Email communications between Süddeutsche Zeitung (SZ) and
Tuvia Tenenbom
(Per Press Release earlier today to German media)
From: The JTNY <thejtny@aol.com>
To: Andrian.Kreye <Andrian.Kreye@sueddeutsche.de>
Cc: Thomas.Steinfeld <Thomas.Steinfeld@sueddeutsche.de>
Sent: Tue, Jul 31, 2012 5:26 pm
Subject: From Tuvia Tenenbom
New York, NY
July 31, 2012
Dear Mr. Andrian Kreye,
Feuilletonchef, Süddeutsche Zeitung,
Germany
I read Malte Herwig's article in your paper
(July 30, 2012), and am amazed at the lack of proper journalistic standards
exhibited in it. The article boasts selective quoting, half-truths,
one-sidedness and is full of grossly misleading techniques.
Let me start with one glaring example of
selective quoting.
The article quotes from the book thusly: "I
hate the Germans. Hate them, their big masks, their endless discussions,
their constant preaching, their implicit or explicit Jew hating, their
lack of spine..."
Not only is this selective, it is also
misleading.
The quoted section intentionally misses the
start of the paragraph in "I Sleep in Hitler's Room: An American Jew
Visits Germany." This is how the paragraph actually starts: "It is on
this day ... that hate enters me." It was a reaction to what I've
experienced on a particular moment. Some pages later on I write: "Thank
God that Germany exists," and I end the book with telling Germany:
"I love you, child."
Yet, the above-quoted sentence in the article
obviously intends to present me as bombastic anti-German bigot, and to present
an overall negative picture of the book. And even when Malte later writes
that I leave Germany with mixed feelings, his out-of-context harsh quote rings
louder than thunder.
The article also thrives hard to portray me as a
sneaky man bound to snare innocent people, a la Sasha Cohen, "in order to
coax out of the interviewees frightening anti-Semitic statements."
Really?
This accusation, basically a slander, reveals
ulterior motives on the part of the writer. For years – and this is on record –
I've fought hard against those who accused Germany of anti-Semitism. I said:
Let the past be the past, and let never accuse the grandchildren for their
grandparents' sins.
It would be the utmost ridiculous action on my
part to try to prove that I was wrong for years...
The naked truth is this: It was hard for me to
witness the anti-Semitism during my stay in Germany; it flew in the face of
everything I hoped for. It hurt. It is still hurting. It is still painful. And
very much!
Does Malte understand? Does he even care?
His attempt to present a complex, multi-layered
book as a bigoted ranting is hugely regrettable.
The same goes for the article's claim that in
the book I describe Germany as a "somber place full of Nazis and
anti-Semites." In reality, for the most part the book is actually the
opposite of somber, as many of its critics and readers have emphasized
since the book's publication last year.
Did Mr. Herwig actually read the book, or did he
just leaf through it?
I wonder.
"The Jew Tenenbom," the article goes
on to say, "met almost every weirdo in Germany: Anarchists, neo-Nazis,
soccer fans, Jews, Christians, Turks and Kai Diekmann."
I beg to differ.
To start with, I really don't like to be called
"The Jew." I find it offensive and belittling.
But let's leave that for the moment, and concentrate
instead on the 'facts' of that assertion.
The interesting collection of characters cited
therein is nothing but a cheap trickery designed to put down the book, since
the mentioned characters are naturally not SZ's readers' favorites.
Conveniently, of course, the aforementioned
list neglects to mention that the book contains chats and interviews with many
other people, such as former chancellor, Helmut Schmidt (an icon in
today's Germany), Zeit's chief editor Giovanni di Lorenzo, leading artists
and business leaders, gifted high school students, various
politicians -- or the directors of Buchenwald Concentration Camp, for example,
who spend their time engaging in anti-Israel activities. Or, how about my
finding that one of the most powerful in German media, WDR, has for years been
engaged in critical support of fanatic, extremist anti-Israel activists (who,
in this case, also happened to be classic anti-Semites).
Those are not weirdos. They are the real people.
No mention of any of them.
It is interesting to notice that in the course
of the article's engagement in sub-standard smear campaign, the
book is not even deserving of the title "book."
"He published his text as an e-Book on the
American Amazon site," the article states.
Really? Since when is Amazon a publisher? And of
"texts"??
"I Sleep in Hitler's Room" was
published by The Jewish Theater of New York and is not just an eBook. It
is available as a paperback, as well as an eBook. The eBook version is
available on the iBook store, Nook, Kindle and many others. The paperback
version is available via Nook, Amazon, The Jewish Theater of New York, and
various other sellers – including Amazon.de.
The book -- yes, book -- has also been reviewed
by various critics in the USA and abroad, winning admirable praise
and notices. And some of them even went at length to praise this
book as brilliantly humorous, despite the heavy issues it raises; not
"somber," mind you. (Samples available at the link above.)
Malte’s article, of course, chooses not to
mention any of the above. After all, it's just "text."
And this is not the end.
This small article of Malte somehow manages
to be packed with big lies; a wonder of journalism not seen even at the
now-defunct NoW.
And it all starts from the top. While the
article mentions my theatrical credits it -- how conveniently -- fails to
mention that I'm also a journalist. This, obviously, would not jibe well with
the picture the article is attempting to portray of The Jew Tenenbom.
"There is no evidence for censorship,"
your journalist writes.
Really?
Just prior to the article's publication, Mr.
Malte Herwig sent me an email asking that I prove censorship. I
responded to him on the same day, giving him a list of just such instances. I
know he read my email, as he quotes from it the most 'bombastic' line he
could find (Herrenmensch…), but he certainly didn't look into any of the
samples that I provided to him. He didn't want to know facts; all he wanted was
another 'bombastic' line he could take out of context.
Is this proper journalism?
Not one that I'm aware of, and not the one SZ is
known for.
I don’t know what were Malte’s intentions when
writing what he did, but I will note here the following: At the same time
that the article is mercilessly slandering me, it keeps busy clearing up the
name of Alexander Fest, the head of Rowohlt.
