It never fails to amaze me that after all I've read on tis period in history I can still be shocked. This is shocked. I've read other Holocaust stories that mention the Treblinka revolt but none have come anywhere near the detail this has. That alone is a reason this is a must-read for anyone interested in the Holocaust.
I have a little trouble saying this because obviously I wasn't there and can hardly imagine any of the feelings, thoughts, etc. that would come with actually being there but I don't know that I agree with Steiner on some things. Actually, I can go so far as to say I think I disagree with him on a number of points.
I wish I had the time and inclination to detail those points but I don't so I'll have to be somewhar vague. I think Steiner *may* have looked too deeply into some things. I don't know if I believe that everything was so thought out. I'm not talking about things such as the building of the armory and the like, but the thinking that supposedly went into the breaking of the Jews. I'm more inclined to believe that the sadists of the bunch did what they wanted, saw what worked and didn't work and went from there.
Steiner goes very, very deep into some very "small" points and I think this is a great thing in certain respects. In others it's just the opposite IMO. With the "brain busters", the certificates and such, I doubt that so much thinking was behind it. IMO it was probably much more simple than that. "Hey, here's an idea, let's introduce this and scare the Jews while at the same time seperating them from each other." "Oh hey, that really worked, let's take it a few steps farther."
The "ostrich strategy", "face complex" and "forked sticks"? Same deal. I don't think the Germans, as organized and power hungry as they were, thought about it all in the manner Steiner implies. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm right, who knows. I can appreciate Steiner wanting to go into such detail and find a "reason" for every thing, no matter how "small" the detail. But sometimes this isn't possible and it felt like during those times Steiner refused to take that into account. So he mashed and molded until he got his "answer". Not being disrespectful in the least, I think Steiner was probably the master of "beating around the bush" and turning words around.
This is definitely a book that should be read by anyone interested in this period. I do think people should remember this is one mans "story" and one mans "words". Not everything can be taken as gospel and we were all given brains for a reason - use them.
There were about 1,000 prisoners in Treblinka at the time of the revolt. 600 managed to make it to the forest. All of the men who made up the Committee and according to the book, most of the prisoners who actually played a role in the revolt before reaching "safety". Of the 600 who managed to make it to the forest, only 40 were alive one year later. Twenty-two of those men lived in Israel in 1966. Over half. The rest were spread between a number of countries, the next highest concentration being five in the U.S.
Any book that tells of the Holocaust is hard to read. None of them are easy IMO. This is the same. The book isn't page after page after page of horrifying actions on the part of the Germans. Much of it is details of the planned (and sometimes failed) schemes and revolts by the Jews. Much of it is relationships between the Jews themselves and the Jews and the Germans.
There is a part in the book that tells of a high-ranking SS members wife getting on the wrong train. She got on a train filled with Jews bound for Treblinka. Apparently she wasn't too anxious about this fact and calmly got off the train when the Jews did. At Treblinka.
When she realized what was happening she lost her mind and starting screaming, telling Lalka that she was an SS's wife, etc. She and her two children were killed. No witnesses. That's the kind of story that stays with you I think. No witnesses.
I've said it before and I'll say it again - I wish I had my interest in the Holocaust before my grandparents died. I would have asked so many questions of them all, my grandfathers in particular.
I have a little trouble saying this because obviously I wasn't there and can hardly imagine any of the feelings, thoughts, etc. that would come with actually being there but I don't know that I agree with Steiner on some things. Actually, I can go so far as to say I think I disagree with him on a number of points.
I wish I had the time and inclination to detail those points but I don't so I'll have to be somewhar vague. I think Steiner *may* have looked too deeply into some things. I don't know if I believe that everything was so thought out. I'm not talking about things such as the building of the armory and the like, but the thinking that supposedly went into the breaking of the Jews. I'm more inclined to believe that the sadists of the bunch did what they wanted, saw what worked and didn't work and went from there.
Steiner goes very, very deep into some very "small" points and I think this is a great thing in certain respects. In others it's just the opposite IMO. With the "brain busters", the certificates and such, I doubt that so much thinking was behind it. IMO it was probably much more simple than that. "Hey, here's an idea, let's introduce this and scare the Jews while at the same time seperating them from each other." "Oh hey, that really worked, let's take it a few steps farther."
