I didn't understand why the interview with the Treblinka Guard was so badly degraded and only recorded in the truck? There was obviously a camera in the room and the subject had to be aware of it. Any ideas?
H
[deleted]
I think they were using a primitive hidden camera that had a very weak broadcasting range. There was definitely another person in the room with Lanzmann and the guard. I think it was the female translator seen throughout the film. She was wearing the camera.
I saw this film yesterday at the Cinematheque, the whole nine and a half hours in one sitting. Let us never forget.
[deleted]
A "worse" atrocity than the Holocaust? There is no murder worse than any other murder, and in fact, over 10 million people were murdered in the Holocaust, with that figure being a gross underestimate according to new information being dug up every day of murders throughout Europe during the 40's. Your claim that the scale of other massacres is greater than the Holocaust is nonsense.
And your attempt to smear all Jewish people in the world and to minimize the horrors of the Holocaust for what Israel is doing is trite, vicious, and dishonest.
My real name is Jeff
the figure is actually dropping every day, the plaque in Auschwitz has been changed twice already and from initial 4 million came down to a million, still an irresponsible exaggeration, for Majdanpek the official number has been drooped to 4% of initial "official" number and so on. The biggest problem, though, which even Raul Hilberg admitted to, there's no proof of the holocaust ever happening, "survivors" attest to physical impossibilities, their statements contradict each other, same with so called "confessions", which were invariably obtained by torture and many "survivors" have been proven to be outright liars.
shareWow. Just wow. The plaque at Auschwitz is not a total of the number of people killed in the holocaust. It is a total killed at Auschwitz. And it hasn't been reduced from four million down to one million. By the way, your mention of the plaque at Auschwitz is not relevant, anyway, because the total estimate of approximately six million Jews killed in the genocide is based on the lower (newer) figure on the Auschwitz plaque, as well as all of the other murder sites. So, the fact that the number on that plaque was lowered does not in any way change the total estimate of around six million total that is agreed upon by experts in the relevant fields of research.
Raul Hilberg didn't say there was no proof of the holocaust - that is a lie. I have read his books - he documented in detail the fact that it did happen, as did the Nuremberg tials. Hilberg says, in the preface to his book "The Destruction of the European Jews," that, among other things, his book will show "...the correspondence, memoranda, and conference minutes which were passed from desk to desk as the German bureaucracy made its weighty and drastic decisions to destroy, utterly and completely, the Jews of Europe." At the end of that book, which was based on early research on the numbers of Jews killed, Hilberg concludes that over five million Jews had already been documented to have been murdered - and that was early in the holocaust research and population studies. Recent uncovering of more massacres and further documentation that has come to light over the years has moved the total to close to six million.
There are millions of pages of documentary evidence collected from Germans and others personally involved in the mass killings, as well as government files and files from industries that used Jewish forced labor. The Nazis did not succeed in destroying all of the evidence, as the documents presented at the Nuremberg trials showed. The evidence included documents from the Einsatzgruppen, the SS, the Gestapo, and other government records.
In addition, the testimony and confessions of witnesses were not used in isolation to prove anything - they were corroborated by multiple sources in the form of documents and verbal testimony of eyewitnesses.
You conveniently ignore the fact that none of the Nazis ever denied that the genocide took place. None. For example, Rudolf Hoss, who was Commander of the largest extermination center from 1940 to 1943, testified at Nuremberg that approximately 2,500,000 Jews were murdered there by gassing and other methods, and approximately another 500,000 died there of starvation and disease.
In addition, you conveniently ignore the voluminous film evidence collected by the Allied authorities after the war. Many photos and videos were taken by the Nazis themselves - you can't dismiss the photographic and video evidence of the mass murders, as it was taken by the people committing the murders.
I've also personally met people who were there at the extermination camps - all confirmed that the gassings took place, and none had any reason or agenda to lie about it.
