Elie Wiesel

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
Post Reply
User avatar
chalutzim
Member
Posts: 803
Joined: 09 Nov 2002, 21:00
Location: Südamerika - Brazil

#31

Post by chalutzim » 10 May 2003, 21:17

David Thompson wrote:Chalutzim -- I agree with you, but it is sufficient to make the point once or twice and then move on to other topics. The burden of proof is on the person making the allegation. Once you've asked for proof, and your opponent doesn't offer anything, readers can assess and compare the credibility of the argument.

The essential aspects of the holocaust are well-known. They have been established through more than fifty years of court proceedings in a large number of countries. The evidence consists of eyewitness testimony from victims and bystanders, the confessions and admissions of perpetrators, photographs, an abundance of documents, physical evidence, forensic studies and judicial findings.

Legitimate questions may be raised about the veracity of individual witnesses or their motives, or isolated items of evidence, or matters of interpretation of policy, etc. These questions do not affect the fact that millions of persons were deliberately murdered, nor does it alter the cumulative and overwhelming evidence of who committed the murders.

If a poster raises a question about the events, other posters may answer the question with evidence. If a poster stops asking questions and begins to express a point of view, he then becomes an advocate for that viewpoint. When a person becomes an advocate, he has the burden of providing evidence for his point of view. If he has no evidence, or doesn't provide it when asked, it is reasonable to conclude that his opinion or viewpoint is uninformed and may fairly be discounted or rejected.
David, as always, you have a serious point and I, obviously, shall agree with you.

But I think that the most important discussion, once debated in another thread, is the distinction regarding the representation of facts written in a novel and facts written in a history book. If an author meant that his novel would be read like a fictional work, ok (like Steiner did in "Treblinka", only to be, some years later, demoralized at the John Demjanjuk's trial, by Demjanjuk's lawyer).

But, if he, as a real witness to the facts he is writing about, pretends to show us what really happened as literature, as fiction? He is not giving a testimonee (but in the same time, he is doing this), it is not also a afiddavit (but in some way, it seems like an informal one). He is a writer after all. How we can manage this situation? Throw out the whole content of his book? Or we can try to find some howlers, flaws, and despise the book as a hoax?

Who cares if Mengele used or not a monocle after all?
The evidence consists of eyewitness testimony from victims and bystanders, the confessions and admissions of perpetrators, photographs, an abundance of documents, physical evidence, forensic studies and judicial findings.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23722
Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
Location: USA

#32

Post by David Thompson » 10 May 2003, 21:56

Chalutzim -- Thanks for understanding.

In regard to the point you made about historical novels, when an author terms his work a novel, the inescapable suggestion is that it is a work of fiction. If the author wants to recount facts, he bears the responsibility of telling the reader what is true and what is not. If he doesn't accept that responsibility, it is better that the work not be used as or claimed to be factual at all.

The alternative is to spend time debating an issue like the 1945 bombing of Dresden by using Kurt Vonnegut's "Slaughterhouse-9" as a source. There is an account of the aftermath of the bombing, and Vonnegut was there, but there is also an account of an alien abduction in the novel.

Another example would be to cite to Fielding's novel "Tom Jones" as an authority on 18th century English social conditions. Those might have really been the conditions, but we need to go beyond Fielding's novel to prove it.

In both cases (Vonnegut and Fielding) the authors did not see fit to tell us which parts were meant to be taken as true (if any), and which were meant to be just a story, or an allegory, or a personal and emotional impression of a scene. If the author won't undertake that responsibility, or publish a separate account which is clearly factual, I don't think the work should be used in a serious historical discussion.


User avatar
RACPISA
Member
Posts: 836
Joined: 27 Apr 2003, 19:21
Location: Grand Rapids, MI

Night

#33

Post by RACPISA » 10 May 2003, 22:32

chalutzim wrote:Who cares if Mengele used or not a monocle after all?
Yeah, memory can be a fragile thing, especially after 10 years. 10 years ago, I was in fourth grade and I have a hazy remembrance of what my teacher looked like. So it's perfectly understandable. I don't think it should undo the credibility of his whole book.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23722
Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
Location: USA

#34

Post by David Thompson » 10 May 2003, 22:36

Chalutzim and RACPISA -- Here is an extraordinarily poignant and sad example of the problem, from vol. 3 of the Eichmann trial proceedings:

Session No. 68
23 Sivan 5721 (7 June 1961)

Presiding Judge: I declare the sixty-eighth Session of the trial open.

* * * * *

Attorney General: I would ask Mr. Dinur to mount the witness stand.

Presiding Judge: Do you speak Hebrew?

Witness Dinur: Yes.

[The witness is sworn.]

Presiding Judge: What is your full name?

Witness: Yehiel Dinur.

