Thread: Einstein’s Wife - feminists rewriting history (again)

I just wanted to draw attention to this article about misinformation & misrepresentation of a feminist 'theory' being publicised as 'fact'.

All the above is quite common within feminist groups; misinformation, misrepresentation and theory being addressed as if it were fact.

Anyway, on with this particular one:



http://www.esterson.org/einsteinwife3.htm

An examination of the revised PBS “Einstein’s Wife” web pages, November 2007.

Allen Esterson

Background: In September 2007, some eighteen months after my first complaints to the PBS Ombudsman about the numerous errors and misrepresentations in the “Einstein’s Wife” documentary and the accompanying website, a revised website was posted, rewritten by Andrea Gabor. The links to the school lesson plans have now been removed from the website, but the documentary is still being promoted and sold by PBS. (In recognition of serious flaws in the documentary that I reported to them, co-sponsors Australian Broadcasting Corporation announced in July 2007 that it would discontinue broadcasting it and remove the accompanying students Study Guide from its website.) Following my sending PBS a list of false statements and misrepresentations on the revised website, a couple of items were amended in October, but the great bulk of the dubious material remains. Below is an examination of the current “Einstein’s Wife” website, as of November 2007.

Major errors in Andrea Gabor’s account:

1. Home Page
http://www.pbs.org/opb/einsteinswife/

“The world only learned of [Marić’s] existence through the release of Einstein’s private papers in 1987.”

The most widely read biography published before 1987, Ronald Clark’s Einstein: The Life and Times (1971), contains 25 Index citations for Mileva Marić. Other biographies in which mention is made of Marić include the following:

Frank, P. (1948). Einstein: His Life and Times.
Seelig, C. (1956). Albert Einstein: A Documentary Biography.
Michelmore, P. (1962). Einstein: Profile of the Man.
Hoffman, B. and Dukas, H. (1973). Albert Einstein, Creator and Rebel.

2. Mileva’s Story
http://www.pbs.org/opb/einsteinswife/milevastory/early.htm

“Although the final grades for both Marić and Einstein fell below the 5 point average that was necessary to pass, Einstein's 4.9 was rounded up to a 5, so he squeaked by.”

Gabor provides no reference for her contention that a grade average of 5 (maximum 6) was the pass mark for the diploma examination, and that Einstein’s grade was “rounded up” to enable him to pass. The source of this claim is the Swiss linguist Senta Troemel-Ploetz, but John Stachel, founding editor of the Albert Einstein Collected Papers project, writes: “I have searched the regulations of the Poly [ETH] in vain for any such rule. The reports of the grades by the head of the Section VIA of the Poly (Collected Papers, Vol. 1, p. 247) includes no statement that Einstein failed the examination.” Gabor has evidently restated Troemel-Ploetz’s tendentious and evidence-free assertion as if it were a fact.

The only reliable documented information we have on this issue is the statement of the Zurich Polytechnic Conference of Examiners, 27 July 1900:

“Based on these [examination] results, the Conference of Examiners moves that diplomas be granted to candidates Ehrat, Grossman, Kollros, and Einstein, but not to Miss Marić.” [Albert Einstein Collected Papers, Volume 1 (1987), Document 67.]

In the “Einstein’s Wife” film, Troemel-Ploetz tries to have it both ways. After the narrator has made the assertion that the board of examiners rounded up Einstein’s mark to a pass, she states in relation to Marić that “you would get through today with 4.00, it would correspond with a C. So my explanation is that someone simply said, well Einstein already has his diploma and she doesn’t need one, one is enough in one family.” This “explanation” for Marić’s not being awarded a diploma, apart from being pure speculation, fails to allow for the fact that the pair did not marry until 2½ years later, and ignores the fact that her remarkably low grade of 2½ in the mathematics component of the diploma exam alone suffices to explain why she failed. Unfortunately this is only too characteristic of the poor level of Troemel-Ploetz’s scholarship:
Time 9 July 2006

3. (a) Timeline 1905
http://www.pbs.org/opb/einsteinswife/map/index.htm

“During the Cold War, a Soviet scientist claims to have seen the names Einstein and Marić on originals of the three key manuscripts.”

