Is Simon Wiesenthal a War Criminal or Criminal in general

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
Erik
Member
Posts: 488
Joined: 03 May 2002 16:49
Location: Sweden

Post by Erik » 23 Sep 2003 04:02

Mr Thompson wrote:
Erik -- Your post suggests that perhaps Weber was only quoting from Wiesenthal, and that perhaps it was Wiesenthal who had exaggerated the claim in Ziereis' statement.
Quote:
"Maybe the statement appears ‘according to the Ziereis “confession”’…”cited by Wiesenthal”?"


Earlier, Mr Thompson wrote:

I am familiar with the writer of the Wiesenthal article, Mark Weber, and have read other articles by the fellow. I have little respect for the man's works. The easiest way to get an appreciation of his method is to check him against his sources. For example, here is a paragraph from the Wiesenthal article:
(…)


What if Wiesenthal did not know about the Marsalek affidavit (signed 8 April 1946) contained in
Document 3870-PS, but had Ziereis’ confession from other sources when he wrote his book about Mauthausen in 1946?

And Weber had Wiesenthal’s book from 1946 as his source?

Then Weber cannot be checked “against his sources” in the Nuremberg Document 3870-PS, can he?


If Wiesenthal actually had distorted the Ziereis confession to change the numbers and add new material, and Weber could show that, he would have effectively discredited Wiesenthal. But that's not what Weber says in his Wiesenthal article, nor does Weber even accuse Wiesenthal of changing Ziereis' words. Weber doesn't even quote the passage from Ziereis to contrast it with Wiesenthal's version and show any supposed inaccuracy. That leaves us with another, more likely possibility -- that Weber is the one who has distorted Ziereis' statement.


“…nor does Weber even accuse Wiesenthal of changing Ziereis' words…”

Well, it seems that he accuses Wiesenthal of quoting Ziereis’ words, rather!!

Perhaps Weber didn’t care whether Wiesenthal misquoted Ziereis' numbers in Document 3870-PS (i.e., added “new material” to it’s “one million to one and a half million murdered human beings in Hartheim”) or not?

Didn’t Wiesenthal himself “discredit” both “the numbers” and the confession when he (according to Faurisson, that is!) left it all out in the German edition of 1995?

Weber then states: "In fact, this fraudulent "confession" was obtained by torture." Weber's claim has certainly been made repeatedly, but I have yet to see any factual basis for the statements that the confession was "fraudulent" or that it "was obtained by torture."


Hans Marsalek (the interrogator) found it necessary to point out to Ziereis “that this number was too high” (and he meant one to one and a half million human beings).

Did he think that Ziereis was “fraudulent”, even?

Ziereis was “seriously wounded” – “his body had been penetrated by three bullets” – and he was interrogated “for a period of six to eight hours”, during “the night from 22 May to 23 May 1945”.

Those bullets must have tortured him during the interrogation, at least, even if he deserved them. So the confession was perhaps “obtained by torture” – “de facto”?

As for exhibit NO-1973, as I recall the NO series was not used to designate exhibits in the IMT trial. If it's an exhibit from some other trial or some other case, Weber certainly hasn't taken the trouble to point out what it is.


Pastor Niemöller, a prisoner at Dachau, stated that 238,000 human beings were killed there, at Dachau. He had read the number on a sign at the crematory there in November 1945 (after having been liberated), stating the number of cremated corpses at Dachau. His wife fainted when she saw the said sign.

Wiesenthal can have read the number of four millions in the newspapers of 1945, reporting rumours concerning the Ziereis confession that was repeated in the “exhibit NO-1973”, and later corrected by the affidavit of Hans Marsalek.(?).

Perhaps Wiesenthal was unaware of the “correction” in 1946? His number was just as “informed” as was Niemöller’s from Dachau?

Weber says that this shows “the irresponsible character of this book” (Wiesenthal’s on Mauthausen).

But in 1946 responsibilities perhaps had other priorities.

Ostuf Charlemagne
Member
Posts: 1014
Joined: 18 Dec 2002 12:33
Location: Honduras

Post by Ostuf Charlemagne » 23 Sep 2003 04:08

Marcus : I do not deny german,nazi ,crimes which existed....(and so far,too manies of them !) i just think that many times they are overexagerated.... no more,no less !

Other point ; the guilties of nazi crimes had been punished (with some innocents among them !)...this is not the case of the guilties of communist crimes where reign the ''forgive and forget '' feeling Thompson just had mentionate....why two different weights,two different measures ???

Chalutzim (and some others ) : In the army we would call that an ''attack of divertion''... nice try ! but the topic is about Wiesenthal,not about Weber.(In french lenguage will call that ;''an attempt to sunk the fish''.)

