Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old December 25th, 2006 #1
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default Free Speech - Itz a White Thang - Jew Wouldn't Understand

All that is missing in White lands is the determination to step up and smite the jews. Why do we let this miserable bitch boss us around in our own house? We don't need the kike. It didn't create any of our countries. Why should her lies be enshrined as dogma, when our free speech served us just fine before the kikess ever showed up?


Let the Holocaust deniers speak out

Ben Macintyre

David Irving's repulsive views should be heard

How do you kill a poisonous idea? Do you lock it away, silence it and hope that somehow the venom will evaporate in the dark? Or do you let the evil out, expose it to argument and ridicule, and then watch it shrivel in the light?

I was glad to see David Irving walk free from an Austrian jail, podgier than when he went in, but no less pompous and pernicious. The British author and “historian” served 13 months of a three-year sentence for denying the Holocaust. Irving’s ideas are repulsive and wrong. A warrant for his arrest was originally issued in 1989 after he told an Austrian audience that the Nazi gas chambers were a “fairytale”; he also claimed that Hitler had sought to protect Jews, rather than systematically murder them.

Irving’s skewed version of history was already widely discredited before his arrest. In 2001, after his failed libel action against an American academic, a judge declared that he had “persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence”. That should have been his cultural epitaph. Instead, by silencing him in solitary confinement, Irving was allowed to become a grotesque poster-boy for freedom of speech.

It is far better that Irving should be at liberty to spout his vile nonsense, and derided for it. Let him traipse back to Britain, demanding an academic boycott of Austria and Germany, which everyone will ignore. Then his ideas can slide back into the intellectual mud where they belong. We need to hear the poisonous ideas to realise how wrong they are.

The Tehran conference of Holocaust deniers last week provoked waves of outrage around the world, but it may inadvertently have done more for the cause of honest history than any number of learned and objective monographs. The list of speakers alone demonstrated just how intellectually impoverished is the cause of Holocaust denial: David Duke, former grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, the usual suspects such as Frederick Töben and Robert Faurisson, and a group of photogenic anti-Zionist ultra-Orthodox rabbis. The works of Irving were displayed in glass cases, like the fossils they are.

Sacha Baron Cohen perfectly captured the intellectual tenor of the conference by sending an apology note from the anti-Semitic Borat to the Golden Globes Award organisers, saying he was otherwise engaged as guest of honour at the Tehran knees-up.

So far from lending scholarly weight to Holocaust denial, the entire episode has revealed the crude anti-Semitic grandstanding of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian President. Iran’s Foreign Minister described the conference as “scientific and scholarly”, but when the anti-Israel rabbis went off-message and declared that the mass murder of European Jews had been “confirmed by innumerable eye-witnesses and fully documented”, every one of the Iranian government-controlled newspapers somehow missed the news.

The conference was always pure propaganda, underpinned by the hoary conspiracy theory that the history of the genocide has been falsified to justify the foundation of Israel. The fragility of the deniers’ argument was laid bare. The conference probably did not persuade a single person that the Holocaust really is a “myth”, but it convinced many millions that Israel’s enemies are prepared to hijack history.

Racists prefer to operate in the half-light, preaching to the converted, the blinkered and the paranoid. Himmler himself argued in 1943 that the Final Solution was best kept secret. By shining a spotlight on the sad creatures that make up the Holocaust denial lobby, Mr Ahmadinejad may have done them a huge disservice.

The Iranian President’s target audience was not the West, nor even Iranians, but radicalised Muslims in other parts of the Middle East. He is seeking a wider constituency in the region by fomenting anti-Semitism and fostering the falsehood that Jews invented their own tragedy. From there, it is a short step to his demand that Israel be “wiped off the map”.

The reaction of Iran’s neighbours to the conference, or lack of it, is equally telling. As Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a former Dutch MP born in Somalia, wrote last week: “Why is there no counter-conference in Riyadh, Cairo, Lahore, Khartoum or Jakarta condemning Ahmadinejad? Why is the Organisation of the Islamic Conference silent on this?” The Tehran conference has not advanced historical learning one jot, but we have learnt a little more about the uncertainties and antipathies of the Middle East.

The proper reaction to Mr Ahmadinejad’s provocation is not to demand that such events be outlawed, and still less to try to silence or imprison cranks such as Irving. Instead, the global community should hold its own conference, inviting history scholars and witnesses to the Holocaust, but also the intellectual pariahs of Tehran.

