Talk:Rudolf Vrba/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Sources

(Hit again by the page uploading while I was still typing into the edit summary. I guess this is better here anyway:) The sentence "The Vrba-Wetzler report was in the hands of the Hungarian Jewish leadership in late April or early May, 1944..." is a summary of Bauer's conclusions in his book cited on the page and is heavily documented by him. --Zero^talk 09:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I replaced this sentence by what was there before: "Although its release to the Hungarian leadership was delayed until after the mass transport of Jews from Hungary to Auschwitz had begun, the report — which became known as the Auschwitz Protocols or the Vrba-Wetzler report — is nevertheless credited with having saved 100,000 lives." This is not correct. The Hungarian leadership had the report quite early, definitely before the mass deportation of the Hungarian Jews. This is very well documented in many places, of which the book of Bauer is a good example and the academic article of Linn in Journal of Genocide Research agrees. I can easily bring extra impeccable sources. That is what the controversy surrounding Kasztner is all about. Furthermore, it was the effect of the report on stopping the deportation while it was incomplete that is the source of the most credible argument that the report saved a lot of lives. This was mostly achieved by pressure on thhe Hungarian government from many directions. --Zero^talk 09:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Explanation of edits

Explanation of edits:

1) V&W did not themselves save these lives, but they certainly helped, if only unwittingly. They did not know about the impenidng Hungarian deportations.

2) That they didn't know follows from the fact that they didn't mention them in their reports, even though they did mention the rumors about some impending Greek transports.

3) "Because it was the first report to attempt to estimate the numbers being murdered in Auschwitz, it is regarded as one of the most important documents of the 20th century." This is non sequitur. Besides, the estimates were not correct.

4) Conway's quote is wrong, because about 400,000+ were deported, not "nearly half a million". Of them about 3/4 were gassed (320,000).

5) 437,000 were deported out of Hungary, but about 15,000 of them arrived at Strasshof, not at Auschwitz.

--Polyphem 12:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you on these points. --Zero^talk 12:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Polyphem, please don't delete sourced material, although you may of course find another source and add to it. Conway is a professor of history and was a personal friend of Vrba's. He's not giving an exact figure and 400,000 is "nearly half a million." You also can't add your own opinion of Vrba's claim to have overhead the guards discussing other arrivals (though if you have a source casting doubt on this, by all means cite it), and you can't delete that a named source has called it "one of the most important documents of the 20th century," just because you disagree with the figures (unless you find a source saying "it's sometimes called one of the most important documents of the 20th century, but this is nonsense because ..." I'm also not sure what you mean by "non sequitur" in this context. Please see WP:V and WP:NOR.

I haven't finished the edits I started to make. In particular, the Auschwitz Protocols is a mixture of two reports: one from Vrba and another from two other escapees. I have a source and I'll be adding the information over the weekend. I'll also be tidying up the references, making it clearer which bits come from which source. Also, what is meant by "original copies" of the report, as opposed to "copies"? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Lots of libraries have copies of the report and the contents have been published repeatedly. What those libraries have are original typescripts from 1944 when the report was first being disseminated. I don't know the ideal wording, but "copies" seems too vague. --Zero^talk 12:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Zero, I wish you'd stop this. It's really tiresome. If you mean original typescripts, say so; don't say copies. Please explain the other changes you want to make. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

You wrote "copies" first, not me. All the changes I have made, including correcting all the errors that you introduced, are explained above. Have you read any of the serious literature on this subject? --Zero^talk 12:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't try to patronize me, Zero. You have no qualifications or professional experience in this area. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

And there is hardly anyone who reverts without discussion more than you do. --Zero^talk 12:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Please stop this destructive behavior. I came to this article last night to expand it because I know something about it. I stopped, but intended, and still intend, to continue. I come back to it to see material deleted for no reason and personal opinions of Wikipedians added, and you, as usual, with your revert, revert, revert tactics, so that editing becomes impossible.

I KNOW that the report was published in the UK and U.S. I'm going to add something about that, just not in the intro, and it will be properly sourced, unlike your additions. Please discuss the issues on talk before deleting material. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I will certainly delete _incorrect_ information, sourced or not, if I wish to.

"Conway is a professor of history and was a personal friend of Vrba's. He's not giving an exact figure and 400,000 is "nearly half a million.""

320,000 is not "nearly half a million".

"You also can't add your own opinion of Vrba's claim to have overhead the guards discussing other arrivals (though if you have a source casting doubt on this, by all means cite it)"

OK.

"and you can't delete that a named source has called it "one of the most important documents of the 20th century,"

I can delete whatever is incorrect. That a statement is sourced does not mean it is correct, otherwise Holocaust deniers will be able to add their information, which will be sourced. Should I add "Vrba is regarded as a liar", and add links to "revisionist" articles?

"just because you disagree with the figures (unless you find a source saying "it's sometimes called one of the most important documents of the 20th century, but this is nonsense because ..." I'm also not sure what you mean by "non sequitur" in this context."

This is easy. That the report was allegedly the first to make estimates (this is incorrect, of course) does not make it one of the most important documents of 20th century, especially when these estimates were far off.

