Talk:Miklós Nyiszli

Untitled

I question the repeated use of the phrase "had to" in this article. Dr. N could have refused to perform these horrific acts and to become a part of the Nazi death machine. Of course, Dr. N would have died if he had refused to follow orders; but if someone asked me to sacrifice myself or to aid killers and maimers of children I do hope and believe I would have the grace to choose death. The "sonderkommandos" who aided the Nazis were despised by the other prisoners and after the war were ostracized -- and rightly so. Dr Nyiszli was simply performing autopsies on bodies, something which every doctor learns to do. I don't know what 'horrific acts' are you referring to. He was helping other prisoners as much as he could do. Stop blaming the victim.

Linftdix 23:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I hope you are never in a situation where you have to make that choice. Do you question the ethics and "grace" of the people who trampled children in order to get to try and escape the gas in the gas chambers? 165.189.169.190 (talk) 17:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

This issue--which I believe to be close to the central moral question of the Holocaust--is an extremely complex one. Having read Dr. Nyiszli's book, and having done research on the Holocaust for many years, I still, of course, have no answer to it. But I must say that--having glanced at this article--it does seem to me to skim over this issue entirely with language that attempts to exonerate Dr. Nyiszli. Yes: The one or two sentences in the second paragraph basically serve simply to express the writer's judgment that Nysizli had no other choice, or that he bears no responsibility for his actions. These are debatable points, to say the least. In particular, I draw all readers' attention to the many portions of Nyiszli's memoir that describe what I can only call acts of the grossest barbarism, in tones that are strangely removed form the acts they describe. Although I do read Hungarian, I read Nyiszli in the English translation. But the tone of his general writing was astonishing to me, especially on first reading. He didn't seem to evidence any realization of the significance or seriousness of his actions. I am, again, not making a judgment on what he should have done in Auschwitz, where Mengele's hand hovered over not only his life, but also on that of his wife and child. Neither am I making any judgments on what anyone else should do in such a situation. But I do think the article, as written, should be amended or re-written somewhat. I may try to replace a few sentences with more neutral or at least less POV language. 69.203.13.82 (talk) 05:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC) Allen Roth

I do think he had no choice (in the way that if he wanted to stay alive, he had to do it) and I don't blame him (nor do I blame any prisoner who collaborated with the Nazis once in the camp, to be honest, but that's just me). However, the way this is repeated, over and over, throughout the article in various grammatical forms would look suspicious to a malevolent eye, while to me it looks like someone is trying way too hard. --109.196.118.133 (talk) 12:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Previous (use a TOC, people)

Aushwitz concentration camp was located in Poland occupied by Nazi Germany. German state, German soldiers, and German politicains elected in free elections were responsible for Aushwitz. There was no single Polish soldier, or state official who took part in establishing Aushwitz or any other concentration camp. As Poland was under German occupation and Polish pople were decided to be exterminated together with Jews, Roms, homo-sexuals, Russians, and any other considered by Hitler to be "under-man". I'd like to start seeing information that would be accurate at least on the very basic level.

_None_ of the concentration camps was Polish. The biggest concentration camps were established in occupied Poland by German agressor. The sole reason was the amount of Jewish population in Poland that totaled in 15% of the whole population (over 3 milion people).

Saying Polish concentration camp is like saying that Japaneese nuked themselves during WWII as bombs were detonated in Japan.

Paul, Poland.

Excuse me, but I think that the autor of this article hasn't well red te book of Niyszli! Dr. Miklos Niyszli wasn't working in crematorium 3 but in Krematorium 2 (Auschwitz-Birkenau) [Krematorium 1 of Birkenau]

Johan Puttemans, Belgium

I'd like to see more substantive material documenting Dr. Nyiszli's life. I haven't been able to find ANYTHING about this author except what's listed in the book. I'm not questioning whether or not he actually lived. I want to know more about the good doctor before the events of WWII. I can't document his life and I've gone to reputable sources of Judaica to do so. Any help, people? T. Dunn United States

Two different dates are given for Miklos Niyszli's death, 1956 and 1949.

Ron Ebbert, USA

--Aemathisphd 18:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The "criticism" article given is from the neo-Nazi IHR Web site. I think it ought to be deleted, unless Charles Provan has published it elsewhere.

Andrew E. Mathis, Holocaust History Project. --Aemathisphd 18:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I would include a link to Provan's article. Provan shows that Nyiszli existed and that the vast majority of what Nyiszli wrote is likely true. Provan only quibbles about certain details. dadge@hotmail.com (Adrian Bailey)

Wikified as part of the Wikification wikiproject! JubalHarshaw 17:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Charles Provan

In answer to the above, and in agreeing that Provan's article should be referenced, see http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v20/v20n1p20_Provan.html . This is a valuable piece of research that proves Nyiszli existed, identifies and quotes the original text, gives references to his other publications in libraries and archives, quotes independant references to him being in Birkenau, proves he was summoned to the Nurenberg IG Farben Trial and quotes his deposition (all with references which can be checked), and interviews friends, aquaintances and his grand-daughter. Any doubt he was a real person is dispelled. The only piece of opinion is the last two paragraphs, in which he reconciles the inconsistencies in 'Auschwitz' as being because it was intended as an historical novel.