So you are of course free to discuss the Weber's case...but please open another topic about him and let's discuss Simon Wiesenthal here.
And yes i have a testimony about Simon being a kapo,i gone scann it tomorrow .

demonio
Member
Posts: 908
Joined: 27 Apr 2003 03:54
Location: The Matrix

Post by demonio » 23 Sep 2003 04:19

Here is a letter suggesting that Simon Wiesenthal forges letters or drawings to go "nazi huntung"

A copy of the following document was given to me — Lubomyr Prytulak — by a friend. I believe it to be an authentic copy of a typewritten letter sent by Frank Walus. In reproducing this letter below, I have preserved all errors that I found in the original, as well as all underlining.

Please note that toward the bottom of this letter, text that is underlined and in color constitutes a clickable link.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

April 9, 1985

TO: THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY AND ALL HUMAN RIGHTS GROUPS

RE: THE AWARDING, BY THE FEDERAL RPUBLIC OF GERMANY, THAT NATION'S HIGHEST AWARD FOR CIVILIANS — THE ORDER OF MERIT — TO SIMON WIESENTHAL

FROM FRANK WALUS

The power to accuse is a power sometimes beyond understanding.

I was accused. By Simon Wiesenthal, "the great humanitarian".

What began as a dispute with Polish-speaking neighbors ended up in Federal Court. I was accused by neighbors who bore financial bitterness to me. I was accused by acquaintances who owed me money. I was on trial for my life.

Their accusations would have been dismissed in any humane society that is aware of human nature. But my accusers had a trump card. I am Polish. I speak German. I was alive during World War II and living in Europe.

On those preposterous grounds, my accusers were able to dream up a deadly charge: a charge that makes otherwise normal and decent people foret about rules sf evidence and standards of justice. I was accused of bein a "Nazi war criminal."

The evidewnce was nil. The charge was propesterous. It would have gone nowhere. It would have been laughed at. It would have faded away into the oblivion it deserved as just another chapter in the history of personality conflict and pettiness between people.

It would have happened this way, if it wasn't for the intervention of Simon Wiesantal.

Mr. Wiesenthal took the gossip against me and fabricated it into "proof" that I was of that species of human that has no rights. A "Nazi war criminal." Wiesenthal dignified the hearsay against me by writing a formal letter in 1974 to the U.S. Dept. of Justice informing that agency that I was a former agent of the Gestapo and hinting that I was a murderer.

When Torquemada used these tactics in the Inquisition they were condemned. When the Judges in Salem, Massachusetts used these tactics they were condemned. When Stalin used these tactics they were condemned. When Joseph McCarthy used these tactics, he was condemned.

When Simon Wiesenthal uses these tactics against an innocent men, to destroy my health, my life savings and my peace of miknd, he is awarded the highest honor West German has to give. Why?

Wiesenthal worked behind the scenes with the Israeli secret police to convict me on perjured evidence. He orchestrated an ad campaign in Israeli newspapers for eyewitnesses against me to come forward. This "eyewitness" selection-process was so totally rigged that when one candidate for this status came forward, he could not even pick my photograph out from among 11 others. When this individual, Meylich Rozenwald, failed to identify my picture from the others, the Isaraili cop handed Rozenwald my picture.

As a result of this insane gossip/hearsay "evidence" and the grooming of eleven perjurers from Israel, I was put on trial for 17 days. Prior to that time, I was assumed guilty by the news media and villified publicly as a "Nazi war criminal". I was attacked by Jews in the street and hospitalized. I lost my friends. I had six heart attacks. I spent around $120,000 in my own defense. I remain in debt for tens of thousands of dollars incurred to defend myself against the gossip-based accusations of Simon Wiesenthal.

By the power of Wiesenthal's well-oiled money-and-publicity machine he was able to get eleven Israelis to swear in a U.S. court of law that I was the one to beat their fathers to death and gunned down a Jewish mother and her little kids. By the protective cloak of Wiesenthal, not one of these perjurers has been convicted of any crime for their lies — lies which would have sent me to my death had the senile Zionist Judge Julius Hoffman's guilty verdict against me not been overturned by a higher court.

These Israeli liars are not having their peace of mind distured as they enjoy the sunshine in Israel. Their reputations have not been made to suffer as mine has. They all get off scot-free and well rewarded. Meanwile the U.S. prosecutors in my case continue to insist that they were correct in filing charges against me. That it was an "honest mistake". They will not even be men enough to legally state I am innocent, only that there was a "striking absence" of evidence in Wiesenthal's case against me.

But how can it be an honest mistake when the government blindly relied on Wiesenthal for its case and Wiesenthal maliciously based his accusations on street gossip? Has Wiesenthal apologized to me, has he reimbursed me for my lost health, lost life savings, lost friends, lost peace of mind for myself, my wife and children? No. The man is not obliged to do so.