And here again, no respect is given to the
truth.
Alexander Fest is presented as a champion of
Germany's "Personal Rights" laws, and the article goes on to claim
that your journalist had read the correspondence between
Fest/Rowohlt and me.
Here I have two questions:
a.) How come that I was never asked for
that correspondence? Shouldn't both sides be asked for
documents? Maybe, just maybe, The Jew Tenenbom has some emails/letters
that were not given to Malte by Fest? What happened to fairness?
b.) Did it ever occur to Malte that his
Personal Rights warrior, Mr. Fest, should have had my
permission prior to submitting personal emails, especially to a
newspaper? How come the article gives clean slate to such an improper
behavior?
As for me, I have nothing to hide. Alexander
Fest is going around sending journalists our personal emails; I'll do the same.
And I will not be selective. In due course I plan to publish ALL the emails
between us, for all to see; not just journalists. Let the public decide.
Yet, the article clings to the Personal Right
issue.
"She informed Rowohlt," the article
states as it lays down a Personal Rights issue with one female interviewee,
"that she didn't give consent" that the interview with her be
published and "thereupon Rowohlt" asked for legal advice.
No. The person in question, from one of the more
famous German political families (Gabriele Gysi), called me a day after my
interview with her, saying that she regrets what she said the day prior and
doesn't want people to know of her desire that North Korea win a certain soccer
match... I duly informed Rowohlt of this phone call and asked for their
advice.
Yes. I am the one who started the Personal
Rights ball rolling; I wanted to make sure that everything we do is totally
legal in Germany.
Notwithstanding, there was one thing I tried
hard to make sure of: I was determined not to allow any misuse of
"Personal Rights" designed to cover up various anti-Semites, as
Alexander Fest was attempting to do.
This does not mean that I wished to ignore or
overrule Germany’s laws. Quite the opposite. Fact is: in order to prevent
any unnecessary fights with Rowohlt and escalate an issue that might
be otherwise solved, I asked Rowohlt to arrange a meeting for me with
their lawyer. I made it clear to them that I would abide by whatever THEIR lawyer
decides. Rowohlt declined the offer.
Your journalist knows this, but he has
chosen to help Rowohlt in the cover up.
Let's move on.
Your article states that I "obviously did
not in every case inform (my) interviewees that (I) was interviewing
them for a book."
Where is this unfounded accusation coming
from?
The only interview I made in which I did not
mention the fact that I was writing a book, and that whatever I'm told might
appear in that book, was at a neo-Nazi hangout by the name of Club 88. 88, as
you know, stands for HH: Heil Hitler. Club 88 preaches for the killing of all
living Jews, even today. Should I, perhaps, have introduced myself as one of
the doomed?
It is this chapter, about Club 88, that Mr. Fest
fought the hardest to eliminate from the book. Initially he claimed that the
Personal Rights of the Club’s owner made it impossible for the chapter to be
included. After this issue was cleared, per the lawyers, he raged against the
very idea that a neo-Nazi club be included. Reason? The German readers are not
interested in such stories.
Yes.
Let me add here one more point regarding
Germany's Personal Rights law and this book:
After Rowohlt refused me the chance to speak
with their lawyer, I engaged other German lawyers on my own, laying in front of
them all the bare facts about the various interviews I conducted. They all
opined that "according to German law" I fully kept within the
Personal Rights law's obligations.
Your article's claim that what happened between
Rowohlt and myself is like a clash between "two trains, that
of American liberalism and that of German scrupulousness," is 100%
incorrect.
The article also states that: "SZ retains
the correspondence between author and publisher." Did I ever give Malte,
or anyone at SZ, the right to retain any of my personal emails written to other
people?
This is also a Personal Rights issue.
Interestingly, despite the article's
self-righteous preaching for Personal Rights of interviews, it brazenly never
even dreams to abide by any of them. Isn’t this a classic hypocrisy?
As for your article's dealing with two outside
'trusted editors' hired by Rowohlt, I find it totally outrageous. One of those
mavens, Mr. Martin Bauer, blames anti-Semitism in Germany on the poor, the
Turks, Kurds, Iranians and Palestinians. Any other research to the
contrary bothers him not. Then, after blaming the foreigners, this righteous
man rages against the book:
"'Stop it,
this is disgusting," he begs for help.
Martin is obviously a very learned, never
one-sided, man.
Then there is the other maven, as yet an
un-named female that your article treats with the softest of gloves one
would encounter in present-day journalism of the West. Suffice it to mention
here what she claims: I am a "Jewish hysteric" like the
"patron saint of all of them, Woody Allen."
"Them," meaning the Jews.
I find her comment, and your dealing of it,
beyond explanation.
There are more inaccuracies, fiction and lies in
this little article (such as the telling of how the contract with Rowohlt was
terminated), but I shall stop here.
I ask you, in the name of fairness, that your
paper publish my response.
Thankfully yours,
Tuvia Tenenbom
www.JewishTheater.org
212-494-0050
_____
From: Kreye, Andrian <andrian.kreye@sueddeutsche.de>
To: 'thejtny@aol.com' <thejtny@aol.com>
Cc: Steinfeld, Thomas <thomas.steinfeld@sueddeutsche.de>
Sent: Wed, Aug 1, 2012 6:35 am
Subject: AW: From Tuvia Tenenbom
Dear Mr. Tenenbom
Those are indeed quite a lot of points against Malte Herwig’s
text. To decide about the publication of your letter we of course will confront
the author with your letter and ask for explanations. We will be in touch
hopefully very soon.
