Documentaries

Discussions
User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9591
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Documentaries

Post by Jeffk 1970 » Wed Aug 22, 2018 5:59 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:My wife and I watched Downfall tonight. A friend told me that through it all the ending is happy. I thought the movie was really good. Ganz was superb.

(I happen to be reading about the battle of Berlin in Erickson, which fit nicely.)
This is now on Prime Video, I’ll try and sit down and watch the whole thing.
“I noticed this morning that a group of our Landsberg friends have been given their freedom this morning. These include...Schubert, Jost and Nosske. Schubert confessed to...supervising the execution of about 800 Jews...(referring to the order to clean up Simferopol)...Schubert managed to kill all the Jews (by Christmas 1941). Nosske was the one the other defendants called the biggest bloodhound....
Noel, Noel, what the hell.”
Benjamin Ferencz in a letter to Telford Taylor, December 1951

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9591
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Documentaries

Post by Jeffk 1970 » Wed Aug 22, 2018 6:16 pm

montgomery wrote:
Jeffk 1970 wrote:
montgomery wrote:
Jeffk 1970 wrote:I have that saved in this thread but I haven’t watched it yet. I think that is the original.

What did you think?
I found that a lot of the conclusions arrived at were confusing, as they related to the visual evidence. I think that the only way to discuss the film is to discuss it with somebody who has watched it.

Give it a go and maybe we can discuss it further.
It’ll have to be this weekend. I know a lot about Leuchter so maybe it will make more sense to me.

Just to give me an idea, what were some things you found confusing?
See my edit to my earlier post. That Wikiquote will give you an idea of how two different viewpoints can be expressed on the same film and how conclusions are conflicting. Otherwise, you'll have to watch it in order to discuss it further with me.

Are you actually more interested in learning my position on these matters? If so then I can at least tell you that I'm still quite confused by conclusions being drawn by both sides of the debate. As the conversation is developed on what you and maybe others see in the film, I'll then be ready to state the particular instances where my confusion comes in and will ask for an explanation on how to reconcile those.

Are you a skeptic? Or have you come to a conclusion on the holocaust. Are you a believer or a denier?
I’ve spent over five years on this subject. I’ve read Holocaust denier books and had multiple conversations with deniers over this. I don’t count myself as nearly as knowledgeable about this subject as others who post here.


What I will say is that I’ve never seen anything to lead me to believe that this didn’t happen. There are always anomalies in any human endeavor and mistakes are always made, particularly at the end of the war. I know the Soviets exaggerated death tolls for propaganda purposes and made mistakes in figuring out death tolls. Those things I understand. What focusing on this subject enabled me was to cut through all of that and see what happened.

I do have a long way to go, there are books that I am planning on getting to help further my knowledge.
“I noticed this morning that a group of our Landsberg friends have been given their freedom this morning. These include...Schubert, Jost and Nosske. Schubert confessed to...supervising the execution of about 800 Jews...(referring to the order to clean up Simferopol)...Schubert managed to kill all the Jews (by Christmas 1941). Nosske was the one the other defendants called the biggest bloodhound....
Noel, Noel, what the hell.”
Benjamin Ferencz in a letter to Telford Taylor, December 1951

montgomery
BANNED
Posts: 953
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 4:30 pm

Re: Documentaries

Post by montgomery » Wed Aug 22, 2018 8:48 pm

Jeffk 1970 wrote:
montgomery wrote:
Jeffk 1970 wrote:
montgomery wrote:
Jeffk 1970 wrote:I have that saved in this thread but I haven’t watched it yet. I think that is the original.

What did you think?
I found that a lot of the conclusions arrived at were confusing, as they related to the visual evidence. I think that the only way to discuss the film is to discuss it with somebody who has watched it.

Give it a go and maybe we can discuss it further.
It’ll have to be this weekend. I know a lot about Leuchter so maybe it will make more sense to me.

Just to give me an idea, what were some things you found confusing?
See my edit to my earlier post. That Wikiquote will give you an idea of how two different viewpoints can be expressed on the same film and how conclusions are conflicting. Otherwise, you'll have to watch it in order to discuss it further with me.

Are you actually more interested in learning my position on these matters? If so then I can at least tell you that I'm still quite confused by conclusions being drawn by both sides of the debate. As the conversation is developed on what you and maybe others see in the film, I'll then be ready to state the particular instances where my confusion comes in and will ask for an explanation on how to reconcile those.

Are you a skeptic? Or have you come to a conclusion on the holocaust. Are you a believer or a denier?
I’ve spent over five years on this subject. I’ve read Holocaust denier books and had multiple conversations with deniers over this. I don’t count myself as nearly as knowledgeable about this subject as others who post here.


What I will say is that I’ve never seen anything to lead me to believe that this didn’t happen. There are always anomalies in any human endeavor and mistakes are always made, particularly at the end of the war. I know the Soviets exaggerated death tolls for propaganda purposes and made mistakes in figuring out death tolls. Those things I understand. What focusing on this subject enabled me was to cut through all of that and see what happened.

I do have a long way to go, there are books that I am planning on getting to help further my knowledge.
You've probably more informed on the subject than I then. I'm certainly not interested in a study that would take 5 years or more.

Can you at least tell me who the knowledgeble ones are on both sides of the argument? Also, is a free discussion being allowed in which the deniers have been permitted to express their views?

I asked you if you are a believer or a denier and you declined to answer. That tells me that you are likely still not able to state your answer with any certainty even after 5 years study.

An issue for me that is a little off the topic of this section, is determining whether or not a forum allows completely free speech, notwithstanding that there are limits according to the laws of each country to which it applies. This is a great test topic for people like me who is interested in knowing how a forum is moderated. If all opinions are being allowed to be expressed here, it's a pretty safe bet that opinions on the politics section are not unduly censored.

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9591
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Documentaries

Post by Jeffk 1970 » Wed Aug 22, 2018 8:55 pm

montgomery wrote:
Jeffk 1970 wrote:
montgomery wrote:
Jeffk 1970 wrote:
montgomery wrote:
Jeffk 1970 wrote:I have that saved in this thread but I haven’t watched it yet. I think that is the original.