Would it dignify the deniers to be permitted to share a platform with genuine historians? I doubt it. There is nothing dignified in seeing your arguments demolished. Imagine Irving’s paltry manipulations alongside, say, the moral authority of Elie Wiesel, the writer and Auschwitz survivor.

When lies are dragged into the light, common sense can usually see them for what they are. I defy any sensible person to read Mein Kampf and not immediately recognise it as semi-literate, barbaric and illogical. Hitler’s manifesto has lost its emotive power precisely because we can buy it openly, read it freely, and reject it utterly.

The same is true of the Holocaust deniers. Hidden, banned and imprisoned, they achieve a cachet and a credibility that they do not deserve. Let them speak, and with every word, they condemn themselves.


I'm a sensible person and I have read large portions of Mein Kampf. Though much of it is barbaric, there is a sick and twisted logic to most of it. Furthermore large parts of it contained a blueprint for Hitler's later brinksmanship and he was proven largely correct in his anticipation of the world's response up until 1939.
Perhaps more sensible people ought to give it a look. Ahmadinejad surely has.

Mark Hamilton, Baltimore, MD

Mr. Macintyre, you state:
"A warrant for his arrest was originally issued in 1989 after he told an Austrian audience that the Nazi gas chambers were a "fairytale"..."
I find this rather odd as the law that Irving was charged with violating wasn't in force until 1992. I wonder what other facts about Irving's case as presented in the public are muddied and incorrect?

James Dyer, Gainesville, Virginia

What the hell is meant by Peter Howard and others who speak of "the misuse of free speech"/
There can be no half-measures in free speech - it's either free or it isn't. Perhaps what these people mean is that free speech is properly used when they agree with the sentiments expressed and "misused" when they disagree. Do they all vote New Labour perhaps?

John Clarkson, Ankara, Turkey
Read all comments ( 31 )

I'm a sensible person and I have read large portions of Mein Kampf. Though much of it is barbaric, there is a sick and twisted logic to most of it. Furthermore large parts of it contained a blueprint for Hitler's later brinksmanship and he was proven largely correct in his anticipation of the world's response up until 1939.
Perhaps more sensible people ought to give it a look. Ahmadinejad surely has.

Mark Hamilton, Baltimore, MD

Mr. Macintyre, you state:
"A warrant for his arrest was originally issued in 1989 after he told an Austrian audience that the Nazi gas chambers were a "fairytale"..."
I find this rather odd as the law that Irving was charged with violating wasn't in force until 1992. I wonder what other facts about Irving's case as presented in the public are muddied and incorrect?

James Dyer, Gainesville, Virginia

What the hell is meant by Peter Howard and others who speak of "the misuse of free speech"/
There can be no half-measures in free speech - it's either free or it isn't. Perhaps what these people mean is that free speech is properly used when they agree with the sentiments expressed and "misused" when they disagree. Do they all vote New Labour perhaps?

John Clarkson, Ankara, Turkey

I have never seen a good argument for laws prohibiting Holocaust denial. For the most part, proponents of jail for Holocaust denial, resemble proponents of stoning for adultery. They are more concerned with publicly demonstrating their hostility to the sin (and thus their own virtue) than any benefit to society or justice. I suggest that anyone who lies about history in a manner defamatory of any group, should be subject to libel action.

Doug Forbes, Wheeling, USA

What signal is that? The message sent would be that free speech is a farce, that it only extends as far as that which is socially acceptable.
That is not free speech. Allowing people to misuse free speech is an important part of having it in the first place. Holocaust deniers should be allowed to open their mouths and prove themselves the fool everyone already thought they were, without consequence (except, of course, for the derision they'll receive from the majority who hear their revisionist views of history).

Yashmak, Stockton, CA, USA

I'm wondering if any of our learned professors are familiar with the concept of psychological reactance? The point is that if a restriction is perceived as unfair (which many people will always perceive restrictions on academic speech as unfair even if they disagree with what is being said) then you are naturally inclined to be more sympathetic with the side which is being restricted. Thus these foolish knee-jerk reactionary laws are probably the most effective way to gather support for Holocaust deniers. I think Ahmadinejad knew exactly what he was doing, the conference will not convince anyone but the expressed outrage and heavy handed criticism of the international community will generate great support from anyone that already is inclined to assume the international community is less than fair mind.

