Talk:Thomas Blatt

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Arts and Entertainment This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.

I think that some of this should be mentioned, but it has no source (actually, one of my teachers is a friend of Mr. Blatt) and doesn't really fit in the article:

• Following the escape, he hid with a few other men in a hole in a Polish farmer's barn. One day, instead of food being put in the opening to the hole, the farmer put a gun down, shot them, and searched for money on them (the escapees actually had gold taken from the camp to survive on). He still has the bullet in his jaw.
• Later, in Israel, he related his story to a Holocaust survivor and expert. Because of Sobibor's secrecy and the implausability of an escape, the other man laughed at him and he stopped telling the story for a while.

He weren´t one of the leaders. In the movie he is the massengerboy. In the true story. The boys name was "Drescher" eleven year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.208.78.7 (talk) 19:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• In July 1984, Karl Frenzel was released on appeal due to a technicality. His appeal was lost on September 12, l985 and he was given a life sentence once more. As far as I recall, Frenzel remained in prison until about 1993 or 94, was released into the care of an Old peoples home and died in '98.

You are wrong. The pig Frenzel is still alive. Germans love their SS officers too much to put them in jail, thats why after being declared by a German Court in the 1980's to be on his death bed, he is still alive and kicking 25 years later. He is selling his autographs on the internet, and lives in Garbsen-Auf der Horst (near Hannover/Lower Saxony)). Here is a link http://www.startiger.com/celebrity_address/Karl_Frenzel_id166267.html Meishern (talk) 06:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

is thomas blatt the last survivor of sobibor? Tony (talk) 14:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

sobibor.info appears to be gone. It loads a domain holding page. I'll provide a link to it via the Wayback Machine. 68.46.9.6 (talk) 09:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://web.archive.org/web/20130329055327/http://www.sobibor.info/ --Igorp_lj (talk) 10:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I see you've already made such edits in the article. Thanks, --Igorp_lj (talk) 11:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Wayback mirror has also gone - looks like the current owner's robots.txt file has been retroactively honoured by archive.org. There seems to be a mirror at sobibor.net - can anyone comment on whether this is an official mirror that accurately reflects sobibor.info? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdwperl (talk • contribs) 00:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am puzzled by this. At the end of the movie, a voice-over states for a (presumed) fact that Blatt was hidden by a Polish farmer who 'eventually shot him for his money'. Now I read in this lemma that he was actually shot by the SS. Both options are possible. It is possible that Blatt was shot by the SS, or shot by nazi's while escaping from the camp, and that he actually invented the story of being shot by a Polish farmer (for whatever reason). And it is possible that he was shot by a Polish farmer and that someone invented he was shot by the SS or while escaping the camp. If anyone has some convincing facts, I would be happy to hear them. Mcouzijn (talk) 03:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have traced the edit trail of the article. Originally, it stated the farmer was responsible for the shooting, as described in Mr Blatt's own account. User Poeticbent then edited it to indicate that the role of the farmer was merely 'alleged' (a statement further edited for clarity by another user). In a second edit, Poeticbent removed the reference to the farmer altogether, incidentally giving the misleading impression that Mr Blatt was shot by the SS, and citing a need for third party sources. I see no reason to doubt Mr Blatt's own account, and it would obviously be impossible to obtain 3rd party corroboration under the circumstances. I therefore suggest we restore the reference to the farmer, and indicate its source. There's an edited online version here: http://sobibor.net/survivors.html Rdwperl (talk) 10:27, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The non-fiction creative writing in the genre of Holocaust literature is not history. Please read the first-party source allegations again. – In complete darkness, in the middle of night (while in an underground dugout), the author knows exactly who's silently walking outside and than shooting into the opening. In reality, owning a gun meant a death sentence for any civilian in occupied Poland. I don't even mention the presence of the Soviet NKVD in postwar photos, the same Soviet secret police engaged in mass atrocities against the Polish underground. In all, we don't need to rely on conspiracy theories and smoke and mirrors to tell the story of one man's life. Thomas Blatt was not a historian by profession, neither Binjamin Wilkomirski in his literary ambitions, nor Martin Gray (Holocaust survivor) in his output. Poeticbent talk 15:01, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Poeticbent, you seem to be putting Thomas Blatt's account in the same category as works by Wilkomirski and Gray, which are regarded as fictionalised by reliable sources, and suggesting that it is 'creative writing'. I see no such claims about Blatt, apart from the usual libels of Holocaust deniers. If you know of any respectable 'allegations', please point to them. Otherwise, this is an offensive suggestion. Regarding the details of the murders of Kostman and Szmul, and his own attempted murder, Blatt notes that he recognised Bojarski's voice amongst the killers:

'A man approached, stopped and said, "Might be better to give him another bullet." I froze, recognizing Bojarski's voice. Someone put his hand over my mouth, I held my breath. At the second, when I though my lungs would burst, he removed his palm. He then felt my fingers in the dark probably looking for rings and said to Bojarski, "Lets not waste a bullet; he is already stiff."

If there is a conspiracy theory here, it is your own suggestion that the NKVD were somehow involved in Blatt's description of this incident, regardless of their role in other atrocities. I note that you only directly dispute one specific aspect of Blatt's account, the role of Bojarski, and have an established interest in the positive actions of Poles at this time, authoring the Wikipedia article on 'Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust'. While these heroic activities obviously deserve full recognition, it is equally important that any actions of a different kind are also documented, where they occurred, and that articles like this are edited from a neutral point of view. The current wording of the Thomas Blatt article misleadingly implies that the SS shot him, a suggestion that appears nowhere but here, and is not consistent with Blatt's account. The sole primary source for this incident is of course Blatt (his comrades were killed), but secondary sources are available, e.g.: http://www.historytoday.com/althea-williams/sobib%C3%B3r-other-great-escape Rdwperl (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rdwperl, please refrain from personal attacks and goading. Familiarize yourself with the Wikipedia:Signs of sock puppetry pertaining to subjects of a controversial nature. There are no reliable third-party sources in existence with regard to the incident mentioned. What you describe is a WP:REDFLAG by Wikipedia standards. The "voice" allegedly "recognized" in the night by someone hidden deep in an underground bunker is not enough to make wild accusations of murder. Many death camp survivors encouraged to write memoirs suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder resulting in demonic fantasies with no grounds in reality. Their inability to calmly recall the actual events of the past due to psychological trauma have led to many notable controversies. However, they are not relevant here. Poeticbent talk 21:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With your reference to 'sock puppetry', are you implying that I have some sort of ulterior motive for questioning your edits, or that this is a fake account? Neither is the case. For the record I have, as far as I recall, only ever had one account on Wikipedia (this one, since 2007), which I have used very rarely to make edits to a small number of diverse subjects that happen to interest me. I had no axe to grind on this issue and my only previous related post was to note the broken link to the archived copy of Mr Blatt's site, when I also noticed the confusing way in which this incident is currently described and Mcouzijn's puzzled response to it (above), which led me to check the edit history. My own response contains no personal attacks, but merely a reminder of the importance of editorial neutrality. I do not agree that this is a 'controversial' subject, a 'wild accusation' or a red-flagged 'exceptional claim'. Outside this Talk page it is not controversial at all. A cursory search finds several reliable published sources, which in this context qualify as both secondary and third party sources, including History Today, The Independent and The Seattle Times, all of which report the murderous intent of the farmer as fact. I cannot find any such sources proposing an alternative explanation for the source of the bullet apparently still embedded in Mr Blatt - if you can, please post it here. Clearly there are not multiple primary sources for this incident (under the circumstances, how could there be?), but this is not a requirement for Wikipedia content, which relies where possible on secondary sources for evaluation of primary material. It is not our job to re-interpret or discount Blatt's account (as a primary source) which would amount to original research. It is certainly not our job to imply the influence of NKVD disinformation, lump Blatt's testimony together with known fictionalised accounts, or compare it to PTSD-driven 'demonic fantasies'. Mr Blatt is, as far as I know, still alive, and his biography deserves to be treated with sensitivity and respect (WP:Biographies_of_living_persons), not insinuations of untruthfulness. If you know of a reliable published source that questions the cause of Mr Blatt's gunshot wound, please present it. Your own interpretation of the incident, including any original speculation on whether he could have recognised the voice of his assailant, is neither relevant nor sufficient reason to remove the reference to the farmer, which is a well-known feature of Blatt's biography clearly stated in the secondary sources. Rdwperl (talk) 02:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NB: The comment about the 'libels of holocaust deniers' above was not aimed at you, if that is what you meant by 'personal attack'. I was just noting that Blatt's factual autobiography is not in the same category as the two fictionalised cases (which have been discounted by reputable scholars), except in the minds of those who deny any of this happened (which you clearly do not). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdwperl (talk • contribs) 03:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for some middle ground in this debate, I am inclined to say that I partly agree with the both of you. Mr Blatt is indeed the only primary source and his idea of what happened deserves recognition in this lemma; yet it cannot be the last word or count as 'proof'.

This debate does not and should not address the more general, certainly 'controversial' issue whether 'the Poles murdered the Jews' or 'did the Poles help to murder their Jews' or any other general statement that reeks of bigotry. This is about two individuals of which one almost murdered the other. Or rather: who the individual was who tried to murder the other.