With best regards
Andrian Kreye
SÜDDEUTSCHE ZEITUNG GMBH
Redaktion Feuilleton
Ressortleitung
Hultschiner Straße 8 - 81677 München
T.: +49-89-2183-9768
F.: +49-89-2183-8475
andrian.kreye@sueddeutsche.de
Sitz der Gesellschaft: München · Eingetragen beim Amtsgericht München
HRB 73315 · USt-IDNR.: DE 811158310
Geschäftsführer: Dr. Detlef Haaks, Dr. Richard Rebmann, Dr. Karl Ulrich
Von: Steinfeld,
Thomas
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 1. August 2012 12:27
An: Kreye, Andrian
Betreff: WG: From Tuvia Tenenbom
_____
From: The JTNY <thejtny@aol.com>
To: andrian.kreye <andrian.kreye@sueddeutsche.de>
Cc: thomas.steinfeld <thomas.steinfeld@sueddeutsche.de>
Sent: Fri, Aug 3, 2012 1:10 pm
Subject: Re: From Tuvia Tenenbom
Dear Mr. Andrian Kreye,
As the wheels of Mr. Malte Herwig's slander keep rolling and
multiplying -- even in Italy, as I just found out (adding their own shitck in
the process, of course) -- I would like to ask you for your response to
my request. I don't think, Mr. Kreye, that I should quietly sit down and accept
the blows.
If media reports are correct ("if," since I'm the last
to carelessly quote others) and Malte indeed had threatened a lawsuit
against nachrichten.at, demanding they withdraw a
review of his work, he should not be surprised that same is requested of his
article.
Btw: I did wonder why Malte ascribes a sentence from my email to
the Preface of the book, which is pure sloppiness. But a quick look into his
Twitter account reveals a probable answer: On the day I sent him my reply,
about which it should have taken him tremendous amount of time to either verify
or disproof its content, Dr. Malte was busy reading newspapers and tweeting the
world about them...
This email is sent you per instructions of your office, and Mr.
Thomas Steinfeld's comments that you are the one to deal with this matter.
I am looking forward to your reply,
Most kindly,
Tuvia Tenenbom
www.JewishTheater.org
212-494-0050
_____
From: Kreye, Andrian <andrian.kreye@sueddeutsche.de>
To: 'thejtny@aol.com' <thejtny@aol.com>
Cc: Steinfeld, Thomas <thomas.steinfeld@sueddeutsche.de>
Sent: Sun, Aug 5, 2012 9:59 am
Subject: AW: Re: From Tuvia Tenenbom
Dear Mr. Tenenbom
Since running your countertext would be a recanting of Malte Herwig's story,
and since Mr. Herwig has also provided us with rather compelling research
material and sources, this is not a mere editorial decision anymore, but a
legal matter. Our legal department is looking into this the beginning of the
week and will let us know, how we will proceed.
With best regards
Andrian Kreye
SÜDDEUTSCHE ZEITUNG GMBH
Redaktion Feuilleton
Ressortleitung
Hultschiner Straße 8 -
81677 München
T.:
+49-89-2183-9768
F.:
+49-89-2183-8475
andrian.kreye@sueddeutsche.de
Sitz der Gesellschaft:
München · Eingetragen beim Amtsgericht München
HRB 73315 · USt-IDNR.:
DE 811158310
Geschäftsführer: Dr. Detlef Haaks, Dr. Richard Rebmann, Dr. Karl
Ulrich
_____
-----Original
Message-----
From: Tuvia Tenenbom <TheJTNY@aol.com>
To: Kreye, Andrian <andrian.kreye@sueddeutsche.de>
Cc: thomas.steinfeld <thomas.steinfeld@sueddeutsche.de>;
Tuvia Tenenbom <newyorkpress@me.com>
Sent: Sun, Aug 5, 2012 11:21 pm
Subject: Re: AW: Re: From Tuvia Tenenbom
Dear Mr. Kreye,
Thank you for your email.
In reply:
-- Had Mr. Malte written an opinion page or review I wouldn't
contest his article. From the start this was, and is, about facts. This article
is about facts, and his facts are wrong and false--and I can prove each of his
accusations and 'facts' as such. It is, mildly said, an assassination of
character. I have laid out, in my emails to you, point by point black on white.
I do therefore wonder, and I would be thankful if you could share with me, the
"compelling" evidence that he has.
-- Does he now claim that he didn't cut corners in his quotes, or
that quoted out of context? If so, can't this be asserted in minutes or do we
really need a lawyer to help us read?
-- Does Malte really have a proof that I coaxed out of people
horrific racist statements a la Sasha Baron? Am I standing accused, for
instance, that I entered Helmut Schmidt's office dressed as a Kazakhstani,
stormed into Kai Diekmann's announcing I'm a Kurd refugee, or entered the main
mosque in Germany claiming that I'm an African-American? Even if I did, as long
as I say that I'm a journalist, writing a book for a German publisher, it would
still be kosher... (I'm staying today at the house of a world renown American
artist in Upstate NY, and he can't stop laughing: "What are they trying to
accuse you of, that you manipulated people? Try manipulating me into admitting
that I'm crack addict and you'll never succeed. You know why? Because I'm
not...")
-- Malte asserts that I did not follow the Personal Rights laws of
Germany. Is he lawyer?
-- Perhaps Malte now claims that he had joined me for months and
months and 'witnessed' my illegal 'tricks'?
-- Can Malte really prove what he asserts, as fact, in his article
that Fest/Rowohlt did not censor me -- when everybody else who read those
changes will testify otherwise? I sent him, per his request, some samples; if
you wish that I email it to you as well I will of course gladly do so.
I'm going to stop here and not list any more of the points that I
have raised in my correspondence with you, as you them already, but I will
appreciate your sharing with me Malte's compelling evidence.
Most sincerely,
Tuvia Tenenbom
Sent from my iPad
_____
-----Original Message-----
From: The JTNY <thejtny@aol.com>
To: andrian.kreye <andrian.kreye@sueddeutsche.de>
Cc: thomas.steinfeld <thomas.steinfeld@sueddeutsche.de>; newyorkpress
<newyorkpress@me.com>
Sent: Wed, Aug 8, 2012 10:42 pm
Subject: Re: From Tuvia Tenenbom
Dear Mr. Andrian Kreye,
Now that the beginning of the week is over, I wonder what's new.
Will be great if you could fill me in.
