America armed and financed both sides in WW2. Mengele was recruited by the OSS, which became the CIA. Britain and America destroyed vital infrastructure so no food or supplies could get through; so in some of the camps the prisoners literally starved to death. Eisenhower starved up to 1,000,000 German citizens and soldiers to death in camps, denying them food or supplies. 1st source - Antony C. Sutton. 2nd source - public info. 3rd source - the Red Cross. 4th source - public info. Zionists all over the world, including Germany, were behind the war: which was used as a further distraction to hide the mass emigration of certain Jews to Palestine, which had been going on since the 1930s. That is also public info and is fact. Not only do you have to worry about false tales from the Holocaust, you have to acknowledge that America was pulling the strings behind it, then went in to " liberate " the prisoners. Just like Gaza today. America armed and financed both sides for years; stood back and let them kill each other, then pretends to send " aid " while still supplying Israel with the weapons to kill little children.
An important and eloquent article - thank you. Once these stories take root it’s very difficult to weed them out and they can alter the historical narrative over time. We owe it to those who lost their lives to ensure the truth is kept alive.
And you say you aren't a 'historian'! You do more to correct duff history than many and that is SO important. Gaining as true an evidenced narrative is essential - especially when others try to hijack a popular historiography for their own ends, bravo!
Obviously I agree that there is no place for inaccuracy in anything relating to the Holocaust, which is why I have a huge amount of respect for those who put all the hard work into finding out the truth, or otherwise, behind some of these narratives.
A question, though, if I may - why do people like Avery do it? Do you think he was simply and cynically trying to reap the rewards of something he knew perfectly well never happened? Or did he 'improve' on something real until the real story came to be encased in a thick carapace of self-aggrandising fiction? Or was there some actual trauma which he managed to cover up by creating a narrative in which he was more in control, more the hero and benefactor, than he managed to be in real life? In short, did he come to believe any of this stuff?
'Old men forget, and all shall be forgot - but we'll remember with advantages what deeds we did that day' ...
Few narratives of any sort are indisputable; plenty involve wishful thinking, selective memory, literary 'improvement' and revision; when the subject is the Holocaust, though, the stakes are perhaps uniquely high. I very much agree with you that publishers these days have a real obligation to run any Holocaust narrative past someone - ideally, several people - with deep scholarly knowledge of the sources, existing narratives and, yes, existing fakes. And there is literally no excuse at all for Hodders to keep the wretched Avery book on sale.
I think the motivation of Avey – who I spoke to on the phone – was complex. I think there was a massive issue with memory, and he had conflated a memoir about a man breaking into Auschwitz (itself a problematic memoir) and his own experiences. Like many POWs, he may have felt a huge sense of failure, and he may have really wanted to have been the guy who did the brave thing and broke into Auschwitz. Then, as he aged and his memory got poor, he may have actually felt he was that guy, and felt that what he was saying was the real deal. Perhaps. Or perhaps he was just a supreme bullshitter, and by the time he suddenly finds himself with a book deal and a medal, he knows he's just got to stick to it. Other fantasists are somewhat easier to dissect – they're not 'all there' often, so that makes analysis easier. But Avey seemed normal. Apparently. But his book just can't be true, for the reasons shown in the pieces I link to.
Very much agree. There are a number of notorious ‘tellers of tall tales’ Christopher Lee for example. But there is something particularly noxious about those who chose to present fictional memoirs of the Holocaust. What responsibility do publishers have to undertake due diligence and not take these at face value, they do as much harm to our understanding of the Holocaust as certain pyjama based ‘children’s’ books.
Christopher Lee? What?? No, say it's not so...! Anthony Quayle the real deal though please? You are swiftly undermining the sand my 1970s childhood is built on...
Mine too. Lucky enough to have seen him act with Roy Kinnear once, would have loved to have had drinks with him and Niven. So lucky enough to know some of their modern counterparts. Humbling
This fakery boils my ****. Auschwitz Memorial are fantastic at setting the score strait especially on Twitter.
