Talk:Michael Dov Weissmandl

Comments

The main article calls the payments to the Germans "bribes". "Ransom" is a more appropriate term since the payments were based on negotiated agreements originated by Rabbi Weissmandl, and the Nazi who received them (Wisliceny) apparently got approval from high Nazi officials in Germany. The Germans were apparently willing to stop the transports from Slovakia for $50,000 (now maybe worth $500,000). After much difficulty, Rabbi Weissmandl obtained the funds as a loan and the transports stopped.

The "Europa Plan" was even more ambitious and important, but the down payment to pay ransom to the Germans could not be obtained.

Rabbi Weissmandl was one of the authors of the "Auschwitz Report" - based on Spring 1944 debriefing of two Auschwitz escapees: Wetzler and Rosenberg (later called Vrba). The Report was widely circulated by the Working Group. A Jew of Romanian-Hungarian origin, George Mantello (Mandel Gyuri), in Switzerland publicized it immediately after he received a copy via Budapest in mid-1944 - after start of the Hungarian transports to Auschwitz. This led to an unprecedented Swiss press campaign, street protests and intense, concerned and indignant masses in Swiss churches demanding an immediate stop the Holocaust.

Regretfully major Jewish rescuers like Rabbi Weissmandl, George Mantello, Gizi Fleischmann, Hillel Kook (alias Peter Bergson), Recha Sternbuch and Rabbi Solomon Schonfeld - and major events such as the Swiss grass roots protests were never duly recognized in spite of significant historical evidence, research and numerous history books.

There is much controversy and argument related to the rescue and more unbiased historical research is required urgently.

Professor Bauer, for example, who is quoted in the article, in a recent discussion with this comment's author completely denied the rescue efforts of a major Jewish rescuer: Hillel Kook (also known as Peter Bergson during the war). His statement was: "Hillel Kook didn't save anyone!"). This is very disconcerting coming from someone whom many consider THE authority on the Holocaust and from someone who in Israel trained many of today's Holocaust researchers. In contrast, some historians (e.g. in "A Race Against Death" - reference below) credit Hillel Kook and his rescue group with being the key contributors to saving over 200,000 people - due to incessant,inspired and successful activism in the USA which led to establishment of the War Refugee Board which sponsored the Wallenberg mission to Budapest.

In one of his books Prof. Bauer expresses astonishment about an ultra-orthodox man like Rabbi Weissmandl pleading to bomb the rails leading to Auschwitz. It was inconceivable to Prof. Bauer that a very religious Jew like Prof. Weissmandl could even think of a pragmatic and activist plan - at a time when much of the free world was at best apathetic. Books by historians Dr. David Kranzler and Dr. Abraham Fuchs, and testimonies of those who knew Rabbi Weissmandl during the Holocaust present a very different view of Rabbi Weissmandl's achievements than Prof. Bauer.

User LPfeffer

References

Dr. Abraham Fuchs, The Unheeded Cry (also in Hebrew as "Karati ve ein oneh")

Ben Hecht, Perfidy (also in Hebrew - as Kachas)

Prof. David Kranzler, Thy Brother's Blood

Prof. David Kranzler, The Man who Stopped the Trains to Auschwitz: George Mantello, El Salvador's and Switzerland's finest hour

Prof. David Kranzler, Holocaust Hero: Solomon Shoenfeld - The Untold Story of an Extraordinary British Rabbi who Rescued 4000 during the Holocaust

Jenö Lévai, Zsidósors Európában (published in 1948 in Hungarian, about George Mantello and the major Swiss grass roots protests against the Holocaust)

Rabbi Michael Ber Weissmandl, Min HaMetzar (From the Straights), in Hebrew

David Wyman and Rafael Medoff, A Race Against Death - Peter Bergson, America and the Holocaust

VERAfilm, "Among Blind Fools" (documentary video)

[1] (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillel_Kook), Hillel Kook on Wikipeda