Dave, Norcross, GA, USA

Nah, "thought crimes" are a great idea. Beware what you think, you might be imprisoned (even 17 years after the fact) for an unapproved thought that you dared to think decades earlier. Perhaps we can expand upon this and arrange for mandatory executions of thought criminals. I don't agree with Irving but it DOES make one wonder. If what people like Irving say is so "absurd", then why must the approved version of history be enforced at gunpoint? It makes it seem to most people there is something to really hide.

John Williams, New York, NY

No, this is wrong - millions of people will not be reading Elie Wiesel or Ben Macintyre. However, having legislation in place which discourages Holocaust denial will send a clear signal to those who would misuse free speech.

Peter Howard, London, UK

Holocaust deniers should indeed be free to voice their distorted view of historical facts, showing themselves to be ignorant and riduculous. Attempting to silence them will render them "heros" for far-right extremists.

Bob Robson, Manchester, England

Holding a counter conference is a pretty foolish idea just as the imprisonment of Irvine was. People should be free to say what they think/believe (as long as they are not preaching hatred) and it's up to others to take it as they will. The corollary of the freedom of speech is the freedom to ignore.
The concept of an official truth which everyone must accept is quite scary and should be avoided at all costs.

Marek, London

Given the stance you are taking in this article, why are you so certain that an academic boycot against states who imprison people for voicing their beliefs is wrong?

Joe

I don't know which idea is more poisonous. Denying the holocaust or denying the freedom to deny the holocaust. Ben Macintyre needs to take a clear stand and condemn Austria for locking up people who are a little looney. Otherwise, he is only showing his bias towards one side.

Foley, Manchester, UK

Like many other establishment figures you seek to muddy the waters on this issue by refering to Holocaust revisionists such as David Irving as Holocaust "deniers". It is evident to anyone who has studied their literature that their main dispute is over one aspect of the Holocaust. This is the supposed planned gassing of six miliion Jews in gas chambers.
Many revisionists have pointed out the fact that there is no forensic or empirical evidence that there were "homocidal gas chambers" at any German camps. Myths ought to be exposed for what they are. If the adherents of the traditional story wish to kill the revisionists' "posionous idea", all they have to do is show us the huge amount of evidence that must exist. But they don't.
Instead revisionist historians, scientists and publishers have been murdered, assaulted, had acid thrown in their faces, and been imprisoned. If the evidence for the gas chambers is so overwhelming why be so concerned about what these "crackpots" think?

John Stone, Liverpool, England

Maybe I am missing something here. What I don't understand about the Holocaust deniers is why they want to deny it. Presumably these are anti-semites? So why deny something which as an anti-semite would be exactly what they believe should have happened to the Jews? By denying the Holocaust are they telling us that Hitler committed no crime? If so, then they are admitting the Holocaust was a crime, if in their book it had happened. I would have thought a Holocaust denier would be only too pleased to admit that this genocide actually happened.

Mike, Bonn, Germany

I agree fully with your view that Holocaust deniers should not be "hidden" away, but should be fully exposed to the ridicule of public opinion. Despite the fact that Austria had, and still has, good reasons to prohibit antisemitic statements and even worse, the glorification of Hitler´s regime, it may be much more fruitful to call for an official discussion on these matters.
During the past few years various minor Austrian politicians have made quite a number of statements about the virtues of the Third Reich´s "employment-politics". They were immediately criticised most vehemently and then hushed into silence. Instead of doing that, it would have been better for all concerned to have launched a round table with seroius historians, in order to clarify why some of our elders, for justifiable reasons or not, still feel that they gained in some way or other from Hitler´s economical warfare plans.

Marina Brandtner, Semriach (near Graz), Austria

Mr Macintyre's article indicates the sensitivities of Jews to anyone not fully subscribing to Holocaust. His choice of words against Mr Irving, like "vile nonsense", "skewed vision", "intellectual mud" etc do not reflect well. His reference to Hirsi Ali as an spokes person is pathetic, Miss Ali has been proven a liar, she invented a story to get political asylum in Holland and has been debarred by Dutch. For a survival and integration we must accept all debates with open mind.

