Talk:Irene Zisblatt

[Untitled]

This page has repeatedly been attacked by Holocaust deniers. IP addresses of those who have maliciously assaulted Irene Zisblatt's integrity include: 68.12.187.97 (Cox Communications, Oklahoma City, OK); 2602:306:CD91:C7F0:4CF2:A00E:8821:EB6A (Greensboro, NC), 70.185.196.78 (Cox Communications, Oklahoma City, OK). Each IP address found to have inserted libelous information has been warned on its talk page. Additionally, the compromised integrity of this page has been reported to Wikipedia. Hello43r (talk) 22:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

When you write about people who “maliciously assaulted Irene Zisblatt's integrity”, does that include Dr. Joachim Neander and George Mastroianni? They are mentioned in Zisblatt’s biography.

About Dr. Neander:

“Trained mathematician, worked as systems analyst and teacher, in addition holding a PhD in history, since 1992 working as a free lance historian focusing on the reception history of the Holocaust.”

https://independent.academia.edu/JoachimNeander

https://www.ushmm.org/research/about-the-mandel-center/all-fellows-and-scholars/joachim-neander-2001

In his blogpost about Irene, he writes: “Teaching falsehood, even with the best intentions, is always dangerous and counterproductive.” And I agree with that. Dr. Neander’s analysis is based on Zisblatt’s own words and statements, the conclusion that her story doesn’t make sense is based on the fact that it do not align with history is thoroughly explained and I recommend everyone to read it.

https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2010/01/irene-zisblatt-diamond-girl-fact-or.html

Some examples:

“When the Jewish girls who had provided explosives for the Sonderkommando's mutiny, are publicly executed the day after, and Chana is "forced to march out to the gallows and to watch as the three girls were hanged" (72).”

The four women was executed in January, 1945. By then, according to Irene herself, she had already escaped Auschwitz.

https://twitter.com/AuschwitzMuseum/status/1743596196671652310

- She claims that the reason she doesn’t have her prison number as a tattoo is that Dr. Mengele experimented on her and removed it.

- She also claims that she hid her diamonds by repeatedly swallowed them and always had the time to find them again after using the latrines.

“Knowing from numerous descriptions of undisputed Auschwitz survivors how appalling the sanitary conditions were particularly at Birkenau, that the number of latrine places for thousands of prisoners was absolutely insufficient, that the latrines could only be used for a short time in the course of a day, that there was not the tiniest little bit of privacy, and that prisoner functionaries (kapos) "directed traffic" inside with shouting, beating and insults,[63] it is inconceivable that Chana for months has been able to relieve herself undisturbed in some corner of the latrine and to retrieve her diamonds unnoticed.[64]”

Besides that this wouldn’t go undetected, she never got sick because of those diamonds during those 18 months.

And her escape is truly something:

“In her book, however, the story reads somewhat different: "the SS" orders a second roll call, and she along with fifteen hundred other women are selected (74). They have to undress completely in the open. They then are herded into "the number three gas chamber," which, however, is "not big enough to accommodate all of us." Chana, being the last to enter, manages to cling to the door and so prevents the SS man in charge from closing it. Another SS man, obviously of a higher rank, angrily shouts at him: "Close the door so we can dispense the Cyclone B." The SS man at the door can see no other way out but to throw Chana "out onto the ramp." He shuts the door and disappears (75).

Naked, Chana runs away and hides "under the roof of the gas chamber" (75). There she hears the screaming of the dying, until "all was quiet, it was so quiet you could hear a pin drop."[68] Luckily no SS man is around, but a lone Hungarian boy, member of the Sonderkommando, appears, sees Chana, pulls her "from under the eave of the roof" and covers her with his "striped jacket" (75-76). He then leaves, but returns after some time and tells her that on the tracks besides the gas chamber a train with open cars is waiting to take women prisoners to a labor camp. He wraps Chana up in a blanket[69] and flings the bundle high over the electrified wires directly into one of the open freight cars. Though there are already women in the car, no one speaks to Chana. Shortly thereafter, the train leaves Birkenau. (76)”

To question her story is not to question the holocaust.

(The official Auschwitz Memorial Twitter account has linked to that blog

https://twitter.com/AuschwitzMuseum/status/1216952147469852680

An interview with the founder of the blog Holocaust Controveries

https://www.thejc.com/news/holocaust-denial-in-decline-says-historian-dsgckhfq

And another article that mentions this blog and why Dr Terry started it

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/22/online-conspiracy-theories-feed-holocaust-denial) 83.227.68.212 (talk) 15:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

This page has also been attacked by people who hate history and that label any criticism of fraudulent Holocaust memoirs as Holocaust denial. Zisblatt's story has been proven false by an independent historian. He concluded that she was at Auschwitz but that her story is not true. The falseness of her claims do not prove that the Holocaust didn't happen; however, forwarding an obvious fiction does give credence to Holocaust deniers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CD91:C7F0:E1D0:D8F4:EAE3:88F9 (talk) 02:10, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

"Let us look at yet another aspect. Is it morally acceptable to criticize a Holocaust survivor's story, hurting her feelings and those of thousands of people who believe her? The answer must be: In this case, yes. Mrs. Zisblatt has gone public with a dubious story, and in a free society, she and her followers must stand scholarly criticism of it, even if it hurts. But are there not the Holocaust deniers, who already have attacked Mrs. Zisblatt on the Web and even at court? Do we not feed grist to their mills when we expose her story - a survivor's account - as unreliable? Would this not be a convincing argument for keeping silent? The answer must be: No. Society must neither be afraid of a handful of cranks, nor let them decide on what to do and what not to do. Moreover, the truth will come to light anyhow, sooner or later."

https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2010/01/irene-zisblatt-diamond-girl-fact-or.html?m=1 83.227.68.212 (talk) 13:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Needs edits

This article heavily relies on Zisblatt's extremely unreliable and demonstrably fictionalized memoir, like the wholly imaginary train episode. Or her stay in Neuengamme (where she never was, she was in Gross-Rosen and Flossenbürg instead, as the camp records show).

See this detailed and documented critique on an anti-denial blog: http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2010/01/irene-zisblatt-diamond-girl-fact-or.html

Wikipedia is not a place for retranslating personal fantasies.

--Sergey Romanov (talk) 22:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

She's a proven fraud

She's a proven fraud 47.151.34.174 (talk) 04:26, 24 June 2024 (UTC)