You simply don't seem to know much about the topic of the Holocaust, and you seem to lack critical thinking skills. --Polyphem 13:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

More reverting. What this means is that I won't be able to expand the material within the next 24 hours because of 3RR, so you and Zero have succesfully scuppered the page's development. Before you get too critical of me, you might want to look at the mess it was in before I started editing it. [1]

You may NOT delete relevant, sourced material just because you personally disagree with it. You have made 28 edits to the encyclopedia, and so now you should go and read our content policies (WP:V and WP:V particularly) before continuing, because you can't simply turn up and edit in your own opinions. I will be restoring your deletions as soon as the 24 hours is up. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have missed the third rule: "The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it." It's up to you to prove that sources you used (Hume, etc.) are reputable for this topic. Hume is a journalist, nothing more. Also, you made factually incorrect claims - that Vrba and Wetzler are widely regarded as saviours of 100,000 lives (they're not; at most, they're regarded so by some, including you), that "Because it was the first report to attempt to estimate the numbers being murdered in Auschwitz, it is regarded as one of the most important documents of the 20th century" (it may be regarded so by SOME, including you; the claim that it was the first such report is incorrect - and thus the source making such a claim is not reputable.)

You've misunderstood what you're calling "the third rule". It is NOT for individual editors to pick and choose between reliable sources. Material published in a mainstream newspaper is regarded as citable, end of story, and it's not for you to decide otherwise. We have no idea who you are. Readers arriving at Wikipedia don't want read material from Polyphempedia. Your opinions, with respect, are irrelevant, as are mine. We publish what reliable sources have published, with "reliable" being more or less defined as "mainstream" or "appropriate," and the definitions of those terms are left to the commonsense of the editors on the page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

As for us "scuppered" part - I have removed or amended incorrect claims which you either made or simply ignored. The article is certainly better now than it was before. And it will stay that way. Don't try to introduce irrelevancies or try to present someone's incorrect opinions as facts (rather than opinions). --Polyphem 14:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

"And it will stay that way"? Are you threatening to disrupt editing on this page? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Sources

• I'm writing this without having looked at Polyphem's recent changes, so I don't know whether or not I will support them. When you (Slim) came to this article a few days ago, everything in the article except the date of death was derived from the academic sources listed at the bottom of the page. There was one incorrect datum (the number "5" of Jews who escaped from Auschwitz; actually it was at least 12), but otherwise it matched the best available sources. Then you arrived armed with some newspaper story and proceeded to make changes that included replacing proven historical facts by incorrect claims. You did this without explaining it or even noting it in your edit summaries ("expanding" doesn't cover it). You should have at least asked where that material came from before replacing it since the the presence of the sources including a book by the foremost Holocaust historian alive today should have alerted you to the possibility that the material here came from good sources. I would have been happy to oblige and even to send you scans of articles you can't obtain, as other editors can testify.
• I'm not claiming that none of your additions were any good; some were obviously fine.
• Your statements above about "reliable sources" are hard to take seriously. Please look at WP:RS#History for a discussion of what constitutes a reliable source in History. Yes, we are supposed to evaluate the reliability of our sources; that's why the major part of WP:RS is devoted to giving advice on how to make that evaluation. It is not the same as evaluating the information, which I agree we generally shouldn't do. Newspapers are a good source for contemporary history, like what happened yesterday, but when ordinary journalists write articles on older events they don't have any special claim to reliability and they often make mistakes. When an expert source and a non-expert source disagree on something, we should go with the expert source. That's not only common sense but the clear message of WP:RS. --Zero^talk 03:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The main newspaper source that I arrived "armed with," as you put it, was written by a journalist who interviewed Vrba, so it's an excellent source. In future, Zero, please cite your sources throughout the text. If you only add them to the references section at the end, it's impossible to know what's sourced and what isn't. As for your interpretation of RS, I'm not going to argue with you about it here. All I can say is that I started to make a series of edits, which would have taken several hours, but I was stopped by reverting and deleting, even though I made clear on the talk page that I had only just started. It would have made more sense for you to wait until I had finished, then you could have judged the end result. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments on the Auschwitz Report (Wetzler and Vrba Report)

The following NOTEs were made by 85.130.149.42 (LPfeffer) in the article. I'm moving them here. --Zero^talk 03:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Worth studying how the report got to be called the "Vrba-Wetzler report", since Wetzler was the senior member of the escape team and was the planner. Perhaps this change in emphasis occured since after the war Vrba (nee Rosenberg) was in the free West and was thus able to express himself much more freely in writing, talks and the media. The report is generally called the Auschwitz Report and at times Auschwitz Protocol and not the Wetzler-Vrba Report (in part because although they supplied information for it they did not author it).

It is unfortunate that Vrba was also given prominance in Prof. Linn's book (Haifa University, where Vrba received an honorary PhD), without at least equal recognition for Wetzler's role. Slovak born Jewish historians are uneasy about this.

This is meta-history: showing how historical perceptions are shaped.