What did you think?
I found that a lot of the conclusions arrived at were confusing, as they related to the visual evidence. I think that the only way to discuss the film is to discuss it with somebody who has watched it.

Give it a go and maybe we can discuss it further.
It’ll have to be this weekend. I know a lot about Leuchter so maybe it will make more sense to me.

Just to give me an idea, what were some things you found confusing?
See my edit to my earlier post. That Wikiquote will give you an idea of how two different viewpoints can be expressed on the same film and how conclusions are conflicting. Otherwise, you'll have to watch it in order to discuss it further with me.

Are you actually more interested in learning my position on these matters? If so then I can at least tell you that I'm still quite confused by conclusions being drawn by both sides of the debate. As the conversation is developed on what you and maybe others see in the film, I'll then be ready to state the particular instances where my confusion comes in and will ask for an explanation on how to reconcile those.

Are you a skeptic? Or have you come to a conclusion on the holocaust. Are you a believer or a denier?
I’ve spent over five years on this subject. I’ve read Holocaust denier books and had multiple conversations with deniers over this. I don’t count myself as nearly as knowledgeable about this subject as others who post here.


What I will say is that I’ve never seen anything to lead me to believe that this didn’t happen. There are always anomalies in any human endeavor and mistakes are always made, particularly at the end of the war. I know the Soviets exaggerated death tolls for propaganda purposes and made mistakes in figuring out death tolls. Those things I understand. What focusing on this subject enabled me was to cut through all of that and see what happened.

I do have a long way to go, there are books that I am planning on getting to help further my knowledge.
You've probably more informed on the subject than I then. I'm certainly not interested in a study that would take 5 years or more.

Can you at least tell me who the knowledgeble ones are on both sides of the argument? Also, is a free discussion being allowed in which the deniers have been permitted to express their views?

I asked you if you are a believer or a denier and you declined to answer. That tells me that you are likely still not able to state your answer with any certainty even after 5 years study.

An issue for me that is a little off the topic of this section, is determining whether or not a forum allows completely free speech, notwithstanding that there are limits according to the laws of each country to which it applies. This is a great test topic for people like me who is interested in knowing how a forum is moderated. If all opinions are being allowed to be expressed here, it's a pretty safe bet that opinions on the politics section are not unduly censored.
This is a free forum, you can express whatever you want. Deniers are welcome here even though there are none currently. We had some active deniers for awhile but they all left.

As for the time I put into this everyone does this differently. I choose books because that is best for me.

I thought I made this clear. I don’t use the term “believer.” The Holocaust happened. All of us may differ on interpretations but that’s it. We frequently have lively discussions over the topic where we disagree on things but those who post here regularly agree on the general history involved.
“I noticed this morning that a group of our Landsberg friends have been given their freedom this morning. These include...Schubert, Jost and Nosske. Schubert confessed to...supervising the execution of about 800 Jews...(referring to the order to clean up Simferopol)...Schubert managed to kill all the Jews (by Christmas 1941). Nosske was the one the other defendants called the biggest bloodhound....
Noel, Noel, what the hell.”
Benjamin Ferencz in a letter to Telford Taylor, December 1951

montgomery
BANNED
Posts: 953
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 4:30 pm

Re: Documentaries

Post by montgomery » Wed Aug 22, 2018 10:51 pm

jeffk 1970 wrote:
This is a free forum, you can express whatever you want. Deniers are welcome here even though there are none currently. We had some active deniers for awhile but they all left.

As for the time I put into this everyone does this differently. I choose books because that is best for me.

Do you select books from all differing points of view?
I thought I made this clear. I don’t use the term “believer.” The Holocaust happened. All of us may differ on interpretations but that’s it. We frequently have lively discussions over the topic where we disagree on things but those who post here regularly agree on the general history involved.
I tend to separate people into two groups, those that are believers and those who are deniers.

Thanks for that explanation. I thought there were some deniers still posting in this section. Too bad because there's not much of a debate when there is only one side standing. Did they all give up or were some of them banned from the forum?

I guess I'll have to determine what you mean when you say that: "those who post here regularly agree on the general history involved." That is my main interest, generally stated, without you specifying what constitutes 'general history'. Do so if you like and we'll see how close our 'general beliefs are to each other's.

In any case, I don't have much more to say on the topic until/or if, you watch the doc.

montgomery
BANNED
Posts: 953
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 4:30 pm

Re: Documentaries

Post by montgomery » Wed Aug 22, 2018 11:01 pm

Sorry for the quote mix up. This forum works a bit different from some others.

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9591
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Documentaries

Post by Jeffk 1970 » Thu Aug 23, 2018 1:02 am

montgomery wrote:This is a free forum, you can express whatever you want. Deniers are welcome here even though there are none currently. We had some active deniers for awhile but they all left.

As for the time I put into this everyone does this differently. I choose books because that is best for me.

Do you select books from all differing points of view?
I’ve read denier books. After a awhile it seemed like a waste of time.
I thought I made this clear. I don’t use the term “believer.” The Holocaust happened. All of us may differ on interpretations but that’s it. We frequently have lively discussions over the topic where we disagree on things but those who post here regularly agree on the general history involved.

I tend to separate people into two groups, those that are believers and those who are deniers.
That seems rather simplistic. I also say there are those who don’t care who might fall anywhere on the spectrum.

Thanks for that explanation. I thought there were some deniers still posting in this section. Too bad because there's not much of a debate when there is only one side standing. Did they all give up or were some of them banned from the forum?
Some were banned for violating forum rules and not for their viewpoint. Others simply quit.

BTW that holds true for any of us. I’ve been, ahem, reprimanded for violating forum rules. I’ve changed some of my comments because of this and I’m careful not to violate the rules (though I admit that my language sometimes gets a little spicy).
I guess I'll have to determine what you mean when you say that: "those who post here regularly agree on the general history involved." That is my main interest, generally stated, without you specifying what constitutes 'general history'. Do so if you like and we'll see how close our 'general beliefs are to each other's.
Those who stay agree on this much:
The Nazis and their allies murdered or caused the death of some 5-6 million Jewish men, women and children during the war. The victims died by gassing, gunshot, diseases, starvation and maltreatment.