(b) The Mileva Question
http://www.pbs.org/opb/einsteinswife/science/mquest.htm
“Much of the debate centers on the words of Abram F. Joffe (Ioffe), a respected member of the Soviet Academy of Sciences and an assistant to W.C. Roentgen from 1902 to 1906, who saw the original version of Einstein's three most famous papers (on Brownian motion, the photoelectric effect, and the theory of relativity) and said that they were signed Einstein-Marity (Marity being the Hungarianized version of Marić.)…”
The statements that Joffe saw (or claimed to have seen) the original manuscripts of the 1905 papers, and that they were signed Einstein-Marity, are completely false. The source of this claim is Marić’s biographer, Desanka Trbuhović-Gjurić, who cites Joffe’s “In Remembrance of Albert Einstein” [1955]. However in that publication Joffe actually wrote of the 1905 papers on Brownian motion, the photoelectric effect, and special relativity the following: “The author of these articles – an unknown person at the time, was a bureaucrat at the Patent Office in Bern, Einstein-Marity (Marity – the maiden name of his wife, which by Swiss custom is added to the husband’s family name).”
Clearly, Joffe does not say he saw the original manuscripts, and does not state that they were signed “Einstein-Marity”. He unambiguously attributes the authorship to a single person, who worked at the Bern Patent Office, namely Albert Einstein.
NOTE. Gabor writes of Joffe’s “Remembrance” to Einstein: “Whether that reference was to one author or to two is the nub of the debate”, and adds that “most researchers now agree that…that he was referring to a single author rather than a husband-wife team”. In fact, as is evident from Joffe’s words, it is absolutely clear that he was citing a single author. Gabor then adds a Note as follows:
“The documentary itself cites Abram F. Joffe’s reference to the Einstein-Marity signature as evidence of co-authorship. The original source for this claim was the Serbian author, Desanka Trbuhović-Gjurić, who said she had seen the reference on a Soviet microfilm. Einstein scholars say that efforts to track down the microfilm have not been successful. What has survived is a short memorial to Einstein by Joffe, which reads in part: ‘...the author of these articles – unknown at the time – was the clerk at the Patent Bureau Einstein-Marity’. Joffe adds in parentheses: ‘(Marity – the family name of his wife, which by Swiss custom is added to the husband’s family name.)’ Contrary to Trbuhović-Gjurić account, Joffe’s memorial suggests that he thought there was just one author.”
Unfortunately this Note only serves to confuse the issue, in that it might be taken to leave open the possibility (“what has survived”) that Trbuhović-Gjurić actually saw a document that supports her contentions. The whole issue of the Trbuhović-Gjurić claims and the microfilm has been discussed in detail by John Stachel, who has shown that it is evident that the microfilm in question (a fragment from which was shown on the original “Einstein’s Wife” website”) contained a passage by a different Russian author, and did not state that Joffe had seen the original papers. Gabor writes that “efforts to track down the microfilm have not been successful”, but this is misleading, since we know that Trbuhović-Gjurić explicitly gave the above-cited Joffe article for her source. That article suffices to demonstrate that Gabor’s unequivocal assertions in the main text that Joffe “saw”, or “claims to have seen”, the original 1905 manuscripts are without foundation, and that the account Trbuhović-Gjurićgave to justify her contention that Joffe saw them in 1905 was pure surmise based on a false premise. [Trbuhović-Gjurić (1983), p 79; (1988), p. 97; (1991), pp. 111-112. For a comprehensive examination of this issue, see Stachel, J. (2005), pp. liv-lxxii: http://www.esterson.org/Stachel_Joffe.htm ]
(Gabor writes that the Joffe memorial “suggests that he thought there was just one author.” In fact it more that suggests this: Joffe is clearly citing a single author who at the time was “a bureaucrat at the Patent Office in Bern” – namely Albert Einstein. It should also be noted that in the relevant section of Joffe’s chapter on Einstein in his 1962 Russian book “Meetings with Scientists” there is not the least suggestion of a co-author of the 1905 papers. [German edition: Joffe, A. J., Begegnungen Mit Physikern (1967), p. 92.])
Gabor immediately goes on to write “Nor does the personal correspondence between Mileva and Albert or between Mileva and her friends help clarify the question” [of supposed contributions by Marić], and refers to the early correspondence between the pair containing “tantalizing references to a life of shared work”. In fact not one of these “references” comes from Marić; all of them come from Einstein, expressing his desire for a future of joint scientific work. Similarly, all the content relating to ideas on extra-curricular physics topics in the early correspondence between the pair comes from Einstein, while in Marić’s surviving letters there are no ideas on such topics: she writes (occasionally) about her Polytechnic coursework, and (mostly) of personal affairs. Nor is there is there the slightest hint in the letters Marić wrote to her closest friend Helene Kaufler over many years that she made any contributions to Einstein’s ideas on physics, or had any involvement with them.

