SHOAH

[MrFurious]

Has anyone watched this? I'm anxious to watch this movie but the video is extraordinarily expensive. I've heard it's one of the best Holocaust documentaries ever produced, and it doesn't even use archival newsreel footage.

[Roberto]

I haven't seen the documentary, but I've read the interview with Suchomel, one of the former camp guards who was sentenced to six years at the first Treblinka trial in 1965. You may find it under the following link:

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/s/ ... transcript

[MrFurious]

Thank you for the link. What an amazing interview, and what a rat that interviewer was for pretending to keep everything confidential.

[Angelo]

Thanks Medor, another piece of that tragic mosaic fitting in its proper place.

And so he got away with a 6 year term! And to think that a few around here had the guts to object about the pretended severity of the sentences, the pretended frenzy to condemn each and everyone by courts which were prejuditiously set up to put all of them poor German guardsmen in the bunch...

Interesting testimony that will stand the test of lies.

Angelo

[Timo]

At the risk of starting yet another discussion about the Dutch educational system:

Yes, spread over four afternoons we had to watch the eight hour documentary in our first year at highschool. A twelve year old back then, it caused me nightmares for weeks but the lasting impression for me was that it was something I had to see. Years later Dutch television showed the "Shoa" again and, even with some critics about parts of the documentary, it had not lost a bit of its impact and importance.

Holocaust deniers have either not seen this documentary or are completely blinded by hatred.
Just my 2 cents

Timo

[MrFurious]

Timo,

I don't really understand why some folks who hate jews want to do deny the holocaust. If I hated jews I'd be jumping for joy that it occurred. Just a thought.

The only people I really hate are idiots, and those come in all colours and nationalities. 8)

[Roberto]

Timo,

I don't really understand why some folks who hate jews want to do deny the holocaust. If I hated jews I'd be jumping for joy that it occurred. Just a thought.

The only people I really hate are idiots, and those come in all colours and nationalities. 8)

Mr. Furious,

Your thought is actually an argument that the "Revisionists" often use themselves to deny their being anti-Semites. But it is one that doesn't catch, because defaming their dead is obviously a good way of hurting the Jews, and that's one of the things that the True Believers are after. The other is making their beloved Führer and his acolytes look in a better light in order to turn right-wing extremism into an accepted political alternative again. Of course our True Believers on this forum will scream out loud in protest upon reading this, because one thing they also are is hypocrites.
Wait and see.

Cheers,

Roberto

[Angelo]

While agreeing with MrFurious' closing thought about idiots and with the lucid synthetic insight of Roberto on the reasons why many Revisionists adopt such a contradictory tactic to reach their goal --we should not forget that the no-contradiction principle is at the basis of each serious study, whether historical or anything else -- I'd like to add a couple of things.

On October 4th. 1943, a number of S.S. Officers had gathered in Poznan to be addressed by their chief, the Reichsfuehrer-SS Heinrich Himmler. His speech was a masterpiece of idealistic literature, showing at the same time, once and for all, how the Final Solution had to be carried out to free all countries under Nazi control of all remaining Jews. Let's see a passage of such a genuine sample of the core of the Nazi doctrine on the racial and war issues.

...we must be honest, decent, loyal, and comradely to members of our own blood and to no one else. What happens to the Russians, what happens to the Czechs, is a matter of utter indifference to me. Such good blood of our own kind as there may be among the nations we shall acquire for ourselves, if necessary by taking away the children and bringing them up among us. Whether the other peoples live in comfort or perish of hunger interests me only in so far as we need them as slaves for our Kultur. Whether or not 10,000 Russian women collapse from exhaustion while digging a tank ditch interests me only in so far as the tank ditch is completed for Germany. We shall never be rough or heartless where it is not necessary; that is clear. We Germans, who are the only people in the world who have a decent attitude to animals, will also adopt a decent attitude to these human animals, but it is a crime against our own blood to worry about them and to bring them ideals. I shall speak to you here with all frankness of a very grave matter. Among ourselves it should be mentioned quite frankly, and yet we will never speak of it publicly. I mean the evacuation of the Jews, the extermination of the Jewish people.. . . Most of you know what it means to see a hundred corpses lying together, five hundred, or a thousand. To have stuck it out and at the same time--apart from exceptions caused by human weakness--to have remained decent fellows, that is what has made us hard. This is a page of glory in our history which has never been written and shall never be written.