Kanoo Juben, London, UK

It does not help that your commentator smirks and uses abusive and insulting words, labelling views as "repulsive".
I refuse to believe in the "Holocaust" narrative as it is told because I don't like being lied to - and that is what this battle of the wills is all about, to develop a world view where truth has a home.

Dr Fredrick Toben, Adelaide, Australia

In an ideal world, yes. In reality, Nazism is on the rise.
There is a very good reason why Holocaust denial IS A CRIME in the countries most affected by Nazism. Germany already has a big Neo-nazi problem with parts of East Germany, and it is easier to teach hate to the desperate and angry, than it is to rescue those who hearts and minds have been poisoned by Nazi ideology.
Stop defending, excusing and promoting these monsters, but attack them for what they are - liars and murderers.

Imli, London

Ben Macintyre gives us an eloquent reminder of the value of free speech. This year we have seen a greater willingness to debate subjects that were previously taboo such as wearing the veil, drunkenness in politicians, legalising prostitution, faked photographs published by the mainstream media and the purchase of peerages. The real test will come when we start to talk about what hurts the establishment or the media.

Terry Hamblin, Bournemouth, UK

I agree whole heartedly with Ben Macintyre's comments regarding the Tehran conference and how to treat Holocaust deniers. However, a lack of knowledge about the Holocaust or even it's existence amongst young people leads me to worry that so-called academics such as David Irving will be able to preach their version of history. It's not enough to say it happened and 6 million Jews were killed, it needs to be explained in a personal sense with survivors' testimonies to give young people an understanding of just how pernicious it was and can never happen again.

Katie Reed, London, UK

Frankly I think the above outpourings are a tad hypocritical. The fact of the matter is that it is the establishment historians who have always refused to debate the deviants, not the other way round.

Rowan Berkeley, London, England

Ben Macintyre misses the point about banning Holocaust denial. A person who denies the Holocaust is rightly dismissed as a crank as much as someone who denies that the Napoleonic Wars were ever fought. But Holocaust denial has a unique significance which makes out the case for criminalising it. It is inseparable from the presupposition that the Jewish-invented fiction. That they made it all up. That they produced fake witnesses, fabricated evidence and procured the judicial murder at Nuremberg of innocent Germans for crimes which never existed. It reinforces malevolent stereotypes of Jews as conspiratorial schemers, enemies of mankind who ought to be wiped out as vermin. Finally, Holocaust denial is inseparable from the purpose of making National Socialism an acceptable political alternative once again.

Anon

Instead of denying denials prove it!

Kris Kalhon, Chico, CA

Great article and I agree with every word. The more people hear about the beliefs of these ignoramuses, the less credibility they will have.

Izzie, Cornwall, UK

I find this business of Holocaust denial somewhat chilling. It is exactly the atmosphere and techniques employed by people such as Hitler and Stalin. Why is it neccessary to have a law supporting this notion if it is true? I myself don't think it is, because I visited Auschwitz in 1972 and there was no trace of there ever having been a gas chamber in the area. If there had been any, it would surely have been preserved. Am I to be compelled by a totalitarian-style edict to deny my observation? How many hundreds of thousands of people have been killed in Iraq? How is this responsibility different from that of Hitler? A confronting power would be just as justified in making out that the British and Americans were exterminating Islam. And the same applies to Bosnia and Kosovo. I consider the whole business of Holocaust denial a tyrannical suppression of the freedom of speech.

Henry Percy, London, UK

Excellent article. Nuts, racists and anti-semites must be allowed the same oxygen of free speech as the politcially correcet brigade. Banning them sends them underground where they are more difficult to detect and their cells can grow and mutate in the dark. Did we learn nothing from those idiots who tried banning the Communist Party during the Cold War?

William Thomson, Guildford, Surrey

Very funny... "The proper reaction to Mr Ahmadinejad’s provocation is ... the global community should hold its own conference, inviting history scholars and witnesses to the Holocaust, but also the intellectual pariahs of Tehran..." I don't think this conference will take place: it might produce more "honest history" than wanted!
The overwhelming informed opinion about Irving's scholarship in the Nazi-WW2 field is that - whatever his motives or intellectual probity may be - he has read more of the original documents and delved more into the details, than anyone else in the field.
So watch out for that hubris. Honesty is a sharp sword - it can cut several ways. Anyway making laws against certain opinions, is an obvious way to immediately afford those opinions great credibility.

