Herman Rosenblat received international attention for his tale about being a hungry little boy in a Nazi concentration camp who was thrown apples every day by a little girl named Roma, on the other side of the fence.

Years later, according to the story, Rosenblat met that same girl on a blind date in New York City and proposed to her on the spot.

The only problem was, Rosenblat's story, which he and his wife had been telling for 13 years, was a lie.

Six weeks ago Holocaust scholars proved that it was physically impossible for prisoners to approach the fence at the concentration camp where Herman was kept and that Roma's family was actually 200 miles away at the time.

Today, for the first time, Rosenblat spoke out in an exclusive interview with "Good Morning America" to share his side of the story.

"It wasn't a lie," he told "GMA." "It was my imagination. And in my imagination, in my mind, I believed it. Even now, I believe it, that she was there and she threw the apple to me. ... In my imagination, it was true."

Rosenblat said he told the story to give people hope and to promote understanding about the Holocaust. His wife went along with the story because, as Rosenblat said, she "loved" him.

But even Rosenblat's son said his real motivation was money.
"It was always hurtful," Rosenblat's son Ken Rosenblat told The New Republic. "My father is a man who I don't know. ... I didn't agree with it. I didn't want anything to do with it."

"I can't respond to it," Rosenblat said of his son's comments. "I don't know why he said that. Maybe I'll ask him."

ABC News: Exclusive: Holocaust Faker Speaks Out

I have noticed that some people focus what I believe to be an unwarranted amount of attention on the issue of "Is it a lie?"
For example, somebody says something blatantly false. Something that it would seem obvious that the original person stating the falsehood should (by assumed intelligence and cognizance) realize that the statement is false.

Along comes a poster who labels the statement as a "lie", and thus begins a multi-page saga on the issue of whether or not it is a "lie", while the absurdity of the claim and the indefensibility of the original speaker of the falsehood goes ignored.

Ergo, I start this thread. I am not certain if this is the right place for this, but it seems the best for the generic issue at hand, if people are interested.

In your opinions, Is this person lying?

My main interest is in the debating analysis of justification for the classification, but I guess all sorts of commentary may be evoked...

__________________
"Speak up; for he that withholds his opinion shall inherit the winds of tyranny"
*** www.politicalwrinkles.com
"Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution.
You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."
*** Jamie Raskin

It primarily is an untruth.

The fact is also that the teller KNEW it was an untruth despite his personal beliefs and wishes does make it a lie and him a liar.
If he didn't know this was a false story, I'd say he's not a liar.

Lies can be beneficial as he seems to desirer this one to be. But, they can also be detremental...just as this one is (to other people).
Benefit / detriment is in the eye of the beholder.

A related story would be the movie 'Jakob the Liar' starring Mork.


I think I get what you're trying to find out here.
We see this a lot in the arguements over whether Bush was lying for the Iraq war. Whether there is lying about knowing that god exists. Whether some statistic is quoted but later turns out to be false...


I'd state that in such arguments, you can state 'That is a lie' and then disprove it with known facts (in some cases) but, refrain from calling the other person a liar (which is an insult on their integrity) unless they later repeat such false statements.

For example, Jim states abortionist eat fetuses and post a picture of bigfoot with a doll in his hands as proof.
Bill then points out that that is false and shows where the picture actually came from and that the source Jim used was a biased web site.
Jim later continues to post the photo and make the same claims.

Jim is now a known liar.
A liar being (to me) someone who intentionally tells falsehoods.


That's my take on the subject.

Many people get things wrong all the time. Humans make mistakes.
Getting something wrong and making a mistake doesn't make you a liar.

__________________
-God couldn't be everywhere, that's why we have America.
-Use the Force...because prayer doesn't work.
-If I mock you on a forum board...and you're too stupid to know...are you really being mocked?
-Joseph of Nazareth said: "Healthy White baby, 5 year wait? What else you got?" to which the adoption agency replied "A Norse kid born with his heart on the outside. Hey, Zeus come 'er!"
-"The only way to win is not to pray." - WOPR

Technically, was a lie but a lil' white one. Until he used it to sell a book, that's what makes it more than just harmless. However, people tell them everyday and sometimes even believe them. With the bunk we're told by 'public' officials and the big, hurtful liars of the world, I'd be inclined to let this one slip...

__________________
-Computer $1500.00
-Monthly internet connection $35.00
-Monthly electricity bill $245.00
-Convincing a Socialist that incentive is the mother of motivation,

Priceless!

A lie is a lie. Especially when it appears that his motivation for lying was money. In that respect I am much more inclined to believe his son.

Exactly, it was a blatant misrepresentation of the facts which in his case were nonexistent. It was fiction passed off as fact. An opinion isn't a lie, it's an opinion. If a person states what is alleged to be a fact, but is shown to be inaccurate, even that isn't necessarily a lie unless they knowingly misrepresent what they know to be factual. But that is probably not possible to prove in this setting.