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Holocaust/himmler.html

Now, if we summarize the contents we notice that:
1) The literary style is the typical colloqial cliche, void of all those usual Nazi paraphernalia always present in almost all Nazi Officers' public speeches where idolatry for their gawd Adolf, exaltation for mystical and blind obedience "ad cadaver" (= till dead) and other such amenities springing out of a fanatism hardly seen ever since, constituted the unmissable parameter to tell a Nazi "cheer-up round-up" from anything else. This connotation is important because it is a confirmation that the words used were meant according to their usual, common meaning in that given context.
2) Phylosophy: No race and culture have any importance "per se", but only inasmuch as they serve (in the most brutal slavish and tyrannical way) the German racial cause, her war effort and her future development.
3) Methodology: To achieve the goal of the long dreamed final victory, slave labor and extermination were to be employed wherever the Nazis ruled over still living bunches of "human animals" which included, among others, the ill-fated, omni-present Jews.
4) Filing procedure: The extermination process had to be filed and locked within the pure, devoted, loyal and truly human HEART of all those "brave martyrs" who carried out the heroic task remaing, once it was done, those decent fellows they were at start out.

The secrecy requirement has been and still is a real torture for the few old Nazi butchers (mind you, NOT all of them belonged to this privileged caste) still around and the relatively many Nazi-inspired groups of young hatred spreaders. Both knew quite well that the Final Solution was the most longed for medal they'd dream to pin on their brave and unpolluted breast, BUT their dream clashes against the unmistakable order of their beloved chief, Himmler who just wouldn't allow no matter how deep in hell he may be. Well, I must admit I went too far now; according to Christian doctrines (for those of us who believe) he might have repented while suiciding (that makes it all more difficult though) and he might be waiting for us in Paradise. (I wonder how I'd feel if I ever get there and see him floating around God's throne maybe chanting "Nearer My God To Thee")

I wouldn't be surprised if the Nazi chaps disguised as revisionists thought it all over and decided that since they couldn't claim their participation, enthusiastic or not, to the mass slaughter there was no need to keep on admitting it ever happened. In other words, if I can't get the glory why should I care to silently let history prove it did happen. By so doing, what Himmler wanted to be buried with the slain, would only bring evil consequences to the cause while our precious job would go unrewarded and those damn Jews would once again live past their irrefutable death.

Why not take 2 rabbits with one shot? We'll make them die twice by denying their first real death, torture them some more defaming their names and lives and in the end we'll make the path smoother for our new recruits to be accepted in the arena without much fussing about it and then be ready to do it all over again.

It won't work, I know, but they'll do all they can to mess things up again.

Angelo

[Globalization41]

Should false accusations of anti-semitism
be considered an evil hate crime? ... What is
the official definition of anti-semitism? Is the
definition chauvinistic?

Globalization41

[Scott Smith]

"While I watched the film I could not help but be touched by Bomba's sincere distress. His tears brought tears to my own eyes. At the same time I was aware of what a laugh I thought his story is. A nice irony for the psychotherapists."

Enjoy! Abraham Bomba: Barber of Treblinka, by Bradley R. Smith.


:twisted: :twisted:

[Roberto]

"While I watched the film I could not help but be touched by Bomba's sincere distress. His tears brought tears to my own eyes. At the same time I was aware of what a laugh I thought his story is. A nice irony for the psychotherapists."

Enjoy! Abraham Bomba: Barber of Treblinka, by Bradley R. Smith.