I think our differences come from interpretation, on occasion numbers, certain details, things like that.

I and others also use the forum to post interesting facts that we come across about the time period. We also talk about other genocides, like the Holodomor.
In any case, I don't have much more to say on the topic until/or if, you watch the doc.
Very well but it will be a couple of days. I have a regular job and family. I’m also trying to plow my way through a biography of Stalin.
“I noticed this morning that a group of our Landsberg friends have been given their freedom this morning. These include...Schubert, Jost and Nosske. Schubert confessed to...supervising the execution of about 800 Jews...(referring to the order to clean up Simferopol)...Schubert managed to kill all the Jews (by Christmas 1941). Nosske was the one the other defendants called the biggest bloodhound....
Noel, Noel, what the hell.”
Benjamin Ferencz in a letter to Telford Taylor, December 1951

montgomery
BANNED
Posts: 953
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 4:30 pm

Re: Documentaries

Post by montgomery » Thu Aug 23, 2018 1:55 am

I'm not quite sure how this format wants me to post but I'll keep it simple by using my own.

You said:
I’ve read denier books. After a awhile it seemed like a waste of time.
That's enlightening. They must have not made any points that you viewed as being acceptable. Or they just repeated points after you had heard all of theirs.

You said:
Some were banned for violating forum rules and not for their viewpoint. Others simply quit.
Thanks for that explanation. I'll look a bit deeper to ascertain whether or not it's true.
BTW that holds true for any of us. I’ve been, ahem, reprimanded for violating forum rules. I’ve changed some of my comments because of this and I’m careful not to violate the rules (though I admit that my language sometimes gets a little spicy).
My experience has been quite different on many different forums. I've seen people banned from a forum on the pretense of trolling. (trolling has always been an instance of a moderator using his/her power to censor another with a differing POV. Maybe this one will be different? It's always been my experience that a person can violate any and all the rules if his/her opinions are favorable to the mods/admin.
Those who stay agree on this much:
The Nazis and their allies murdered or caused the death of some 5-6 million Jewish men, women and children during the war. The victims died by gassing, gunshot, diseases, starvation and maltreatment.

I think our differences come from interpretation, on occasion numbers, certain details, things like that.
It must be a very agreeable group as you've named some details on which I would have suspected would contain considerable disagreement.
Very well but it will be a couple of days. I have a regular job and family. I’m also trying to plow my way through a biography of Stalin.
Sure. I'll wait until you have the time. But now on second thought, I'm thinking that it would contain nothing that you would find debatable in any case. I think that you have already moved beyond asking questions and getting answers from a person on my level of understanding.

You see, the Leuchter film posed questions that went unanswered IMO, and that is why I said that it lacked some of the proper conclusions to questions raised. However, if you do watch it, you will understand what i'm referring to and then will be able to raise the questions yourself. Or answer them?

I won't be raising any of the questions for the foreseeable future until I am able to come to a better understanding on why there is a section called 'Holocaust Denial' while there are no deniers.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 23276
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Documentaries

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Thu Aug 23, 2018 5:16 am

Your refusal to state what questions (raised by the Leuchter film) you believe went unanswered already predicted this last post and your general posting demeanor.
"It was still at the stage of clubs and fists, hurrah, tala"

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 23276
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Documentaries

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Thu Aug 23, 2018 5:26 am

Jeffk 1970 wrote:This is a free forum, you can express whatever you want.
I would say this differently: This forum encourages open discussion but it does not allow certain kinds of speech, described here, with a statement of the reasons for some such proscriptions: http://www.skepticforum.com/viewforum.php?f=1.

Advocacy for or support of Holocaust denial is not among the sorts of speech proscribed and I've never seen action taken against Holocaust deniers on the ground of Holocaust denial. When deniers frequented the board, the moderator occasionally suspended deniers and others, if the debate descended into mutual insults. There have also been bans of people who happen to be Holocaust deniers for libel/slander, IIRC. The “regular” deniers who’ve stopped posting here were, however, not suspended or banned; they simply stopped posting and AFAIK their accounts are still active. In some cases, the moderator has bent over backwards to accommodate Holocaust deniers, e.g., Fritz Berg's problems with using the registration process, etc.

“Completely free speech,” mentioned above, is something I have never seen in practice, anywhere.

I don’t know about bans and suspensions in other subforms. The moderator allows debate here to become pointed and even raucous, in comparison to, say, ISF.
Jeffk 1970 wrote:As for the time I put into this everyone does this differently. I choose books because that is best for me.
Most of those who post regularly here are interested in studying the period of the Third Reich and WWII in some depth; most recognize that deep historical understanding requires significant effort, time, and patience. From time to time we even have scholars of this period posting here: their knowledge and understanding reflect the decades they spend researching and analyzing the period. Anyone who announces on entry that he or she does not wish to make the effort to study the period has already explained something relevant and significant about the terms of his or her participation here.
Jeffk 1970 wrote:I thought I made this clear. I don’t use the term “believer.” The Holocaust happened. All of us may differ on interpretations but that’s it. We frequently have lively discussions over the topic where we disagree on things but those who post here regularly agree on the general history involved.
Exactly. Also, "believer" has a religious connotation, and in this context it is a vague term, usually employed by deniers as a pejorative. The word is meant to cast people studying the history as dogmatically accepting, without investigation and in the absence of sound methodologies, of fallacious claims. A valid answer to the nonsense question, “Are you a denier or believer?” would be, “Nope.”

Speaking of just two groups - deniers and believers - is also simplistic to the point of uselessness, as is the notion that debate requires two such groups. For one thing, the idea that there was no genocide of European Jews is neither interesting nor supportable; according crankery (denial) the status of “the other side” to historical study devalues the history and promotes crankery. Denial is not an equivalent, but contrary, viewpoint to the historical scholarship; it is, in varying degrees, anti-Semitic tactic, apologia, cover for WN, nostalgia, and CT.