Attorney General: Mr. Dinur, you live in Tel Aviv, at 78 Rehov Meggido, and you are a writer?

Witness Dinur: Yes.

Q. You were born in Poland?

A. Yes.

Q. And you were the author of the books Salamandra, The House of Dolls, The Clock Above the Head and They called Him Piepel?

A. Yes.

Q. What was the reason that you hid your identity behind the pseudonym “K. Zetnik,” Mr. Dinur?

A. It was not a pen name. I do not regard myself as a writer and a composer of literary material. This is a chronicle of the planet of Auschwitz. I was there for about two years. Time there was not like it is here on earth. Every fraction of a minute there passed on a different scale of time. And the inhabitants of this planet had no names, they had no parents nor did they have children. There they did not dress in the way we dress here; they were not born there and they did not give birth; they breathed according to different laws of nature; they did not live - nor did they die - according to the laws of this world. Their name was the number “Kazetnik”.* {*23Kazett=Konzentrationslager - Katzetnik: inmate of a concentration camp} They were clad there, how would you call it...

Q. Yes. Is this what you wore there? [Shows the witness the prison garb of Auschwitz.]

A. This is the garb of the planet called Auschwitz. And I believe with perfect faith that I have to continue to bear this name so long as the world has not been aroused after this crucifixion of a nation, to wipe out this evil, in the same way as humanity was aroused after the crucifixion of one man. I believe with perfect faith that, just as in astrology the stars influence our destiny, so does this planet of the ashes, Auschwitz, stand in opposition to our planet earth, and influences it.

If I am able to stand before you today and relate the events within that planet, if I, a fall-out of that planet, am able to be here at this time, then I believe with perfect faith that this is due to the oath I sworn to them there. They gave me this strength. This oath was the armour with which I acquired the supernatural power, so that I should be able, after time - the time of Auschwitz - the two years when I was a Musselman, to overcome it. For they left me, they always left me, they were parted from me, and this oath always appeared in the look of their eyes.

For close on two years they kept on taking leave of me and they always left me behind. I see them, they are staring at me, I see them, I saw them standing in the queue...

Q. Perhaps you will allow me, Mr. Dinur, to put a number of questions to you, if you will agree?

A. [Tries to continue] I remember...

Presiding Judge: Mr. Dinur, kindly listen to what the Attorney General has to say.

[Witness Dinur rises from his place, descends from the witness stand, and collapses on the platform. The witness fainted.]

Presiding Judge: I think we shall have to adjourn the session. I do not think that we can continue.

Attorney General: I did not anticipate this.

Presiding Judge: [After some time] I do not think that it is possible to go on. We shall adjourn the Session now, and please, Mr. Hausner, inform us of the condition of the witness and whether he will at all be able to give his testimony today. And I would ask you to do so soon.

[The Session was resumed.]

Attorney General: With the Court’s permission, in view of the unfortunate incident that has taken place, I shall have to arrange the evidence on Auschwitz differently. It was intended that Mr. Dinur should give us a general description, so that the other witnesses could supplement it on various partial aspects. I ask the Court’s indulgence if the picture now will not be presented in the manner in which we originally planned. The witness Dinur will not be able to continue his evidence, I understand. He has been taken away from this building and his state of health will not permit him to continue. I call Joseph Zalman Kleinman.

User avatar
chalutzim
Member
Posts: 803
Joined: 09 Nov 2002, 21:00
Location: Südamerika - Brazil

#35

Post by chalutzim » 10 May 2003, 23:05

David Thompson wrote:Chalutzim and RACPISA -- Here is an extraordinarily poignant and sad example of the problem, from vol. 3 of the Eichmann trial proceedings(...)
David, I do not think you already read Hannah Arend's book about the trial of Eichmann in Jerusalem. It's a masterpiece about Israeli concept of justice. Her commentary about the excerpt you quoted is very revealing and rather sardonic in regard of Zion. Mr. Dinur deserves the readers he has NOW. Where they are?

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23722
Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
Location: USA

#36

Post by David Thompson » 10 May 2003, 23:30

Chalutzim -- I had read Hannah Arendt's book thirty years or so ago, but did not recall the passage to which you refer. After reading your post, I dug out my copy (1970 edition) and re-read the passage (at pps. 223-24).

Ms. Arendt seems to have regarded the witness as unnecessary, self-absorbed and pretentious. I have never read any of the man's works, and when I read his testimony, regarded it as the product of experiences so disturbing that he had tried to exorcise his hellish experience through writing fiction, was no longer able to distinguish between fact and fiction, and was so taxed by the effort that he got up, staggered and fainted in the courtroom.