After debriefing Wetzler and Vrba the Auschwitz Report was written by members of the legendary Bratislava "Working Group", which immediately disseminated the report to major Jewish organizations in the free world. The recipients received and "filed" the report, and chose not to act on it. Rabbi Michael Ber Weissmandl's (Working Group co-leader with Gizi Fleischmann) version of the Report (probably in Yiddish - to be verified wity Dr. David Kranzler, who discovered this) finally reached George Mantello (Mandel Gyuri) in Switzerland via Moshe Krausz in Budapest (brought to Switerland by a Romanian diplomat at great risk). Mantello was a Hungarian-Romanian born Jew who managed to escape to Switzerland, where he had extensive contacts and was with the El Salvador Embassy, where he issued many valuable protection papers smuggled into Nazi occupied countries. Within a day after receipt in late Spring 1944 he publicized the Report's content. This triggered a major grass roots protest movement in Switzerland (including press, churches, demonstrations) which, in turn, led to the stopping of the transports from Hungary and set the stage for the Wallenberg rescue mission tio Budapest. Earlier in 1944 President Roosevelt finally agreed to act after incessant and inspired pressure by major Jewish rescuer Hillel Kook (also known as Peter Bergson) and his team. This resulted in setting up the War Refugee Board in January 1944, which supported the Wallenberg mission.

Dr. David Kranzler's book on Mantello extensively documents these series of events. Major Holocaust centers fail to adequately publicize these and related strategic rescue activities. Interestingly, much of this part of Holocaust history was already researched and written about by Jenő Lévai in 1948 in Hungary, thus ignoring these events and the impoortant network relationships was/is a conscious choice.

It is also telling that on this Web page Dr. Bauer's name is associated with this story. There are other historians, like Dr. David Kranzler, who researched, interviewed, published and lectured extensively on the Auschwitz Report, on its dissemination, on George Mantello, and on the Swiss grass roots protest and its important effects - especially for Hungary's Jews. It is to be noted that unlike Dr. David Kranzler, Dr. Abraham Fuchs and many other historians in his writings and talks Dr. Bauer de-emphasizes Rabbi Weissmandl's role.

Although the Report was widely disseminated by the Working Group, surprisingly it is not easy to find originals of the Report in two major Jerusalem archives.

References:

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Ber_Weissmandl (especially "Discussion")

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

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

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

VERAfilm, Among Blind Fools (documentary video frk Prague)

LPfeffer Original comments early April 2006 - edited on April 22, 2006

The minimisation of Wetzler's role originated with Vrba himself and he was often criticised for it. Wetzler wrote a book on it but it is very hard to obtain and not translated I think. --Zero^talk 03:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

True. Yet ... many historains know the facts. The interesting fact is that it is very difficult to dislodge historiacal biases, changes in emphasis, etc. LPfeffer April 22, 2006

Anon edits

Jay, I've removed the anon's recent edits, because the way you wrote the controversy section was very balanced and complete without them. I feel the new edits made it too long, and were about Eichmann rather than Vrba. Perhaps the Life quote could go in a footnote? Otherwise, the section is looking really good. You've done excellent work on it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The Life quotes were from an unreliable source, too much about Eichmann, and repeated other information in the article. I'll try to incorporate the point it is making. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Bauer

I'm just about to go overseas (should be packing) so I have no time to edit. I just want to note that Bauer's 2002 book "rethinking the holocaust" (all lowercase on the book!) has a chapter on the V-W report and there he revises some of the opinions he gave earlier in "Jews for Sale" on the basis of things he learnt since 1997. --Zero^talk 03:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Zero. I'll have a look for it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

(Barely) not the first escapees

The first Jewish escapee was two days before them (on April 5, 1944), a Jew named Siegfried Lederer, together with --- and assisted by --- an SS NCO named Viktor Pestek who had fallen in love with one of the prisoners. (Lederer was disguised in an SS uniform.) He got to Theresienstadt, and tried to get the inmates to listen to him, without success.

See, e.g., http://www.holocaustcenterpgh.net/4-4.html

(I was in a lecture by Ruth Linn some days ago, which is how I know of Lederer at all.)

Also, I do not think Rudolf Vrba was ever at Weizmann --- but rather at the Israel Institute for Biological Research, in Nes Ziona (just north of the Weizmann Institute) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.77.4.43 (talk • contribs)

Thanks, 132. I'll take a look at the link later. It's not letting me in for some reason. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Although info arived in tome? or unfortunetly it didn't?

In reference to the passage:

"Although Vrba's information arrived in time to save the 437,000 Hungarian Jews who were deported to Auschwitz, that period was one of intense political turmoil in Hungary"

I think this was originally a typo since it seems like the rest of the article was saying it was too late for the ones already deported. Am I wrong here?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Moshe, thanks for noticing this. I had just written it badly. I meant to say that the report had arrived before the deportations began i.e. in time to save the Jews who were deported, but unfortunately it didn't (save them), perhaps because it wasn't distributed early enough, although some historians argue it would have made no difference if it had been distributed, because people would not have believed it anyway. I've rephrased. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Where Vrba told his story

First, allow me to say that I've been following the contents of this page even before Vrba died (when it just had one paragraph) and I must say that I am extremely impressed by the effort, accuracy, and dedication of everyone who has edited this page. This goes especially to the most active members SlimVirgin, Jayjg, Zero, and LPfeffer (my apologies if I've missed someone).