4. Home Page
http://www.pbs.org/opb/einsteinswife/
(a) Mileva Marić was “a brilliant and ambitious woman who shared her husband’s interest in science.”
Mileva’s Story
http://www.pbs.org/opb/einsteinswife/milevastory/index.htm
(b) “Rather, as the jigsaw puzzle that was Mileva's life is pieced together, an image emerges of a young woman whose great scientific promise ran up against the formidable institutional and social barriers that kept all but the most resilient women, at the turn of the twentieth century, at the margins of science or out of the lab entirely.”
Gabor writes that Marić was a woman of “great scientific promise” and “a brilliant and ambitious woman who shared her husband’s interest in science”. Let’s first consider her academic achievements. She certainly achieved excellent grades in her high school career (Royal Large High School, Zagreb, 1891-94), including in mathematics and physics in the final year. She then transferred to Zurich Higher Girls’ School to obtain her Matura (school-leaving certificate), the examinations for which she successfully took in the spring of 1896. Neither of Marić’s biographers, Trbuhović-Gjurić (1983; 1988; 1991) and Krstić (2004), record details of her grades in these Matura exams. However, we do have Marić’s grades for her entrance examination for Zurich Polytechnic taken in the same year, for which she was only tested in mathematics. Her grade average, on a scale 1-6, was 4.25,[Trbuhović-Gjurić, 1988, p.60] which was hardly outstanding. Nor did her intermediate diploma exam results at Zurich Polytechnic live up to the “brilliant” description so often used to portray Marić’s academic abilities. Her grade average placed her fifth of the six students in her group. Finally, she failed the final diploma exam in 1900, with a grade average (scale 1-6) of 4.00, achieving only 2½ in the mathematics component, and she failed again when she retook the exams in 1901 without improving her grade average.

What of Marić’s great enthusiasm for physics and for a scientific career? The former was not in evidence when, following her passing the Polytechnic entrance exam, she chose to enrol at the Zurich Medical School, before deciding after one semester to take the course at Zurich Polytechnic for a diploma to teach mathematics and physics in secondary school. (Though we do not know the reason she attended the medical school.) Towards the end of the four-year diploma course, Marić was provisionally offered an assistantship in physics, but, according to her friend Helene Kaufler, “she did not wish to accept it; she would rather apply for an open position as librarian at the Polytechnic”. That’s not to suggest she had no interest in a career in physics (she had hopes of writing a Ph.D. thesis on the basis of her dissertation for the Zurich Polytechnic final diploma exam), only that there is little evidence of the burning ambition portrayed by Gabor. It seems likely that the loss of their out-of-wedlock baby daughter Liserl in 1903 had a profound effect on Marić, and may well have dampened (or destroyed) whatever ambition remained after her exam failures. In the letters Marić wrote to Kaufler in the first years of her marriage she expressed no regrets that she had not been able to follow a scientific career. What one finds is her joy at Einstein’s early achievements, and intimations of her contentment in her new situation, especially following the birth of Hans Albert in 1904. As already noted, in none of the letters to Kaufler over many years is there mention of physics except in relation to Einstein’s career, and not the least intimation of any work she herself is engaged in.
As to the claim that Marić’s ambition to follow a scientific career was thwarted by “institutional and social barriers”, there is no evidence that this was the case. Despite the fact that her intermediate diploma grade had not been outstanding, she was offered a provisional assistantship under the physics professor Heinrich Weber. Had Marić passed the exam in 1900, and gone on to complete the Ph.D. thesis she began to work on in 1900-1901 (for which she was being supervised by Weber), she would have had the opportunity to pursue a scientific career had she wished to take it. That she failed to do so should be attributed to her examination failures. Neither Gabor, nor any other author, has demonstrated that, once she had left Serbia in 1894, institutional barriers prevented her attaining a scientific career.
(c) “There are now letters that indicate that Albert treated his wife and sons shabbily, raising the suspicion that he viewed Mileva's aspirations with equal disregard.”

