• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Does Elie Wiesel have a tatoo, or not?

Status
Not open for further replies.
little grey rabbit said:
What actually annoys me most about people such as yourself is your intellectual cowardice.

The information I present is somewhat equivocal - and I openly admit that - nevertheless people of good faith could easily believe Mr Gruener is right. His assertions deserve to be answered definitively one way or the other.

The impression I come away with from people like lionking, TSR and uke2se is that they firmly believe Elie Wiesel is a liar and is guilty as charged by Mr Gruener - but reasons only known in the darkness of their inner being wish to degrade and abuse Mr Gruener's testimony.

On Holocaust Day of all days - when we should be upholding the sanctity of genuine survivors, not protecting con artists.
Click to expand...

Cry me a river. Rational people have very little patience for historical revisionists and deniers, so I'm sure you've developed a thick skin; it's the nature of the beast. One can even be right about a few things and still be generally an irrational bigot.

Stay true to yourself if that's what you want, but don't expect non ideologues to sing Kumbaya with you.
 
Last edited:
twinstead said:
Cry me a river. Rational people have very little patience for historical revisionists and deniers, so I'm sure you've developed a thick skin; it's the nature of the beast. One can even be right about a few things and still be generally an irrational bigot.

Stay true to yourself if that's what you want, but don't expect non ideologues to sing Kumbaya with you.
Click to expand...

Mmmmmm, we do indeed have a heavy cross to carry.

But I find it difficult to understand your psychology. I look on Elie Wiesel and Mr Gruener with nothing more than a mild benign amusement.

But you, you purport to believe all this nonsense, surely you should be horrified by Mr Gruener's (genuine Auschwitz survivor) story and outraged at the actions of Professor Wiesel?

Yet you seem strangely unmoved.....as though you expect the powerful to be nothing more than cheap liars. How disheartening to have such a cynical view of humanity!
 
It is unfortunate but you have shown dishonesty in other threads and a refusal to support your assertions or provide any evidence in support of any of your claims. I find myself unable to take anything you post seriously.
 
Just to understand what the theory is here:
Wiesel wrote that he had a tattoo and yet doesn't.
If he knew he didn't have a tattoo why not have one put on to match his story?

It's not hard to do. You don't even have to go to a tattoo parlor. Ink, a needle and a shot of whiskey.
 
Just to be clear, I read Elie Wiesel's book "Night" and I felt there were certain oddities about it. I'm not sure what, but it didn't seem to gel with some of the other (several) Holocaust survivor memoirs I've read.

Being critical about this one account is not to deny that Hitler and his odious cronies tried to and nearly succeeded in wiping an entire race from the face of the planet. I just felt there was something of a "through a glass darkly" aspect about this one book.

In a similar vein, on reading Fania Fénelon's "The Musicians of Auschwitz", I felt more than a little dubious that she would have been so forthright, apparently the only inmate with a conscience, so at odds and yet so beloved by the other inmates.

I had no doubt that she was there; I just felt that her account might be slightly... shall we say, dramatised? As if the awful truth wasn't "dramatic" enough.

Now, I believe, this much is generally accepted.

The fiercely emotive aura of the Holocaust doesn't have to interfere with one's critical judgement of a purported historical work.
 
Did someone check Elie Wiesel's lower back for a tramp stamp?
 
CptColumbo said:
Just to understand what the theory is here:
Wiesel wrote that he had a tattoo and yet doesn't.
If he knew he didn't have a tattoo why not have one put on to match his story?

It's not hard to do. You don't even have to go to a tattoo parlor. Ink, a needle and a shot of whiskey.
Click to expand...

A tattoo done today looks very different from a tattoo that was done 67 years ago. I think if he did that he would infuriate genuine Auschwitz survivors beyond all measure.
 
Loss Leader said:
I have to say, I certainly hope that Wiesel was lying. It would be a great relief to me to know that such evil had not occurred. And then, I'm sure, my great uncle, his wife, children and all their descendents would finally make contact with us from their "resettlement" camp in the east. We'll all eat and laugh and drink a toast to the silly people who ever believed that the events in Night actually happened to people in my family.
Click to expand...