Saying that historians and other scholars haven't answered all the questions that may exist about the Third Reich and its criminal history is neither novel nor controversial - it's rather in the nature of the beast; OTOH agreeing that all questions haven't been answered, or even asked, doesn't elevate Holocaust denial. It just means we need to keep working at the sources and debating how to best interpret them. Denial itself is a series of non-answers for ulterior motives.

More important, discussion of the period is many sided, and historians who study the genocide are still debating many important issues, some of them new, some of them not so new - the nature of Third Reich decision making and policy making, motivation and perpetration at various levels, collaboration, conditions for genocide, periodization, witnessing and memory, foreign policy and political issues, spatial and geographic aspects of the genocide, early violence against Jews, knowledge of the mass killings (among perpetrators as well as the wider population), postwar justice on both sides of the Iron Curtain, the role of forced labor, how to think about the death marches, parts played by non-German genocidal actors, and so on.

To imply that debate requires a “flat earth” side is, again, to give credence to flat-earthism. Those of us here who are interested in understanding the history have had scorching debates about it, without participation of the flat-earthers - Wannsee, the Sonderkommandos, Birkenau cremation, the context for and processes of genocides to name a few of the topics.
"It was still at the stage of clubs and fists, hurrah, tala"

montgomery
BANNED
Posts: 953
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 4:30 pm

Re: Documentaries

Post by montgomery » Thu Aug 23, 2018 4:56 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:Your refusal to state what questions (raised by the Leuchter film) you believe went unanswered already predicted this last post and your general posting demeanor.
How do you think I demonstrated my posting demeanor. I think I'm demonstrating care and caution in asking another poster to watch the film and then comment on whether or not he/she finds any wrong conclusions drawn from the evidence presented. However, if you have seen the Leuchter film and would like to raise any issue it presented, then do join in the discussion.

Otherwise, I'll just caution you to not attack the messenger and rather, attack the message. Especially as is demonstrated by your demeanor, where the messenger hasn't even arrived with a message yet.

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9591
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Documentaries

Post by Jeffk 1970 » Thu Aug 23, 2018 5:05 pm

montgomery wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:Your refusal to state what questions (raised by the Leuchter film) you believe went unanswered already predicted this last post and your general posting demeanor.
How do you think I demonstrated my posting demeanor. I think I'm demonstrating care and caution in asking another poster to watch the film and then comment on whether or not he/she finds any wrong conclusions drawn from the evidence presented. However, if you have seen the Leuchter film and would like to raise any issue it presented, then do join in the discussion.

Otherwise, I'll just caution you to not attack the messenger and rather, attack the message. Especially as is demonstrated by your demeanor, where the messenger hasn't even arrived with a message yet.
Just for the record, I’m a “he.”
:D
“I noticed this morning that a group of our Landsberg friends have been given their freedom this morning. These include...Schubert, Jost and Nosske. Schubert confessed to...supervising the execution of about 800 Jews...(referring to the order to clean up Simferopol)...Schubert managed to kill all the Jews (by Christmas 1941). Nosske was the one the other defendants called the biggest bloodhound....
Noel, Noel, what the hell.”
Benjamin Ferencz in a letter to Telford Taylor, December 1951

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 23276
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Documentaries

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Thu Aug 23, 2018 5:07 pm

montgomery wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:Your refusal to state what questions (raised by the Leuchter film) you believe went unanswered already predicted this last post and your general posting demeanor.
How do you think I demonstrated my posting demeanor.
Telling Jeffk what you thought to be unanswered is easy for you to do and doesn't require his having watched the film or a long chat about chatting. Instead of something direct and to the point, we've gotten to read protracted and inartful dancing around the point, extended dwelling on ground rules and rights, and finally a declaration, "I won't be raising any of the questions for the foreseeable future until I am able to come to a better understanding on why there is a section called 'Holocaust Denial' while there are no deniers." Which, of course, has nothing to do with the supposedly unanswered questions you alluded to . . .
montgomery wrote:I think I'm demonstrating care and caution in asking another poster to watch the film and then comment on whether or not he/she finds any wrong conclusions drawn from the evidence presented.
LOL, yeah, so much care and caution are needed for you to describe what you believe are unanswered questions in a film you saw. Or did you want a critique of the film itself?
montgomery wrote:Otherwise, I'll just caution you to not attack the messenger and rather, attack the message. Especially as is demonstrated by your demeanor, where the messenger hasn't even arrived with a message yet.
I don't need your cautions: the message continues to be what it was. I felt like commenting on it before, and did. I'm not debating you - attack the message, not the messenger is an aphorism for ad hominem argumentation, that is, for debating, not for making comments.
"It was still at the stage of clubs and fists, hurrah, tala"

montgomery
BANNED
Posts: 953
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 4:30 pm

Re: Documentaries

Post by montgomery » Thu Aug 23, 2018 5:41 pm

You're not debating me, you're attacking me and that's an indication of your feelings of insecurity. I would suggest to you that you needn't feel insecure, as the facts on the holocaust have been established and secured long ago. It's only some of the unanswered questions that I'm interested in pursuing here with Jeffk. Be patient. Nobody has any intention of denying you input to the discussion.

The only important question to me at this point is in whether or not jeffk will find any common ground with me on my suggestion of some conclusions lacking for questions asked in the film. Perhaps he will find none?