Rudolf Vrba was a great man, larger than life. I am proud and humbled to be able to say that I knew him personally. I also know Dr. Ruth Linn personally. More on this later, perhaps. But for now, just on the minor edit that I just made: The comment that Dromi claimed that Vrba told his story on the miniseries "Holocaust" in 1978 that was shown on Israeli TV is incorrect. Dromi does not say this in the article, nor did Vrba tell his story in that miniseries. Dromi simply is pointing out that not all information received by the Israeli public comes from textbooks. Vrba actually told his story in Claude Lanzman's film, "Shoah", in 1987, or about a decade later than the showing of the miniseries "Holocaust" on Israeli TV.

OK, that's it for now. Please keep on doing the great work that you've been doing so far, and I'll jump in once in a while to contribute too.

User_talk:Escamoso 11:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

One more thing: I went again to the translation of Dromi's article in English and it appears that in the English translation it does claim that Vrba told his story in the miniseries. I am pretty sure that this is an error in translation since I don't recall that this claim appeared in the original Hebrew article. I'll try to dig up the Hebrew article and verify this. However, in any case, Vrba did not tell his story in the miniseries "Holocaust", which is a fictionalized series anyway and not a documentary. See the following link from wikipedia itself: Holocaust_(miniseries)

So if Dromi infact did make the claim in the original Hebrew article, then it is wrong and the error should not be propagated to this page.

User_talk:Escamoso 11:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I was right! It is an error in translation. You can see that the claim does not appear in the original Hebrew version of Dromi's article, see here: http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=531825&contrassID=2

I'll add this link to "Further reading" too, for good measure.

User_talk:Escamoso 11:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Escamoso. Thanks for spotting that. I'd assumed that when it said his story was told on Israeli tv when it broadcast Holocaust, that he was interviewed before or after it, because as you say, it was a drama. When you say it's a mistranslation, is there some reference in the Hebrew that this has been mistaken for, or is it simply not there? If the latter, the author may have added it later to the English version. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Slimvirgin - thanks again for your many contributions to this page. In the original Hebrew article Dromi cites the miniseries "Holocaust" as an example of how non-textbook material reaches the Israeli public, hence countering Linn's assertion that the most important way to reach Israelis is through textbooks. At no point in the Hebrew article does Dromi say that Vrba told his story in the miniseries. I assume that the translator thought that Dromi was referring to Claude Lanzman's "Shoah" (which translates into "Holocaust", the same name as the series) and hence the confusion in the translation. When the Hebrew and English versions of Dromi's article are compared you can see that the error in translation is very subtle and I can understand how the translator could make such a mistake, especially since Claude Lanzman's "Shoah" is mentioned elsewhere in that article.

User_talk:Escamoso 10:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I see. Thank you. That is very helpful. :-) There is more work to be done on the story. His early life needs to be filled in, and I want to add more details about the alleged suppression of his name from the history books. I'm just waiting for some books I ordered to arrive, and they're taking a very long time, but as soon as I have them, I'll be adding some more. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

First detailed information?

The article states that The 32-page Vrba-Wetzler Report [2] [3] was the first detailed information about Auschwitz to reach the Allies. Yet, through Witold Pilecki the Allies had already since 1941 detailed information from inside Auschwitz. His written report describing the genocide taking place in Auschwitz (Witold's report) was sent in 1943 to the Allies who didn't do anything with it.

We should probably add that it was the most detailed and the first to be believed. As I understand it, the Polish report was not regarded as credible for whatever reason. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Featured article

Has anyone considered nominating this article for featured article status? Looking it over, I think it would almost definitely pass inspection. Deyyaz ^{[ Talk | Contribs ]} 19:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

And so it is! Congrats to the editors involved.--Mantanmoreland 17:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, thank you! I only noticed when I saw this post, so you were the one to pass on the good news, Mantan. ;-D SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism of this page - should we do something about it?

I recently noticed that someone with IP 137.158.128.105 modified Vrba's page, inserting the following:

"Vrba escaped by flying away in the time machine that he made from the human soap and ashes that he found in the gas chambers, which explains the remains of any human remains actually being found atAuschwitz after the war. He also wrote "Sergeant Pepper" in 1943 whilst at Auschwitz, which was later passed on to John Lennon, who basically copied it note-for-note in the 1960s. He never received due credit for having basically invented the psychedelic music genre, and his heirs should be backpaid for "Pepper"'s royalties from the 60's! Accusations that Vrba was schizophrenic and suffered from hallucinations and delusions are just anti-semitic lies made by Neo-Nazis and terrorists."

Thankfully, Kingboyk noticed this vandalism and reverted to the previous version within less than 2 hours (thanks Kingboyk!). I looked at the list of edits that came from IP 137.158.128.105 and it seems that this guy has edited several Holocaust related entries and inserted this sort of vandalism in those entries as well. I'm new to Wikipedia but since we're fortunate here to have some very experienced users editing this page, allow me to ask: should we report this? to whom? how? Guidance from experienced Wikipedia users would be appreciated.