[2] (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaim_Yisroel_Eiss), Chaim Yisroel Eiss on Wikipedia

User LPfeffer

Important note: Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). Comments made by 85.130.149.42 (talk · contribs) have been edited by Lpfeffer (talk · contribs); okay if the same person, not okay if editing someone else's comments. RadioKirk talk to me 22:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments were written and edited by LPfeffer (Apr 6, 2006)

Why I removed POV tag

It is true that Rabbi Weissmandl's actions both spawned controversy (e.g. the refusal of Saly Mayer of the JDC to work with him) and were misinterpreted by others (e.g. Professor Bauer's comment expressing surprise that an Orthodox Jew would suggest bombing Auschwitz railroad lines). But that's no reason to question the neutrality of this article. Instead, let's write up the different takes on Rabbi Weissmandl's activities within the article itself. Don't forget the letter sent to him by Nathan Schwalb, who wrote that the Jews had to pay for the right to settle the Land of Israel with blood, implying that the religious Jews of Europe should die while Zionists should be rescued and sent to Israel. Weissmandl quotes this letter from memory in his book. Since the letter is not extant, it's his word against the Zionist fellow's. But as others testify[3], Weissmandl did have a tremendous memory... Yoninah 14:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Unreliable sources

Zero0000, I've removed the following text from the page:
Weissmandl's own summary of the charges is his Ten Questions to the Zionists. Bauer refutes many of these claims.
because jewsagainstzionism is an unreliable source, and so it cannot be used on Wikipedia. I have no trouble with the content itself, if you can find reliable sources for it. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I dispute that this web site is unreliable for material like this. It is a political polemic site and can be used a source for what that polemic is. Weissmandl is not a third-party here, he was in the same community that this site represents. This document is cited not as a source of facts but as a source for what Weissmandl claimed. So far I have not seen any reasonable argument that this site should be blacklisted altogether. --Zero^talk 23:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes extremist sites present truthful content and mainstream and politically correct historians are in fact apologists for a regime or a group. Rabbi Weissmandl's Ten Questions raises deeply troubling and painful issues, and to many people the questions are very irritating. Still, apparently, the Ten Questions is authentic - even if it was found on an unreliable Web site. It is part of Rabbi Weissmandl's historical record and it is inappropriate to censor that. It is, however, appropriate to question the authenticity of the referencing site. I plan to look up the Ten Questions for posting on the main page along with the also controversial Shwalb letter. Emesz 21:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

How to write a sentence?

We have a minor dispute over writing "Weissmandl's accusations against the Jewish organizations" (the original wording I used when I started the article) versus "Weissmandl's accusations against the Zionist organizations". I'll explain my choice of words. The particular organizations Weissmandl accused were the Jewish Agency, the World Zionist Congress, and the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee (the Joint). The first two are obvious Zionist, but the Joint was not Zionist (at least, not officially). So saying "Zionist organizations" is not quite right. I propose to write "Jewish organizations" in this place, but to expand the earlier paragraph where this is mentioned to name the three organizations. Any objections? --Zero^talk 12:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Suggest perhaps "Jewish/Zionist organizations and leaders" Emesz 21:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Enyclopedic not a eulogy!

Zero0000 says that he removed "highly non-encyclopedic edits" because this "is not a eulogy!” Please tell me what's unencyclopedic about what was written. If you think that parts of it are unencyclopedic; I can understand that. So be so kind and leave what to you is considered enyclopedic. Are mediocre or lowly unencyclopedic edits acceptable? What consists a eulogy? Is what is said at a eulogy forbidden to Wikipedia?