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9591
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Documentaries

Post by Jeffk 1970 » Thu Aug 23, 2018 5:45 pm

That remains to be seen. Perhaps I will get a chance to watch “Mr. Death” tonight, I got some of my “honey do” list done last night.
“I noticed this morning that a group of our Landsberg friends have been given their freedom this morning. These include...Schubert, Jost and Nosske. Schubert confessed to...supervising the execution of about 800 Jews...(referring to the order to clean up Simferopol)...Schubert managed to kill all the Jews (by Christmas 1941). Nosske was the one the other defendants called the biggest bloodhound....
Noel, Noel, what the hell.”
Benjamin Ferencz in a letter to Telford Taylor, December 1951

montgomery
BANNED
Posts: 953
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 4:30 pm

Re: Documentaries

Post by montgomery » Thu Aug 23, 2018 6:22 pm

Jeffk 1970 wrote:That remains to be seen. Perhaps I will get a chance to watch “Mr. Death” tonight, I got some of my “honey do” list done last night.
Thanks for your interest and I hope it's not a waste of your time. So far my time hasn't been wasted because it's at least given me an indication of the kind of flak I'm going to receive from some others, even before I ask any questions concerning the validity of certain issues.

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9591
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Documentaries

Post by Jeffk 1970 » Thu Aug 23, 2018 6:32 pm

montgomery wrote:
Jeffk 1970 wrote:That remains to be seen. Perhaps I will get a chance to watch “Mr. Death” tonight, I got some of my “honey do” list done last night.
Thanks for your interest and I hope it's not a waste of your time. So far my time hasn't been wasted because it's at least given me an indication of the kind of flak I'm going to receive from some others, even before I ask any questions concerning the validity of certain issues.

I’ve been meaning to watch it. I do think it a better idea to create a thread specific dealing with the documentary. I will do that when I finish watching it and refer you to it.
“I noticed this morning that a group of our Landsberg friends have been given their freedom this morning. These include...Schubert, Jost and Nosske. Schubert confessed to...supervising the execution of about 800 Jews...(referring to the order to clean up Simferopol)...Schubert managed to kill all the Jews (by Christmas 1941). Nosske was the one the other defendants called the biggest bloodhound....
Noel, Noel, what the hell.”
Benjamin Ferencz in a letter to Telford Taylor, December 1951

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 23276
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Documentaries

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Thu Aug 23, 2018 7:27 pm

montgomery wrote:You're not debating me, you're attacking me and that's an indication of your feelings of insecurity. I would suggest to you that you needn't feel insecure, as the facts on the holocaust have been established and secured long ago. It's only some of the unanswered questions that I'm interested in pursuing here with Jeffk. Be patient. Nobody has any intention of denying you input to the discussion.

The only important question to me at this point is in whether or not jeffk will find any common ground with me on my suggestion of some conclusions lacking for questions asked in the film. Perhaps he will find none?
Well, my "insecurity" is really tied up in wondering if you will ever get to a point. About the Holocaust or anything else. It appears Jeffk will hang in until you do.

And, right, I'm glad we agree that "attack the message, not the messenger" doesn't apply this time; and, no, no one will deny me or any other member here input in this forum - as you say, you're not aware of how it works yet. People here can debate, or comment, or post musical favorites, or riff on this or that.

"Carri on!"
"It was still at the stage of clubs and fists, hurrah, tala"

Balmoral95
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2470
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 4:14 am
Location: The Free Nambia Healthcare Nirvana

Re: Documentaries

Post by Balmoral95 » Fri Aug 24, 2018 12:53 am

Leuchter? Really? In 2018?

I can quit now; I've seen it all.

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9591
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Documentaries

Post by Jeffk 1970 » Fri Aug 24, 2018 1:02 am

See, this is what happens when I get home, my blood sugar is low, I eat something and read Skeptics.

Statistical Mechanic says “Carri on!” And my mind immediately pops this into my head:

“I noticed this morning that a group of our Landsberg friends have been given their freedom this morning. These include...Schubert, Jost and Nosske. Schubert confessed to...supervising the execution of about 800 Jews...(referring to the order to clean up Simferopol)...Schubert managed to kill all the Jews (by Christmas 1941). Nosske was the one the other defendants called the biggest bloodhound....
Noel, Noel, what the hell.”
Benjamin Ferencz in a letter to Telford Taylor, December 1951

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 23276
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Documentaries

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Fri Aug 24, 2018 5:44 am

LOL (in truth I was using a phrase often used by the glorious former NKVD enforcer of Rodoh 1.0 . . . )
"It was still at the stage of clubs and fists, hurrah, tala"

User avatar
Upton_O_Goode
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4566
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2017 1:15 am
Custom Title: Dwayne de Schwamp
Location: The Land Formerly Known as Pangea

Re: Documentaries

Post by Upton_O_Goode » Tue Sep 04, 2018 7:50 pm

New film, not exactly a documentary. Currently playing at the Roxy here in Burlington, where I expect to be tomorrow afternoon, watching it. Has anybody seen it?

“When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.”

― Frédéric Bastiat (1801–1850), French economist

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9591
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Documentaries

Post by Jeffk 1970 » Tue Sep 04, 2018 7:55 pm

Upton_O_Goode wrote:New film, not exactly a documentary. Currently playing at the Roxy here in Burlington, where I expect to be tomorrow afternoon, watching it. Has anybody seen it?

Hi, Upton.

I haven’t seen this one but I generally don’t go see things like this. It looks interesting and I might see it if it shows up on Netflix or Prime Video.
“I noticed this morning that a group of our Landsberg friends have been given their freedom this morning. These include...Schubert, Jost and Nosske. Schubert confessed to...supervising the execution of about 800 Jews...(referring to the order to clean up Simferopol)...Schubert managed to kill all the Jews (by Christmas 1941). Nosske was the one the other defendants called the biggest bloodhound....
Noel, Noel, what the hell.”
Benjamin Ferencz in a letter to Telford Taylor, December 1951

User avatar
Upton_O_Goode
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4566
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2017 1:15 am
Custom Title: Dwayne de Schwamp
Location: The Land Formerly Known as Pangea

Re: Documentaries

Post by Upton_O_Goode » Tue Sep 04, 2018 7:56 pm

Jeffk 1970 wrote:Hi, Upton.

I haven’t seen this one but I generally don’t go see things like this. It looks interesting and I might see it if it shows up on Netflix or Prime Video.
I'll let you know what I think. In the meantime, here's a B+ review of it from The New Yorker
“When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.”