86.155.231.155 (talk) 20:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Nyiszli's book: a novel?

I just watched the movie The Grey Zone, and noticed that in the credits at the end there are two title screens that read, respectively: 'Based on the play "THE GREY ZONE" by TIM BLAKE NELSON,' and 'and based in part on the novel "AUSCHWITZ: A DOCTOR'S EYEWITNESS ACCOUNT" by DR. MIKLOS NYISZLI.' There is no information at Amazon's listing for the book that would indicate if it is indeed a novel, and in Stephen Holden's review of The Grey Zone in the Oct. 18, 2002 edition of the New York Times, readers are told that the movie is "written by Mr. Nelson, based in part of [sic] the memoirs of Dr. Miklos Nyiszli." The reference to the book at Wikipedia's entry for Nyiszli reads, "During Nyiszli’s time in the camp he witnessed many atrocities to which he refers in his book Auschwitz—A doctor’s eyewitness account." And FWIW, the page for the movie at this site - http://www.movieguide.org/reviews/movie/the-grey-zone.html - states, "Writer: Tim Blake Nelson and Miklos Nyiszli BASED ON THE NOVEL BY: Miklos Nyiszli." My Firebox browser shows the words "THE GREY ZONE - Christian Movie Review" in the tab for the site, but I see nothing on the page itself to indicate that the review in question is a "Christian Movie Review."

So I ask: Is Nyiszli's book a novel (i.e., a work of historical fiction or a fictionalized account of actual events [like Schindler's Ark, the novel that the film Schindler's List is based on])? According to Charles Provan, based on his research it is. The movieguide review places emphasis on its statement that the book is a novel by having "BASED ON THE NOVEL" in all caps, while the NYT review, the Wikipedia entry for Nyiszli, and Amazon's page for the book seem to sidestep the question. Are some people (such as the people who prepared and authorized the title credits for The Grey Zone) sure it's a novel while others just don't know? Or would stating that it's a novel, if indeed it is, be more trouble than it's worth given that some people might not know that novels can be partly true, or worse, that some people might try to spin such information into yet another way to deny the Holocaust? Daphnis9 (talk) 06:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The book has the subtitle: A Dctor's Eyewitness Account. Film reviews are often very sloppy. If you are going to challenge the accuracy of the subtitle you will need evidence from a much more reliable source than that. The German Wikipedia states that he gave evidence in October 1947 at one of the follow-up trials at Nuremberg. Norvo (talk) 23:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Is there still anybody that takes Nyiszli remotely serious? The article tries to sell claims by him as fact. However it should state claims by him as exactly that: Claims. 105.0.6.104 (talk) 22:20, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Removed Holocaust denial material

I removed some fringe material from Holocaust deniers. Vi Dwell (talk) 22:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Questionable material

The article states that historian Gideon Greif questions the veracity of the Nyiszli's testimony.("Historian Gideon Greif characterized Nyiszli's writings as among the “myths and other wrong and defamatory accounts” of the Sonderkommando that flourished in the absence of first-hand testimony by surviving Sonderkommando members.[2]")

Greif's statement is not backed up by anything in the Wikipedia article. It is one sentence by one person, albeit one who was or is supposed to be an authority. No one else has expressed doubt about the book. If you look up Miklos you will see that he provided testimony shortly after the was to two reputable sources. Neither of those sources expressed doubt. (If they did, I saw no reference to it.)

Further, Greif's authority is questioned in a related subject. From the Wilipedia article about Greif,

   Greif co-organised the exhibition Jasenovac 75 in New Jersey dedicated to genocide committed against them by Croatian Ustashe in the Jasenovac    
   concentration camp.[8] In January 2018, with Serbian representatives Greif co-organised the exhibition Jasenovac - pravo na nezaborav at the United Nations 
   in New York.[9] The exhibition was criticized for spreading false information and propaganda by the Croatian MVEP,[10] while the UN distanced itself from 
   the content of the exhibition.[11] 

It is easy for Greif to object that no Sonderkommandos provided testimony. Ordinarily, the dead keep mum. If perchance a few survived, would they automatically have traveled somewhere to provide official testimony?

For these reasons I see it as better judgment to not include Greif's criticism, even if the goal is to report all viewpoints. Being one of many historians--one who was not even alive or at least an adult at the time--calls into question Greif's reliability more than Miklos's. I am not saying that Grief is wrong. But, again, the Wikipedia no evidence from Greif to support his statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:441:4580:185F:5993:4E64:48EF:C4B7 (talk) 01:52, 22 September 2019 (UTC)