That was my point in quoting the passage. Needless to say, those observations have no applicability to the testimony of other, much more reliable witnesses who testified at the trial of Eichmann and others. Prosecutors and historians like a bright line between truth and fiction so as to establish objective facts. Subjectively, sometimes the line isn't that bright -- particularly when the author of the novel neither draws nor illuminates that line for the reader.

For these reasons, I see no reason to change my opinion about citations to novels in an argument on history.

For other readers, here is what Ms. Arendt had to say:
Attachments
Arendt 224.jpg
Arendt 224.jpg (143.8 KiB) Viewed 1688 times
Arendt 223.jpg
Arendt 223.jpg (89.71 KiB) Viewed 1688 times
Arendt cover.jpg
Arendt cover.jpg (85.88 KiB) Viewed 1689 times

User avatar
RACPISA
Member
Posts: 836
Joined: 27 Apr 2003, 19:21
Location: Grand Rapids, MI

Eichmann trial example

#37

Post by RACPISA » 11 May 2003, 00:10

David Thompson wrote:Chalutzim and RACPISA -- Here is an extraordinarily poignant and sad example of the problem, from vol. 3 of the Eichmann trial proceedings:
Wow...thanks for the info.

User avatar
chalutzim
Member
Posts: 803
Joined: 09 Nov 2002, 21:00
Location: Südamerika - Brazil

#38

Post by chalutzim » 11 May 2003, 00:21

David Thompson wrote: (...) Ms. Arendt seems to have regarded the witness as unnecessary, self-absorbed and pretentious.
Yes, David. She regarded Mr. Dinur as a prospective victim (a prey?) of Mr. Finkelstein ramble (sure, she never dreamed that a man like Finkelstein would appear and would distort her very clever, and objective, analysis) of the "Holocaust Industry". She was quite right, though.
I have never read any of the man's works, and when I read his testimony, regarded it as the product of experiences so disturbing that he had tried to exorcise his hellish experience through writing fiction, was no longer able to distinguish between fact and fiction, and was so taxed by the effort that he got up, staggered and fainted in the courtroom.
He was a industrious freak. I'm wondering what Scott and Mr. Mills would do with his writings...
That was my point in quoting the passag
Sorry. Actually I thought you was over-simplifying. My fault. Sorry.

Cheers.

Erik
Member
Posts: 488
Joined: 03 May 2002, 17:49
Location: Sweden

#39

Post by Erik » 11 May 2003, 00:34

Witness wrote:
Or in other words Eric is trying to insinuate that all the experiences of the reviewers are based on nothing else but Nyiszli’s book. Even though the last reviewer clearly states :
"I have visited the Concentration Camps at Treblinka, Majdanek, Auschwitz, Birkenau and Plaszov"
But it is much more convinient just to shrug this statement off,is not it.?
”Or in other words…” does Erik ”insinuate”, ”…just to shrug this statement off”, because ”it is much more convenient”!

And Erik is at loss, as the saying goes!

Originally I was intrigued by the following exchange:
Quote:

Hans wrote:
Quote:
Scott Smith wrote:
Anyway, Miklos Nyiszli's Doctor at Auschwitz is also a novel (very much so) but it has been referred to as eyewitness testimony by some.

Well, I guess that these "some" have actually read the book instead of a revisionist review (right, Scott? ) and noticed that most of it (not all, but most...) IS eyewitness testímony!
Hans states (or does he “insinuate”, too?) that “some” have actually read the book instead of a revisionist review and by this means noticed that most of it IS eyewitness testimony.

I quoted a non-revisionist review (didn’t I?) from a reader that had actually read the book instead of a revisionist review. This reviewer insists that :
The story and the author's experiences were so profound and penetrating that I have spent the last fourteen years studying and reading as much about the Holocaust as I can.
I have visited the Concentration Camps at Treblinka, Majdanek, Auschwitz, Birkenau and Plaszov, together with other areas in Poland directly connected with the Jewish Holocaust. I have seen the buildings full of human hair from the Jewish victims, the gas chambers, crematoria and the other hideous instruments of mass murder referred to in this book.
I quoted these words two times (this is the third time). The reviewer has accordingly “seen the buildings full of human hair from the Jewish victims, the gas chambers, crematoria and the other hideous instruments of mass murder referred to in this book”.

Still, “Eric is trying to insinuate that all the experiences of the reviewers are based on nothing else but Nyiszli’s book”.

Well, I hope I failed in my “try” to insinuate something that all the three reviewers gainsay :
I have found that Nyiszli's book is just another account of the sadistic ordeals that the inmates of Auschwitz went through. If you are well-read in the history of the Holocaust, then you too may find this statement to be true.

I.e., the first reviewer must have read other accounts.
I have personally read (at the time I write this) about a dozen memoirs on the Holocaust.