― Frédéric Bastiat (1801–1850), French economist

User avatar
Upton_O_Goode
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4566
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2017 1:15 am
Custom Title: Dwayne de Schwamp
Location: The Land Formerly Known as Pangea

Re: Documentaries

Post by Upton_O_Goode » Wed Sep 05, 2018 8:29 pm

I’ve just come back from seeing Operation Finale. As any film with this subject matter would, it held my interest. It’s based on the memoir of Peter Malkin, one of the Mossad agents who snatched Eichmann out of Buenos Aires in 1960. Bearing always in mind the danger that comes of making art out of the Holocaust, especially Elie Wiesel’s warning that “we should tremble before we even speak the word,” I think it was well done. The fact is that the Holocaust created a whole subset of culture that didn't exist before: history, art, music, and literature. These things humanize us all, provided we use them with respect.

I posted the New Yorker review yesterday. Here’s another, balanced review from The Jerusalem Post. I didn't find the three or four flashback scenes to the Holocaust itself to be badly done or clichéed. They were meant to show how Malkin himself was haunted by the loss of his sister and how conflicted he was about having to capture Eichmann alive. The one in the last few minutes of the movie, in which he imagines his sister and her children coming to him to kiss him good-bye, then walking off into the forest in which, apparently, they died, was a bit of a tug at the heartstrings, but I didn't mind.

While the basic facts, many of which I remember from news reports at the time, are all there and accurately presented, there are a few cases where a fact checker is useful.

I’m not sure just where Eichmann was at any given time. Did he actually witness the killings he organized? The movie shows him doing so, but very fastidiously. I just don’t know. In the movie, he argues that he really tried hard merely to deport Jews, not murder them. Well, of course, that was Hitler's original plan also; but once the Nazis set out to conquer Lebensraum and found themselves in charge of millions more Jews, they changed the plan. Not that there was any virtue in the original plan; it would have been a horrible crime. But then anything would have been better than what was actually done. I do know that much of the story must have been embroidered for the sake of suspense and human interest. I doubt if the character of Graciela,
Spoiler:
who under torture, reveals the location where Eichmann is being held to the Argentinian Nazis,
appears in any actual documents. I don't know if the team really did have to keep Eichmann under wraps for two weeks before getting him out. But of course, most of the character development and drama that there is in this very simple story had to be put into that time interval. I also doubt if the Nazis in Buenos Aires were just about to rescue Eichmann when the team took off from the airport. But again, I wasn’t there. It might have been that way. The male doctor on the Mossad team became a female doctor in the movie. Both she (Hannah) and Malkin were given a history of significant lapses in Mossad operations. Whether that is true or not, I don’t know.

Ben Kingsley does bear a very strong physical resemblance to Eichmann. (I think the late Ned Glass looked even more like him, however; it’s a widespread facial type.) Likewise the two actors portraying David Ben-Gurion and Abba Eban were well chosen, although they both have only cameo roles.
The Eichmann case has one ironic point that I can’t resist pointing out: The Calvinist Protestant Eichmann escaped punishment through the aid of a faithful Catholic bishop. Is that not an inspiring example of ecumenical co-operation?
“When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.”

― Frédéric Bastiat (1801–1850), French economist

User avatar
Upton_O_Goode
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4566
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2017 1:15 am
Custom Title: Dwayne de Schwamp
Location: The Land Formerly Known as Pangea

Re: Documentaries

Post by Upton_O_Goode » Thu Sep 06, 2018 11:55 am

montgomery wrote:You're not debating me, you're attacking me and that's an indication of your feelings of insecurity.
(Boldface added by me.) This is the form of argument labeled "bulverism" by the late CS Lewis: Just tell everyone what motive your opponent has. Saves the trouble of dealing with the argument itself. It has been raised to such a level of perfection by Rash Limpjaw and other commentators that it's now practically their only stock-in-trade. It's astonishing how many people claim to know other people's motives, and how many people believe that claim.

Just to be clear: A correct argument may be given by someone with a bad motive. An incorrect argument may be given by someone with a good motive. Causes and grounds are two entirely different and independent categories.
“When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.”

― Frédéric Bastiat (1801–1850), French economist

montgomery
BANNED
Posts: 953
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 4:30 pm

Re: Documentaries

Post by montgomery » Thu Sep 06, 2018 3:21 pm

Upton_O_Goode wrote:
montgomery wrote:You're not debating me, you're attacking me and that's an indication of your feelings of insecurity.
(Boldface added by me.) This is the form of argument labeled "bulverism" by the late CS Lewis: Just tell everyone what motive your opponent has. Saves the trouble of dealing with the argument itself. It has been raised to such a level of perfection by Rash Limpjaw and other commentators that it's now practically their only stock-in-trade. It's astonishing how many people claim to know other people's motives, and how many people believe that claim.

Just to be clear: A correct argument may be given by someone with a bad motive. An incorrect argument may be given by someone with a good motive. Causes and grounds are two entirely different and independent categories.
I can't remember who I said that about. Do you know? I have a hunch but am not sure. It would apply to anyone who has taken the position that nobody be welcome on this board if he/she doesn't accept his pure party line. To him/her eveyone must be in total agreement on everything or they get spammed for the slightest deviation. Two members are continually criticized for even discussing an issue with me.

So whoever I was talking to, it seems that a good explanation would be that he/she was feelling insecure about me and the others who don't take his/her hardline position. If people aren't tolerated when they politely disagree then what is the purpose of the board? It can't be anything but spamming and namecalling and general bad behavior. And that's exactly what 90% of it is! Do you have a better explanation?

User avatar
Upton_O_Goode
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4566
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2017 1:15 am
Custom Title: Dwayne de Schwamp
Location: The Land Formerly Known as Pangea

Re: Documentaries

Post by Upton_O_Goode » Thu Sep 06, 2018 6:04 pm

montgomery wrote: I can't remember who I said that about. Do you know? I have a hunch but am not sure. It would apply to anyone who has taken the position that nobody be welcome on this board if he/she doesn't accept his pure party line. To him/her eveyone must be in total agreement on everything or they get spammed for the slightest deviation. Two members are continually criticized for even discussing an issue with me.