Leaving aside the tendentiously one-sided view of Einstein’s relationship with his first family (the batch of letters released in July 2006 “helped shatter myths that [Einstein] was always cold toward his family”), the suggestion that he disregarded Marić’s aspirations is contradicted by letters he wrote in their student days in which he repeatedly tried to interest her in his ideas, and strongly encouraged her in her studies (e.g., Renn & Schulmann (1992), letters pp. 13-14, 15, 32, 38).

Gabor purports to provide historical information that enables the reader to “explore the known facts of Mileva Marić’s life and her role as a pioneer in the history of women in science”, and goes on to portray Marić as an academically brilliant young woman whose burning ambition to become a scientist was thwarted by “institutional” barriers and Einstein’s “disregard” of this ambition. The documentable facts show that this “image” is a myth that has been manufactured and made plausible by tendentious tailoring of the evidence to supposedly demonstrate a predetermined morality tale, spelled out by Gabor as follows: “Mileva’s life – and frustrated ambitions – serve as a metaphor for the struggle and prejudice that women in science encountered well into the 20th century.”

However, the facts actually revealed by the relevant historical documents is that, as is the case with a great many students, while Marić achieved excellent grades as a school student, she found higher level work (especially in mathematics) much more challenging, and failed to live up to her early promise, and that this was why she was unable to follow a career in physics. No one disputes the struggle and prejudice historically experienced by women hoping for a career in science. But in order to use the case of Mileva Marić for her purposes, Gabor has included false assertions, unjustified surmises, and tendentious selection and misrepresentation of the evidence. Whatever the worthiness of the cause, it cannot be acceptable to manipulate and distort the historical evidence in an inappropriate instance to make the individual in question fit into the requisite category.
5. Editor's Note Einstein's Wife . Editor's Note | PBS
“In line with PBS's commitment to making all changes ‘visible every step of the way’, pages that have been modified from the original Web site have been identified with an accompanying editor's note.”
This is an extraordinary claim. The pages on the revised website have changed radically from the original, but there is almost no indication of how the earlier pages have been modified “every step of the way”. Most people accessing the current website would have no idea just how numerous have been the omissions from the original web pages. I can only presume that this statement has been made so that PBS can present itself in the most favourable light despite having been forced to make radical changes to a website replete with errors and misrepresentations that should have been identified four years ago.
Of the four Editor’s Notes appended to specific items on the web pages, only one relates to material appearing on the previous web site, and in that instance the current web pages still contain false information carried over from the original. (See point 3 above.)
Other items

Mileva’s Story: The Science

* “In Mileva’s case it is likely that she discussed Einstein’s ideas, proofread his papers and possibly, helped with some of the mathematical proofs.”

Also, Editor’s Note

* “It is possible to give Einstein the lion's share of the credit for the seminal papers of 1905, while still recognizing a long-standing give-and-take between husband and wife that, at the very least, almost certainly yielded some help with mathematical proofs…”

This sentence is in the context of “the nature of scientific collaboration”, which presupposes a collaborative role for Marić for which there is no reliable evidence. Gabor implies that, while the lion’s share of the credit should go to Einstein, some credit should go to Marić, with Gabor’s “recognizing” evidence-free “give-and-take” between them in relation to his work in physics. That Marić achieved an extremely low grade in the “theory of functions” mathematical component of the diploma examination makes the idea that she gave some help with Einstein’s mathematical proofs very doubtful, especially as we know that he was a highly competent mathematician. There is no documentation to show that she made any such claim herself. The suggestion of scientific “give-and-take” between them in relation to his ideas on physics can only be surmise.

* “Some of the assertions made by the documentary and Web site, as well as by their critics, simply cannot be determined on the basis of ‘factual evidence’. Rather, some of the assertions are so deeply embedded in the very murky, private realm of the relationship between Albert and Mileva Einstein, who shared, for a while, both love and ideas, that no definitive proof can be found.”

