Scrapbookpages Blog

February 16, 2017

Holocaust website can’t explain why the Holocaust happened

Filed under: Germany, Holocaust, Uncategorized — Tags: , , — furtherglory @ 11:57 am

Jewish men

With nothing better to do, I logged onto this website:

http://shadowsofshoah.com/education/Materials+and+Resources/WHAT+IS+THE+SHOAHHOLOCAUST.html
The Holocaust raises many perplexing questions.

The following quote is from the website, cited above:

Begin quote

Why did so many ordinary Europeans cooperate with Hitler’s programme of Jewish persecution (actively or passively), and why did relatively few resist?

Was the systematic murder of Jews on an industrial scale an anomaly of history, or merely the worst manifestation of a hatred that for thousands of years has simmered and frequently boiled over?

How was it possible that a “Christian” society as highly educated and cultured as that of 1930’s Germany could spawn such evil?

Shadows of Shoah [website], alone, cannot provide satisfactory answers. It can and does, however, convey some of what happened and, importantly, it provides a human face for what has become, for many, merely a faceless statistic.

End quote

What did the Jews ever do that caused so many non-Jews to hate them? The Jews have never done anything wrong in the entire history of the world, so why do so many people hate them?

October 22, 2016

“Museum of an Extinct Race” is back in the news

Filed under: Holocaust, Uncategorized — Tags: , , , — furtherglory @ 12:35 pm

I previously blogged about the “Museum of an Extinct Race” at https://furtherglory.wordpress.com/2010/09/05/hitlers-proposed-museum-of-an-extinct-race/

The subject of the “Museum of an Extinct Race” is back in the news. You can read all about it at: https://www.bu.edu/today/2016/spiritual-resistance-to-the-holocaust/

The following quote is from the news article, cited above:

Begin Quote

Held at Auschwitz during World War II, a man presented fellow prisoner Rabbi Tzvi Hirsch Meisels with an impossible ethical choice. His son was marked for execution, he told the rabbi, but he could ransom his boy by swapping another person in his place. Would Jewish law permit that awful decision?

“The rabbi said, ‘Don’t ask me the question,’” says Michael Grodin, a core faculty member at BU’s Elie Wiesel Center for Jewish Studies and director of the center’s Project on Medicine and the Holocaust. “From that, the man gleaned the fact that he probably shouldn’t do that, because otherwise the rabbi would have said OK.…His son died in the gas chambers.”

End quote

The debate over the “Judenrat” –  the Jewish officials who, on behalf of their communities, had to face the Nazi-Fascist authorities in Shoah time – is still going on.

In the following quote, from one of his essays, Wolf Murmelstein, a Holocaust survivor, seeks to defend the good name of the members of the Judenrat.

Begin quote

Begin essay written by Wolf Murmelstein:

WHO WERE THE JUDENRAT?

The Judenrat had been selected mainly among former Community Officials, such as Board members and high ranking clerks; besides, Eichmann wanted to secure also the experience that local Zionist leaders had in the emigration sector. Later, mainly in the Ghettoes, also persons with little or no community affiliation had been appointed.

In 1938 at Vienna, Loewenhertz (Community Manager and Zionist leader), after some weeks of imprisonment, had been appointed by the SS with the order to set up the emigration; Goering had forecasted a two-year time frame for Vienna without Jews. In 1939 at Prague, Weidman, the only qualified Community clerk in office that the Nazis had met upon their arrival, had been appointed; President and Vice-president stood already safe abroad. In 1939 at Lodz, the famous Chaim Rumchowsky had been appointed perhaps only accidentally. In 1941, in many Lithuanian communities, the Judenrat had been chosen by draw. Clearly the right knowledge of German was important.

FOLLOW A NO-PARTICIPATION ATTITUDE OR TAKE THE BURDEN?

Persons who stood safe in the time of “that darknes” worked out the theory that the Judenrat, by taking the burden of their appointment, made it easier for the Nazis to manage the deportation of the Jews. This theory should be evaluated, as much as according to moral point of view as according to consistency with real conditions of power in that time in those countries.