If I understand [Rdwper1] well, he wants this lemma to express Mr Blatt's account ('it was Bojarski') for a fact. Mr Blatt's account certainly deserves to be respected, because he is the only surviving witness. Yet his account has never been proven be a fact, so it can be reasonably challenged; in spite of the many references or 'secondary sources' that copy Mr Blatt's statement.

Mr [Poeticbent] does not want Mr Blatt's account to be stated for a fact in this lemma. This is the main disagreement. Mr. [Rdwper1] refers to Wikipedia rules that state we should respect the biography of living persons. But these rules do not stipulate that we should regard or present everything that living persons say as 'fact'; neither when it is rarely refuted. Mr. [Poeticbent] seems to want some recognition of the *possibility* that Mr Blatt's account is not factual, for whatever reason or cause.

I think the solution lies in the simple presentation of the fact that 'Mr Blatt claims that X'. This is all that we know for sure. Then let all Wikipedia users make up their own minds about this fact; whether they believe Mr Blatt's account or whether they don't. It is not our job to guide them in one direction or the other.Mcouzijn (talk) 10:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Our WP:BIO policy guideline goes both ways. The subject of this entry is a living person. His accusations against named individual who might also be a living person (with a family and reputation to defend) is not a small potato. – Besides, most of what the accuser writes in his wild and unproven stories is disturbingly angry and inadvertently brings to mind similar memoirs (including Holocaust productions) with a chillingly anti-Polish twist. There's no place here for any quote-unquote "middle ground" as far as murder charges against a living individual might be concerned (with no signs of their awareness). This can be debated elsewhere if needed, but not through far-reaching revenge editing in open source format. Wikipedia is not a court of justice making. Poeticbent talk

The biography of Thomas Blatt says nothing about the very important decade of his life following the Soviet takeover of Poland, and his subsequent emigration in 1958 immediately after the anti-Stalinist Polish October of 1956–57. Meanwhile, on the old black-and-white photograph from that period (featured), we can see him wearing the uniform of an officer. The officer of what formation? Poeticbent talk 20:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A portal similar to Axis History Forum in the Polish language, called Historycy.org, wrote back in 2006 about Blatt's career immediately following the Soviet arrival in occupied eastern Poland, and specifically, the formation of the puppet provisional government by Joseph Stalin in the town of Chełm near Lublin, where he stayed. See: Mgr Andrzej Tym (27 February 2006). "Izbicki łącznik „Z popiołów Sobiboru"" [Izbica courier from the Ashes of Sobibor]. Czy nie należało uczynić więcej by uratować Żydów. Historycy.org – via link to DOC file (79.5k), pp. 1-6. Whether Blatt finished an officer course needs to be established, nevertheless he wore the officer's uniform either as a functionary of the dreaded Urząd Bezpieczeństwa (NKVD-UB), or the political propaganda division in the army, as his collar patch clearly indicates. Poeticbent talk 22:54, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The source cited above is full of antisemitic nonsense. Take this passage:

Dla T. Blatta jak i dla wielu kryptosjonistycznych oficerów UB i decydentów PRL oraz setek tysięcy ich talmudycznych „rodaków” żelazna kurtyna i mur berliński nie były granicami świata a "polski antysemityzm" tylko środkiem wymuszającym lub pretekstem uzasadniającym aliję.

Translation: For Thomas Blatt and many crypto-Zionist officers of the [security services] and other founders of the communist People's Republic of Poland, as well as hundreds of thousands of their Talmudist "compatriots," the Iron Curtain and Berlin Wall were not borders, and "polish antisemitism" was only a means of forcing, or a pretext, to justify aliyah (to Israel).

So please don't refer to this garbage.2601:143:8001:CE1A:31F1:9966:B673:9566 (talk) 03:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree about the language; the source by itself is not acceptable for our purposes, but it contains passages from Blatt's work where the subject of his postwar service has been mentioned. — That's all I wanted; the confirmation of fact about the uniform of an officer of either Polish or the Soviet security services. Please find me a source that proves otherwise. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 04:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Purpose of an enquiry - Establishing whether Tomasz Blatt was in any way involved in the NKVD-UB persecution and extrajudicial killings of the Polish resistance movement in World War II members, known as the cursed soldiers, in Stalinist Poland. Before his emigration in 1959 Blatt studied journalism and apparently had something published in the political propaganda weeklies Świat and Kulisy. He had a run in with the Stalinist censorship in 1952 which might have prevented him from further reporting there. Nevertheless, in 1957 Poles in Israel thought he was making up things about Sobibor. Blatt himself omitted that part of his life story in his subsequent writings. On 14 October 2013 he was awarded the Order of Merit of the Republic of Poland, one of the highest Poland's Orders granted to foreigners or Poles resident abroad. — [1] Poeticbent talk 17:16, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]