Gabor writes of that the couple shared, for a while, both love and ideas. In fact the evidence of the early correspondence between them indicates that this “sharing” was pretty much one way. In none of the surviving letters does Marić mention ideas of her own, or even, where we have direct replies to specific letters of Einstein’s, respond to his enthusiastic accounts of his own ideas. In one letter (1899) Einstein writes of his ideas about investigating a body’s motion relative to the ether, then adds: “But enough of this! Your poor head is already crammed full of other people’s hobby horses that you’ve had to ride.” In a later letter (1901), after he has left the Polytechnic and is hoping to see her in the near future, Einstein writes that “Soon you’ll be my ‘student’ again, like in Zurich.” All of this, together with Marić’s limited academic achievements at the Polytechnic, suggests there could have been little from her side in any “give-and-take” on highly challenging advanced physics of the kind one sees in his correspondence with friends and colleagues.

* “Even Einstein's staunchest defenders agree that she served, at the very least, as a ‘sounding board’ for his ideas.”

This is misleading in that the suggestion that Marić acted as a “sounding board” for his ideas has only been given any significant credence by Einstein specialists for the period when they were students, not in relation to his later major contributions to advanced physics. Against the “sounding-board” claims in relation to the years of their marriage is the report by Einstein’s friend and colleague Philipp Frank (presumably obtained from Einstein himself): “When he wanted to discuss his ideas, which came to him in great abundance, her response was so slight that he was often unable to decide whether or not she was interested.”

One important element missing from Gabor’s story in relation to “sounding boards” is any reference to the documented discussions with friends, in particular Michele Besso, whose helpful discussions with Einstein were acknowledged at the end of the 1905 special relativity paper.

Mileva’s Story

* “A small coterie of researchers began to ask whether, in fact, Mileva had helped author Einstein's most famous papers—suggestions that were greeted with outrage by the scientific establishment.”

(i) The chief protagonists in this “small coterie” did not begin to “ask” whether Marić had helped with Einstein’s 1905 papers, they asserted that she had co-authored them.

(ii) The claims of the “researchers” in question, Senta Troemel-Ploetz and Evan Harris Walker, were based on abysmal ‘scholarship’. See:
Time 9 July 2006
Mileva Maric: Einstein's Wife
Critique of Evan Harris Walker

(iii) There was no expression of outrage from “the scientific establishment” (whatever that is). Some historians of physics with considerable knowledge of the subject were, with justification, emphatic in rejecting the claims, most notably John Stachel and Gerald Holton:
Stachel, J. (2002). Einstein from ‘B’ to ‘Z’, pp. 26-38.[Talk delivered to the AAAS in 1990]
Holton, G. (1996). Einstein, History, and other Passions, pp. 170-193.

* When Marić and Einstein started the diploma course at Zurich Polytechnic, “He was 17, a boy scarcely worth noticing.”

In fact Einstein at that time was remarkably self-possessed for his age, self-confident in his opinions and exceptionally prepossessing.

* “She spent a semester in Heidelberg. Mileva and Albert exchanged letters while she was away. She described, in great detail, the satisfactions of her studies.” [emphasis added]

This is a gross exaggeration. In a short half-paragraph in a single letter Marić gave a rather jocular report of one lecture on the kinetic theory of gases given by Philipp Lenard. (Renn & Schulmann [1992], p. 4)
* “Mileva told a Serbian friend [in 1905], ‘we finished some important work that will make my husband world famous’.”
The quotation comprises a hearsay claim from interested parties who were not present, reporting some fifty or more years after the event (and said to Marić’s father in the version given by Trbuhović-Gjurić). Such a supposedly verbatim report is inherently unreliable, and should not have been quoted without qualification as if it were fact. Who knows exactly what Marić told her father at that time, or what she meant by it?

* “In 1909, Einstein…also corresponded with a former girlfriend.”

This is grossly misleading. The facts are that in 1909 Einstein received a letter from Anna Meyer-Schmid, a woman with whom, a decade before when he was 20 and she 17, he had had a brief holiday flirtation. She had read about his appointment to a professorship at Zurich University in her local paper in Switzerland and wrote to congratulate him. Einstein responded briefly and quite innocuously, evidently giving his home address, and a reply from her was intercepted by Marić. [Collected Papers Vol. 1 (English trans., 1987), p. 128; Vol. 5 (English trans., 1993), p. 115.] That ended the “correspondence”.

* “In 1912, the Einsteins returned to Zurich…By then, Albert had a new math collaborator, Marcel Grossman.”

The word “new” implies he had had a “math collaborator” prior to 1912, which is not the case. (Any implication here that previously Marić had been his math collaborator is without foundation.)

* [In 1912] “He also had a new lover, his cousin, Elsa Loewenthal.”

The implication of the word “new” is that prior to 1912 he had had one or more lovers since his marriage to Marić in 1903. There is no evidence that this was the case.

Women in Science

* “Einstein shared a life of love and scientific dialogue with Marić…”

There is no documented evidence of a shared life of “scientific dialogue” during the course of their marriage. On the other hand, as already noted, Philipp Frank recorded (presumably directly from Einstein, his friend and colleague) that when Einstein wanted to discuss his ideas with her, “her response was so slight that he was often unable to decide whether or not she was interested.”

Family and friends:

Mileva Marić:

* “She is dismissed as a scientist due to her gender.”

Marić has not been “dismissed as a scientist due to her gender”. She is not (and was not) considered a scientist because:
(a) She twice failed the examinations for a Zurich Polytechnic diploma to teach physics and mathematics in secondary school.
(b) There are no published papers by Marić, no letters containing ideas in physics, and no accounts of conversations having a specific scientific content. In other words, there is no objective evidence of scientific activity on Marić’s part outside of her Polytechnic course work and the early stages of a Ph.D. thesis that she gave up in 1901, soon after her second diploma exam failure. In other words, there are no grounds for describing her as a “scientist”.

* “Racist Western Europeans openly despise her Serbian heritage.”

Not content to highlight the very real struggle Marić had to overcome the physical and social difficulties arising from her congenital hip deformity, and the lack of opportunities for her to follow a College scientific education in her native Serbia which led to her moving to Switzerland to complete her high school education, Gabor adds a dubious assertion about “racist Western Europeans” despising her for her ethnic origins which is not borne out by the historical record. This would seem to be a tendentious attempt on Gabor’s part to add one more element to the ‘victim’ status she has sought to impose on Marić.

Albert Einstein:

* “Albert's relationship with Mileva reveals both the best and worst of his character. While with her, he creates brilliant physics. But never gives a thought to the sacrifice of her career.”

(a) “While with her, he creates brilliant physics.” This statement clearly implies a misconception, promoted by some proponents of the “collaboration” thesis, that after Einstein separated from Marić he ceased to produce first class physics. (Why else would Gabor write “while with her”?) Either through ignorance of the science, or deliberately, Gabor is here perpetuating this gross misconception. Suffice it to say that after their separation in 1912, Einstein continued to produce work of the very highest standards in fields as diverse as general relativity, quantum theory, and statistical physics.

(b) How does Gabor know that Einstein “never gave a thought” to the fact that Marić didn’t follow a scientific career? (I leave aside the tendentiousness of her using the word “sacrifice”, given that Marić would have had the opportunity of a physics post at Zurich Polytechnic had she not twice failed her diploma exams.) There is plenty of evidence in their early correspondence that Einstein dearly wished for them to pursue physics together.

Finally: In her Editor’s Note Andrea Gabor writes:

* “The site review involved interviewing and seeking feedback from physicists, including Einstein scholars, about the statements made and facts presented on the site. The site was then edited to ensure that the site is historically accurate.”

Gabor’s statement about interviewing physicists to ensure the site is historically accurate will no doubt sound reassuring to readers. However, it conveniently glosses over the fact that even Einstein scholars will have little knowledge of the historical details pertaining to Mileva Marić unless they have deliberately undertaken a considerable expenditure of time and effort to obtain and examine the large volume of relevant literature so as to ascertain the validity or otherwise of the numerous claims that have been made about Marić in recent times. It should be evident from the above that Gabor’s assurance that the site is now “historically accurate” is baseless.

NOTE:

In contrast to the principled stand taken by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, PBS is continuing to promote and sell the “Einstein’s Wife” DVD via their website, on which the blurb includes: “But almost forgotten was his university sweetheart, scientific collaborator, and first wife – Mileva Maric, who helped him win the 1921 Nobel Prize. Follow the life of a brilliant mathematician…”

The blurb on the DVD itself claims that “Mileva Maric [was] a brilliant mathematician [who] collaborated with [Einstein] on three famous works: Brownian Motion, Special Relativity Theory and Photoelectric Effect, which won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1921”.

The three Einstein specialists who were misled into appearing in the film have denounced it as a travesty of the historical record:
Dear Mr


November 2007

http://www.esterson.org