The moral point of view:

In 1941, the rabbis of the Vilna School in Lithuania ruled that the burden had to be taken by accepting appointment as Judenrat. The Rabbi of Kaunas/Kovno ruled that in the event the enemy had decided to exterminate a community, but by one means or another, it is possible to put safe a part of the community, then the leaders have to call upon all their spiritual forces and make every possible effort to put safe that part of their community.

In Poland, a Rabbi remarked that “the law of a kingdom is law even if it is a bad law.”

The real conditions of power at that time in those countries:

In 1933 Hitler had been appointed Chancellor by President Hindenburg, according to the Weimar Constitution procedures. So the Holy Seat, as with other foreign governments, had regular diplomatic relationships and negotiated treaties with the Nazi regime, while the racial laws had been considered internal affairs, not subject to any objection. There had not been, in 1938, any meaningful objection to the annexation of Austria, while that of the Sudetenland resulted from the Munich treaty. In March 1939, as Bohemia-Moravia became a Protectorate, Prime Minister Chamberlin expressed deep feelings of sympathy.

The Jewish leaders – Baeck (Berlin), Loewenhertz (Vienna), Murmelstein (Vienna/Terezin), Cerniakow (Warsaw), Rumchowsky (Lodz), Gens (Vilna), Elkes (Kaunas/Kovno) and others – could not be stronger than many “statesmen,” nor resist better than the governments of all the countries defeated and overrun by the Wehrmacht. They had to cope with the real conditions of power and “as ruled by Rabbi Ytzhak Shapiro of Kaunas/Kovno,” put safe the part of their communities that was possible.

The visas for emigration had been granted by the various consular officials on passports issued by the Nazi police. The International Red Cross Commission had to deal through the German General Consul at Geneva in order to obtain access to the last Concentration Camps to help the survivors. In a briefing on May 4th 1945, the Red Cross Delegate M. Paul Dunant referred to the State Minister for the Protektorate, SS General K. H. Frank, and to the Security Police Chief SS Colonel Weinmann for having granted the safe handing over of power at Theresienstadt and the release of the prisoners of the nearby prison. Indeed M. Paul Dunant took over the control of the Theresienstadt Ghetto on May 5th, as the last Commander had just received a regular order to leave from SS General K. H. Frank. The Red Army reached Theresienstadt only two days later.

WHAT KIND OF PROBLEMS DID A JUDENRAT HAVE TO COPE WITH?

With the racist laws, economic and social conditions of Jews got continuously worse, so the need for social and educational services that communities had to grant was increasing. Until 1938, people willing to emigrate had to be advised, while from 1938 on, a proper emigration service had to be set up and assistance given for people imprisoned in the Concentration Camps, since for persons at every possible contact with the Nazis, red-tape was involved. Furthermore, new heavy tasks arose in 1939 with the outbreak of war, as Eichmann made an attempt to establish a kind of “Super Ghetto” in Poland, between the Sun and Bug rivers, in the Lublin distict.

As the first groups of Jews from Vienna and Prague had reached the little Polish town of Nisko, thought to become the centre of that “Super Ghetto,” Eichmann in a speech explained clearly the need of various kinds of work to be performed because “otherwise it would mean to die.” Indeed, in the Ghettoes, the Judenrat had to take care of various town services, distribution of food, utilities, etc.

The recruitment of working groups to work for the German army or factories seemed a good way for survival. That this recruitment later turned out as the first step for further deportations is tragic but the Judenrat can not be blamed for it. A Judenrat had the need to keep under strict control, in too many instances without success, all the many associates in order to prevent abuses against the weak categories (like aged or sick people, orphans) since they had dangerous contact with the SS, who looked every time for informers.

Clearly, strict secrecy had to be kept on meaning and details of every action aimed to help people to survive; unfortunately the SS had too many well-informed informers. So a Judenrat stood between the hammer of the SS with its harsh orders and the anvil of the fellow inmates with their natural, but in no way realistic, expectations. When denying a request, the Judenrat could not state the real reasons and so these tragic figures are blamed even sixty years later for the sins of the SS.

