Monday, March 2, 2009

Ken Waltzer's Essay is Back on HNN Despite Harris Salomon's Best Efforts

History News Network has posted Ken Waltzer's essay on Herman Rosenblat despite Harris Salomon's efforts to keep it off HNN. HNN's editors have also posted a response to Harris Salomon's complaints.
Posted by at
Labels:

3 comments:

Unknown said...

Reply to Ken Waltzer
by harris salomon on March 2, 2009 on the HNN comment section:

"this is harris salomon the president of atlantic overseas pictures. our company has drafted a reply to mr. waltzer's commentary that will be printed on HNN shortly.

in the meantime, mr. waltzer should be ashamed of himself for stating that holocaust survivor herman rosenblat told an untrue story about his wartime experience for money. it is simply untrue and unsubstantiated.

In a previous edition of this article waltzer made a similar statement about me and my company. After we accused him of slander he retracted the statement and HNN apologized for printing it. we are still waiting for an apology from mr. waltzer.

in light of waltzer's renewed accusation of mr. rosenblat being motovated by money we believe he is due one as well."

[He ..he being harris salomon.....apparently refuses to call Dr Waltzer by his PHD moniker of Dr. Waltzer, instead referring to Ken only as mr waltzer......]

March 02, 2009 6:34 AM
Unknown said...

Sharon Sergeant also adds a comment at the HNN website following Swallowman's PR release and she says among other things:

"Mr. Salomon,

"....your own statements and press releases since 2003 have focussed on the millions of dollars involved.

After years of pegging the budget for the film "The Flower of the Fence" at $12 million dollars in your own statements, that figure more than doubled to $25 million (again in your own statements) when the truth was revealed."

NOTE TO DR SERGEANT: A budget is one thing, money in the bank is another. Mr Swallowman never had money in the bank for his movie, he never had 12 mil and he does not have 25 mil now. Anyone can put out a press release and say they have a movie idea and a planned budget set up. That does not mean they have real investors with real money already deposited in the movie company's coffers. In fact, Swallowman has no money for his "movie" and it will never get made. How do I know? Say a little birdie whispered to me in Hollywood, people who know him, people who can vouch for his pathology of lying. THAT is what you should have written, Dr Sergeant!

March 02, 2009 10:28 PM
Unknown said...

Harris Salomon is an embarassment. It is time to start ignoring his mishigosh. He wouldn't know truth if it sat on his nose.

Herman Rosenblat did a Spielberg tape in January 1995. On that tape, he mentioned nothing about an angel at the fence. He didn't mention anything because the story did not yet exist. Then in November he invented the story for a newspaper contest and in February 1996 he broadcast it far and wide on the Oprah Winfrey Show.

If Herman's story was the consequence of survivor confusion or memory difficulty, why then was his memory clear in January 1995? No, he invented and broadcast the story to win attention, and then he continued with the story because it made him feel important and there were financial benefits to come from the story. It was published here and there in several collections and journals. It was to be made into a movie. It was to be made into a memoir, a child's story, and more. It was a little industry. It was his post-retirement industry.

I admit I once thought maybe there was some burden of survivor memory and even a double trauma of the shooting and maybe Herman just really was confused. That is, I thought in this way ntil the time line became clarified and I learned some other things about Herman -- all matters of public record.

Who says this? Several family members say he did it for attention and financial benefit or because it made him feel important.
My count is three family members saying these things to me. Several fellow survivors say these things as well -- from Piotrkow, from Schlieben, from the group of boys that went to England. Sidney Finkel who was with him the night before he went on Oprah says he and Roma behaved as if they were doing a theater act. Gradually, the play became the real thing. Other survivors who knew his brother say they were appalled by the storytelling and knew how upset his brother Sam was. Even former neighbors have written to thank me for the insights I have provided and to tell me lots more. My count of fellow survivors, former neighbors, and so on is up to six. How many sources and commentaries does one need?

Harris Salomon continues to behave shamelessly defending the indefensible. He has no purchase on the truth. Remember -- he was someone who insisted -- INSISTED --
in the face of contrary evidence that the story was a true story (also a miracle). He continues even now to have a financial stake in making his fiction movie, so much time committed, so much energy involved. He has embarassed himself repeatedly, attacking historians who work seriously to address the past -- substituting instead his own dim views and demeaning those of others. He is without a gyroscope of standards. He is without a clue.

Go away, Salomon, Good luck with your movie. Apparently, you have plans for a rollout at Cannes. Unfortunately, the grey cloud that hangs over this whole affair, which you helped put there, will likely follow wherever you take your cultural product.

KW

March 04, 2009 10:49 AM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)