:twisted: :twisted:

Bomba’s account does not stand out for its accuracy but for the emotions that it raised in this confused man who obviously never overcame his trauma:

The image of Abraham Bomba is forever seared into my my mind, the place where when I am idle, he will be one of the first faces I see. The scene is set up in a barber shop where we see Mr. Bomba cutting hair. It is no wonder Lanzmann does this because the questions he asks are concerning Abraham's occupation as a prisoner of the Germans. It should be remembered that Lanzmann knows the answers to the questions he is asking, the staging is only to further the response of the individual being interviewed.
Abraham was selected by the Germans to make those about to enter the death cambers less wary of their impending death. He cut the hair of woman just before they were killed in the chambers. This served two purposes, the hair was used by the Germans, and the woman were comforted and not suspicious.
While he is talking he never looks at the camera, his comments are given as if he is talking to the individual he is giving the haircut to. He has built a wall around him and it is this wall Lanzmann is trying to take down. He questions him precisely, almost irritatingly, Bomba appears to answer bitterly at times and dodges certain questions. For example, when asked how he felt to have these naked women coming into the room to have a haircut, he replies, "I felt that accordingly I got to do what they told me, to cut their hair in a way that it looked like the barber was doing his job for a woman . . . " This can not be his first reaction, but more of a secondary response. Who can tell what the first would be? I guess it to be one of shame and then a cascade of rapidly shot emotions I assume he has packed tightly away on his side of the wall.
At the end of the interview Abraham cracks, and the scene becomes bitterly emotional. I found myself telling Lanzmann to get the damn camera out of the guy's face. I feel the pressure and the tension that carries on for minutes, wanting to put my arm around him and take him out of the room. I found myself hating Lanzmann. My wife asked why I was irritated, and I found it next to impossible to share his story second hand. It must have ripped him inside to witness a man with his wife and family hours before they were to cease existence in a heartless and pitiless manner and not be able to do anything.

Source of quote:

http://www.ets.uidaho.edu/thomas/Holoca ... mments.htm

So the article recommended by our Reverend is a really enjoyable demonstration of what a lowly anti-Semitic skunk Mr. Bradley Smith is. Trying to draw political capital from the emotional distress of a confused survivor. Looking forward to spit in the eye of that filthy swine some day. Did the creep also write something about Suchomel’s deposition, by the way? Or did that leave him mute?

[Globalization41]

Washington, Special to The New York Times,
Sunday, September 28, 1941: The National
Administrative Council of the Zionist
Organization of America unanimously approved
[150-0] today a proclamation calling on all
Jews and friends of Palestine in America
to observe on Nov. 2nd the 24th anniversary
of the Balfour Declaration, Great Britain's
pledge to facilitate establishment of a
Jewish national home in Palestine.

New York Times, Sun., Sept. 28, 1941:
A message from General George C.
Marshall, Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army, to
officers and men of the Jewish faith was
broadcast over C.B.S. stations Sunday at the
approach of Yom Kippur, the Jewish Day of
Atonement, which begins at sundown Tuesday.
... The message was as follows: "The Army
today contains devotees of many religious
faiths. This is in accord with the democratic
principles which we are preparing to defend.
There are thousands of Jewish soldiers in the
ranks of the Army and many officers of that
faith. All are Americans, and all are involved
in our effort to promote peace and justice in
the world. In this period of the Jewish Holy
Days, I extend the good wishes of the other
men of the Army."

The New York Times, Sunday, December 7,
1941: A resolution urging the United States to
join with Great Britain in furthering the
development of Palestine as a national
homeland for the Jews was adopted Sunday by
600 Jewish leaders at a Palestine War
Emergency Conference in the Hotel Plaza.
The conference was called by the Greater New
York United Palestine Appeal. The resolution
called upon President Roosevelt to instruct the
Intergovernmental Committee on Refugees to
explore possibilities for future large-scale
colonization of Palestine.