HOW DID A JUDENRAT HAVE TO FACE THE SS?

At the time of “that darkness,” Jewish leaders could meet only high-ranking SS officers who had only strict margins of power and were themselves spied upon. Furthermore, the encounters were between those who hated and those who were hated, between one who was sitting comfortably in his armchair and one who had to stand for hours receiving foolish orders expressed in a rude way and could not make any objection. It should be noted that any encounter a Judenrat had with the SS Commander could turn out to be the last one. Indeed, Gens of Vilna had been shot in the mouth as soon he was about to enter the Commander’s Office, Eppstein of Theresienstadt had been shot in a nearby prison

WHAT KIND OF PROBLEMS DID A JUDENRAT HAVE TO COPE WITH?

With the racist laws, economic and social conditions of Jews got continuously worse, so the need for social and educational services that communities had to grant was increasing. Until 1938, people willing to emigrate had to be advised, while from 1938 on, a proper emigration service had to be set up and assistance given for people imprisoned in the Concentration Camps, since for persons at every possible contact with the Nazis, red-tape was involved. Furthermore, new heavy tasks arose in 1939 with the outbreak of war, as Eichmann made an attempt to establish a kind of “Super Ghetto” in Poland, between the Sun and Bug rivers, in the Lublin distict.

As the first groups of Jews from Vienna and Prague had reached the little Polish town of Nisko, thought to become the centre of that “Super Ghetto,” Eichmann in a speech explained clearly the need of various kinds of work to be performed because “otherwise it would mean to die.” Indeed, in the Ghettoes, the Judenrat had to take care of various town services, distribution of food, utilities, etc.

The recruitment of working groups to work for the German army or factories seemed a good way for survival. That this recruitment later turned out as the first step for further deportations is tragic but the Judenrat can not be blamed for it. A Judenrat had the need to keep under strict control, in too many instances without success, all the many associates in order to prevent abuses against the weak categories (like aged or sick people, orphans) since they had dangerous contact with the SS, who looked every time for informers.

Clearly, strict secrecy had to be kept on meaning and details of every action aimed to help people to survive; unfortunately the SS had too many well-informed informers. So a Judenrat stood between the hammer of the SS with its harsh orders and the anvil of the fellow inmates with their natural, but in no way realistic, expectations. When denying a request, the Judenrat could not state the real reasons and so these tragic figures are blamed even sixty years later for the sins of the SS.

HOW DID A JUDENRAT HAVE TO FACE THE SS?

At the time of “that darkness,” Jewish leaders could meet only high-ranking SS officers who had only strict margins of power and were themselves spied upon. Furthermore, the encounters were between those who hated and those who were hated, between one who was sitting comfortably in his armchair and one who had to stand for hours receiving foolish orders expressed in a rude way and could not make any objection. It should be noted that any encounter a Judenrat had with the SS Commander could turn out to be the last one. Indeed, Gens of Vilna had been shot in the mouth as soon he was about to enter the Commander’s Office, Eppstein of Theresienstadt had been shot in a nearby prison suddenly after having been put under arrest, etc.

Any request for allowance of conditions, for exemption from deportation transport, etc. had to be submitted in a way that an SS could understand. And in the event, the allowance or the exemption had not been granted for reasons never stated and which today can only be conjectured. Fellow inmates, followed years later by so-called historians, of course blame the Judenrat as not capable or brave enough.

A Judenrat, after having stood for hours before a rude SS officer, certainly could not behave in a polite, gentlemanlike way; the physical stress should be properly considered. In the states allied with Hitler, the Jewish leaders had some possibility of approaching higher ranking figures. In Bulgaria, it was possible to save almost the entire community and in Rumania a large part. In Slovakia, high-ranking officials had been bribed and the deportations had been stopped; a part of the community could survive.

HOW DID THE ACCUSATIONS AGAINST THE JUDENRAT ARISE?