The "ostrich strategy", "face complex" and "forked sticks"? Same deal. I don't think the Germans, as organized and power hungry as they were, thought about it all in the manner Steiner implies. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm right, who knows. I can appreciate Steiner wanting to go into such detail and find a "reason" for every thing, no matter how "small" the detail. But sometimes this isn't possible and it felt like during those times Steiner refused to take that into account. So he mashed and molded until he got his "answer". Not being disrespectful in the least, I think Steiner was probably the master of "beating around the bush" and turning words around.
This is definitely a book that should be read by anyone interested in this period. I do think people should remember this is one mans "story" and one mans "words". Not everything can be taken as gospel and we were all given brains for a reason - use them.
There were about 1,000 prisoners in Treblinka at the time of the revolt. 600 managed to make it to the forest. All of the men who made up the Committee and according to the book, most of the prisoners who actually played a role in the revolt before reaching "safety". Of the 600 who managed to make it to the forest, only 40 were alive one year later. Twenty-two of those men lived in Israel in 1966. Over half. The rest were spread between a number of countries, the next highest concentration being five in the U.S.
Any book that tells of the Holocaust is hard to read. None of them are easy IMO. This is the same. The book isn't page after page after page of horrifying actions on the part of the Germans. Much of it is details of the planned (and sometimes failed) schemes and revolts by the Jews. Much of it is relationships between the Jews themselves and the Jews and the Germans.
There is a part in the book that tells of a high-ranking SS members wife getting on the wrong train. She got on a train filled with Jews bound for Treblinka. Apparently she wasn't too anxious about this fact and calmly got off the train when the Jews did. At Treblinka.
When she realized what was happening she lost her mind and starting screaming, telling Lalka that she was an SS's wife, etc. She and her two children were killed. No witnesses. That's the kind of story that stays with you I think. No witnesses.
I've said it before and I'll say it again - I wish I had my interest in the Holocaust before my grandparents died. I would have asked so many questions of them all, my grandfathers in particular.
It never fails to amaze me that after all I've read on tis period in history I can still be shocked. This is shocked. I've read other Holocaust stories that mention the Treblinka revolt but none have come anywhere near the detail this has. That alone is a reason this is a must-read for anyone interested in the Holocaust.
I have a little trouble saying this because obviously I wasn't there and can hardly imagine any of the feelings, thoughts, etc. that would come with actually being there but I don't know that I agree with Steiner on some things. Actually, I can go so far as to say I think I disagree with him on a number of points.
I wish I had the time and inclination to detail those points but I don't so I'll have to be somewhar vague. I think Steiner *may* have looked too deeply into some things. I don't know if I believe that everything was so thought out. I'm not talking about things such as the building of the armory and the like, but the thinking that supposedly went into the breaking of the Jews. I'm more inclined to believe that the sadists of the bunch did what they wanted, saw what worked and didn't work and went from there.
Steiner goes very, very deep into some very "small" points and I think this is a great thing in certain respects. In others it's just the opposite IMO. With the "brain busters", the certificates and such, I doubt that so much thinking was behind it. IMO it was probably much more simple than that. "Hey, here's an idea, let's introduce this and scare the Jews while at the same time seperating them from each other." "Oh hey, that really worked, let's take it a few steps farther."
The "ostrich strategy", "face complex" and "forked sticks"? Same deal. I don't think the Germans, as organized and power hungry as they were, thought about it all in the manner Steiner implies. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm right, who knows. I can appreciate Steiner wanting to go into such detail and find a "reason" for every thing, no matter how "small" the detail. But sometimes this isn't possible and it felt like during those times Steiner refused to take that into account. So he mashed and molded until he got his "answer". Not being disrespectful in the least, I think Steiner was probably the master of "beating around the bush" and turning words around.
This is definitely a book that should be read by anyone interested in this period. I do think people should remember this is one mans "story" and one mans "words". Not everything can be taken as gospel and we were all given brains for a reason - use them.
There were about 1,000 prisoners in Treblinka at the time of the revolt. 600 managed to make it to the forest. All of the men who made up the Committee and according to the book, most of the prisoners who actually played a role in the revolt before reaching "safety". Of the 600 who managed to make it to the forest, only 40 were alive one year later. Twenty-two of those men lived in Israel in 1966. Over half. The rest were spread between a number of countries, the next highest concentration being five in the U.S.