Thomas Goodey, Rochester, UK

Right on!. Let these jerks talk and talk and the people will judge them for the idiots they are. Unfortunately there will always be people ready to swallow this sort of malarky, but jail time for the spreaders of hate will only increase their fame and martyrdom. If we let them talk long enough, fewer people will bother listening because they are preaching to the already converted.

Richard Samuelson, Montreal Quebec, Canada

The Holocaust was a pivotal event, which led to the founding of the state of Israel, providing a Western a foothold in Arabia. Israel has milked this event for sympathy, and in the process "got away with murder". Witness the admission that Israel has nuclear weapons. Iran wants to have nuclear energy, perhaps nuclear weapons; Israel's already has them through underhand and devious means. What's the word I'm reaching for? Hypocrisy perhaps. Historians like David Irving are questioning whether the authorised version of the Holocaust is an exaggeration. But two million or 20 million, it hardly matters. I sense world public opinion turning against Israel, because clearly Jews have far too much influence over US politics.

Andrew Milner, Nagano, Japan

So, instead of spewing your vitriol against Mr. Irving, why not allow him to discredit himself without your help.
If Irving had questioned the Divinity of Christ or the theory of evolution, we wouldn't have heard a peep from you.
Why is the slightest criticism of an historical event such a taboo?

Gerry Lincoln, Toronto, Canada

I agree with the writer, the Holocaust should be argued with each side presenting their facts and data and then the other side presenting theirs. Let me decide what I will agree with, not criminal courts. History is history and all points should be debated.
Why "ridicule" and name call? I for one read about the Holocaust in my teen years and believed in the Holocaust. However, since then, I no longer just read, but look at the facts being presented and find much is just hearsay based on absolutely no facts that would hold up under scrutiny.
Then I started to ask questions, but wow, was I in for a shock. Instead of directing me to this or that reference to check and understand certain facts, I was called nasty names and a Holocaust denier. I've never denied anything; I just wanted some answers to things that didn't add up in my opinion.
A serious historical debate, pro and con, would be very refreshing indeed.

Phil Enggate


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...515050,00.html
 
Old December 25th, 2006 #2
ei012
Junior Member
 
ei012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 124
Default

Jesus, I hope those are their real names. What a Christmas present! This is our own personal "Naughty or Nice" list! Who's keeping the filing cabinet?

They're gonna have a lotta 'splainin to do when the tables are turned!

William Thomson apparently fails the grade. Using his own words, he's a "Nut, Anti-racist, philo-semite" who believes an attempt by nationalist patriots to ban the communist party was evil.

The guys like Gerry Lincoln and Phil Enggate will feel vindicated for at least being only 98% brainwashed.

Wait, why are they telling me I can't talk about this? Huh?

 
Old December 25th, 2006 #3
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Don't you love the way these gerbils who know nothing but what they've heard on tv become instant experts on history? They denounce Irving or Mein Kampf in the same terms as Legitimate Authorities, like some little kid in a bedsheet wielding a light saber or pretending to be superman.
 
Old December 25th, 2006 #4
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Nice graphic, btw. The noble tapir next to the ignoble tapirstein.
 
Old December 25th, 2006 #5
Kievsky
Senior Member
 
Kievsky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 4,229
Default

Quote:
Imagine Irving’s paltry manipulations alongside, say, the moral authority of Elie Wiesel, the writer and Auschwitz survivor
Indeed!

David Irving has a few things to say about eLie the Weasel.

http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/Wiesel/index.html

Mr. Wiesel tells us that as late as the spring of 1944, in the fifth year of Hitler's wars, the Jews in Hungary could still obtain emigration permits for Palestine, but that his father had refused to sell his business interests in Hungary and "start from scratch in a country so far away . . . " Apparently the government of the Regent Admiral Horthy, the ruler of Hungary, had been following a rather benign policy toward its Jewish citizens even though Hungary was allied with Germany and was contributing troops to the war against the Soviet Union.

In that spring of 1944, with German armies being pushed relentlessly out of the Soviet Union and the Allies preparing to land at Normandy, the Regent accepted the formation of new government led by the Hungarian fascist party, the Nyilas, and this government permitted German troops to enter Hungary.

The Nyilas government quickly introduced a series of increasingly harsh measures aimed at the Jews: restrictions on movement and employment, ghettoization, and finally the wearing of the Jewish star.