The first to blame the Judenrat had been, already before the liberation, persons who stood safe in London, Jerusalem, New York or Geneva and, as shown by historians like Hilberg or Laqeur, they had been unable to start any useful action to help those who stood in the hell of that darkness. For such persons, the accusations raised by former inmates against the Judenrat, almost all dead as Martyrs, resulted in being very useful in order to divert attention from their failure to start any useful action, just as from their own political bankruptcy in 1938 and 1939.

The accusations raised by former inmates against the Judenrat can be subdivided into four classes:

1. Accusations arising from hysteria and a persecution complex which suddenly resulted in absurdity at hearings by investigating officers or magistrates.

2. Accusations raised by persons who had been prevented by the Judenrat from trafficking in various ways.

3. Accusations raised by persons for the denial of petty, but absurd, favours.

4. Accusations raised, mainly by Communists, for the purpose of political hatred. Indeed in Poland, the Communist government had an interest in blaming the Judenrat and speaking about Jewish accomplices, in order to have the support of anti-Semite nationalists. Besides those who wanted to divert attention from their failures to help or to politically bankrupt, the absurd accusations against the Judenrat turned out to be advantageous for banks, insurance companies, big corporations and many persons who had bought Jewish properties at very bargain prices. Indeed, the few survivors among the Judenrat – Loewenhertz (Wien), Murmelstein (Wien/Theresienstadt), Cohen (Netherlands) – would have been precious for their knowledge about details of the seizures of Jewish properties in order to obtain a prompt restitution, at a time when documents had been still available and survivors would have had so many more opportunities to start again. Some years later, the “revisionist historians” could speak about Jewish accomplices and guilt.

The writer of the present essay is the son of the last survivor among the few Judenrat who reached the liberation alive, and he feels therefore that it is his duty to fight for the reputation of those Martyrs who had left no one who could do this.

End quote from the writing of Wolf Mermelstein

 

 

 

 

 

February 25, 2014

Proof of the Treblinka gas chambers found in the trial testimony of Franz Suchomel, a junior SS guard at the camp

Filed under: Germany, Holocaust — Tags: , , , , , — furtherglory @ 10:28 am
Entrance into former Treblinka camp in1998

My 1998 photo of the entrance into former Treblinka camp, which was way out in the boondocks in what is now the country of Poland

Today, I am responding to a comment, about the Treblinka camp, made by a reader of my blog.  At the very end of this reader’s comment was this sentence:

“Please gentleman a little common sense here!”

O.K. I am going to attempt to provide a little common sense, so bear with me.

Franz Suchomel was a junior SS guard at Treblinka

Franz Suchomel was a junior SS guard at Treblinka

This quote is from Wikipedia:

Franz Suchomel (3 December 1907 – 18 December 1979)[1] was a Sudeten German Nazi and Unterscharführer (junior sergeant) in the SS. During World War II he participated in the Action T4 euthanasia program, in Operation Reinhard, and the Einsatzgruppen actions in the Adriatic operational zone. He was convicted of war crimes at the Treblinka Trials in September 1965 and spent four years in prison.

The comment, to which I am responding on my blog, was about the confession of Franz Suchomel, a low level SS guard at the Treblinka camp, who gave an interview for Claude Lanzman’s documentary entitled Shoah.

Franz Suchomel was convicted in a trial, conducted by the German government in 1965, twenty years after the end of World War II.

According to Wikipedia, “Suchomel was convicted of accessory to murder and sentenced to six years in jail.[4] Suchomel was released from prison on 20 December 1967.[1]”

Was there a war crime, called “accessory to murder” during World War II?  No, but there was an ex-post-facto law, called “common design” or “common plan” which was used during the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal.  According to this ex-post-facto law, if you were anywhere near a Nazi concentration camp, you were guilty of a crime.  The law of “common plan” was also used by the American Military Tribunal in the war crimes trials conducted at Dachau after World War II.