Any book that tells of the Holocaust is hard to read. None of them are easy IMO. This is the same. The book isn't page after page after page of horrifying actions on the part of the Germans. Much of it is details of the planned (and sometimes failed) schemes and revolts by the Jews. Much of it is relationships between the Jews themselves and the Jews and the Germans.
There is a part in the book that tells of a high-ranking SS members wife getting on the wrong train. She got on a train filled with Jews bound for Treblinka. Apparently she wasn't too anxious about this fact and calmly got off the train when the Jews did. At Treblinka.
When she realized what was happening she lost her mind and starting screaming, telling Lalka that she was an SS's wife, etc. She and her two children were killed. No witnesses. That's the kind of story that stays with you I think. No witnesses.
I've said it before and I'll say it again - I wish I had my interest in the Holocaust before my grandparents died. I would have asked so many questions of them all, my grandfathers in particular.
I have a little trouble saying this because obviously I wasn't there and can hardly imagine any of the feelings, thoughts, etc. that would come with actually being there but I don't know that I agree with Steiner on some things. Actually, I can go so far as to say I think I disagree with him on a number of points.
I wish I had the time and inclination to detail those points but I don't so I'll have to be somewhar vague. I think Steiner *may* have looked too deeply into some things. I don't know if I believe that everything was so thought out. I'm not talking about things such as the building of the armory and the like, but the thinking that supposedly went into the breaking of the Jews. I'm more inclined to believe that the sadists of the bunch did what they wanted, saw what worked and didn't work and went from there.
Steiner goes very, very deep into some very "small" points and I think this is a great thing in certain respects. In others it's just the opposite IMO. With the "brain busters", the certificates and such, I doubt that so much thinking was behind it. IMO it was probably much more simple than that. "Hey, here's an idea, let's introduce this and scare the Jews while at the same time seperating them from each other." "Oh hey, that really worked, let's take it a few steps farther."
The "ostrich strategy", "face complex" and "forked sticks"? Same deal. I don't think the Germans, as organized and power hungry as they were, thought about it all in the manner Steiner implies. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm right, who knows. I can appreciate Steiner wanting to go into such detail and find a "reason" for every thing, no matter how "small" the detail. But sometimes this isn't possible and it felt like during those times Steiner refused to take that into account. So he mashed and molded until he got his "answer". Not being disrespectful in the least, I think Steiner was probably the master of "beating around the bush" and turning words around.
This is definitely a book that should be read by anyone interested in this period. I do think people should remember this is one mans "story" and one mans "words". Not everything can be taken as gospel and we were all given brains for a reason - use them.
There were about 1,000 prisoners in Treblinka at the time of the revolt. 600 managed to make it to the forest. All of the men who made up the Committee and according to the book, most of the prisoners who actually played a role in the revolt before reaching "safety". Of the 600 who managed to make it to the forest, only 40 were alive one year later. Twenty-two of those men lived in Israel in 1966. Over half. The rest were spread between a number of countries, the next highest concentration being five in the U.S.
Any book that tells of the Holocaust is hard to read. None of them are easy IMO. This is the same. The book isn't page after page after page of horrifying actions on the part of the Germans. Much of it is details of the planned (and sometimes failed) schemes and revolts by the Jews. Much of it is relationships between the Jews themselves and the Jews and the Germans.
There is a part in the book that tells of a high-ranking SS members wife getting on the wrong train. She got on a train filled with Jews bound for Treblinka. Apparently she wasn't too anxious about this fact and calmly got off the train when the Jews did. At Treblinka.
When she realized what was happening she lost her mind and starting screaming, telling Lalka that she was an SS's wife, etc. She and her two children were killed. No witnesses. That's the kind of story that stays with you I think. No witnesses.
I've said it before and I'll say it again - I wish I had my interest in the Holocaust before my grandparents died. I would have asked so many questions of them all, my grandfathers in particular.
the unimaginable story of the concentration camp treblinka,from its
building to the uprising..amazingly, 600 prisoners escaped and 40
survived.
building to the uprising..amazingly, 600 prisoners escaped and 40
survived.
For all the horror, you are there, with the characters, understanding the need to survive.