If you're honest enough to put aside the propaganda you've swallowed and actually look at some of the evidence, you can see some of the primary source evidence presented at the Nuremberg trials, including the following, at the library of Congress. There are links to some of the documents on their website, including:
Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal, Nuremberg (Official Proceedings);
Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression (documentary evidence);
Trials of War Criminals Before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals Under Control Council Law No. 10 (condensed record of proceedings); and
Final Report to the Secretary of the Army on the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials Under Control Council Law No. 10.
https://www.loc.gov
Here's a source of shorthand notes from a court reporter at the trials:
Gallagher, Charles J., Nuremberg Trial Collection, 1945-1950.
My real name is Jeff
It is indeed hidden camera, if I`m not mistaken he asks or points out that he doesn`t want to be filmed \ identified.
As much as the scenes are interesting it is clearly a breach of trust between a researcher and his subject, I give Lanzman a minus for this.
Nonsense.
Genocidal killers deserve no rights or privacy. They are murderers.
No it is not nonsence, the fact that Lanzmann was able to make this documentary at all relies on the cooperation of the people that he interviewed.
In using hidden camera he broke the trust that should be present between them, as the subject said he did not want to be filmed.
The guard was also trialed after the war and sentenced, probably to mildly but that is due to the courtsystem.
I disagree completely. One should resort to any and all measures when fighting fascists.
The only people who's opinion really mattered in Shoah were the victims. I give no thought or concern to that NAZI's reputation or personal risk.
BTW have you seen the BBC's Auschwitz? It's incredible.
No problem that you disagree that I understand, but I would disagree with you as well on the statement "The only people who's opinion really mattered in Shoah were the victims".
I find it very interesting and of great importance to get an insight into why the perpetrators behaved like they did.
Though however not at all cost as I believe as said earlier that Lanzmann could very well interview the guard which he agreed to but he should not have broken the trust with filming him along with it.
And even though I agree that one should try to find war criminals and the like in the aftermath, as I said in my previous post the guard he interviewed was sentenced after the war and spent time in prison.
And as for the Auschwitz documentary I haven`t seen it yet, but I own it along with the book.
"as I said in my previous post the guard he interviewed was sentenced after the war and spent time in prison."
Good!
And remember I wrote 'opinions mattered', not their activities or ideology. I agree that complete and absolute analysis of the NAZI crisis should be completed and is essential.
Watch that Auschwitz documentary! It's amazing.
I think it was the wrong thing to do to use the hidden camera.
The visuals didn't add anything to the film and the original poster is right. It is a matter of trust.
This is a historical time capsule. You must have the perspectives of all parties involved. Once you start deceiving those you are interviewing, future participants may not be as open in re-telling the atrocities they saw.
It would have been just as effective to have the man's face blurred out or shown the areas he was talking about rather than use a hidden camera.
In the end history loses out on valuable first-hand accounts when people can no longer trust journalist who say one thing but do another.
I agree with holycow. Not in defense of the guard, but because it could harm future interviews if the subjects cannot trust the journalist.
share'It would have been just as effective to have the man's face blurred out or shown the areas he was talking about rather than use a hidden camera.'
That is not true, his facial expression is so important to reveal. He knows he should feel ashamed but he fails to control his facial expression sometimes. The most revealing moment for me, and the one that horrified me the most was right after he is asked to sing the song for a second time. He says something like 'no jew knows it now' and he smiles and you can see his satisfaction.
Yes I agree! One should even use fascistic methods when fighting fascists. And severe torture! Defending the democratic judicial system with non-constitutional methods is great! Just look at Guantanamo and the widespread support the US war of terror using illegal methods violating human rights has gained them in the western world! Breaking the law to punish lawbreakers can never be wrong. I know, I'm a lawyer!
shareWhat are you refering to ?
What the hell are you talking about?? widespread support for guantanamo and US illegal methods?? are you crazy?? It cost the republicans the precidency and made GW bush the most unpopular president ever!! And the whole world (except israel) hates the US for their foreign policy.
And if fascist states should be fought with fascist methods then Israel should be nuked of the face of the earth. Israel is the nazis of the 21's century.
If you are a lawyer I pity your clients.
Turn on your sarcasm detector.
shareThis is five years after you made this post, so it is unlikely you will ever see this, but the sheer depth of hypocrisy of those comments still merited a response.