This quote is from the comment made by the reader of my blog:

[Franz Suchomel] An Officer of the SS, who was already tried and convicted for his duty at Treblinka (so to speak), who served time – would never-the-less give an interview with a private individual (e.g. non governmental/non-police) [Claude Lanzman] who was advancing a record that was totally untrue (e.g. Treblinka was a death camp); whereby this individual would then make up extremely specific details related to the operation of the [Treblinka] camp as he remembered them in the capacity as a Jr. SS Officer.

Think about it (assuming your assumption), you [Suchomel]  just spent 4 years of your life in a jail for a crime that simply did not exist, so you get out of jail, and then 8 or 9 years later as an old man you decide, heck let me speak to this French Jew [Lanzman] and tell him all the details about a death camp operation that I was convicted for, served time for being involved in the operation, but [it] really never happened. Most people who get accused of something they didn’t do, don’t go around making up stories about what they witnessed at the event that never happened.

Even if the trial (where the decisions were handed out by non-Jewish Germans- not Americans), you would think that Mr. Suchomel or one of the co-defendants would have gotten up and said, what the h** are you talking about there was no Treblinka death camp! If there was no camp you would think that some of the individuals would have used the defense, there was no such camp. No the defenses in most of the trials is that yes it happened but I was just a soldier following orders…. I wasn’t in charge… someone else who was in charge (a point Mr. Suchomel gets defensive about during his interview [with Lanzman], when he reminds the interviewer that the interview is not about him but about what he saw [at Treblinka].)

So why DID Franz Suchomel give an interview to Claude Lanzman?  Take a look at his photo at the top of my blog post.  Franz looks like a simple man, and a man who would not hurt a fly.  He was trying to be polite, when he was asked by Lanzman to give an interview.

Note that Wikipedia mentions that Suchomel was a Sudeten German. The Sudeten Germans were originally from Austria, and they migrated to the Sudetenland in the 1500s.  So he was from the same ethnic group of Germans as Hitler, Kaltenbrunner, and many other top level Nazis. This is all the more reason that he would have been loyal to the Nazi government, and not a traitor to his country.

According to the Wikipedia entry for Suchomel, “Franz Suchomel was secretly interviewed for the documentary film Shoah, directed by Claude Lanzmann and released in 1985. During the interview at a hotel in Braunau am Inn he provided details of Treblinka criminal operations.”

Notice where the SECRET interview took place: Braunau am Inn, the birthplace of Adolf Hitler.  Why was the interview secret and why did it take place at Braunau am Inn, which was not the residence of Franz Suchomel?

I am using my “common sense” here to say that this sounds suspicious to me.  The photo below shows that the Treblinka camp was located way out in the boondocks in what is now Poland.

Stone markers show where the Treblinka camp was located

Stone markers show the border of  the Treblinka camp, which was formerly located in what is now the country of Poland

As for the trial of Franz Suchomel, by the German government, if he had denied, during this trial, that there was a gas chamber at Treblinka, he would have been convicted of the crime of “Holocaust denial” under the laws of post-war Germany.

There was no defense against the ex-post-facto law known as “common plan.”  Suchomel could not deny that he was at Treblinka, and if he was there, he was guilty of a war crime, according to the ex-post-facto laws made up the Allies.

Memorial stones of basalt recreate pits where bodies were burned

Memorial stones of basalt recreate pits where 900,000 bodies were burned at the Treblinka camp

This interesting quote is also from Wikipedia:

“In March 1941 [Franz Suchomel] became a photographer at the Hadamar Euthanasia Centre in the Action T4 headquarters in Berlin, where he took photographs of euthanasia victims before their killing.”

Today, the euthanasia program at Hadamar is purported to be the killing of only slightly “disabled” people.  Suchomel had the job of taking photos of the people who were killed, in order to show that they were severely disabled, and not able to function. These photos are no longer shown anywhere on the Internet. Now we are required to believe that the Holocaust started with the killing of people who were able to function as normal healthy people.