Jerusalem, Special to The New York Times,
By Clifton Daniel, Friday, April 18, 1947: In
broad daylight the Jewish underground opened
its counteroffensive against the British forces
today in apparent reprisal for Wednesday's
hanging of four convicted terrorists. ... At the
same time the Irgun Zvai Leunrai, terrorist
organization, warned that it would fight any
United Nations-sponsored regime for Palestine
"other than Hebrew." ... In the first wave
of hit-and-run attacks this afternoon in
Tel Aviv, Haifa, and Nathanya, midway
between Tel Aviv and Jaffa, one British soldier
was killed, two British policemen were
wounded, and four Jewish pedestrians were
injured. Bombs and gunfire did the damage.
... After confining most of Jerusalem's Jews to
their homes for two successive nights the
authorities lifted the house curfew in the Holy
City this morning in time for the Jewish
Sabbath. No part of the country is now under
curfew except that the roads are barred to
traffic during the hours of darkness. ... This
relaxation of the restrictions leaves the
underground forces free to move inside the
cities, and Palestine is waiting to see whether
there will be a more disastrous assault on the
British forces than those of today. ... The two
young Jews whose death sentences were
confirmed by the British commanding general
yesterday are not expected to be executed
immediately because of the custom here against
hanging on holy days -- Friday for Moslems,
Saturday for Jews, and Sunday for Christians.

[Rooting for eventual U.S. neutrality, Globalization41]

[Scott Smith]

Medorjurgen impugned:

So the article recommended by our Reverend is a really enjoyable demonstration of what a lowly anti-Semitic skunk Mr. Bradley Smith is. Trying to draw political capital from the emotional distress of a confused survivor. Looking forward to spit in the eye of that filthy swine some day. Did the creep also write something about Suchomel's deposition, by the way? Or did that leave him mute?

Medojurgen really makes no point other than to play the "anti-Semitism" card, ad nauseam. The last refuge of a scamp!

If you had bothered to read Bradley Smith's article then you would know that he censures Shoah Boat director Claude Lanzmann for NOT asking any relevant questions. It is Cannes mogul Claude, therefore, who is milking the sad eyes, one onion at a time. The tragedy is that the suffering is genuine, even if the stories are not.

[Roberto]

Medorjurgen impugned:

So the article recommended by our Reverend is a really enjoyable demonstration of what a lowly anti-Semitic skunk Mr. Bradley Smith is. Trying to draw political capital from the emotional distress of a confused survivor. Looking forward to spit in the eye of that filthy swine some day. Did the creep also write something about Suchomel's deposition, by the way? Or did that leave him mute?

Medojurgen really makes no point other than to play the "anti-Semitism" card, ad nauseam. The last refuge of a scamp!

If you had bothered to read Bradley Smith's article then you would know that he censures Shoah Boat director Claude Lanzmann for NOT asking any relevant questions. It is Cannes mogul Claude, therefore, who is milking the sad eyes, one onion at a time. The tragedy is that the suffering is genuine, even if the stories are not.

“Revisionists” usually have a rather twisted idea of which questions are relevant and which are not. Why, some of them make a big bloody fuss out of the perfectly unimportant issue whether or not the Treblinka gassing engine was a diesel engine.

I consider it characteristic of the “Revisionist” approach that BS should have focused on the confused account of a confused fellow like Bomba. The sober matter-of-fact account of Suchomel, former member of the SS staff of Treblinka and defendant at the first West German Treblinka trial, the grand dragon conveniently avoided addressing. Excerpts from that account can be found under the following link:

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/s/ ... transcript

[Scott Smith]

“Revisionists” usually have a rather twisted idea of which questions are relevant and which are not. Why, some of them make a big bloody fuss out of the perfectly unimportant issue whether or not the Treblinka gassing engine was a diesel engine.

It's as relevant as whether witches really can ride on brooms and carry-on with the devil in medieval witchcraft trials, or NOT.

I guess the word of hysterical accusers is fine for some.

I consider it characteristic of the “Revisionist” approach that BS should have focused on the confused account of a confused fellow like Bomba. The sober matter-of-fact account of Suchomel, former member of the SS staff of Treblinka and defendant at the first West German Treblinka trial, the grand dragon conveniently avoided addressing.

Well, why don't you ask Bradley Smith what he thought of this other Shoah character. Bradley Smith is well-known and you know his e-mail address from Codoh.

At issue is not that Bomba was a bit confused but that Lanzmann didn't give a fig whether the facts were bullshit or not as long as the morality play could be milked. Neither did gushing Zionist apologists like George Will.