That’s the second reviewer, making havoc of any try to “insinuate nothing else but Nyiszli’s book”.
I have always had an interest in the Holocaust, but until I read this book some fourteen years ago, it had always remained at a distance.


That’s the third reviewer, who consequently spent fourteen years to confirm the reading experience.
The story and the author's experiences were so profound and penetrating that I have spent the last fourteen years studying and reading as much about the Holocaust as I can. I have visited the Concentration Camps at Treblinka, Majdanek, Auschwitz, Birkenau and Plaszov, together with other areas in Poland directly connected with the Jewish Holocaust. I have seen the buildings full of human hair from the Jewish victims, the gas chambers, crematoria and the other hideous instruments of mass murder referred to in this book.
So this reviewer obviously falls within the non-revisionist category lineated by Hans:
Well, I guess that these "some" have actually read the book instead of a revisionist review (right, Scott? ) and noticed that most of it (not all, but most...) IS eyewitness testímony!
So Erik’s question remains: which are the “other hideous instruments of mass murder referred to in this book”, if the “gas chambers, crematoria” are the others?

Are they to be seen in the “Concentration Camps” named by this non-revisionist reviewer?

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 16:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

#40

Post by Roberto » 11 May 2003, 00:48

Erik wrote:So Erik’s question remains: which are the “other hideous instruments of mass murder referred to in this book”, if the “gas chambers, crematoria” are the others?
Assuming the philosopher is interested in an answer and not just bent on displaying the misery of his confused mind, he may find a brief description of the various killing methods other than gassing applied at Auschwitz-Birkenau under this link:

http://www.wsg-hist.uni-linz.ac.at/Ausc ... htung.html

User avatar
chalutzim
Member
Posts: 803
Joined: 09 Nov 2002, 21:00
Location: Südamerika - Brazil

#41

Post by chalutzim » 11 May 2003, 00:55

Derrida wrote:(...) And Erik is at loss, as the saying goes! (...)
Brilliant! :lol:

User avatar
chalutzim
Member
Posts: 803
Joined: 09 Nov 2002, 21:00
Location: Südamerika - Brazil

#42

Post by chalutzim » 11 May 2003, 01:02

Erik wrote:(...)I quoted these words two times (this is the third time).
Thank you for the fourth! :roll:

Erik
Member
Posts: 488
Joined: 03 May 2002, 17:49
Location: Sweden

#43

Post by Erik » 11 May 2003, 01:19

Witness wrote:
Quote:
Would he have “seen” all this without Nyiszli’s book
Would Eric have written this without frequenting the IHR and Codoh sites ?

The quote from ”Eric” is from a non-revisionist reviewer of Nyiszli’s book that wrote:
I have always had an interest in the Holocaust, but until I read this book some fourteen years ago, it had always remained at a distance.
And:
The story and the author's experiences were so profound and penetrating that I have spent the last fourteen years studying and reading as much about the Holocaust as I can.
Erik wrote:
Would he have “seen” all this without Nyiszli’s book?

No.
Maybe I’m wrong. Other books could have had the same effect on the reviewer, in due time, describing the same “profound and penetrating” experiences of another author. But nevertheless, the reviewer hints at a corresponding “profound and penetrating” effect on his own personal life(“studying and reading”), emanating from this particular book.
Would Eric have written this without frequenting the IHR and Codoh sites ?
Before any “IHR and Codoh sites” there was the Internet. Without the Internet, the Holocaust would have most likely “remained at a distance” to Erik, despite the present educational efforts of the Swedish Government and its “Levande Historia” (“Living History”) Project, just as the efforts of the Lutheran State Church of Sweden to maintain religious Orthodoxy during the last century (the first democratic one in Swedish history) “remained at a distance” to most Swedes.

Internet means a new “literacy”, just like the Gutenberg information “revision” technology once made a crack in the wall of medieval self-evidences.
Last edited by Erik on 11 May 2003, 01:27, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 16:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

#44

Post by Roberto » 11 May 2003, 01:26

Erik wrote: Before any “IHR and Codoh sites” there was the Internet. Without the Internet, the Holocaust would have most likely “remained at a distance” to Erik,
And the philosopher and like-minded phenomena would have been blissfully kept from exposing the workings of their minds to a larger audience.

User avatar
chalutzim
Member
Posts: 803
Joined: 09 Nov 2002, 21:00
Location: Südamerika - Brazil

#45

Post by chalutzim » 11 May 2003, 01:30

Erik wrote:(...) Internet means a new “literacy”, just like the Gutenberg information “revision”once meant a crack in wall of medieval self-evidences.
Yeah. And today we have "revisionism" and revisionism. One look at the mirror and see itself without breaking it; another, break itself and see a mirror... :roll:

Self-evidence? I prefer to remain illiterate.

Post Reply

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”