Until your “Hunting Evil” I looked on Simon Wiesenthal as some kind of saint. The less
Learned of us do hang on to what experts
Say. Some people do not question the stuff that comes out of experts mouths. Because they are experts- they wouldn’t lie to us would they!? Lazy research, lazy reporting and a somewhat Gullible audience ensure that this stuff gets about. But how do we know if we are being spoon fed crap. It’s really hard for Jo public in general to have confidence in what they read- unless they read in blind faith. I have in the past! Who holds the authors to account? How can this fakery be stopped from being printed? Who can stop it? How do they check the authenticity?
I could write a book on making a cake. But it would taste like an ice machine. Still, I’d have sold books!
I guess those that are happy to have their works proofed have nothing to hide. Would certainly shake things up. Does this happen to any extent at the moment Guy? Do you or your brethren get asked to proof read stuff before publication? I could see some authors not liking that! Lol
It happens now and then. I get an editor phoning me up and saying could you have a quick flick through this to see if it's OK. I think the process needs to be more formal, more due diligence.
Totally agree Guy. Especially as in my experience the deniers aren’t widely read. They have tended towards the lightweight on the facts section of the bookshop.
The only way to confront deniers is with hard, indisputable facts. There has been a flurry of these very ropey accounts, aimed at the generalist reader. Pre-covid a colleague was reading one these accounts, can’t recall which but it had been specifically called out by the Auschwitz Memorial. I advised her of this fact, her response was to suggest maybe they didn’t like it because it challenged the orthodoxy. No, it’s rubbish I told her. Facts, facts, and facts!
I agree. She is very young and unlikely to well read on the Holocaust. I doubt she questioned the reality of the event but her knowledge was probably restricted to these dubious titles on the shelves of supermarkets. I suggested some weightier titles to her.
America armed and financed both sides in WW2. Mengele was recruited by the OSS, which became the CIA. Britain and America destroyed vital infrastructure so no food or supplies could get through; so in some of the camps the prisoners literally starved to death. Eisenhower starved up to 1,000,000 German citizens and soldiers to death in camps, denying them food or supplies. 1st source - Antony C. Sutton. 2nd source - public info. 3rd source - the Red Cross. 4th source - public info. Zionists all over the world, including Germany, were behind the war: which was used as a further distraction to hide the mass emigration of certain Jews to Palestine, which had been going on since the 1930s. That is also public info and is fact. Not only do you have to worry about false tales from the Holocaust, you have to acknowledge that America was pulling the strings behind it, then went in to " liberate " the prisoners. Just like Gaza today. America armed and financed both sides for years; stood back and let them kill each other, then pretends to send " aid " while still supplying Israel with the weapons to kill little children.
An important and eloquent article - thank you. Once these stories take root it’s very difficult to weed them out and they can alter the historical narrative over time. We owe it to those who lost their lives to ensure the truth is kept alive.
And you say you aren't a 'historian'! You do more to correct duff history than many and that is SO important. Gaining as true an evidenced narrative is essential - especially when others try to hijack a popular historiography for their own ends, bravo!
Thank you Nick!
Still pretty hacked off about Chris Lee mind... rather believe him myself! Niven-esque I always thought, in a suburban sort of way.
I know what you man about being hacked off! Always disappointing when people you admire turn out to be Walter Mittys etc
Yes indeed, just look at the road behind me... littered with disappointed people...
It is very sad that some people feel the need to tell untruths such as this.
Obviously I agree that there is no place for inaccuracy in anything relating to the Holocaust, which is why I have a huge amount of respect for those who put all the hard work into finding out the truth, or otherwise, behind some of these narratives.
A question, though, if I may - why do people like Avery do it? Do you think he was simply and cynically trying to reap the rewards of something he knew perfectly well never happened? Or did he 'improve' on something real until the real story came to be encased in a thick carapace of self-aggrandising fiction? Or was there some actual trauma which he managed to cover up by creating a narrative in which he was more in control, more the hero and benefactor, than he managed to be in real life? In short, did he come to believe any of this stuff?
'Old men forget, and all shall be forgot - but we'll remember with advantages what deeds we did that day' ...
Few narratives of any sort are indisputable; plenty involve wishful thinking, selective memory, literary 'improvement' and revision; when the subject is the Holocaust, though, the stakes are perhaps uniquely high. I very much agree with you that publishers these days have a real obligation to run any Holocaust narrative past someone - ideally, several people - with deep scholarly knowledge of the sources, existing narratives and, yes, existing fakes. And there is literally no excuse at all for Hodders to keep the wretched Avery book on sale.
I think the motivation of Avey – who I spoke to on the phone – was complex. I think there was a massive issue with memory, and he had conflated a memoir about a man breaking into Auschwitz (itself a problematic memoir) and his own experiences. Like many POWs, he may have felt a huge sense of failure, and he may have really wanted to have been the guy who did the brave thing and broke into Auschwitz. Then, as he aged and his memory got poor, he may have actually felt he was that guy, and felt that what he was saying was the real deal. Perhaps. Or perhaps he was just a supreme bullshitter, and by the time he suddenly finds himself with a book deal and a medal, he knows he's just got to stick to it. Other fantasists are somewhat easier to dissect – they're not 'all there' often, so that makes analysis easier. But Avey seemed normal. Apparently. But his book just can't be true, for the reasons shown in the pieces I link to.
Thank you - and sorry I keep getting 'Avey' wrong!
Very much agree. There are a number of notorious ‘tellers of tall tales’ Christopher Lee for example. But there is something particularly noxious about those who chose to present fictional memoirs of the Holocaust. What responsibility do publishers have to undertake due diligence and not take these at face value, they do as much harm to our understanding of the Holocaust as certain pyjama based ‘children’s’ books.
Christopher Lee? What?? No, say it's not so...! Anthony Quayle the real deal though please? You are swiftly undermining the sand my 1970s childhood is built on...
Quayle definitely the real deal, and a hero of mine. Lee was a fantasist.
Mine too. Lucky enough to have seen him act with Roy Kinnear once, would have loved to have had drinks with him and Niven. So lucky enough to know some of their modern counterparts. Humbling
You may have read this piece by me a while back! https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3165860/How-film-legend-Christopher-Lee-heroic-war-record-claimed-SAS-veteran-Nazi-hunter-stories-don-t-add-up.html
Yes - I wrote about Christopher Lee a while back. His really made up an enormous amount!
Blummin' gutted.
This fakery boils my ****. Auschwitz Memorial are fantastic at setting the score strait especially on Twitter.
Until your “Hunting Evil” I looked on Simon Wiesenthal as some kind of saint. The less
Learned of us do hang on to what experts
Say. Some people do not question the stuff that comes out of experts mouths. Because they are experts- they wouldn’t lie to us would they!? Lazy research, lazy reporting and a somewhat Gullible audience ensure that this stuff gets about. But how do we know if we are being spoon fed crap. It’s really hard for Jo public in general to have confidence in what they read- unless they read in blind faith. I have in the past! Who holds the authors to account? How can this fakery be stopped from being printed? Who can stop it? How do they check the authenticity?
I could write a book on making a cake. But it would taste like an ice machine. Still, I’d have sold books!
The best way for the fakery to stop is for editors to send manuscripts before publication to historians who know their stuff.
I guess those that are happy to have their works proofed have nothing to hide. Would certainly shake things up. Does this happen to any extent at the moment Guy? Do you or your brethren get asked to proof read stuff before publication? I could see some authors not liking that! Lol
It happens now and then. I get an editor phoning me up and saying could you have a quick flick through this to see if it's OK. I think the process needs to be more formal, more due diligence.
Now there’s a phrase all of us with any public responsibility shudder at... lol.
Totally agree Guy. Especially as in my experience the deniers aren’t widely read. They have tended towards the lightweight on the facts section of the bookshop.
The only way to confront deniers is with hard, indisputable facts. There has been a flurry of these very ropey accounts, aimed at the generalist reader. Pre-covid a colleague was reading one these accounts, can’t recall which but it had been specifically called out by the Auschwitz Memorial. I advised her of this fact, her response was to suggest maybe they didn’t like it because it challenged the orthodoxy. No, it’s rubbish I told her. Facts, facts, and facts!
Remember though, we now live in a 'post truth' society. Your facts may be entirely different to my facts...
Yikes... "Challenged the orthodoxy" is a very denialy phrase...
I agree. She is very young and unlikely to well read on the Holocaust. I doubt she questioned the reality of the event but her knowledge was probably restricted to these dubious titles on the shelves of supermarkets. I suggested some weightier titles to her.