He can lie all he likes. He can accuse anybody on the flimsiest evidence thanks to the witchhunting media hysteria about "Nazi criminals". He need not worry about "mistakes" orthe damage his lies do. What is the ruination of an innocent man's life compared to media prestige? Why would Simon Wiesenthal have to make amends to me? .........

Wiesenthal forged the drawing of "executed Jews" from his 1946 KZ Mauthausen book (p. 64) in a plagiarism of the June 11, 1945 issue of Life magazine. There are more lies investigative reporters have documented about this Grand Inquisitor. They are ignored by the human rights groups and governments. This means more inoocents will suffer as John Demjanjuk now suffers. The West German governfment is a disgrace and a discredit to its people, especially to those who have made th supreme sacrifice in giving up the lives for the honor and glory of their "FATHERLAND".

Frank Walus



Sources on my victimization: Chicago Reader, 23, Jan, 1981. Student Lawyer May '81. Chicago Tribune Magazine 2 Dec. 1982. Sources on Wiesenthal's racketeering; Prima Facie (Bradley Smith, tel.213/465-3736). Wiesenthal: Ohne Maske, RH Dreschsler A-1041 Wien, Austria Fach2000.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23289
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Post by David Thompson » 23 Sep 2003 04:31

Erik -- You said:
"Well, it seems that he [Weber] accuses Wiesenthal of quoting Ziereis’ words, rather!!"


I think if you read what Weber wrote, namely:
"The irresponsible character of this book is also shown by Wiesenthal's extensive citation therein of the supposed "death bed confession" of Mauthausen Commandant Franz Ziereis, according to which four million were gassed to death with carbon monoxide at the nearby Hartheim satellite camp.18 This claim is totally absurd, and no serious Holocaust historian still accepts it.19 Also according to the Ziereis "confession" cited by Wiesenthal, the Germans supposedly killed another ten million people in Poland, Lithuania and Latvia.20 In fact, this fraudulent "confession" was obtained by torture.21"


you will see that Weber speaks of Wiesenthal citing to Ziereis' statement, not quoting from it.

In regard to Hans Marsalek's affidavit about his discussion with Ziereis, you said:
Did he think that Ziereis was “fraudulent”, even?


I think readers can review the affidavit and make up their own minds. Certainly, the only person who used the expression "fraudulent" was Weber, and with no evidence to back his claim either.

You further said:
Ziereis was “seriously wounded” – “his body had been penetrated by three bullets” – and he was interrogated “for a period of six to eight hours”, during “the night from 22 May to 23 May 1945”. Those bullets must have tortured him during the interrogation, at least, even if he deserved them. So the confession was perhaps “obtained by torture” – “de facto”?


My dictionary defines "torture" as "the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty." Your definition, on the other hand, suggests that a statement of a patient to a doctor giving information about the patient's broken leg, and almost every deathbed statement, is "'obtained by torture' – 'de facto'" For that reason, I think your use of the term is somewhat "tortured."

If there are any facts which might help your argument, you're not providing them. If you've got a copy of "Nuremberg exhibit" NO-1973, please post it. Until then, please excuse me while I get back to work moderating this section of the forum.

Ostuf Charlemagne
Member
Posts: 1014
Joined: 18 Dec 2002 12:33
Location: Honduras

Post by Ostuf Charlemagne » 23 Sep 2003 05:30

Even if Weber is wrong (and maybe he is not....) ,facts remains that Wiesenthal changed his biography 3 or 4 times...
Let's drop on Weber and stick to the topic : what about the statement of chancellor Kreisky ??
What about the testimony of this polish man,Demonio just wrote about ??
What about the case of John Demanjuk ???
What about the breaking of international laws and the human rights ????
What can you say,Chalutzim and the others ???????

demonio
Member
Posts: 908
Joined: 27 Apr 2003 03:54
Location: The Matrix

Post by demonio » 23 Sep 2003 05:36

Here is an example of a retouched photo that is currently posted on the Wiesenthal site and below it an example of the original photo

The unretouched photo showing May 1944 new camp arrivals at Auschwitz.
From Auschwitz Album 1978 (1st edition, Beate Klarsfeld Foundation, New York, 1978), photo No. 165

Cosmetically improved version on the Wiesenthal Website:
Suddenly there is distant smoke in the background behind the fence-posts, poles and new arrivals.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Last edited by demonio on 23 Sep 2003 06:56, edited 2 times in total.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23289
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Post by David Thompson » 23 Sep 2003 05:51

demonio -- So what does a retouched photo have to do with whether Simon Wiesenthal was a war criminal or some kind of criminal? Anything?
Last edited by David Thompson on 23 Sep 2003 05:57, edited 1 time in total.

demonio
Member
Posts: 908
Joined: 27 Apr 2003 03:54
Location: The Matrix

Post by demonio » 23 Sep 2003 05:57

David Thompson wrote:demonio -- So what?