I remain,
Tuvia Tenenbom
www.JewishTheatre.org
212.494.0050
_____
From: Kreye, Andrian <andrian.kreye@sueddeutsche.de>
To: The JTNY <thejtny@aol.com>
Cc: Gericke, Andreas <andreas.gericke@sueddeutscher-verlag.de>;
Steinfeld, Thomas <thomas.steinfeld@sueddeutsche.de>; Herwig, Malte
<malte.herwig@googlemail.com>
Sent: Fri, Aug 10, 2012 5:29 am
Subject: AW: From Tuvia Tenenbom
Dear Mr. Tenenbom,
Thanks again for providing us with detailed points of complaint about Mr.
Herwig’s text. We now thoroughly checked your claims from both the editorial
and the legal side. We do understand that and why you might not agree with the
story. Still, after reading through the story, your letters and Mr. Herwig’s
background material he provided, we do not see a reason to recant or correct
the story.
The story is a balanced report about a unique conflict in the German publishing
world. Metaphors and opinions expressed by Mr. Herwig are not libelous, but his
personal views very much within the limits of common decency. Facts are correct
and backed by sources and source material.
Specifically about a few points you make:
- The quote about your hate for Germany in
Mr. Herwig’s text has not been cut and/or distorted.
- Mr. Herwig neither relied on just one
source nor did he base his article on the gripes of one person. He just
mentions that one person has been upset. Other persons are in the source
material he used.
- The mail correspondence between you and
the publisher has not been quoted, but sources, which is very much so in the
legal framework. The wording of any correspondence is protected. To source
correspondence and to mention that copies of the original material were sourced
by the Süddeutsche Zeitung is standard journalistic procedure.
While this might not satisfy your wishes this is the situation as it presents
itself to us.
With best regards,
Sincerely
Andrian Kreye
SÜDDEUTSCHE
ZEITUNG GMBH
Redaktion
Feuilleton
Ressortleitung
Hultschiner
Straße 8 - 81677 München
T.:
+49-89-2183-9768
F.:
+49-89-2183-8475
andrian.kreye@sueddeutsche.de
Sitz
der Gesellschaft: München · Eingetragen beim Amtsgericht München
HRB
73315 · USt-IDNR.: DE 811158310
Geschäftsführer: Dr. Detlef Haaks, Dr. Richard Rebmann, Dr. Karl
Ulrich
_____
From: The JTNY <thejtny@aol.com>
To: andrian.kreye <andrian.kreye@sueddeutsche.de>
Cc: andreas.gericke <andreas.gericke@sueddeutscher-verlag.de>;
thomas.steinfeld <thomas.steinfeld@sueddeutsche.de>; malte.herwig
<malte.herwig@googlemail.com>
Sent: Mon, Aug 13, 2012 1:52 am
Subject: Re: From Tuvia Tenenbom
Dear Mr Andrian Kreye,
You choose to mention just a small portion of my claims,
conveniently ignoring the others.
Let me respond to the three points that you do argue which,
honestly speaking, evade my sense of logic, justice and point to a magnified
lack of seriousness on your part.
To explain:
-- Did I ever say that the quote was "distorted" in and
by itself? I said: Taken out of context by choosing to start a quote by means
of 'cutting' the beginning of paragraph, giving another meaning to the quoted
part, in addition to the failure of mentioning opposite quotes. This of course
was designed for one end: Present "The Jew Tenenbom" as a German
hater.
And, in this sense, it is indeed "cut."
Does it serve Malte's mission of "distorting" the
book/me? Definitely.
I would, in all honesty, expect a person of your stature and
position in culture and literature to fully understand it.
Why you choose to act like a man who has no clue about letters
evades me.
-- About your arguments re "gripes" and "other
persons" being upset:
Mr Kreye: Did I ever assert that others won't have gripes besides
Gysi?
I did not, nor will I. Of the people I interviewed, those who
uttered horrific anti-Semitic lines or some other elevated stupidities, will
most likely deny they said what they did.
In fact even Mr. Alexander Fest, when we were still on good terms,
said to me: If we send the interviews to the people, not one will admit.
How right he was. These days he tells a German reporter that he
deeply loves me.
Yes...
Sadly, the 'I never did, never saw, never said' is not a new
phenomenon in the annuls of German/Jewish relations of modern time.
Without question or one iota of hesitation, I'll gladly face any
denier in court.
-- As for the correspondence between Rowohlt/Fest and
me:
Here again, you fail in your response. How come, I would like to
know, that I was never asked to supply emails? How come that a newspaper such
as SZ asks only one side to a dispute to supply emails and not the other? Is it
because Mr Fest is the Honest German, a man who can never lie, whereas I am
"The Jew Tenenbom", a man who can't supply truth by the very virtue
and essence of his Jewish nature?
I wonder.
In general it does seem to me that you try to dismiss me, by the
fastest means you can only muster, without giving any weight to my words and
claims. You don't even bother to go point by point. Too much work, I guess.
Why, Mr. Kreye?
As for your other point, about expressing opinion: I never
questioned Malte's right to express his opinion, and as far as I am concerned
he can talk about his theories of German publishers to his heart's content.
This is not, and never was, the issue.
The article, to put it straight, is slanderous against both the
book and me.
I understand that you would like to protect Malte -- you're
probably on friendly terms with him. I do also understand that in the dispute
between Rowohlt and me you have sufficient reasons to stand by them, a
financial giant, since your paper benefits from their advertisements. In fact
the article, when first published, was graced by an advertisement from Rowohlt
(pic attached). It was striking to see it indeed, as it was brazen and lacking
in decency -- though I'm sure you'll find an excuse why this happened.
All the above stated, I still try to to reason with you, Mr.
Kreye, because I still want to believe that honesty can prevail over ties and
lies, and that truth can win sales.
We will see.
Of course, since you have chosen not to refute my other claims, I
won't repeat them herein. You have them in my previous emails.
And they stay in evidence.
Speaking of German law, as it relates to our issue, here it is as
I have it:
"Die Gegendarstellung muss durch den Betroffenen schriftlich
verlangt und persönlich unterzeichnet werden und in engem zeitlichen
Zusammenhang mit der beanstandeten Berichterstattung verlangt werden, das sind
maximal ca. drei Monate bei Presseerzeugnissen, ca. zwei Monate im Rundfunk.
Die Gegendarstellung sollte nicht umfangreicher sein, als die ursprüngliche
beanstandete Berichterstattung.
Die Zeitung, die Rundfunkanstalt oder der Internetanbieter ist
verpflichtet, die Gegendarstellung unverzüglich in der nächsterreichbaren
Ausgabe des Mediums an derselben Stelle und in derselben Aufmachung zu
veröffentlichen wie der beanstandete Artikel, ggf. auch auf der Titelseite
(Grundsatz der Waffengleichheit). Es ist jedoch zulässig, einen sogenannten
Redaktionsschwanz anzuhängen, in dem das Medium sich z. B. vom Inhalt der
Gegendarstellung distanziert.
Für die Gegendarstellung ist es ohne Bedeutung, ob die
beanstandete Tatsachenbehauptung wahr oder falsch war. Wer den
Anspruch auf Gegendarstellung geltend macht, muss aber selbst durch die
Tatsachenbehauptung betroffen sein und ein berechtigtes Interesse geltend
machen. Ein berechtigtes Interesse fehlt z. B., wenn die Gegendarstellung
offenkundig unwahr oder inhaltlich völlig belanglos ist.
Wenn das Medium die Gegendarstellung verweigert, kann der
Betroffene sie analog §§ 935 ff. ZPO nach den
Vorschriften für eine einstweilige Verfügung vor
einem Zivilgericht erzwingen. Dabei müssen weder die Dringlichkeit
noch der Wahrheitsgehalt glaubhaft gemacht werden."
In short: I dully request, and do hereby demand as per my legal
right, that your paper publish my response; either the one I first emailed or
an article by me about the book's findings and related issues, without directly
mentioning Mr. Malte's article. I will settle for the latter, as this is not
about Malte per se, provided that SZ publishes my article upon submission.
I await your reply.
Should you decide that slandering The Jew Tenenbom is not worthy
the trouble of publishing his response I will, for the sake of truth and the
issues at stake, make our correspondence public.
I will also consider making public the correspondence between
Malte and me. I think it could serve, for generations to come, as a study case
of how a journalist, for such an esteemed publication as the SZ, can warp
reality in order to serve his own agenda - and the editors will stand by him no
matter what. Of the long, long email I wrote him, with equally long list of
arguments, he chooses to quote one half of a line that he finds funny (I
guess), and even then he attributes it to another source.
In addition, I will consider legal actions against SZ.
I do not plan to keep on writing to you for eternity -- this is
already schlepping for too long -- and I do hope that sense and justice will
finally prevail.
Let me hear your thoughts.
Kindly yours,
Tuvia Tenenbom
www.JewishTheater.org
212-494-0050
_____
From: Kreye, Andrian <andrian.kreye@sueddeutsche.de>
To: 'thejtny@aol.com' <thejtny@aol.com>
Sent: Mon, Aug 13, 2012 3:08 pm
Subject: AW: Re: From Tuvia Tenenbom
Dear Mr. Tenenbom,
Despite your right to be unhappy with the story, our legal department confirmed
once more - there are no legal grounds for a "Gegendarstellung". All
facts and opinions are within the normal realms of journalism and it's rules,
regulations and laws.
On the other hand the publication of verbatim correspondence (as you threaten
to) is not, unless you have the consent of all corresponding parties.
With best regards
Andrian Kreye
SÜDDEUTSCHE ZEITUNG GMBH
Redaktion Feuilleton
Ressortleitung
Hultschiner Straße 8 -
81677 München
T.:
+49-89-2183-9768
F.:
+49-89-2183-8475
andrian.kreye@sueddeutsche.de
Sitz der Gesellschaft:
München · Eingetragen beim Amtsgericht München
HRB 73315 · USt-IDNR.:
DE 811158310
Geschäftsführer: Dr. Detlef Haaks, Dr. Richard Rebmann, Dr. Karl
Ulrich
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exchanges between
Malte and Tuvia:
From: Malte Herwig <malte—
[[In keeping with privacy laws, private EMAIL ADDRESS DELETED for
this communication]
To: thejtny <thejtny@aol.com>
Sent: Thu, Jul 26, 2012 7:57 am
Subject: Message for Tuvia Tenenbom
Dear Tuvia Tenenbom,
I'm a journalist for Süddeutsche
Zeitung and read your book "I sleep in Hitler's Room". I am aware of its history, but
wanted to ask you directly: Did Alexander
Fest really call you a "Jewish hysteric"?
And where did they try to make you
turn anti-Semitic people you interviewed into
philo-Semites?
When and why did things go downhill
between Rowohlt and you from your point of
view? How did the book move to Suhrkamp?
I'd be glad to have your answer by
return so I can include your take on this in
my story.
Best wishes
Malte Herwig
_____
From: The JTNY <thejtny@aol.com>
To: malte.herwig <malte—
[In keeping with privacy laws, private EMAIL ADDRESS DELETED for
this communication]
Sent: Thu, Jul 26, 2012 6:36 pm
Subject: Re: Message for Tuvia Tenenbom
Dear Malte,
Thank you so kindly for your email, your
interest in "I Sleep in Hitler's Room," and your
questions.
Though this is an ongoing issue, it all started
over two years ago ... which means that I needed to take some time to look thru
the book. So, my apologies that it has taken me some hours to respond to you.
Here goes... (Since you obviously read the book,
I assume you'll know what the stories/names are about and therefore I just
mention names, etc...)
Your first question:
Alexander treated me like a Herrenmensch treats
his little Jew. After ordering that the translation of the book be stopped, he
refused to meet me, even when I suggested I’d come to Germany, at my own expense,
to meet him. I was told by his designated go-between that he was not in the
country, and wouldn't be for the next week. In reality, he was at his office in
Reinbek, as his own secretary verified moments later.
Soon, I was declared persona non-grata by
Rowohlt and told not to call, only write emails. This new rule, I was told,
applied to my contact with everybody in Rowohlt. Emails only. Reason? I’m a man
who doesn’t behave well, one who has a ‘tone’ nobody likes...
Following this, on Dec 1, 10, Alexander wrote to
me that “a very intelligent and erudite person” made helpful comments on the
book, and he ordered his office to send same to me. What was that erudite
person saying? Well: “Tuvia … ist offenkundig ein jüdischer Hysteriker, der -
wie ihrer aller Schutzheiliger Woody Allen...” it read.
Your second question:
Here are samples
of Rowohlt’s edits. Some are total cuts, others (like with Gitti or Zülfiye) are
interview manipulations. These changes share one logic in common: Change facts.
Such changes, plainly spoken, are censorship.
The censorship starts with Alvaro, the Italian.
--The part where Alvaro talks about what he had
found out, that the Twin Towers were blown up by the American government, was
cut. But his not-so-nice comment about the Jews, was left.
By cutting the Twin Towers comment, the picture
of the man remains better, I guess...
--The part with Abaton theater in Hamburg, with
their idea that according to the Talmud (which is not correct) homosexuality
doesn’t exist: Cut.
--Frank of Club 88 is changed to Karl, Club 88
to Club, even the city’s name - Neumünster - is also cut. Frank’s idea of the
Jews killing their children: Cut.
At a later point, Alexander decided to totally
cut the Club 88 story. According to him, no German is interested in such a
story.
--The story of the weddings at Wannsee: Cut.
--The story
about Oberammergau, with the nice attempt of reconciliation with Jews,
is kept but the interview with Renate, including her comment that Everything in
America has something to do with Jews, is cut. This, of course, keeps a
distorted picture of what I found out about this whole undertaking. In other
words: Oberammergau is great...
--Rosi’s comments, such as The Jews are all
united: Cut. Again: this provides for a distorted picture via cutting. In other
words: Rosi is great...
--The interview with Dr S Von Liebe: Cut.
--Johannes’ story: Cut.
--Volker’s story and his mama: Cut.
--Farah’s story out.
--Castorf’s production, and the Jews in the middle:
Cut.
--Sauerland’s comment about Muhammad Al’s being
a bullshitter is cut.
--Mustafa’s telling of his girlfriend respecting
his culture by having shower after sex, and subsequent discussion of same: Cut.
Again, this provides for a distorted picture. We can’t make him look bizarre, I
guess...
--Helge Schneider’s comment about Angela Merkel
is cut, as well as his mentioning of Rudolf Hess: Cut.
--Discussion with Till about Gregor’s
Jewishness: Cut.
--Tom’s mention that Gregor was a member of the
Stasi: Cut.
--Gitti’s interview is manipulated by many cuts,
and her most outrageous comments are out, providing for a totally different
take of her.
--Nurcan’s comments about Erdogan: Cut.
--Samide’s assertion of, It says so in the
Bible: Cut. We can’t make her look stupid, I guess...
--The mention of the “Free Palestine” at the
Medien-Bunker-Marxloh: Cut. Those people like the Jews, I guess...
--Mustafa’s comment that the Israel ‘unites’ the
people of Marxloh: Cut. Ditto...
--Zülfiye’s interview also manipulated. The part
where I catch her lying to me, about covering the head etc, is cut. Her line
about the yearly demonstrations against Israel is cut. We have to make her a
lover of all, I guess...
--Reiner’s interview: Cut.
--Arnold’s comment that his boss, Needs to
‘make’: Cut. Can’t make fun of ‘nice’ people, I guess...
--Interview with Volkhard of Buchenwald, and his
Uganda recommendation: Cut. He’s a Jew lover, I guess...
--The Klezmer players and their Israel hate:
Cut. Obvious...
--Brigit’s story: Cut.
--“The Israelis are Nazis” and that nice Gregor
Can’t be a Jew: Cut.
--The mention of Sieg Heil and Swastika
graffiti, or that of “Nationaler Sozialismus Jetzt”: Cut.
--My own comment that It will be much easier to make
peace between Arabs and Jews than to uproot the Jew-hate of the German: Cut.
These are some examples. There are more. For
example:
--Arnd Henze’s portrayal of the WDR as positive
to Israel compared with what I found on the ground, meaning WDR’s support of an
extreme group under the table. Arnd’s interview was kept; my finding about WDR,
I was told, might not stay.
--Same, if you ever wondered, the interview with
the Imam...
Many names, btw, were also changed (I cited
above just a couple).
Your third question:
I submitted the book to my editor in Rowohlt,
Julia Suchorski, on Sep 8, 10, and told her that I’d stay in Germany for few
more weeks for the purpose of working on edits that she might require. We met
again on Sep 14. She told the book was even better than she expected and my
stay was not required. She would submit the ms to the translator on the next
day. And she did.
On Oct 7, 10 Julia emailed me that the
translation was stopped.
On Nov 5, 10 I got from Julia a heavily edited
text, mostly pure censorship. This coming from the very same editor who just
weeks before didn’t want me to change anything...
But, as Alexander admitted later (Nov 24, 10),
it was his doing.
In the beginning they said that the issues were
legal. We spent numerous days going over that stuff and discussing them. At the
end I said something very simple: Make me an appointment with YOUR lawyer, as I
wanted to have chance to share my thoughts with him, and that whatever he
decides I would go along with. I even agreed to fly to Germany; again, at my
own expense.
They refused.
And Alexander was mean. He claimed that the book
was like my articles in Die Zeit, basically no good. Now, as you can see, it’s
not the legal issue but my inability to write...
In the course of time, Alexander wrote more to me; usually in abusive
tones.
These days, what a miracle, he claims that he
has deep love for me (that’s according to a top German journalist who related
this news to me). Good to know!
Your fourth question:
Michael Eberth, whom I learned to know in
Hamburg when he was at the Schauspielhaus Hamburg, submitted the book to
Suhrkamp.