Escamoso 11:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

All you can do is grit your teeth and revert. I'm surprised there isn't more vandalism, given the nature of the subject matter.--Mantanmoreland 17:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

What's going on with the first sentence of this article? I am very new to editing Wikipedia, but I can't seen to remove it when I go to edit. Help!--Teamla 22:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, someone got it. Thanks!--Teamla 22:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Book title

I just stumbled upon this excellent article, and I had a question. Vrba's memoir, which I read years ago and still have somewhere, was entitled "I Cannot Forgive" when it was published years ago and still has that title in US editions. It stuck out in my mind not just because the book was so memorable but because it was not a very good title. I see here that it is listed in the footnotes with a different title, "I escaped from Auschwitz." Shouldn't it be referred to by its original title? Note the listing on Amazon.[3]. Someone points out in a "product Wiki" at the bottom of the Amazon page, correctly, that the book was originally entitled "I cannot forgive." I think use of the newer title is a bit confusing.--Mantanmoreland 16:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

It has been republished, along with some very useful appendices (e.g. the full Vrba-Wetzler report), so the new edition is the one we're using as a reference. However, we should make a note in the References section that it was originally called I cannot forgive. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I just checked, and we do. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks for clarifying. I think the "I cannot forgive" part may have come first in the original title, but I'd have to haul out the book and it is buried somewhere.--Mantanmoreland 16:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Good article

It is really a good article. But should not we restrict size to the recommended level! FAs going well beyond the size recommended does not look nice, though I am not sure of the same. --Bhadani 16:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Bhadani. I don't think there is a recommended level. I saw a discussion about length recently on the FA page, and people were saying articles should be as long as they need to be (with the stress on need, of course). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks SV. Now, a doubt has been cleared. The page is really nice and I learnt a lot - though I had heard the name before. --Bhadani 17:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I am growing older. I forgotr to congratulate your and Jayjg, and all others on the nice work. Congrats. --Bhadani 17:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

We the bankers say this as Need based contents. --Bhadani 17:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the congrats, which are much appreciated. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Only five escaped?

I think something needs to be reworded, because I don't fully understand.

The article states he was one of 5 who escaped Auschwitz concentration camp but the article states that nearly 300 escaped.

I don't think I understand, maybe someone could word the article more accurately.

But otherwise, it is a very good job. Congrats. The0208 00:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Similarly I was confused by this. I think the opening para is unclear in that either they were the 1st two of 5 who escaped and gave credible reports or simply 2 of 5 who escaped and that they also gave credible reports. And, experimenting, does the tag work? Paul Beardsell 07:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The second footnote explains it. Overall, 667 prisoners are known to have tried to escape, 270 of whom were caught and killed; the fate of the others is unknown. Of the 667, 76 Jews succeeded, five of whom managed to pass information about the camp to the Allies. Vrba and Wetzler were the second and third of those five. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know. But the point is simply this: The sentence is ambiguous. It is always better that this is not the case. And if there isn't an tag there could usefully be one. Paul Beardsell 11:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

It's best not to put tags on featured articles. I don't find the sentence ambiguous myself, but perhaps you could suggest a way to make it less so, but retain its accuracy. Here it is:

"In April 1944, Vrba and Alfréd Wetzler became the second and third of only five Jews to escape successfully from the German death camp at Auschwitz and pass information to the Allies about the mass murder that was taking place there."

I read it to mean that they were the second and third Jews to escape and pass details to the Allies i.e. there was one Jew before them who managed to escape and pass details, and two after them. (The reason Vrba's information is regarded as important is that it was the first to be taken seriously, not the first overall, as the article and footnotes say.) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

When the Nazis abandoned Auschiwitz I thought that several/many thousands of prisoners voluntarily retreated westward with the SS troops. The numbers mentioned above included only those who stayed behind waiting for the Russian troops - those too sick, etc to travel. I am sure the SS didn't just take 5 or 6 or 300 prisoners with them.

Only 5 of 76 gave daming info to the Allies - how about after the war? This seems strange. Any info on the names of the other 71+, not counting the voluntary evacuees. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.105.80.219 (talk • contribs)

Most of the 76 were recaptured (so "escaped" includes "escaped temporarily" - this could be clarified in the article). The following from Erich Kulka, "Attempts by Jewish Escapees to Stop Mass Extermination", Jewish Social Studies 47:3/4 (1985:Summer/Fall) 295-306 may help:

"A total of seventy-six Jewish prisoners fled from Auschwitz-Birkenau, but for lack of assistance from the Polish resistance movement and lack of connections in the world outside the barbed wire, most were recaptured. Barely a dozen successful Jewish escapees were traced after the war."

Kulka cites Tadeusz Iwaszko, "Haftlingsfluchten aus dem Konzentrationslager Auschwitz," Hefte von Auschwitz, 7 (1964), 49ff. --Zero^talk 13:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Another source of confusion here is that some of the figures are for escapes from the main camp, and others are for the Auschwitz complex (main camp and many sub-camps). Kulka is clear that the 667 figure was for the whole complex and includes those recaptured. --Zero^talk 13:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

A milstone

A milestone! Really a great job. --Bhadani 02:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Redundant article The Vrba-Wetzler report

The article The Vrba-Wetzler report appears to be redundant. Can certain portions be merged?

"Redundant" in what sense of the word? Paul Beardsell 07:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

It voluminously repeates the exact same thing.