You wrote, "I disagree completely. One should resort to any and all measures when fighting fascists. The only people who's opinion really mattered in Shoah were the victims. I give no thought or concern to that NAZI's reputation or personal risk."
Change the word "fascists" to "Jews" and the word "NAZI's" to "JEWS'" and you have pretty much stated the philosophy of the Nazi hierarchy during World War II.
"My name is Paikea Apirana, and I come from a long line of chiefs stretching all the way back to the Whale Rider."
I agree, he broke the trust, but that trust is joke compared to the trust and lives of thousands of people that this *beep* did during the war.
share"As much as the scenes are interesting it is clearly a breach of trust between a researcher and his subject, I give Lanzman a minus for this."
This is not a journalist's but a philosopher's work when you think of it a minute, so your objection, while of importance, simply doesn't apply to this case.
Philosophers don't have to follow a journalist's Ethic code
more than a Police man's ethics code
or a coal miner ethic's code.
They have to follow a philosopher's ethic code, and if any it certainly acknowledge that forgery can be used if the only way to access truth.
"it is clearly a breach of trust between a researcher and his subject"
...And you think an ex-guard of Treblinka should be given any trust or respect?
I got it,I got it,I got it...I ain`t got it
Yes I think he should be given the respect as an individual that was at a certain place in a certain time in history.
Of course I would never condone of what he done, but if he would agree to be interviewed, which he did what is the problem with that.
What Lanzman did as I understand was in addition to video-tape him with a hidden camera against his will and their agreemtn, why would he have to do that when Franz already had agreed to let Lanzman interview him?
For me it comes across as a sensationalistic stunt, it is that part of the agreement that they had he should have respected, not what his deeds during the war had been.
And as for trust I would of course refer to the trust between them as in the agreemnt that they made, not trust as in telling the truth etc, in reference to hin being a philosopher and not a journalist.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Well if you are refering to me, which I assume then I can not really say I am using much energy in doing so :-)
Anyway you must not misunderstand in that believing that I do not find the clip interesting, because I do and I do also see its value, but I think it is perfectly ok to dislike Lanzman's approach, though still seeing the point of those who do not, which are good ones, I do not disagree with that, but I still think Lanzman should have respected him as he agreed to talk to Lanzman at all.
As I said earlier afterall he depends on his subjects in making the documentary, and I also think he should respect them in relation to the documentary, indifferently of which side they were on.
And for the record I refer to this interview specifically, in case the other poster's "detractor" comment was also towards me, which is well...wrong, as I like the documentary and think it is an important one as well.
The attempted genocide and complete dehumanization of the jewish people which Shoah depicts is the biggest crime against humanity ever committed.
After Auswitch, talking press ethics is barbaric.
I read in a transcript of a semninar with Lanzmann that the reason why the picture was so bad was because a local TV station signal was causing some interferance.
Hope that answers your question :)
Yeah, I got the DVD recently and it comes with a book containing an interview with Lanzmann, and he says that the image looks so rough because of a nearby TV station interfering with the signal.
shareHe even promised the guy that he would not use his name... Despite that, i'm glad he did it..
shareIf Lanzmann had promised discretion to his interviewees, and he broke that trust for some reason, then Lanzmann is a cheat.
Some people on this board claim that Lanzmann was free to break that trust because his interviewees were 'bad people'. To them I would say that a person is either honest, or dishonest. There is no compromise in being honest. If you are honest to most people, and dishonest to some people who you don't like, then you are a dishonest person; a cheat. Honesty comes at a price, and that price is integrity, and consistency. Not bending your morals according to whom you are talking to.
Other people on this board claim that the general rules of ethics or law do not apply to helpers of the shoah machinery. To them I would say that in stating (and believing) this, they are susceptible to a discriminatory, even fascist system, in which the law applies more to 'some people' than to 'other people'. You can't defend equality by treating people unequal; just as you can't defend liberty by taking away people's liberties.
If Lanzmann has told his interviewees that he would not record or film them, and still he did, then it follows that Lanzmann is a liar. That may be a painful conclusion for admirers of 'Shoah' (among whom I count myself), but it is nevertheless a correct conclusion.