I hope this email helps you in your research.
All the above said, I do hope that you’ll write
much more about the content of “I Sleep in Hitler’s Room” than about my little
story with a man named Alexander...!
Wishing you all the best,
Kindest regards,
Tuvia
PS: I’ll be thankful if you could send me copy
of your article and/or link to it.
www.JewishTheater.org
212-494-0050
_____
From: Malte Herwig <malte—
[EMAIL ADDRESS DELETED for this communication]
To: The JTNY <thejtny@aol.com>
Sent: Fri, Jul 27, 2012 7:31 am
Subject: Re: Message for Tuvia Tenenbom
Dear Tuvia,
thanks for your quick reply. I'll
let you know when the article comes out. It
won't be a book review, though, as Suhrkamp couldn't provide me with
a translation yet and I don't want to
pass judgement on what they will publish
before they actually do it. So I only draw on the US edition. Do you
think Suhrkamp will translate your
preface without "censoring" anything from it?
Best wishes
Malte Herwig
_____
From: The JTNY <thejtny@aol.com>
To: malte.herwig <malte--
[EMAIL ADDRESS DELETED for this communication]
Sent: Fri, Jul 27, 2012 11:23 am
Subject: Re: Message for Tuvia Tenenbom
Dear Malte,
Thank you again for your email.
In reply:
Suhrkamp won't publish the Preface, and we agreed on this from the
start. The Preface was, obviously, not part of the original plan, and there's
no reason -- once there's a German publisher of it -- to include it in
Suhrkamp's publication.
Btw: I don't take lightly to the word "censoring." There
are many times an editor will suggest cuts or changes, and I think it's a
wonderful process. Even in this book, my US editor did the same, and I can't
recall one instance that I disagreed with him. "Censoring" for me is
a loaded word, and I don't usually experience it... What Alexander did was
censorship, no doubt in my mind, and all those I asked for their advice at the
time agreed. It was an attempt to change the reality that I witnessed, and it
was wrong. By end of day I am not God, I am just one opinion, and in a
democracy opinions are not silenced but cherished.
Did you speak with Alexander?
Wishing you a glorious weekend,
Tuvia
www.JewishTheater.org
212-494-0050
_____
From: Malte Herwig <malte—
[EMAIL ADDRESS DELETED for this communication]
To: The JTNY <thejtny@aol.com>
Sent: Mon, Jul 30, 2012 2:57 am
Subject: Re: Message for Tuvia Tenenbom
Dear Tuvia,
yes, I spoke to Rowohlt and also to
Suhrkamp (and you) to hear all sides and,
you know, I have some sympathy for all of them. You want to speak up
about what you saw and heard on your
Entdeckungsreise and Rowohlt are bound by the rather complicated libel laws of Germany. In the
process, it all became unstuck somehow.
Incidentally, your book struck me
as more of a play for the stage. Are you
planning to have it performed?
The article is in today's paper.
Best wishes
Malte
*************************
DR. MALTE HERWIG
[In keeping with privacy laws, private telephone number herein
deleted.]
----------------------------------------
Text (in German) in
the SZ:
Streit um Buch über Deutschland
Alles Nazis over there
30.07.2012, 14:22
Von Malte Herwig
Aus
"Ich bin Deutschland" wird "Allein unter Deutschen": Für
ein Buchprojekt reiste der jüdische Theatermacher Tuvia Tenenborn monatelang
durchs Land. Der New Yorker beschreibt Deutschland als einen düsteren Ort
voller Nazis und Antisemiten. Nach dem Zerwürfnis mit Auftraggeber Rowohlt
erscheint die Reportage im Herbst beim Verlagsrivalen. Ein einmaliger Vorgang.
Es sollte eine lustige
Entdeckungsreise werden. Vor zwei Jahren machte sich Tuvia Tenenbom, Sohn
eines Rabbiners aus Jerusalem und heute Theatermacher in New York, nach
Deutschland auf, um Land und Leute zu inspizieren. Ausgestattet mit Vertrag und
Vorschuss des Rowohlt Verlages reiste er mehrere Monate quer durchs
Land, mischte sich unter Erste-Mai-Demonstranten in Hamburg, Biertrinker in
München, Pilger auf dem Kirchentag und das Publikum bei den Oberammergauer
Passionsspielen. Der Jude Tenenbom traf so ziemlich alles, was Deutschland an
schrägem Personal zu bieten hat: Autonome, Neonazis, Fußballfans, Juden,
Christen und Türken und Kai Diekmann.
Sein Buch "Ich bin Deutschland"
hatte Rowohlt für April 2011 als Spitzentitel angekündigt:
"Ausgestattet mit einer wunderbaren Beobachtungsgabe und viel schwarzem
Humor", heißt es im Verlagsprospekt, "erzählt Tenenbom von seinen
Erlebnissen auf deutschen Straßen und enthüllt dabei intelligent und komisch
zugleich die Seele des Landes und seiner Bewohner." Doch dieses Buch ist
nie erschienen.
Nach monatelangem Hin und Her
einigten sich Verlag und Autor mit anwaltlicher Schützenhilfe darauf, den
Vertrag aufzulösen. Das Verhältnis war zuletzt so zerrüttet, dass der Verleger
Alexander Fest darauf bestand, nur noch schriftlich zu kommunizieren. Zwei
Drittel seines Vorschusses durfte Tenenbom behalten und veröffentlichte seinen
Text als E-Book auf der amerikanischen Amazon-Webseite. Seitdem tobt vor und
hinter den Kulissen der Deutungskampf um das Scheitern des Projekts. Was war
geschehen?
Im Vorwort der amerikanischen
Ausgabe fährt Tenenbom schwere Geschütze gegen den Rowohlt Verlag und dessen
Chef auf. Der Verlag habe darauf bestanden, behauptet Tenenbom, die krassesten
Beispiele für deutschen Antisemitismus aus dem Buch zu entfernen und ihn behandelt
"wie Herrenmenschen einen kleinen Juden". Man habe ihn als "jüdischen
Hysteriker" beschimpft, ständig angelogen und in einer Art und Weise
Zensur geübt, "die einem iranischen Verleger unter den Ayatollahs gut zu
Gesicht gestanden hätte".