Do you believe the people in your family walked single file to the edge of a pit filled with fire and simply fell in because the SS told them to? Do you think none of them would notice that as they approached a pit full of fire hot enough to incinerate human corpses they wouldn't notice the uncomfortable heat? They wouldn't protest? They would just slowly walk to the edge and fall in? Even a retarded lemming would have a greater sense for self-preservation. Are you saying Jews don't even have that?
 
Sledge said:
Surely this is a Stundie?
Click to expand...


Not really. The quote you lifted from Saggy said "In the normal course of a court trial there is a plea of not-guilty and then a trial."

If you're charged with a crime, you can plead guilty, not guilty, or no contest. If you plead guilty or no contest, there won't be a trial.
 
Saggy said:
There is an telling side light - I think it was discussed on this forum - where the prosecution showed a movie containing a scene of severed heads in a bucket, no identification of who took the movie, where it was taken, who the heads belonged to, why they were killed, absolutely nothing ... and Eichmann's 'defense' council gave it his tacit OK. A macabre farce.

LOL
Click to expand...


I remember seeing a very poor quality film made by the Soviets upon the liberation of Auschwitz that showed a bucket of human heads. It might be the one you're talking about.

As an aside, I love the idiocy of this one. The Nazis blew up the gas chambers to hide their crimes before they bugged out but they left a bucket filled with human heads for the Commies to find. ROTFLMAO!
 
TSR said:
.
Where in that quote, or indeed anywhere in the IMT or Eichmann transcripts is it stated that this was specifically *Jewish* fat?

Nowhere?

Why did you lie about it, then?
Click to expand...

It would be no shocker if the fat was not specifically identified as Jewish. The IMT wasn't about punishing the Nazis for what they did to the Jews.
 
I would like to nominate Dogzilla.

Dogzilla said:
Do you believe the people in your family walked single file to the edge of a pit filled with fire and simply fell in because the SS told them to? Do you think none of them would notice that as they approached a pit full of fire hot enough to incinerate human corpses they wouldn't notice the uncomfortable heat? They wouldn't protest? They would just slowly walk to the edge and fall in? Even a retarded lemming would have a greater sense for self-preservation. Are you saying Jews don't even have that?
Click to expand...


I don't get it. Is this the thread where we nominate stundies we find around the whackosphere, or is it where we come to write the actual stundies? Such as assuming that every single person who died in the camps was Jewish or that there was just the one way of dying in one? Or that no one survived one to tell the tale? Or that every US serviceman who helped empty out the camps afterwards decided to lie about what they saw?

And manage to be disgusting about the prospect of someone's loved one's deaths.
 
Last edited:
JoeTheJuggler said:
Sorry if this has already been covered. . .


And of course they'd be committing the formal logical fallacy denying the antecedent.

Here's the fallacious argument form:
P1. if P then Q
P2. not-P
C. therefore not Q

Here's the fallacious argument in words:
P1. Having a tattoo is proof one was in a death camp.
P2. Elie Wiesel doesn't have a tattoo.
C. Therefore Elie Wisel wasn't in a death camp.

So even if it's true that he has no tattoo, it is proof of nothing wrt to his having witnessed the Holocaust. Even if both premises are true, the conclusion doesn't follow and isn't necessarily true.
Click to expand...


No, you're not getting it. Here's the logical argument.

P1: Elie Wiesel says he has a tattoo on his arm.
P2: Elie Wiesel does not have a tattoo on his arm.
C: Elie Wiesel is lying about having a tattoo on his arm.

If Elie Wiesel getting a tattoo is what you call the holocaust, then Elie Wiesel's lack of a tattoo means the holocaust didn't happen. However, most of us have a broader definition of the holocaust.
 
little grey rabbit said:
What actually annoys me most about people such as yourself is your intellectual cowardice.

The impression I come away with from people like lionking, TSR and uke2se is that they firmly believe Elie Wiesel is a liar and is guilty as charged by Mr Gruener - but reasons only known in the darkness of their inner being wish to degrade and abuse Mr Gruener's testimony.

On Holocaust Day of all days - when we should be upholding the sanctity of genuine survivors, not protecting con artists.
Click to expand...


For people like lionking, TSR, and uke2se, whether or not what Elie Wiesel says is true doesn't matter. What matters is whether or not what Elie Wiesel says about the holocaust sounds bad.

What Elie says sounds bad so it doesn't matter if it's true. Remember, some things are true that never happened.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom