This document is part of a periodical (The Revisionist).
Use this menu to find more documents that are part of this periodical.
Since end 1994, reports were published in the media that Steven Spielberg has launched a project to archive the testimony of "Holocaust survivors" (cf. Newsweek, Nov. 21, 1994 (right); Stuttgarter Zeitung, Dec. 28, 1994; New York Times, Jan. 7, 1996; Geschichte mit Pfiff, 11/1996, p. 37; Welt am Sonntag, Nov. 17, 1996). Apart from Spielberg, the Moses-Mendelsohn-Center in Potsdam (a suburb of Berlin, Germany) is also engaged in archiving "survivor" testimonies.
Steven Spielberg has found helpers who volunteer to conduct these interviews. They have been prepared by an introduction seminar lasting 20 hours to do this job. It can be rule out that these helpers received a thorough education in the relevant sections of history in this short period of time. It is also unlikely that they were trained to the point to conduct non-suggestive and highly critical interviewed. The fact that most of these volunteers were themselves affected by the ‘Holocaust’ in one way or another, almost excludes the possibility that they can deduct objective interviews (cf. Stuttgarter Zeitung, Dec. 28, 1994).
It is also very enlightening, how the topic is approaches by the Moses-Mendelsohn-Center, as directed by Prof. Julius Schoeps and Geoffrey Hartmann (Yale University):
"Questions without Guideline
As hard as it is to scientifically evaluate individual memories, it is exactly the subjectivity of the accounts which promises to record historical experience, which evades the brittle factuality of the usual historization. Similar to psycho-analytical interviews, one tries to leave room to the witness’ own memories by a very unobtrusive interview technique, in order to guarantee the authenticity of the accounts." ("Archive der Erinnerung", Süddeutsche Zeitung, July 3, 1995)
The generally accepted view of scholars is totally ignored here that most witness testimonies are distorted beyond repair after more than 50 years – all the more so when dealing with a topic which has been treated in public in a very one-sided and sometimes hysterical way. But even worse: this subjective distortion is not only ignored, it is actually presented as a promising quality. One is furthermore proud to avoid any critical investigation and questioning of the witness accounts, and claims brazenly that this would guarantee the authenticity of the witness accounts. Such interviewing techniques, however, have nothing to do with science. The accounts recorded with this method are not only worthless, but have a negative value! They consist of an inseparable mishmash of facts, confusions, errors, and lies labeled as "scholarly," presented as "authentic" truth, and abused to cement a historical dogma which becomes increasingly codified by penal laws in many countries of the world. Future scholars will rub their eyes in disbelief if confronted with such unprofessional incompetence and dogmatic blindness.
Additional information about this document
|Title:||"Scientists" at Work|
|Sources:||The Revisionist 1(4) (2003), pp. 457|
|First posted on CODOH:||June 24, 2012, 7 p.m.|