All im saying is that this gives deniers fuel to spread their ideas that the holocaust never happened

demonio
Member
Posts: 908
Joined: 27 Apr 2003 03:54
Location: The Matrix

Post by demonio » 23 Sep 2003 05:59

David Thompson wrote:demonio -- So what does a retouched photo have to do with whether Simon Wiesenthal was a war criminal or some kind of criminal? Anything?


If it is the work of the centre than it could be considered criminal.

A lay person could look at those photos and say "ha, there was no gassings at Auschwitz" or "someone is trying to trick us" and distort evidences

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23289
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Post by David Thompson » 23 Sep 2003 06:15

For readers who may not be aware of Frank Walus and his case, here are some general details:

Walus, Franciszek "Frank" (29.7.1922-?) – suspected member of the German Secret State Police (Geheime Staatspolizei - Gestapo) accused of beating and killing civilians in Kielce and Czestochowa, Poland between 1939 and 1943 {entered US 15 Jan 1959; became US citizen 18 Aug 1970; US Immigration and Naturalization Service moved to revoke citizenship 26 Jan 1977 (NYT 27 Jan 1977:22:1; NYT 5 Apr 1978:14:5); stripped of US citizenship 30 May 1978 (NYT 31 May 1978:16:4; NYT 9 Jun 1978:17:2; NYT 17 Jun 1978:7:2; NYT 22 Nov 1979:II:1:5; United States v. Walus, 453 F.Supp. 699 [1978]); new trial ordered by 7th Circuit Court of Appeals 14 Feb 1980 (NYT 15 Feb 1980:18:1); US Department of Justice Office of Special Investigations (OSI) abandoned revocation efforts on grounds of newly discovered evidence 26 Nov 1980 (NYT 27 Nov 1980:20:1; NYT 1 May 1983:25:1); decision criticized by Israel 25 Jan 1981 (NYT 26 Jan 1981:19:1).}

demonio
Member
Posts: 908
Joined: 27 Apr 2003 03:54
Location: The Matrix

Post by demonio » 23 Sep 2003 06:18

Thanks for that information David

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23289
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Post by David Thompson » 23 Sep 2003 06:26

demonio -- You're welcome.

I don't think that posting retouched historical photos is a good idea, nor do I think it's an ethical historical practice. It's propaganda. I don't think it's a criminal act.

I too would like to get down to specific allegations of crime, starting with Ostuf Charlemagne's recap:

what about the statement of chancellor Kreisky ??
What about the testimony of this polish man,Demonio just wrote about ??
What about the case of John Demanjuk ???
What about the breaking of international laws and the human rights ????


If evidence and details exist, these charges are worth airing out and discussing fully. We've seen the allegations. Now let's see some evidence.

demonio
Member
Posts: 908
Joined: 27 Apr 2003 03:54
Location: The Matrix

Post by demonio » 23 Sep 2003 06:59

David Thompson wrote:demonio -- You're welcome.

I don't think that posting retouched historical photos is a good idea, nor do I think it's an ethical historical practice. It's propaganda. I don't think it's a criminal act.

I too would like to get down to specific allegations of crime, starting with Ostuf Charlemagne's recap:

what about the statement of chancellor Kreisky ??
What about the testimony of this polish man,Demonio just wrote about ??
What about the case of John Demanjuk ???
What about the breaking of international laws and the human rights ????


If evidence and details exist, these charges are worth airing out and discussing fully. We've seen the allegations. Now let's see some evidence.


ok
Last edited by demonio on 23 Sep 2003 07:09, edited 1 time in total.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23289
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Post by David Thompson » 23 Sep 2003 06:59

Here's a little more on Frank Walus, as reported by the New York Times (publication dates in jpeg captions). For those with long memories, Judge Julius Hoffman, who presided over the proceedings against Walus at the federal district court level, was the same fellow who ordered defendant Robert "Bobby" Seale bound, gagged and chained to a chair during the trial of the "Chicago 8," following the 1968 disorders at the Democratic National Convention.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

demonio
Member
Posts: 908
Joined: 27 Apr 2003 03:54
Location: The Matrix

Post by demonio » 23 Sep 2003 07:00

David Thompson wrote:demonio -- You're welcome.

I don't think that posting retouched historical photos is a good idea, nor do I think it's an ethical historical practice. It's propaganda. I don't think it's a criminal act.

I too would like to get down to specific allegations of crime, starting with Ostuf Charlemagne's recap:

what about the statement of chancellor Kreisky ??
What about the testimony of this polish man,Demonio just wrote about ??
What about the case of John Demanjuk ???
What about the breaking of international laws and the human rights ????


If evidence and details exist, these charges are worth airing out and discussing fully. We've seen the allegations. Now let's see some evidence.


What about inciting hate against an accused. Also he and the centre appear to be operating as a law unto themselves. What jurisdiction do they have ?

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”