December 1, 2012

Claude Lanzmann to receive a lifetime achievement award at Berlin International Film Festival in February 2013

I learned about the latest honor which will be given to Claude Lanzmann, the maker of the documentary film, Shoah, from this news article in The Hollywood Reporter.  The following quote is from the article:

Shoah, a nine-and-a-half hour documentary, was groundbreaking in that it used no archival footage, being composed  primarily of interviews with Holocaust survivors and visits to concentration camp sites. The film screened in the Forum section of the Berlin Film Festival in 1986, where it won the Caligari film prize and the FIPRESCI film critics honor. Shoah went on to win numerous other accolades, including the Flaherty Documentary Award at the BAFTAs and best documentary honors from the National Film Critics Association.

During the 63rd Berlin International Film Festival (aka the Berlinale), which runs Feb. 7 to Feb. 17, 2013, Lanzmann will be honored with a lifetime achievement honor, the Berlinale Golden Bear.

Golden Bear award given at Berlin Film Festival

Golden Bear award given at Berlin Film Festival

Bears are a symbol of Berlin because the Coat of Arms for the city state of Berlin has a Bear on it.  When I visited Berlin in October 2002, painted bears could be seen all over the city; the painted bear in the front of the Hotel Adlon is shown in my photo below.

Painted bear in front of Hotel Adlon, 2002

Painted bear in front of Hotel Adlon, October 2002

The CODOH website currently has an article about Claude Lanzmann, written by Bradley R. Smith, which you can read in full here.  The article includes a quote from Lanzmann which mentions the stones at Treblinka.  My photo below shows the stones at Treblinka, which are in a symbolic cemetery.

Stones at Treblinka represent a symbolic cemetery

Stones at Treblinka represent a symbolic cemetery

This quote is from the article written by Bradley R. Smith, which is on the CODOH website:

Claude Lanzmann’s Shoa (sic) may be seen as the masterpiece of Holocaust documentaries. But if that is so, then it is also the clearest declaration of bankruptcy ever delivered. After all, in his entire 91/2 hours of documentation, Lanzmann doesn’t show us any documentary or physical proof for the claims he and his witnesses make. Most of these 91/2 hours are actually silent sequences of railway tracks, stones, buildings, and countrysides, whose relation to the ‘Holocaust’ claims exists only through suggestion and imagination. He himself made his brainwashing technique pretty clear when he stated:[13]

“As a result of our filming the stones at Treblinka from all angles, they have finally spoken.”

With the stones of Treblinka, Lanzmann meant the field of stones erected after the war on the area that once was the Treblinka camp. Of course, those stones cannot speak about anything that happened before they were placed there. The stones in the soil underneath this memorial, however, could speak, if only one would ask them to: A thorough geo-physical examination of this entire area could confirm still today, if the Polish forensic investigations of 1946 were correct, that is, whether or not the soil in and around Treblinka was ever disturbed by massive mass graves and huge scale open-air incinerations.

But those stones Claude Lanzmann would never want to speak out, and probably for good reasons, since it would destroy his life’s work and shatter his firm beliefs. It was in 1994 that Claude Lanzmann explained why he did not include any documentary or forensic evidence in his movie, but restricted himself to psychologically impressive, but scientifically untenable witness statements:[14]

“There is not one second of archival material in Shoah because it is not the way I work or think, and besides it does not exist. […] If I had found an existing film-a secret film because that was forbidden-shot by an SS and showing how 3,000 Jews, men, women and children, were dying together, asphyxiated in the gas chamber of Krema 2 in Auschwitz, not only would I have not shown it, but I would have destroyed it. I cannot say why. It goes by itself.”

If it sounds like the statement of an imbecile, as Serge Thion has put it,[15] then read what Lanzmann had to say about his own movie Shoa in 1997:[16]

“Not understanding has been my iron law.”

So what is Shoa all about? It is about—NOTHING. Master Lanzmann himself explained it frankly:[17]

“It was necessary to make this film from nothing, without archival documents, to invent everything.”