First two sentences

Should the second sentence be the first? Per inverted pyramid, its more important that he escaped from Auschwitz and passed info to the allies than that he was a professor of pharmacology. Marskell 08:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Marskell, my reasoning was to first of all say who he was i.e. when he died, what his position in life was. And then to say what he was known for. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps: "Walter Rosenberg (September 11, 1924 – March 27, 2006), was an escapee of the German death camp at Auschwitz, Holocaust documentarian, and later Professor Emeritus in the Department of Pharmacology and Therapeutics at the University of British Columbia in Canada." Nothing else would need to change, except there'd be no need to repeat "German death camp" in the next sentence.

done.Sfahey 14:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Great article BTW. Marskell 13:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Marskell, I'm really not keen on the first sentence saying he was an escapee, and particularly not a "Holocaust documentarian." He was a professor of pharmacology. Escaping Auschwitz was something he did, not something he was. And others documented it; he just told them what had happened. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand at all. He is notable because of his escape. The article details his documentarian work. He was an important Auschwitz escapee. That's broadly why this article exists. Per any existing stylistic standard you want, the lead sentence should note this. I have absolutely no desire to revert something you've worked on so greatly (and particularly with Jayjg editing) but...I don't understand at all. Marskell 20:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Marskell, I'm not sure I can explain it clearly. It's that escaping from Auschwitz isn't something he was, but something he did. He became known because he did X, not because he was an X-er. So you're right: that has to be very near the top. But first you want to answer the question: Who is this person? The answer is: Name, a professor of pharmacology. And the reason we're telling you his story is? He escaped from Auschwitz.

That intuitively feels like the best flow to me. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

On a kind of ontological level, I do understand your second sentence...but then I'd quibble (of course I would :). That profession is "is-ness" is debatable, personally and in terms of writing a Wiki page. He was man. He was a husband. He was a Jew. He was (maybe) an optimist or a pessimist, a Cancer or a Virgo. If you could ask him, I'm sure some of those would occur before "Holocaust escapee". But the primary question here is: why are you reading this? Answer: because he escaped Auschwitz and passed info to the allies. This shouldn't be near the top, it should be at the top. And, presentation-wise, order of primacy in the lead should reflect order of primacy in the body. We have "50 papers" in the first sentence now, but this doesn't occur in the body until after half the article is done. One or the other should be changed.

Now then! I've had one article on the main page and it's a very stressful day. I don't want to be too pedantic, picking apart 0.25k when you've done up the other 84.75 so well. The first sentence does matter, and I don't agree with it as it stands, but perhaps tomorrow will provide a compromise. Cheers, Marskell 21:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding about today! Tomorrow would be great. ;-D SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Circumstances of death

Usually in a biographical article where the subject is deceased, the circumstances of the death are given. Icemuon 13:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. It was in an earlier version then was moved during a series of edits, and not put back. It's there now. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Can someone fix ... =

... the tortuous second paragraph of "Vrba's accusations". There's a long, meaningless sentence in there that smacks of "too many cooks". I don't know the story well enough to do it. Sfahey 14:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Which is the sentence you don't like? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Possible vandal?

The mention of sexual orientation in this sentence doesn't look quite kosher, but I don't know enough about the subject to rip it out myself: "He decided to return to Slovakia, but was caught by homosexual Hungarian border guards while crossing back over the Hungary-Slovakia border." --Robertb-dc 17:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Robert. Not quite kosher is right. :-D SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

At the bottom of the page, after Further Reading, this appears.

    [[he:רודולף ורבה nigger fuck shit
    ]]

I don't know what the Hebrew says, but I'm positive that the English is offensive. Bobbit bob 18:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Bob. The Hebrew is just his name; the other stuff has gone, I think — at least for now. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Improved source needed for sentence

Hi, This note is regarding the sentence that reads: "It is regarded as one of the most important documents of the 20th century[5][6] because it was the first detailed information about the camp to reach the Allies that they accepted as credible.[7]"

• The sentence uses a "weasel word" formulation "it is regarded" ("Here are some weasel words that are often found in Wikipedia articles:"...is widely regarded as..."...From Weasel words wiki-page). The wiki-page on "weasel words" goes on to say "It is better to put a name and a face on an opinion than to assign an opinion to an anonymous source." An editor has pointed out that this sentence is footnoted. However, the footnoted sources (BC bookworld author bank, from abcbookword.com, and Jewish News Weekly of Northern California) are not sources that would normally be used in an academic context. Wikipedia's verifiability policy states that Information on Wikipedia must be reliable and verifiable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. As such, it would help if we could find a more scholarly source (e.g., a journal article, encyclopedia article, etc).Nazamo 02:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Pressac was mentioned in the lead article - is there any truth to the story that he concealed a memo that implies that the gas chambers were actually gas shelters? He supposedly had the memo in his possession for a few years before his death and it remained hidden until recently. Link to this info? The existence of this memo would tend to further ruin his story - I notice in the article that several of the good guys "historians" already question Vbra's testimony, at least partially. The internet has almost nothing on Vbra - not even Zundel who he gave evidence against. Is this story a hoax? He seems to be little regarded as a reliable source of info even by his "own side".