Much of what Wiesel describes sounds like organized thievery of Jewish property by the Hungary fascist police organization.

Finally it was announced that the entire community in which the Wiesels lived was to be deported. The reason given was that the front had moved too close to their town. Wiesel tells us that in fact the Jews in their Ghetto were anticipating the arrival of the Red Army and the overthrow of the Hungarian fascist regime.

The round-up and deportation was in the hands of the Hungarian police with the assistance of the Jewish police that had been recruited by the elected Jewish Council that had run the ghetto.

The Wiesels were deported in the second transport from their town. For three days after the first transport had left, they lived on in a ghetto awaiting transport. Wiesel tells us that "the ghetto was not guarded. Everyone could come and go as they pleased." The Wiesels even refused an offer from a former Gentile servant to hide them in her village. Despite listening to the broadcasts from London, it is clear that the Jewish population of Sighet had never heard or never seen any reason to believe that Germany and its allies were following a policy of physically exterminating the Jews of Europe.

Instead, the Wiesels entered the cattle cars for a journey to an unknown destination.

It was only after two days, when the train crossed the frontier into what had been Czechoslovakia, that German officials took charge of the transport and the Wiesels realized that they were leaving Hungary.

During these two days, Wiesel asserts that the young Jews packed eighty to a car with grandparents, parents, and small children "gave away openly to instinct, taking advantage of the darkness to copulate in our midst . . . The rest pretended not to notice anything."

He tells us that one Jewish woman in their cattle car went insane and screamed over and over again that she saw "fire" and "flames." First she was restrained; later she was beaten to unconsciousness by her neighbours.

They arrived at Auschwitz at night.

As anyone familiar with the standard histories of the Holocaust -- Reitlinger, Hilberg, Dawidowicz -- knows, arriving Jews at Auschwitz were forced to endure a "selection" by SS-doctors. We are told that only the healthy Jews were admitted to the camp in order to become slave labourers and that the old, the very young, the infirm, and the women with small children were sent to the gas chambers.

Mr. Wiesel tells us that upon arrival he could see "flames gushing out of a tall chimney into the black sky" and that he could smell "an abominable odour floating in the air." "We had arrived -- at Birkenau, reception centre for Auschwitz."

Perhaps Mr. Wiesel did see flames gushing out of a tall chimney; however, the sight of flames gushing from a coal-fired crematorium chimney is not seen very frequently, or at all, outside of narratives describing Holocaust crematoria. A crematorium is not a blast furnace.

Mr. Wiesel tells us that he turned on the reception platform and saw an old man fall the ground and a nearby SS-man putting away his pistol. He implies, but does not say that the SS-man had just shot the old Jewish man.

Elie Wiesel was advised by one of the veteran Auschwitz inmates to say that he was eighteen years old instead of fourteen; his father was advised to say he was forty instead of fifty. There is a strong implication that the inmate believed that the consequences of being too young or too old would be dire.

The people on the Wiesel transport were asked by veteran prisoners why they had not hanged themselves rather than allow themselves to be deported to Auschwitz. The prisoners were amazed that the Wiesels -- as late as 1944 -- had never heard of Auschwitz.

This is odd. Elie Wiesel has told us that the Jews of Sighet had been listening to Allied radio broadcasts. Walter Laqueur, the Director of the Institute of Contemporary History in London, wrote in his 1980 study, The Terrible Secret, that Auschwitz was "a veritable archipelago," that "Auschwitz inmates . . . were, in fact, dispersed all over Silesia, and . . . met with thousands of people," and that "hundreds of civilian employees . . . worked at Auschwitz," and that "journalists travelled in the General Government [German administered Poland] and were bound to hear," etc. London had to have had a pretty good idea about conditions in Auschwitz.

After being told by veteran inmates that they would ultimately be cremated at Auschwitz, some of the younger Jews wanted to revolt, to escape, to tell the world about Auschwitz. But they didn't.

The newly arrived Jews from Sighet were first separated by sex. Dr. Mengele makes his first appearance in Night. He is on the reception platform determining where the arriving men from Sighet will be sent. He sent Elie Wiesel and his father "to the left."

We are told that a prisoner warned Elie and his father that going "to the left" meant that they were being sent straight to the crematory. The prisoners information was not correct. The Wiesels were being sent to a reception barracks.