“It is therefore a case of making a film with traces of traces of traces, […]. With nothing one comes back to nothing.”[18]

André Glucksmann was a bit more sophisticated when he explained that this movie is not about what happened, but about what could have happened, what would have been possible, what is imaginable:[19]

“The strength of this film is not in showing what took place—in fact it refrains from doing that—but in showing the possibility of what took place.”

I have not seen Claude Lanzmann’s documentary.  I wanted to buy it when I visited the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, DC, but when I found out that it sells for over $300, I changed my mind.

I don’t blame the German people, nor criticize them, for constantly bowing down to the Jews today.  Germany is still occupied and this is their way of preserving all those reconstructed buildings that had been destroyed by Allied bombs in World War II.

For example, the photo below shows the bomb damage to the city of Weimar, the home of Goethe and Schiller.  Why was the historic city of Weimar bombed?  The only reason to bomb Weimar was to destroy historic buildings and murder German civilians, the same reason that Dresden and Nuremberg were bombed.

Bomb damage in Weimar, Germany during World War II

Bomb damage in Weimar, Germany during World War II

Note the building on the left side of the photo above.  The same building is shown in the photo below, after it was reconstructed.

Reconstructed building on Market Square in Weimar

Reconstructed building on Market Square in Weimar

Reconstructed building on Market Square in Weimar

Reconstructed building on Market Square in Weimar

That’s all for today, folks.  I’ll get off my soap box now.

May 24, 2012

New film by Claude Lanzmann will feature Dr. Benjamin Murmelstein, the last Jewish Elder at Theresienstadt

Filed under: Holocaust, movies — Tags: , , , — furtherglory @ 11:39 am

On May 20, 2012, I blogged about Dr. Benjamin Murmelstein, whose son, Dr. Wolf Murmelstein, wrote an essay about his father, entitled “The Last Unrighteous” — The Witness never heard.  A new movie about Dr. Benjamin Murmelstein by Claude Lanzmann, which will be released soon, will be entitled Last of the Unjust.

This quote is from an article about the film in today’s news:

Elsa Keslassy reports in Variety that Claude Lanzmann’s new film has a title—“Last of the Unjust”—and a lead producer, the new French company Synecdoche. The film, as I mentioned in my review of Lanzmann’s extraordinary autobiography, “The Patagonian Hare,” will be about Theresienstadt. According to Keslassy, it will “put a spotlight on Benjamin Murmelstein, an Austrian Jew who was appointed by Adolf Eichmann as head of the Jewish Council of Elders and rule over Theresienstadt.” Lanzmann will be filming, she says, in Israel, Austria, Poland, Czech Republic, and Italy.

Claude Lanzmann is the film maker who created Shoah, a film which features the testimony of numerous Holocaust survivors.  According to the news article, Lanzmann interviewed Dr. Benjamin Murmelstein in 1975, over the course of several days.  These were the most extensive interviews that Lanzmann did, but none of them were included in the completed film.  Why not?  I don’t know, but possibly, it is because Dr. Murmelstein was accused, but not convicted, of collaborating with the Nazis.

This part of the news article, which you can read in full here, caught my attention:

Among the heroes of “Shoah” (and “heroes” is just the right word; the movie has villains, too) are Filip Müller, who, as part of a Sonderkommando at Auschwitz, took part in getting people into gas chambers and getting corpses out of them; and Abraham Bomba, one of the barbers in Treblinka, who cut the hair of Jews who were about to be murdered in gas chambers.

Filip Müller — a hero of the Holocaust?  I don’t think so.  I was very critical of Filip Müller in a blog post which you can read here.  I quoted the testimony of Abraham Bomba on my web site here.  Both Müller and Bomba are favorite targets of Holocaust revisionists because their outrageous claims tend to disprove the Holocaust.

In my humble opinion, I believe that the testimony of Dr. Murmelstein also tends to disprove the Holocaust.  I think that is why his original testimony for Shoah in 1975 ended up on the cutting room floor.

You can read an essay about Theresienstadt, written by Dr. Wolf Murmelstein, on my website here.  You can read the testimony by a child survivor of Theresienstadt here.

Blog at WordPress.com.