Also reversions need to be identified as reversions; otherwise they are considered edits. Reversions disguised as edits or edits disguised as reversions is pure vandalism. Itzse 17:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to not explain it more. You simply can't write things like "legendary heroic brilliant Rabbi" and "utmost devotion" in your own voice. Those are the words of a eulogy and not of an encyclopedia article. WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:CITE are all violated. You have to use neutral language and you have to give a source for your claims. It is ok to quote some named person as saying he was brilliant and devoted but it should be a quote from someone notable and credible (eg, something said at his death by his student would not be very interesting because students always say such things of their rabbis at their deaths). You also put too much detail into the introduction rather than its proper place in the article. --Zero^talk 23:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The not explaining it more; is not the problem. If you would have deleted a few words with an explanation that it's not encyclopedic; that would have been fine. The problem is that you didn't bother to make it encyclopedic or delete only those words that are unencyclopedic; you decided to delete it all because reverting is easier then editing. WP allows aggressive editing; but not aggressive deleting. You need to have some consideration for someone else's work.

If it's not NPOV; then make it NPOV. If it's uncited; then even if you challenge that information, doesn't give you a right to delete it, before you place a cite tag; unless you know for a fact that it's not true. The content of my edits, I think, you don't challenge, so why delete entire edits? It's wrong, and I would recommend that you reread the WP rules and see for yourself that no WP rules were violated.

WP:OR states that "unpublished facts" which you are the source, is a violation; but what I wrote, is common knowledge and I'm sure that it's published somewhere. Wikipedia encourages editing and adding facts to articles. There is no requirement to have the sources of your edits at your fingertips before editing; only to edit in good faith. If you made a mistake someone out there will catch it and correct it; but deleting wholesale entire edits is unacceptable.

My interest here is to supply information, as this article is dry. To simply write an article to read like a death certificate is meaningless. If he was brilliant then the article should describe him as such, unless there is a debate on that; and so on and on. Yes, "utmost devotion" and mesiras nefesh does describe this man and it needs to be in the article, and if it's written unencyclopedic then it needs to be made encyclopedic. Itzse 18:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Emesz, you're adding large amounts of material without attributing it to a reliable source. Please see our policy on sourcing, Wikipedia:Attribution, which says that anything challenged or likely to be challenged must have a reliable, published source or it may be removed, and the sources have to be in the form of inline citations to be of any use. That is, you must say after the sentence where you got it from, including page numbers if it's a book.

Also, please review our WP:3RR policy, which says you may not revert more than three times in 24 hours; any undoing of another editor's work counts as a revert. If you violate 3RR, you may be reported and blocked from editing. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Weissmandel or Weismandel

Moved from Main page Itzse 18:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The incorrect spellings Weissmandel and Weismandel, if left here, can help people find this. The word Nitra can also help. Rav Weissmandl's work on Gimatria is mentioned in www.torah.org/learning/pirkei-avos/chapter3-23b.html

References/History

What does history mean in this case? History of what? It should be made clearer, for me and for people reading the article. Thanks, Yodaat 15:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

suggested improvements

I did some reorganizing and made a guess (only!) about the 2 redundant paragraphs that I combined on the new community.

For a feature article, I'd suggest (1) more clarity and sourcing for the key Holocaust narrative, (2) photos or other images to make it look more interesting?, (3) some authoritative comments about, maybe selected quotes from his books. His family and legacy? HG 21:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Ten Questions? Criticism of Zionism?

It is almost like somebody from Machon Meir wrote this. There is *no* mentioning of his Ten Questions to the Zionists, and *no* mentioning of his strong opposition to the Zionist state. This must be fixed. --Rabbeinu 12:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see the section "Unreliable sources" on this page. I've been meaning to return to this issue but didn't find the time. --Zero^talk 15:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

This article contains flagrant falsehoods

For instance, the implication that the Nazis were amenable to compromise by setting Jews free, on condition they do not go to Palestine, is pure nonsense. Does the author of this article understand what the Holocaust was all about? The Nazis were not amenable to allowing Jews to flee to anywhere, neither Palestine nor anywhere else. The Jews were marked for death. Full stop.