What this guy did was create a story out of whole cloth and even made his wife an accessory to it. That is the definition of a lie. And when you add to that, that he published it in a book, then he knowingly perpetrated an untruth for personal monetary gain.

While normally lies are not in okay, I agree with him to a point. The holocaust was horrible, and the camps worse. I obviously was not in one, but the accounts I've read were well researched. I know things have gotten so bad for me that I sort of locked myself inside. And my family never disappeared into death towers or went to work and never came home. So with these horrors and there was probably worse then I mentioned, I could see if he locked himself inside his imagination and thought his wife was a girl he imagined throwing him apples. So for him, it was probably very real.

There's much that occurred in concentration camps that is better left unspoken. For example, a jew could gain favors with the guards by acting cruely to their fellow jews. This is an area of unspoken truth.
(BTW, if you're so inclined, I suggest that you read "The Theory and Practice of Hell" a book written by a collection of concentration camp survivors after the war.)

__________________
"The problem with Socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people's money."
- Margaret Thatcher

"We had the machine scared and scrambling, and for them it is just the beginning of an election year filled with surprises. They will be challenged again and again across this country. When there's trouble in Massachusetts, there's trouble everywhere -- and now they know it." Senator Scott Brown (R MA)

If it was his imagination and he believed in it, let him believe in it....nothing wrong with it.....

If by calling something a 'lie' one implies intentional misrepresentation, does a lie cease being a lie if/when the teller becomes deluded and begins believing the tale?

No he is not lying. The father is quite a poetic person, and loves his wife and expresses his love in metaphor, becomes the metaphor. His wife nourished his soul. Made it possible for him to survive. He's always loved her, he's always known her, she's always been there for him throughout time.

The son is mad at his father about something else, and doesn't yet understand certain things that went on for his father, or who he is in another way. One day he will. The father will understand the son better too in some way. There's some kind of generation gap, but they'll work this out.

The news article is unkind. They should leave him alone with this very poignant memory and beautiful feelings for his wife. And stay out of the family's business.

------------------

In a word,
Never let go on these three things:
Faith, hope and love.
And know that the greatest of these
Will always be love

- The Bible

----------------------

Well he did not make his wife the subject of a locker room conversation did he. Published on the internet no less. That's the definition of a number of things not complimentary to a guy's manhood. He also does not make up stories about other women. Now that really shows a guy who's not a man IMO. No guts. Doesn't have a speck of the courage, integrity and love inside that this man does. Probably would bother him a lot too. Deep down inside himself. Knowing that he's a guy without balls or character.

You wrote this post in response to an opinion I gave above Mintaka, so please explain the meaning of your post if you can. Because I don't understand it at all. Are you implying that I made my wife the subject of a locker room conversation? Published on the internet, no less?

I challenge you to prove the allegation as you say it applies to me with real and accurate evidence, or retract it as dishonest libel and a slanderous lie.

Try to stick to the issue even though your brain is not swift. Don't you think a guy's completely dickless if (1) he makes his wife the subject of a locker room conversation? Published on the internet no less? And (2) spreads stories about other women? Which (3) make his opinions on honesty and lying completely worthless? Yet (4) illuminate just how lowly he must feel himself to be, deep down inside, and especially when he sees the courage and dignity of another man, whose balls he will never possess? And (5) explain why he is such dishonest person himself?

My only question for you is why did you quote my post before posting your opinion which evidently agrees with me that he lied? And where are you getting this locker room conversation drivel from? I read the posted article and this is the relevant part that I see, and it says nothing about the gutter aspect you try to inject into it, see?

Before he was exposed, Rosenblat sold his memoir, "Angel at the Fence," to Berkley Books; the publishing company's deal was later canceled.

A children's book called "Angel Girl" was published in September, but was also pulled by its publishing company.

Nevertheless, a reported $25 million film version of the fictional story called "Flower of the Fence" is going to proceed.

Only that it was pure fiction and never actually happened. So when you quoted me and interjected that someone made their wife the subject of locker room conversation, I assumed you were making some slanderous accusation about me and wanted clarification, rightfully so.

Please quote the posted article to show this gutter talk you speak of which degrades his wife, if you can. From what I see, his wife participated in the massive deception which allowed him to spread the lie so effectively. So explain and clarify what issue I am missing because my brain is not swift if you can. Or is it your brain which is so clouded that you can't get even the simplest story right?

I see that your brain is so clouded you cannot answer the questions posed to you about the dicklessness of the man who (1) publishes locker room talk about his wife on the internet and (2) makes up stories about other women and (3) the psychological conclusions we can draw about such a dickless wonder such as (4) how he must feel about himself deep inside when he sees another man who has real character and balls. It must bother him to no end seeing what he will never have. And just imagine. The other man is also a Jew. That must really bother him.