Another Day, another Denier

Yesterday I began a conversation with a Denier. I actually felt sorry for this man, and even somewhat impressed. He could quote 'chapter and verse' from hate sites, as if he's read them repeatedly to memorize the material in case he needs to 'educate' people like me.

What he hasn't done, as is the case of most deniers, is to look behind the hate sites. Using facts claimed to be hidden, when in actuality they are well documented, this young man is doomed to spout a false history in order to feel better about the color of his skin.

His argument hinges on two facts: 1. A door to one of the gas chambers that has a peephole without a cover and 2. no traces of Zyklon-B on walls in a gas chamber.

He stands proudly on these two facts. His beliefs demand it.

The door he refers to, and even the walls themselves, are recreations. The chamber Deniers often offer up as evidence as proof that there were no go gas chambers is a re-construction of a gas chamber because the originals were destroyed by the Nazis to cover their crimes. This re-creation is a matter of public record. It was built to allow visitors to understand the feeling of the now destroyed chambers.

I asked him about the real chambers, currently in ruins after the Nazis attempted to destroy them when the Russians were at their door. He didn't have an exact answer, though others have explained to me that they were destroyed to make it look bad for the Nazis. The Jews did it to make it look like the Nazis were covering up war crimes.

I'm sorry, but the Nazis looked bad long before those few buildings were blown up. And it was the Nazis who destroyed them. We have that in records.

The Nazis are once again coming to power. Other supremest groups are on the rise. Deniers are becoming more and more vocal. We have to be diligent. We have to be ready to expose racism when we see it. Learn the truth and educate others.

January 27, Holocaust Remembrance Day. A time to act.

We are fast approaching January 27, which is the day the General Assembly of the United Nations declared to be International Day of Commemoration to honour the victims of the Holocaust. They also urged their member states to develop educational programs to "instill the memory of the tragedy in future generations to prevent genocide from occurring again." January 27 was selected as the date since it is the date the Russians liberated Auschwitz-Birkenau, the largest of the death camps, where they found only one survivor of Romani descent. The Assembly stated

"Rejecting any denial of the Holocaust as a historical event, either in full or in part, the 191-member Assembly adopted by consensus a resolution condemning “without reserve” all manifestations of religious intolerance, incitement, harassment or violence against persons or communities based on ethnic origin or religious belief, whenever they occur."

So the question must be asked, why has the United Nations refused the Romani nation to participate in the ceremonies this year? Last year we were included, but, as of this writing, this year we are not. If the UN found it a worthy effort to spend two days in 2005 debating the issue of establishing a memorial date and went so far as to ask every member state to commemorate the day, then why include a minority who has the most to lose from being excluded from the services? Is it because there is a question as to the murder of the Romani people in the Holocaust?

Even the expert scholars, survivors themselves, state that the Romani people were indeed victims of the Holocaust. In a letter written to Elie Wiesel and dated December 14th, 1984, Simon Wiesenthal stated

“The Gypsies had been murdered in a proportion similar to the Jews: about 80% of them in the area of the countries which were occupied by the Nazis.”

Even Germany finally admitted to the world that the Romani nation was selected as a race for extermination, as evidenced by former German president Roman Herzog stated in 1997,

"The genocide of the Sinti and Roma was carried out from the same motive of racial mania, with the same premeditation, with the same wish for the systematic and total extermination as the genocide of the Jews."

One would think that such statements, made years in advance of the creation of the day of remembrance would be admission enough, but it seems it isn't.

So we look to the statement made by the Assembly itself, piece by piece. The first section reads:

"Rejecting any denial of the Holocaust as a historical event, either in full or in part..."

Is not silence just as deafening as the cries of millions? By their silence and by their unwillingness to to include the Romani nation in their ceremony and allowing a Romani to speak, they add to the misguided belief that the Romani people were not victims of the Holocaust. Rejection by omission is just as bad as flat denial, which the UN rejects.

"...the 191-member Assembly adopted by consensus ..."

191 members of the Assembly agreed to this, and yet, who among them is asking for full inclusion of the Romani people, people who were affected in many of these countries? These members must look to the histories of their own countries and see what side they were on, what actions their government took, and, in the glaring light of the present, act accordingly.

"...a resolution condemning “without reserve” all manifestations of religious intolerance, incitement, harassment or violence against persons or communities based on ethnic origin or religious belief..."

Read it again. "Without reserve" all manifestations of  religious intolerance, incitement, harassment or violence against persons or communities based on ethnic origin or religious belief (emphasis mine). This section here means we are included. Or should be included, by their own admission!

And finally,

"...whenever they occur."

They already have occurred and they are currently occurring while the UN does what? Remains silent.


So in our fight for human rights and our dealings with the UN, who do go to? There is a United Nations Human Rights Council. What nation has been designated with such an honor? The Czech Republic.

"[T]he Czech Republic was elected to the United Nations Human Rights Council for the term 2011 -2014. The Czech Republic thus has the honor to become one of the 47 member states of the main UN body responsible for creating and implementing UN policies in the field of protection and promotion of human rights in various part of the world." (emphasis mine)

Seriously? According to the Office of the Commissioner for Human Rights for the Council of Europe, over 90,000 Romani women were sterilized in the Czech Republic since 1980. Romani children are still be segregated from the public school system even after the Court of Human Rights ordered the Czech Republic to de-segregate in 2007.

I bring this up because there is a direct link to the Holocaust and our fight for justice in Europe. When the Third Reich fell to the Allies and the atrocities committed by the German State were revealed to the world, the anti-Semitic laws were immediately abolished. Not so in the case of the anti-Gypsy laws. It was still illegal to be a Gypsy until 1953. No one was educated about the murders of the Romani people because few survivors wanted to talk about what they experienced and the deaths of loved ones and family members. Now, the world is blissfully ignorant of the Romani inclusion in the Holocaust and the hate and persecution that resulted in O Baro Porrajmos continues to this day and we face a genocide once again.

We must demand the UN include us and, if they refuse, we must make it clear in cities around the world that we, as a nation, were set for extermination and that we can see it happening again and that we will not allow it.

Organize something within your community. A meal with a candle lighting ceremony, a wreath presentation to a river, or volunteer to speak at a school. The point is, do something. Record that event through pictures or video. Let  people see what we stand for because if we don't speak for ourselves, who will?

Dina Gottliebova Babbitt and the Failure of Auschwitz

The more research I do into the watercolor paintings by Dina Gottliebova Babbitt, the more I am astonished at man's capacity for cruelty, his total disregard for the well-being of his fellow man, and his eagerness to ignore the truth, to remain blind to reality due to bias and race, two useless ideologies.

I wish I were talking about Nazi Germany and the beginnings of Auschwitz when Mengele was free to carry out his pseudoscientific experiments and the gas chambers were functioning , but I am not. I am referring to current events in our time, events occurring daily.

Dinah Gottliebova was a 19 year-old Jewish Czech art student in Prague when she and her mother were arrested and later sent to Auschwitz. Dinah had always been interested in art and while at Auschwitz, she was asked to paint murals on walls to help calm frightened children. She painted characters from the last movie she had seen before her arrest, the figures of Disney's Snow White and the Seven Dwarves.

The mural got the attention of SS Captain Dr. Josef Mengele who needed an artist to help him with his work. He called for Dinah and ordered her to paint portraits of subjects who were to be sent to the gas chambers. He wanted the color of their skin to be represented and he found the new science of color photography lacked the ability to capture the subtle tones. Color film was in its infancy and was very unreliable. The primary colors tended to be too bright, making it impossible to capture true colors and images Dr. Mengele needed for his research.

He ordered Dinah to paint and she agreed if he would spare her and her mother. He agreed and Dinah set up shop. She also painted portraits for other officers, usually from photographs they brought to her. One day she was asked to paint the portraits of seven Roma who were to be sent to gas chambers. Dinah complied.

Auschwitz was liberated and Dinah and her mother went to Paris where she met an American artist, Art Babbitt. Coincidentally, Art had worked on Snow White and the Seven Dwarves and the couple fell in love and were married. They lived in California where Dinah Gottliebova, now Dina Babbitt, worked for various art studios with her husband.

In 1973, she was contacted by Auschwitz and told they had found the watercolors of the seven Roma victims. Dina flew to Poland to collect her work, but was told by Auschwitz curators that they believed the art was too important to be separated from the collection and they intended to keep it. Devastated, Dina returned home and began a lawsuit that would go all the way to Congress.

In 2002, Congress declared the watercolors were the rightful property of Dina Babbitt and asked the Secretary of State and the President to work with the Polish government to convince Auschwitz t return the watercolors to Dina. Dina passed away in 2009 and as of this writing, Auschwitz-Birkenau still has the watercolors which are not, to the best of our knowledge, on public display. Dina's heirs continue her fight to have the watercolors returned to her.

Enter the Deniers. These racists follow the same principles as the Nazis and would love to see the Jews, Rromani, and other 'lower forms of life' destroyed, yet they deny the Holocaust ever happened. It was once thought that if Holocaust scholars gave any attention to the Deniers, that their ideas would eventually fall by the wayside. It was also believed that arguing with them gave credence to their arguments, but thank goodness Holocaust institutions no longer believe this is the case. Deniers have increased in number as they spread their hate and stupidity to the younger generations.

The Deniers claim that this case is yet another piece of evidence that the Holocaust never happened. You will need to hold on tight for this leap of logic because it gets very bumpy.

Deniers claim three points against this story. Let's take a closer look at them.

1. Children were not allowed at Auschwitz. Why was the Snow White mural necessary if children were not permitted to live at Auschwitz?

Answer: Children were often used in Mengele's experiments. He often used twins or Rromani children in his experiments. Children were easily managed and placated and were just as easily disposed of. Children as young as 12 and 13 were put to work alongside adults in forced labor brigades as well, sometimes needed because of their small size for tunneling work. Not every child was disposed of the moment they arrived at Auschwitz. Reading Mengele's work proves this. Also, when their was a "Gypsy" family camp at Auschwitz, families were allowed to remain together since the Rromani often fought to keep their children. The SS knew they were outmanned at Auschwitz and could not afford a riot. To keep the peace, they kept Rromani families together.

2. Mengele claimed color photography could not capture the colors he needed. Color photography should have been better than watercolors.

Answer: Color film, even Kodachrome, was not an exact science. Certain colors dominated the resulting picture while other colors were washed out. If Mengele were after specific colors and hues, color film would not have benefited him.

3. If the Holocaust did happen, as Auschwitz supposedly claims, then its survivors should be treated with respect. If Dina Babbitt was the creator of the watercolors, shouldn't Auschwitz show her the respect she deserves and return them to her? How can seven portraits be so important to the collection?

Answer: While I disagree with Auschwitz's claim on the portraits, I can understand their logic. From a historical context, everything at the Museum is critical to represent and educate visitors on the daily life in the camp. Also, the Museum has (I hope) spent a lot of money to ensure the paintings are protected and preserved, money that would be wasted if the paintings were to fall apart at the hands of a lesser experienced institution. I will point out here that it was Dina's wish that the paintings go on display at an American museum, so I would assume such a museum would have the necessary funding and resources to protect and preserve the watercolors. In short, the museum views these as artifacts, needed for educational use. If they were on display, I might have more sympathy for their argument.

While I fully support the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum as an institution for preserving not only the truth and history of the Holocaust, but the memory of those who were murdered there, I feel their handling of this case is sad and unreasonable.

Other Holocaust museums, including the United States Holocaust Memorial and Museum, have used replicas and recreations in their collections to maximize the experience and education of every visitor to their museums. Visitors understand that there are few objects remaining from the Holocaust and therefore they would be understanding and mindful if copies were used.

Auschwitz could easily return the paintings to their rightful owner and use replicas in place of the real ones. There is no need to victimize Dina a second time. Auschwitz, above all other institutions, should be more in tune to the needs and emotions of the survivors. I hope that Auschwitz will realize the damage they are doing and allow the paintings to be returned to the Babbitt family.

Dina Babbitt's paintings at Auschwitz

In doing further research into the case of Dina Babbitt, the artist who created the 7 watercolors of Rromani prisoners doomed to the gas chambers, I discovered a bizarre twist to the story. I'm sure others researchers have found this as well, but I was unaware of the attitude this case invoked in Holocaust deniers.

To give some background on the case, Dina Babbitt and her mother were prisoners at Auschwitz. When Mengele discovered she was an artist, he had her paint watercolors of 7 Rromani who were to be sent to the gas chambers. She kept them alive as long as she could, but when their portraits were finished, they were sent to their deaths. In 1973, Dina discovered the paintings still existed and she decided she wanted them back. Auschwitz refused, stating it would give precedent for other survivors to claim their property. A lawsuit began and in 2002 the Congress of the United States declared Dina Babbitt to be the rightful owners and implored the government of Poland to encourage Auschwitz-Birkenau to return the paintings. As of this writing, the paintings remain out of public view at Auschwitz-Birkenau. Dina Babbitt passed away in 2009 and her heirs continue her fight.

The paintings have had an awkward existence in Auschwitz. Many people believe the paintings should be kept at the museum in Jewish section, as the artist was Jewish. Others believe they should be kept in a "Gypsy" section of the museum, since that is the subject of the artwork and there is little surviving materials on the Rromani at Auschwitz.

Add the twist of the Holocaust deniers. They claim that the fact that Dina Babbitt wants her paintings back and Auschwitz's refusal is proof the Holocaust never happened. Their logic, flawed as usual, is still unsettling. They state that if the Holocaust did indeed happen, as Auschwitz claims, then Holocaust survivors should be respected and their wishes granted, since they are the witnesses to such an important event. Auschwitz's denial to hand over the paintings is proof, to them, that Auschwitz doesn't respect survivors, therefore it never happened.

Deniers also claim that Mengele would not have used paints to match a skin tone, he would have used photography. This aspect I can speak to. Mengele wanted the watercolors because he wanted their skin tones matched, something color photography may not have been able to do. A third generation photographer told me that back in the early 40's, certain colors were very difficult to capture. It is possible that Mengele didn't trust photography to get it right. Paints can be adjusted, but film colors couldn't. Sorry, skeptics, but Photoshop didn't exist back then.

This debate has been going on since 1973. A Holocaust survivor continued to be brutalized by Auschwitz long after the Nazis vacated the place. Auschwitz doesn't even have the paintings on display. Duplicates could be hung after the originals were returned to the family. It is high time they did the right thing after so many wrong things happened there and returned the paintings.