I also find the alleged accusation of Weissmandl that Zionist organizations refused to help Jews unless they went to Palestine a little perplexing, given that the leader of the Working Group organization that Weissmandl himself worked for, Gisi Fleischmann, was herself a Zionist leader. In fact, she founded the Bratislava branch of the Women's Zionist Organization.

http://www.adl.org/education/dimensions_18_2/rescuers.asp

A similar figure was the Zionist leader Joel Brand, as well as his wife Hansi, who tried to save Jews from death no matter their destination. Let's also not forget Chanah Senesh.

The constraint of the Jewish Agency in Palestine itself was that by 1944 the British Mandate authorities were no longer allowing Jewish refugees to enter Palestine. The British also rejected outright the "blood for goods" proposal, as it would have given a major boost to the German war effort.

It is also interesting to note that the rescue train of the much-maligned Rudolf Kastner, whose final destination was Switzerland, carried a number of key rabbis from the anti-Zionist Hassidic Satmar group, including its leader Rabbi Teitelbaum. I also find it interesting that it was Kastner who arranged for the safe passage of Weissmandl from Bratislava to Switzerland, a fact that seems to undermine Weissmandl's main accusation against the Jewish Agency, seeing as Weissmandl was not a Zionist and did not end up in Palestine.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 19:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Effort or success?

Weissmandl's bribes delayed the deportation of Slovakian Jewry for 2 years; they did not stop it completely. In the end, both he and everyone else were deported. Therefore I reverted the misleading lead language, "who became known for helping to save the Jews of Slovakia" back to "who became known for his efforts to save the Jews of Slovakia."

Re: the quotes from Yehuda Bauer: Bauer looks like a chameleon figure here. First he says the bribes were ineffective, then he says they were effective. This paragraph needs to be re-written so it doesn't look like Bauer is contradicting himself.

I also downgraded the rating on this page from B to C. The whole treatment of Weissmandl's work during the war is sketchy and unbalanced. Yoninah (talk) 09:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your change to the lead, and also that Berkshires' treatment of Bauer is problematic. Historians are allowed (in fact required!) to change their minds when extra evidence or deeper analysis leads them to conclude that they were wrong before. At the moment it says that Bauer in 1996 said something, but "Bauer himself writes" something different in 1981. This is not good presentation. If it is worth mentioning his earlier opinion at all, the correct way is to say that in 1981 he believed one thing but by 1996 he had changed his mind. As far as I know, his opinion remains that of 1996, namely that he is skeptical that any substantial delay of the transportations was due to the bribes. Because of Bauer's eminent standing in this corner of history, we should not state as a fact that the bribes delayed the transports. We should only say that Weissmandl believed it and some but not all historians support him. Zero^talk 13:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The importance of Bauers writing in 1981 is, to show that Bauer himself felt that “some” facts do point in the direction that Weissmandel’s bribes helped. However the 1996 book seems like a contradiction. The problem is that in his 1996 book he doesn’t mention his own arguments which favor Rabbi Weissmandel’s claim. It is also worth noting that Bauer has a tendency of trying to defend the handling of established Jewish leaders in “every case”. (Kastner, Mayer, Weiss, Jewish agency dealing with brand, etc.) As Rudolf Vrba puts it, “Bauer is seeking to defend the Israeli and Zionist establishment no matter what it takes”. While in the same time trying to minimize in “every case” the success of anyone that didn’t fit that criteria(self activists like kook, Weissmandel, Vrba,). One would have to question if Bauer’s strong Zionist convictions are playing a role in his conclusions, and if Bauer can be considered a reliable source when it comes to the matter of Jewish rescue efforts during the holocaust.Berkshires

What you are getting into here is original research. We can discuss such things on talk pages, but in the article we can't construct our own case by commenting on the sources. See WP:SYNTH. We can only report what the sources say. There is no question that a leading Holocaust historian like Bauer is a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. Zero^talk 00:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

My comments are actually on the talk page.. however I am not sure why Rudolf vrba’s opinion should not be considered a source. <Berkshires (talk) 01:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)>