Since the men who were sent "to the right" were all neighbours of the Wiesels and were sharing a common ordeal with them, it would be helpful in the evaluation of the credibility of rumours spread by prisoners to know if the men sent "to the right" were immediately killed or not. Unfortunately Elie Wiesel did not discover their fate -- or he has chosen not to include this information in Night.

On the way to the barracks Mr. Wiesel reports that he saw flames from a "gigantic ditch" into which the Germans were dumping babies from a lorry. "I saw it -- saw it with my own eyes . . . those children in the flames." And he reports: "A little farther on was another and larger ditch for adults." As anyone familiar with the training of psychiatrists knows, psychiatrist are taught to suspect dishonesty when a patient voluntarily and emphatically suggests that something is really, really true. This is the only time in Night that Elie Wiesel insists upon his own veracity in such an emotional manner.

That first night was the night that "has turned my life into one long night."

In the reception barracks the Jews were forced to strip naked and allowed to retain only their shoes and their belts and their heads were shaved. As anyone familiar with the standard histories of the Holocaust -- again, Reitlinger, Hilberg, and Dawidowicz -- knows, Jewish prisoners were force to disrobe and to have their hair shaved off before they were forced into the gas-chambers. We now learn from Elie Wiesel that it was the standard practice to force all new arrivals to disrobe and to have their hair shaved off.

Meanwhile SS officers selected the strongest to work in the Sonderkommando, the unit that worked in the crematoria. Then the new arrivals are marched naked to be disinfected, given a hot shower, and issued uniforms.

But Reitlinger, Hilberg, and Dawidowicz tell us that the gas-chambers in which the Jews were exterminated by means of cyanide released from the crystals of the insecticide Zyklon-B were located in the cellars of the crematories in Birkenau. The Jewish men in the Sonderkommando were forced to live isolated in the crematories and help in the cremation of the bodies of the people gassed in the cellars. The gassings themselves are normally described as an important secret of the Nazis.

Mr. Wiesel now tells us that a Jewish man, Bela Katz, who had been deported from Sighet the week before and who had been selected to work in the crematoria managed to get a message to the newly- arrived prisoners. He tells them that he had already had to burn the body of his own father. (About how the elder Mr. Katz died we are not told.) This event does suggest that the isolation within which the men of the Sonderkommando are said to have worked was not always successful in preventing even a brand new prisoner from communicating with the prisoners outside of the crematories.

Elie Wiesel and his father were assigned to one of the barracks formerly occupied by Gypsies at Birkenau. About the fate of the previous occupants there is not one word in Night. This is odd. Most histories of the Holocaust tell us that the Gypsy section at Birkenau had been exterminated in dramatic circumstances order to make room for the influx of Jews from Hungary like the Wiesels. This is especially odd since we will soon meet in Wiesel's book prisoners who had been in Auschwitz for years. They would have known.

Odder still is the fact that Elie Wiesel now introduces his recollections that a brutal Gypsy deportee was in charge of the barracks to which he and his father were assigned and that this Gypsy knocked Elie's father to the ground with a blow. Later, ten more Gypsies with whips and truncheons will escort the new arrivals out of the Birkenau camp to the separate Auschwitz main camp.

It is reasonable to believe that the Gypsies would have had a powerful interest in knowing the fate of the rest of the Gypsies at Auschwitz. Yet there is nothing in Night to tell us about the reported extermination of the Gypsy section at Birkenau.

Before being admitted to Auschwitz I, the original concentration camp at Auschwitz and still the centre of the administration of the Auschwitz camp tourist complex, the Wiesels were forced to take another hot shower.

Showers, Mr. Wiesel informs us were "a compulsory formality at the entrance to all these camps. Even if you were simply passing from one to another several times a day, you still had to go through the baths every time." Mr. Wiesel never tells us why the Germans insisted on all of this cleanliness.

It seems logical to conclude the shaving of the hair, the disinfection, and the compulsory hot showers were hygienic measures mandated in order to prevent the spread of diseases among the prisoners.

Mr. Wiesel and his father were assigned to Block 17 -- a two-story building made of concrete. Elie tells us that there were gardens among the barracks.

It was only after being transferred from Birkenau Camp to the Main Camp that Mr. Wiesel became prisoner "A-7713." -- his camp tattoo number. This fact tells us that prisoners only received an official identity after they had survived a period of quarantine at the Birkenau camp and had been assigned to a more permanent destination within the Auschwitz complex.

