not understand why you would not believe her - I met her and heard her story. My mother was a nurse during WWII and she never spoke of her experiences for 60 years to my sister and I. It is not unheard of for survivors of torture and abuse to keep the pain inside for many many years locked up into themselves trying to forget and live a different sort of life from the one they had. This is true of people with PTSD also, I have met many Vietnam vets that will not discuss the horrors of their experience in the war. I am shocked that people are trying to discredit this brave and wonderful soul. "Seek first to understand". Her message brought the Holocaust to many in our hometown and she impacted many lives. Why would you trivialize her life and her word? She is a wonderful person and sincere. I am sickened by your cynicism and disdain for her bravery. Kathy E. Huntington, WV

Sergey Romanov said...

> i guess we differ on what danger it represents.

And you guess that why? Have you asked me?

> I have told that that Joachim did a great job...the only point on which i dont agree is the "understanding" or "pity"

What part of "should be withdrawn from circulation" do you not understand?

> I don't know yet as i have not read the book...But are YOU sure of it ?

Yes, because there is an unbroken chain of evidence that the same girl who was in Auschwitz and then in other camps survived and went to the US in 1947. Not to mention that in the Last Days she actually returns to Poleno and even meets her old housekeeper.

Balsamo said...

"What part of "should be withdrawn from circulation" do you not understand?

I DID have understand it and i agree of course...where did i say i didn't??????

But he did conclude by saying that we all should have mercy on her...and understand her...
That what i DON'T agree with!

"Yes, because there is an unbroken chain of evidence that the same girl who was in Auschwitz and then in other camps survived and went to the US in 1947. Not to mention that in the Last Days she actually returns to Poleno and even meets her old housekeeper."

As I said before, i don't know the whole i won't say anysthing yet...
But i said she did already some damage by her TV testimonies of 1995 ...which are not the same as the ones of the Spielberg's"

But, if i get you right, your stand is that "Whatever she said...she was there, ans so should be immune to public critics"

As i said, if she had endured Auschitz...then i would have bowed with humility...but the question remains : IF SHE CAN'T RECALL ANYTHING (which is good for her) WHY TESTIFY ?" And Why let herself be USED???"
And yes, even 50-60 years later, ONE SHOULD have told her "My Lady, frau Koch was at Buchenwald, and her husband was sentenced to death, and herself in prison when you and you're friend were told were sent to Majdaneck to have your skin skined"...or " My dear lady, we all know it was bullshit since a couple of years"...

NOOO; it was, "come and sit down and tell your memories" that will be labled as TRUTH!

BTW, in your research, you should condider the "Amazon oipinions"
as a screener...Because in a way it shows the impact of the lie! IN there you'll find the "tomoroe's dammage"

Sergey Romanov said...

Aaaargh. First you protest:

"I DID have understand it and i agree of course...where did i say i didn't??????"

Then you repeat:

"But, if i get you right, your stand is that "Whatever she said...she was there, ans so should be immune to public critics"

NO, THAT IS NOT OUR STAND. Otherwise we wouldn't have published Dr. Neander's expose.

> IF SHE CAN'T RECALL ANYTHING (which is good for her) WHY TESTIFY ?

She obviously shouldn't.

Balsamo said...

ok Sergey

i got over the misunderstanding...i have read Joachim's work again and again, and realized i missed some parts at first because i clicked over the foot note.

Seems there is no disagreement, but the reaction...i have more anger than you all.

i have started reading the fifth diamond, before realizing "what is the point?"

It is realy a confusing story, and leave only a big WHY ????

I guess only a psychiatrist could answer about her motives

BUT WHY has she been selected by Spielberg ? Where there no scholar to advise him ?
How could an can this happened ?

ok i will stop polluting this topic, still overvonfused

Sergey Romanov said...

> i have more anger than you all.

We think that anger in such cases is counterproductive. We state facts as they are, and whatever will be, will be.

Sometimes we vent, like in my case with dumbfuck Williamson, but Irene Zisblatt is not such a case.

> BUT WHY has she been selected by Spielberg ?

Note that her book is actually much more ridiculous than her earlier testimonies (wrong as they are). So that was "the last drop".

Before her book, it should have also been apparent that she is a problematic witness, but yes, the skepticism towards individual Holocaust survivors is seen by many as a bad thing, perhaps even as a sign of denial, so the critical barriers, unfortunately, are lowered.

Then, probably not all researchers at Spielberg's Shoah foundation were qualified enough to filter it out.

As time passes and only the child survivors remain, I'm afraid we will see more stories like this in the near future, if the historians aren't more vigilant. Child survivors are the least reliable witnesses.

Jonathan Harrison said...

Christoper Browning, in "Collected Memories", criticizes the Spielberg project. He says that "the interviewer is more active" (p.45) than in comparable projects, and that "some of the interviewers' questions are frustratingly naive and uninformed. He also notes that six of the Spielberg interviewees Browning studied interpolated the shower scene from "Schindler's List" into their answers (p.84).

So historians do not give Spielberg a free pass.

Balsamo said...

Well first, thanks for talking to me...

"We think that anger in such cases is counterproductive. We state facts as they are, and whatever will be, will be."

Of course your're right

"As time passes and only the child survivors remain, I'm afraid we will see more stories like this in the near future, if the historians aren't more vigilant. Child survivors are the least reliable witnesses."

that is exactly what i fear for the future...and the Yeagerlike will have even more fun...

"So historians do not give Spielberg a free pass."

Of course not, but honnestly, who cares about historians (after having been one myself) in such a poor cultural society as ours ?
What is their power against propaganda ? They get credits when the are usefull (in the right wind, if your know what i mean), otherwise they mostly get nothing...What if the wind change...?
Spielberg's influence is far stronger than any other academy...On the Amazon screen "it's 28 five stars and 2 four stars"...
Worse, is it should have deserved it! IT had to be perfect!

Sergey Romanov said...

The historians and researchers should be more vigilant and should expose more fakes, but let's not forget that they have already exposed several - Sereny exposed Martin Gray, someone exposed Wilkomirski, Grabowski, Defonseca. Recently Ken Waltzer successfully exposed Herman Rosenblatt. More action is needed, but it's wrong to say that nothing at all is done.

Also, the Zisblatt story will have a continuation.

Balsamo said...

Don't know if you noticed that

maybe you'll understand my first reaction better...

If i were you, i would ignore it(her?)...

i have been in some thoughts i would like to share with you later has nothing to do with her...

Jonathan Harrison said...

Yeager waves away 28 documents because they are not on Wikipedia. She's a clown.

Sergey Romanov said...

My response to Yeager:

Unknown said...

Dear Mr. Neader,
Bringing up Beevor as a 'historical' source is nothing more then a joke. Beevor's 'non-fictional' books may only feels that way to a Westerner filled with Russofobia.
Unless, Beevor can prove that he personally witnessed 2 million rapes committed by Soviet soldiers in occupied Germany he should admit that he rather express his biased opinion not a fact! Not to mention that Solgenitsin would not be able to prove this either....