The way you connected two writings of Bauer in the wrong order in the article was synthesis and needs to be fixed. As for Vrba, if his comments are about Bauer then they belong on Yehudah Bauer (if anywhere) and not here. If Vrba wrote things about Weissmandl related to Vrba's personal experiences, that would be a different matter. Zero^talk 06:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I have not written any conclusions; the fact of the matter is that Bauer writes from 2 different positions. Since Bauer doesn’t quote his position & arguments that he has written in an earlier book, it is difficult to conclude, a) if there was a change of mind and what new information he had that triggered it B) That Bauer himself is not sure, since there are some facts that point in either direction C) that it is just a contradiction.

As for Vrba as a source, I think it is very much relevant to this page, since there is disagreement by historians (fuchs, kranzler etc. and Bauer etc.) shedding light on which historian might be considered more reliable.<Berkshires (talk) 01:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)>

Berkshires: As Zero stated, it's not our job to decide which historian is more reliable. Our job on Wikipedia is just to quote the sources — even if they disagree — and let the reader decide. I shorted and summarized the paragraph in question accordingly. Yoninah (talk) 10:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally Bauer (1996) does mention his earlier position. He says (p99): "Weissmandel not only has his dates mixed up; he also ignores the last two trains completely. Most of the historians who have commented on this affair until now, including myself, have fallen into the trap of believing Weissmandel." He makes this comment after many pages of examining the evidence. So I disagree with Berkshires' assessment of the situation. Bauer's position is more complex than reported in the article, I will summarise it soon. Zero^talk 14:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Bauers 3 positions ?

From all the discussion here and the research I have done, it seems that Bauer has actually “3” positions, in 1981 that the bribes where successful in causing the germens to halt the deportations, in 1996 it seems that his position is that bribing had little effect, and was just a coincident.., in 2002 (page 179-180) it seems that his position is the bribes where successful, but by changing the Slovakia’s position. I have made some corrections in the article to accurately reflects Bauer’s position.

It is difficult to conclude what Bauer’s position really is, since he doesn’t cite in each case the arguments he himself made. I would say that kranzler’s position has been much more consistent.<Berkshires (talk) 00:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)>

Sorry if I misjudge you, but it seems to me that you haven't read Bauer's 1996 book. In there he says clearly that the bribes of Slovak officials had an effect (just not the bribing of Wisliceny), though the extent of the effect cannot be determined. I can't see any great incompatibility between his detailed account in 1996 and his one-paragraph summary in 2001. Bauer does not have 3 positions, and you are quite wrong that he doesn't cite his previous work. His position has evolved over time according to his research; you see that as inconsistency but I see it as integrity. A historian prepared to admit they were wrong is much to be preferred over one who sticks to a position regardless. Zero^talk 02:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Zero0000 let me just quote what “you” have written on wikipidia on August 2003

”When the Nazis, aided by members of the puppet Slovak government, began its moves against the Slovakian Jews in 1942, a group of Jews calling themselves the Working Group began a campaign of opposition. Their main activity was to pay large bribes to German and “Slovak” officials. The transportation of Jews was in fact halted for a long time after they began to bribe the Nazi official Dieter Wisleceny. However, some historians, notably Yehuda Bauer, are of the opinion that the transportation was delayed for other reasons and that the “bribes” had little actual effect. The Working Group was also responsible for the ambitious but ill-fated Europa Plan which would have seen large numbers of European Jews “bought” from their Nazi captors.”

If Bauer’s position has always been that bribes (German or Slovakia) halted the deportation, then you would have to admit that your article was highly misleading.<Berkshires (talk) 04:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)>

Books

Although Rabbi Weissmandl sounds like a remarkable man how could he publish a book in 1958 if he died in 1957? I don't know anything about Rabbi Weissmandl and don't know where to find the correct dates of these events.74.241.10.9 (talk) 08:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)