In 1942 Karski reported to the Polish, British and U.S. governments on the situation in Poland

In 1942 Karski reported to the Polish, British and U.S. governments on the situation in Poland, especially the destruction of the Warsaw Ghetto and the Holocaust of the Jews. He met with Polish politicians in exile including the prime minister, as well as members of political parties such as the PPS, SN, SP, SL, Jewish Bund and Poalej-Syjon. He also spoke to Anthony Eden, the British foreign secretary, and included a detailed statement on what he had seen in Warsaw and Bełżec. He then traveled to the United States and reported to President Franklin D. Roosevelt. His report was a major factor in informing the West, but no action followed.

In July 1943, Karski again personally reported to Roosevelt about the situation in Poland. He also met with many other government and civic leaders in the United States, including Felix Frankfurter, Cordell Hull, William Joseph Donovan, Samuel Cardinal Stritch, and Stephen Wise. Karski also presented his report to media, bishops of various denominations, members of the Hollywood film industry and artists, but without success. Many of those he spoke to did not believe him, or supposed that his testimony was much exaggerated or was propaganda from the Polish government in exile. It is possible, however, that Karski's descriptions influenced FDR to create a War Refugee Board several months later in January of 1944. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.156.86.41 (talk) 21:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

Witold Pilecki a member of the Armia Krajowa (Home Army)informed the Western Allies of Nazi Germany's camp atrocities

Witold Pilecki (May 13, 1901 – May 25, 1948; pronounced ['vitɔld pi'leʦki]; codenames Roman Jezierski, Tomasz Serafiński, Druh, Witold) was a soldier of the Second Polish Republic, the founder of the resistance movement, Secret Polish Army (Tajna Armia Polska), and a member of the Home Army (Armia Krajowa). During World War II, he became the only known person to volunteer to be imprisoned at Auschwitz Concentration Camp. While there, he organized inmate resistance, and as early as 1940, informed the Western Allies of Nazi Germany's camp atrocities. He escaped from Auschwitz in 1943 and took part in the Warsaw Uprising (August–October 1944). Pilecki was executed in 1948 by the communists. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.156.86.41 (talk) 21:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

Very odd article - Yehuda Bauer calls him a hero and a liar in one sentence. No mention is made of his testimony in the Zundel trial where Bauer turne out half right - he was a liar. Odd.159.105.80.141 15:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Removal of sourced material

Editor Slimvirgin, please stop removing sourced material. --72.209.9.246 (talk) 01:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I've going to treat this as vandalism, as you're following me around with this and one other IP address. I've just checked the source and he doesn't make that claim, at least not on that page. If you think differently, supply a citation. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Judenrampe... and other mistakes

There are several mistakes in the text:

• Picture marked Judenrampe is not a picture from the Judenrampe but from Rampe in Auschwitz II. "Die Judenrampe" was (is) about 1 km from this camp between Auschwitz I and II.
• After coming to Auschwitz II Vrba were definitely not tattoed with prison number. He had been tattoed shortly after arrival to Auschwitz I (have a look in his memories, i don´t know which page is it in english version, but in czech it is page 103 of 333 pages).¨
• Vrba did not went trouhg "selection" and definitely not after he was transferred to Birkenau camp.

I am not going to correct these points as I am not English speaker... --88.146.4.41 (talk) 08:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for pointing these out.

Regarding the Judenrampe, there is some information about it here. If you scroll down, you'll see a sketch of how it looked at the time, drawn by a prisoner, where you can see the Birkenau gatehouse in the background. That seems to be the same perspective as the photograph we are using. There's a map here, though it's not clear from this where the gatehouse was. The ramp was located a third of a mile southeast of the gate. In or around May 1944, in order to deal with the large numbers coming from Hungary, the railway track was extended to go right into the camp, so the Judenrampe stopped being used.

Perhaps we should write to Yad Vashem and ask whether the image we got from their site is the Judenrampe.

Regarding whether Vrba was tatooed at Birkenau, my memory is that he contradicts himself in the book, so we relied on a secondary source. I'll look it up again and try to remember what the problem was. I think we had the same problem with whether he went through selection. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 14:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the Judenrampe: I was on that place 3 times, so I know that the picture is definitely not from the Judenrampe but from camp. If you have a look at the pictures of the Judenrampe today, you cannot see the gate in the back. And on the drawing, there are niether cattle boxes nor railroad... The rails on Judenrampe goes from south to north, but the direction to the camp is to the west. So you never can see the like this.

And if you want to know where the gate is on the map just have a look on two ways from the camp which are visible - one leads to the railyard and the other over the bridge across the rails. So this is the place where the gate is. I guess you dont need to bother people from Yad Vashem, try to ask someone who lives in Oswiecim, they will told you. I am 100% sure, that this picture is from the camp :)

Other pictures of Judenrampe [4]

If you will go to the source of the picture, you can see that there is written: "Jews undergoing the selection process on the Birkenau arrival platform known as the "ramp" "

So the picture is from Birkeanu ramp with Hungarian Jews on it... Vrba has never worked there (he worked on Judenrampe)...and the reason is simple...he was not already in the camp when the ramp was finished in May 1944.

So the note under the picture is mixing two different ramps..:) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.103.4.11 (talk) 17:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding other things

I dont know, why don´t you believe Vrba´s words in his memories???? And why a selection of Canada commando after half a year in Auschwitz??? And do you think he was in Auschwitz half a year without the number?