Nach dem Zerwürfnis verlegt Suhrkamp das Buch
Rowohlt-Verleger Alexander Fest
ist entsetzt über die Anwürfe: "Wir haben zu keinem Zeitpunkt versucht,
irgendeine Zensur auszuüben." Es habe rechtliche und formale Probleme mit
dem Manuskript gegeben, und das Lektorat habe dem Autor deshalb Verbesserungs-
und Kürzungsvorschläge gemacht. Die Korrespondenz zwischen Autor und Verlag,
die der SZ vorliegt, zeigt, dass die Vorschläge des Rowohlt-Lektorats durchaus
den Gepflogenheiten der Buchbranche entsprachen. Für die von Tenenbom
unterstellten Beschimpfungen gibt es dort keine Anhaltspunkte. Vielmehr geht es
um Länge, Struktur und Sprache. Und um rechtliche Probleme.
Tenenbom hatte das Manuskript im
September 2010 bei Rowohlt abgeliefert. Die Reaktion sei überaus positiv
gewesen, sagt der Autor. Seine Lektorin habe den Text noch besser als erwartet
gefunden und ihn mit dem britischen Filmemacher Sasha Baron Cohen verglichen.
Cohen mimte jahrelang den naiven Kasachen "Borat" und entlarvte so
den unterschwelligen Rassismus seiner nichts ahnenden Gesprächspartner.
Auch Tenenbom war immer wieder in verschiedene
Rollen geschlüpft und seinen Gesprächspartnern erschreckende antisemitische
Aussagen entlockt.
Ein einmaliger Vorgang in der Verlagswelt
Allerdings hatte er sein Gegenüber
offensichtlich nicht in jedem Fall darüber informiert, dass er sie für eine
Buchpublikation interviewte. Im liberalen Amerika kein Problem, hierzulande
allerdings sind Buchverlage an das komplizierte deutsche Persönlichkeitsrecht
gebunden. Und dieses besagt, dass die Veröffentlichung von Zitaten
grundsätzlich nur mit Einwilligung des Betroffenen zulässig ist.
Schon vor Abgabe des Manuskripts
meldete sich eine Suhrkamp-Mitarbeiterin, die mit einer von Tenenboms
Gesprächspartnerinnen befreundet war. Sie informiert Rowohlt, dass die
Betroffene keine Einwilligung gegeben habe und notfalls klagen würde. Daraufhin
gab Rowohlt ein juristisches Gutachten in Auftrag, das ein
knappes Dutzend rechtlich problematischer Passagen auflistet. Tenenbom war zu
einigen Streichungen bereit, berief sich aber darauf, in jedem Fall Zeugen für
die Aussagen seiner Gesprächspartner zu haben - darunter die eigene Ehefrau.
Autor sieht sich als Opfer von Zensur
Zwei weitere externe Gutachten unterstreichen
die Bedenken des Rowohlt-Lektorats. Tenenboms Text sei "unverhältnismäßig
verletzend, unseriös", heißt es in dem einen, und schade damit dem eigenen
Anliegen, den allgegenwärtigen deutschen Antisemitismus aufzuzeigen. Hier fällt auch der Begriff
"jüdischer Hysteriker", obgleich als Kompliment im Sinne eines Woody
Allen. Der zweite Gutachter, Martin Bauer vom Hamburger Institut für
Sozialforschung, kritisiert die "willkürlich zusammengestellte Sammlung
subjektiver Eindrücke", den "gefühlten Antisemitismus" und
kommt zu dem Ergebnis, der Autor sei "von vorneherein weder witzig noch
erhellend, sondern hämisch und sarkastisch". Unbeschadet dessen, räumt
Bauer ein, hegten wissenschaftlichen Erhebungen zufolge rund 22 Prozent aller
Deutschen antisemitische Einstellungen.
Im Oktober soll der Reisebericht
nun bei Rowohlts Erzrivalen Suhrkamp auf Deutsch erscheinen. Thomas Sparr,
Verlagsleiter von Suhrkamp,
bezeichnet das Buch als "sehr eigenwillige, zugespitzte Reportage"
und versichert: "Natürlich stimmen wir uns mit den Interviewpartnern
ab." Den Text der Vorschau hat der Berliner Verlag praktischerweise gleich
von den Hamburger Kollegen übernommen. Aber ist es noch das Buch, als das es
einst angekündigt war: ein bissig-humoristischer Blick auf die deutsche Seele?
Das Deutschland, das
Tenenbom einige Monate lang bereiste, erscheint darin als düsterer Ort voller
Nazis und Antisemiten. "Dieses Land hat sich seit Hitlers Herrschaft nicht
geändert", glaubt der Autor: "Ich hasse die Deutschen. Hasse sie,
ihre großen Masken, ihre endlosen Diskussionen, ihre ständige Predigerei, ihren
impliziten oder expliziten Judenhass, ihre Rückgratlosigkeit, ihre exakte Art,
ihre exakten Lügen, ihre Starrsinnigkeit, ihren versteckten Rassismus, ihr
ständiges Bedürfnis, geliebt und gelobt zu werden, und ihre
Selbstgerechtigkeit". Am Ende verlässt er dieses Deutschland, das ihn
so sehr aufgeregt hat, mit gemischten Gefühlen. Aus "Ich bin
Deutschland" (Rowohlt) wird "Allein unter Deutschen" (Suhrkamp).
Es ist ein einmaliger Vorgang in
der deutschen Verlagswelt. Aber vielleicht ist das auch die eigentliche
Geschichte: Wie zwei Züge sind amerikanische Freizügigkeit und deutsche
Gewissenhaftigkeit aufeinandergeprallt. Und es hat ordentlich gekracht.
•••
A screen
shot of SZ’s article on their website, below. Note Rowohlt’s ad.
# # #