So whoever I was talking to, it seems that a good explanation would be that he/she was feelling insecure about me and the others who don't take his/her hardline position. If people aren't tolerated when they politely disagree then what is the purpose of the board? It can't be anything but spamming and namecalling and general bad behavior. And that's exactly what 90% of it is! Do you have a better explanation?
Your post was here. I assume it was a response to the post immediately preceding it.

I think you and I are reading this board in nearly opposite ways. I can't see the slightest indication that anybody has taken the position that people who don't "accept his pure party line" are not welcome here. (Snarky comment: I'm always glad to get a new chew toy in any extended debate, so I enjoy meeting people with mad-as-the-March-Hare positions. Eventually, of course, I wind up putting them on ignore, that is, listing them as "enemies." :mrgreen: I hasten to add that I don't regard you as one of those people...yet.)

An angry or impatient response is not a lack of toleration. A lack of toleration occurs when one is banned or censored from posting. For what it's worth, anger and impatience arise in me and nearly everyone I know occasionally, not connected with any feelings of insecurity.
“When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.”

― Frédéric Bastiat (1801–1850), French economist

montgomery
BANNED
Posts: 953
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 4:30 pm

Re: Documentaries

Post by montgomery » Thu Sep 06, 2018 6:29 pm

Upton_O_Goode wrote:
montgomery wrote: I can't remember who I said that about. Do you know? I have a hunch but am not sure. It would apply to anyone who has taken the position that nobody be welcome on this board if he/she doesn't accept his pure party line. To him/her eveyone must be in total agreement on everything or they get spammed for the slightest deviation. Two members are continually criticized for even discussing an issue with me.

So whoever I was talking to, it seems that a good explanation would be that he/she was feelling insecure about me and the others who don't take his/her hardline position. If people aren't tolerated when they politely disagree then what is the purpose of the board? It can't be anything but spamming and namecalling and general bad behavior. And that's exactly what 90% of it is! Do you have a better explanation?
Your post was here. I assume it was a response to the post immediately preceding it.

I think you and I are reading this board in nearly opposite ways. I can't see the slightest indication that anybody has taken the position that people who don't "accept his pure party line" are not welcome here. (Snarky comment: I'm always glad to get a new chew toy in any extended debate, so I enjoy meeting people with mad-as-the-March-Hare positions. Eventually, of course, I wind up putting them on ignore, that is, listing them as "enemies." :mrgreen: I hasten to add that I don't regard you as one of those people...yet.)

An angry or impatient response is not a lack of toleration. A lack of toleration occurs when one is banned or censored from posting. For what it's worth, anger and impatience arise in me and nearly everyone I know occasionally, not connected with any feelings of insecurity.
The little dictator boss has stated clearly that he doesn't appreciate anybody debating a person that he has labelled a denier. And he's criticized JeffK and probably others for not obeying that order. (wish?)

If you would like to find somebody to put on ignore then check out the anger of balmoral or D-H or eggs. I'm not angry and that's because I have no reason to be. The bad behavior I'm talking about is my asset that comes free of charge.

Stick around, so far you haven't given me any indication you intend to behave the way of the status quo.

User avatar
Upton_O_Goode
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4566
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2017 1:15 am
Custom Title: Dwayne de Schwamp
Location: The Land Formerly Known as Pangea

Re: Documentaries

Post by Upton_O_Goode » Fri Sep 07, 2018 10:17 am

montgomery wrote: The little dictator boss has stated clearly that he doesn't appreciate anybody debating a person that he has labelled a denier. And he's criticized JeffK and probably others for not obeying that order. (wish?)

If you would like to find somebody to put on ignore then check out the anger of balmoral or D-H or eggs. I'm not angry and that's because I have no reason to be. The bad behavior I'm talking about is my asset that comes free of charge.

Stick around, so far you haven't given me any indication you intend to behave the way of the status quo.
Well, now you have given me a reason not to respond to you. You just fired a broadside at four people whose posts I've been reading for 18 months and finding to be very cogent and to the point. From you, meanwhile, I have yet to see any kind of coherent argument, just attempts to get others to read the stuff you read and criticisms of the board in general. Perhaps on some other thread we might be able to converse, but not on this one. So...that's all you'll be hearing from me.
“When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.”

― Frédéric Bastiat (1801–1850), French economist

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 23276
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Documentaries

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Fri Sep 07, 2018 12:06 pm

Upton, we miss you by the way!
"It was still at the stage of clubs and fists, hurrah, tala"

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25692
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: somewhere

Re: Documentaries

Post by scrmbldggs » Fri Sep 07, 2018 4:09 pm

Upton_O_Goode wrote:...Perhaps on some other thread we might be able to converse, but not on this one...
You'd simply be talking to another phony persona*. S/he's just trying to achieve "good standing" elsewhere.



* whose true nature is visible best in the light of tiki torches.
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

montgomery
BANNED
Posts: 953
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 4:30 pm

Re: Documentaries

Post by montgomery » Fri Sep 07, 2018 5:43 pm

Upton_O_Goode wrote:
montgomery wrote: The little dictator boss has stated clearly that he doesn't appreciate anybody debating a person that he has labelled a denier. And he's criticized JeffK and probably others for not obeying that order. (wish?)

If you would like to find somebody to put on ignore then check out the anger of balmoral or D-H or eggs. I'm not angry and that's because I have no reason to be. The bad behavior I'm talking about is my asset that comes free of charge.

Stick around, so far you haven't given me any indication you intend to behave the way of the status quo.
Well, now you have given me a reason not to respond to you. You just fired a broadside at four people whose posts I've been reading for 18 months and finding to be very cogent and to the point. From you, meanwhile, I have yet to see any kind of coherent argument, just attempts to get others to read the stuff you read and criticisms of the board in general. Perhaps on some other thread we might be able to converse, but not on this one. So...that's all you'll be hearing from me.
Seriously Upton, you criticize me for firing a broadside at four people??? You obviously haven't been following the contuous and non-stop spamming and personal insults being fired at me!