If you read Vrba-Wetzler report carrefully, you can find this part: "We were taken to a cellar and received tea and bread. Next day (June 30th 1942 - my note), however, our civilian clothes were taken away, our heads were shaved, and our numbers were tattooed on our forearms in the usual way." ---So this is the same as in his memoirs. And exactly according to practice in Auschwitz. Noone was a long time without number.

Other source: Danuta Czech: Kalendarz wydarzeń w KL Auschwitz: 30th June 1942: 400 Slovak Jews which were transported from KL Lublin gets numbers 43833-44232. ---- and in the note: On 15th August 1942 (after 6 weeks in the camp) were just 208 of this prisoners alive. That means that 192 people of this transport were already dead (48%). (thats my translation from Polish to Czech and then to English, so nothing special...:) )

So, if they would get their numbers after a half a year, they couldnt get 400 numbers...

And they went not trough selection, becouse they came from the other camp. Vrba went trough selection in KL Lublin-Majdanek...

So that are my point to that.... Make with the article what you want... :) Sorry for my mistakes in English..:)

Have a nice day. --89.103.4.11 (talk) 06:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

So...did anyone check what I had written... You have to persuade me if I am wrong...but I geuss I am not..:) --89.103.4.11 (talk) 19:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that this is not a sketch of the ramp? SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 02:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but sketch cannot be a proof :) Show me just one photo of Judenrampe,where you can see rails and in the background the gate... As I told you - the rails on Judenrampe goes from south to north, but the direction to the camp is to the west - so it is unpossible to see it like it is on the picture in the article... Or just have a look on the map...

The other thing is that on the sketch is niether train nor rails and definitely not in the direction to the gate....--89.103.4.11 (talk) 20:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Other mistake is this sentence: "Vrba's initial duties in Auschwitz involved digging up the bodies of over 100,000 Jews who had already been killed or died, so they could be incinerated."

They should do this work, but finally they (or at least Vrba) didn´t. There you can see part of Auschwitz Trial:

• Vorsitzender Richter:

Herr Vrba, Sie waren im Auschwitz-Lager mit verschiedenen Tätigkeiten beschäftigt.

• Zeuge Rudolf Vrba:

Jawohl.

• Vorsitzender Richter:

Wollen Sie uns einmal sagen, was Sie dort für einzelne Tätigkeiten ausgeübt haben?

• Zeuge Rudolf Vrba:

Die ersten sechs Wochen war ich tätig in einem Hauptwirtschaftslager der SS.

• Vorsitzender Richter:

Ja.

• Zeuge Rudolf Vrba:

Dann war ich eingereiht in eine Gruppe, die für IG Farben arbeitete, in den Buna-Werken.

• Vorsitzender Richter:

Wie lange?

• Zeuge Rudolf Vrba:

Dort war ich ungefähr vier Wochen.

• Vorsitzender Richter:

Vier?

• Zeuge Rudolf Vrba:

Ungefähr vier Wochen.

• Vorsitzender Richter:

Ja.

• Zeuge Rudolf Vrba:

Vielleicht sechs Wochen.

• Vorsitzender Richter:

Ja.

• Zeuge Rudolf Vrba:

Danach wurde ich in ein besonderes Kommando eingereiht, das den euphemistischen Titel Aufräumungskommando hatte und das sich damit befaßte, die Transporte von jüdischen Familien, die nach Auschwitz kamen - dort zu assistieren beim [Ausladen] von den Zügen.

So, as you can see, he worked for the first six weeks in Hauptwirtschaftslager der SS (stores of food and other things), then he worked in Buna and after that in Canada commando.

So he was never digging and burning dead bodies. He didnt mention it also in the Vrba-Wetzler report [link removed that triggered a spam notice] --89.103.4.11 (talk) 08:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

According to what I read Vrba was transferred to Canada after a selektzia in which about half the "working" population was gassed, leaving only the most fit. He filled one of the "vacancies". I will try to get a copy of the English version of the book as well. pikipiki (talk) 10:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are right... he went trouhgt selection... but it was in Auschwitz I (not in Birkenau, as it is in the article)... and it was a selection because of typhus (not the usual entry selection). Vrba was selected to the gass and was saved by his friends friend (who was capo)... (in his memoirs end of chapter 7)

There is a lot of mistakes in the article (as I pointed above) but noone want to make it correct. --89.103.4.11 (talk) 06:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

As noone wants to correct mistake concerning Judenrampe - you can watch this video on Youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUB6Fh3Gli4 - the video is made on Judenrampe - so as you can see about 1,5 km from the camp. You can see the zoom of the gate approx. at 0:35. That is the ramp where Vrba works - not the one on the picture in the article. The ramp on the picture in the article is in camp, as I wrote above.¨

Other mistakes are also not corrected --194.228.24.199 (talk) 15:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC) on Czech wikipedia as Raduz

Not quite kosher

Under cross examination by Douglas Christie, counsel for Ernst Zundel in the 1985 "False News trial" in Toronto, Canada, Rudolf Vrba was obliged to concede, under oath, that he relied on "poetic licence" to convey his Auschwitz experiences as related in his book, "I can not forgive" . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marloe (talk • contribs) 18:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:"Canada"Auschwitz.jpg

The image File:"Canada"Auschwitz.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --23:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done -- Avi (talk) 23:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)