Here the "Wiesel of Sighet," the author's father, was searched out by the husband of his wife's niece, the "Stein of Antwerp." The "Stein of Antwerp" had been deported in 1942 and wanted news of the wife and sons he had left behind in Belgium. The Wiesels had not received any letters from Antwerp since 1940. Elie Wiesel tells us that he lied to his relative and told him that his mother had received news that her niece and the boys were fine. The "Stein of Antwerp" was grateful for the news and began sharing his food rations with the Wiesels. Since the "Stein of Antwerp" had been deported so long before the Wiesels, and he was both a Jew and a relative by marriage, he might have been an excellent source of information about Auschwitz and what had been happening there. Whatever he told the Wiesels, it is not in Night.

At the end of the Wiesel's three weeks in the main camp, a transport from Antwerp arrived. The "Stein of Antwerp" sought it out for more news. He never came back to see the Wiesels.

Elie and his father were re-assigned to the Buna Camp, a large chemical factory and concentration camp that was part of the Auschwitz complex of camps. German guards marched the Wiesels "slowly" to the Buna factory camp.

There they were required to undergo another hot shower and they were quarantined for three days before given any work assignments.

Mr. Wiesel does not tell us that the purpose of the Buna plant was to manufacture synthetic rubber. The Allies were desperately interested in information about artificial rubber production because Japan had over-run much of the rubber producing territory in the world. Allied intelligence would have wanted to know what happened at this crucial German enterprise.

Here he tells us that there were children in the Buna factory camp and that some senior prisoners gave "bread, and soup, and margarine" to the children. He adds that some senior prisoners recruited children for homosexual purposes. Next, a three-doctor panel gave each new prisoner a medical and dental examination. "Anyone who had gold in his mouth had his number added to a list."

The Wiesels were assigned to the barracks that contained the camp orchestra and to a unit of prisoners that worked in a warehouse for electrical equipment under the direct command of a prisoner named "Idek."

Standard histories of the Holocaust tell us that there was an orchestra at Auschwitz that played music while Jews were "selected" for the gas-chambers. We are also told that the gas-chambers were in the cellars of the crematories. The Buna camp was entirely separate from the camps in which crematories are known to have existed. The purpose of an orchestra in the Buna Camp is not explained in Night.

The musician's barrack was under the supervision of a German Jew. Each prisoner was issued a blanket, a wash bowl, and a bar of soap.

Since Elie Wiesel had a gold tooth, he had to deal with a Jewish camp dentist who wanted his tooth. Soon the dentist was arrested by the Germans for running a traffic in contraband gold teeth. Elie kept his gold tooth for a while longer.

Mr. Wiesel tells us that he was beaten twice by "Idek." The first time, he was beaten for no reason at all. The second time, he was beaten for discovering that "Idek" had made his entire command work on Sunday, apparently a standard day of rest for the prisoners in the Buna complex, so that Idek could have a sexual interlude with a Polish girl at the factory.

Since Mr. Wiesel always identifies persons mentioned in Night by their nationality and identifies them as "Jewish" when applicable, it is odd that all of this information is omitted about "Idek." Since all standard histories of the Holocaust explain that the prisoners at Auschwitz always wore emblems on their clothing that announced their classification or cause of incarceration: politic prisoner, conscientious objector, common criminal, homosexual, etc., and that Jewish prisoners had an unmistakable emblem sewn on their uniforms; Idek's Jewishness or lack thereof would have been immediately apparent to all of the other inmates. Perhaps the circumstance that "Idek" was engaging in a consenting sexual relationship with a gentile girl led our author to omit "Idek's" religion.

Mr. Wiesel tells us that the Jewish prisoners were working along side of non-Jewish prisoners as well as "civilian workers." The "Idek" incident shows that the relations between prisoners and "civilian workers" could lead to intimacies in which confidence are frequently shared.

Soon, Frank, "the Pole," Wiesel's foreman at work, became aware of the unremoved gold tooth. He persecuted Elie's father until the boy agreed to give it up.
 
Old December 25th, 2006 #6
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Wiesel spoke at my college. I wrote a news article then an editorial about it. This was before I knew the truth. Even then, he struck me as hypocritical and smarmy. Wiesel is a like a jew with an extra chromosome.
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:58 AM.
Page generated in 0.39956 seconds.