And you think I'm trying to get others to read the stuff I read?? Wow, you reallly missed the last boat. I've never even suggested any reading to others, never mind what I've read! At best relating to that, I've said that people need to balance their reading. Good bye and good riddance if that's the best spamming you can come up with! Sheesh! :?

montgomery
BANNED
Posts: 953
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 4:30 pm

Re: Documentaries

Post by montgomery » Fri Sep 07, 2018 5:47 pm

scrmbldggs wrote:
Upton_O_Goode wrote:...Perhaps on some other thread we might be able to converse, but not on this one...
You'd simply be talking to another phony persona*. S/he's just trying to achieve "good standing" elsewhere.



* whose true nature is visible best in the light of tiki torches.
I see why you sympathize with Upton. He's just demonstrated theat he's full of the same mindless drivel that comes out of you and your ilk eggs. (balmoral, D-H, etc.)

User avatar
Upton_O_Goode
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4566
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2017 1:15 am
Custom Title: Dwayne de Schwamp
Location: The Land Formerly Known as Pangea

Re: Documentaries

Post by Upton_O_Goode » Fri Sep 07, 2018 9:30 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:Upton, we miss you by the way!
Thanks. I'll be back on this board when I have something substantial to contribute. I'm still miles behind the rest of you and just lurking and learning about more material than I ever knew existed.
“When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.”

― Frédéric Bastiat (1801–1850), French economist

montgomery
BANNED
Posts: 953
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 4:30 pm

Re: Documentaries

Post by montgomery » Fri Sep 07, 2018 10:52 pm

Upton_O_Goode wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:Upton, we miss you by the way!
Thanks. I'll be back on this board when I have something substantial to contribute. I'm still miles behind the rest of you and just lurking and learning about more material than I ever knew existed.
Good choice Upton, and you would do yourself a favor if you apologized for your mistake.

Srebrenica
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri May 04, 2018 5:30 pm

Re: Documentaries

Post by Srebrenica » Mon Sep 10, 2018 9:55 pm

montgomery wrote:
Upton_O_Goode wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:Upton, we miss you by the way!
Thanks. I'll be back on this board when I have something substantial to contribute. I'm still miles behind the rest of you and just lurking and learning about more material than I ever knew existed.
Good choice Upton, and you would do yourself a favor if you apologized for your mistake.
Maybe you should take a break, montgomery, until you have something to contribute to this board. VFX could join you.

montgomery
BANNED
Posts: 953
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 4:30 pm

Re: Documentaries

Post by montgomery » Tue Sep 11, 2018 3:03 am

Srebrenica wrote:
montgomery wrote:
Upton_O_Goode wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:Upton, we miss you by the way!
Thanks. I'll be back on this board when I have something substantial to contribute. I'm still miles behind the rest of you and just lurking and learning about more material than I ever knew existed.
Good choice Upton, and you would do yourself a favor if you apologized for your mistake.
Maybe you should take a break, montgomery, until you have something to contribute to this board. VFX could join you.
Holocaust denial denied!

User avatar
Upton_O_Goode
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4566
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2017 1:15 am
Custom Title: Dwayne de Schwamp
Location: The Land Formerly Known as Pangea

Re: Documentaries

Post by Upton_O_Goode » Tue Sep 11, 2018 9:07 pm

I just spent about six hours reading Peter Malkin's account of the capture of Eichmann. It's an amazingly good read, and I recommend it to everybody. Essentially, the capture and the hideout for a couple of weeks in Buenos Aires are exactly as depicted in the movie "Operation Finale." Even the conflict between Malkin and "Hans," whom Malkin admits he never liked, is close up to the movie. Hans was an interrogator in the classic style who made Eichmann cringe, but didn't get him to write and sign a statement saying he was willing to be tried in Israel. Malkin engaged Eichmann on a personal level, and, just as shown in the movie, his fellow agents were appalled and angry about it. It was a violation of their orders. But it's difficult to argue with success, and Malkin got Eichmann to sign.

Other details were included for dramatic effect. In fact, it is not known what the numerous Nazis in Buenos Aires were doing, once they realized Eichmann had been caught. Eichmann's son Nicholas claimed that 300 of them were very close to rescuing him. But in fact, the El-Al flight took off two hours early (that had been part of the plan), and no one on the team knew the Nazis were trying to rescue him. Unlike the movie, Malkin in real life did not have to sprint off the plane with a copy of the passenger manifest to replace one that had been stolen by a Nazi sympathizer at the airport. Actually, he and Rosa (the only woman on the mission) wound up having to take a train to Santiago, Chile, and it took them several weeks to get back to Israel. Rosa is the comic relief in the book. She took it on herself to see that the team kept a kosher kitchen, but as Malkin says, she couldn't even fry an egg.

For me, the best lines in the book are Malkin's reflections on his conversations with Eichmann:
Peter Malkin wrote: Why is it that one person comes of age profoundly humane while someone else, of the same culture and social background, is seemingly impervious to the needs of others?

The conclusion I reached, though hardly original, nonetheless still seems far too little appreciated. It has everything to do with how one is regarded as a child. Those who as children are valued and nurtured, loved without expectation and listened to and heard, are likely to become compassionate adults who think for themselves and make moral choices. Those many others around whom regimentation is the norm and unconventionality is taken as aberrant are quickly made to understand---by parents, by teachers, by almost everyone in their universe---that they are of worth only as part of the larger whole. As second nature they learn passivity and obedience, not conscience.
One detail that was not in the movie: The team was also assigned to root out Mengele, but (according to Malkin), the ham-fisted reconnaissance by "Hans" and his team spooked him, and he took off.
“When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.”

― Frédéric Bastiat (1801–1850), French economist

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 23276
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Documentaries

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Wed Sep 12, 2018 11:50 am

Upton, on the Nazi circles in Buenos Aires, I think you'd like Stangneth, Eichmann Before Jerusalem. It's a great book.
"It was still at the stage of clubs and fists, hurrah, tala"