I Con the World

Is Elie Wiesel an icon or an “I con?”

Venerated and billed as “the world’s most famous Holocaust survivor” and a Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, earning hundreds of thousands of dollars every year in speaking fees (at $25,000 a pop it might be closer to say a million), and holding a prestigious, but undemanding six-figure professorship in Humanities at Boston University, Elie Wiesel has never been asked to show any proof that he is what he says he is.

Everything written about Elie Wiesel that this writer can find skims over the details and dwells on the emotionality of holocaust, humanity and hate. Among the many unnerving quotations from Elie concerning the last h-word is this one, found preceding an essay in the Jewish Daily Forward of June 9th by Anita Epstein, titled “Why I Cannot Forgive Germany:” [1]

“I cannot and I do not want to forgive the killers of children; I ask God not to forgive.”

     - Elie Wiesel

Ms. Epstein is influenced (or inspired?) by Wiesel to hold onto hate by holding on to the holocaust legends, such as the one about “Germans” throwing babies off of balconies. Another famous statement made by Elie is:

“Every Jew, somewhere in his being, should set apart a zone of hate – healthy virile hate – for what the German personifies and for what persists in the German. To do otherwise would be a betrayal of the dead. ”

Elie Wiesel actually plays God. The world has been conned into seeing him as the next best thing to God, as someone who has risen above it all, as someone who is capable or has earned the right to pass judgment on the rest of humanity. What has earned him this right is clearly his suffering during the one year he was held in concentration camps and his “powerful prose” in describing it.

However, Elie’s actual presence in the Auschwitz “death camp” and the Buchenwald concentration camp during 1944-45 rests solely on the claims of the New York Times and his well-promoted books, the most famous being his first one, Night, published in 1955 in Buenos Aires. That’s an interesting story in itself, but here I will limit myself to a chronology of NYT features on Elie that coincide with his advancing fortunes.

On 6 May 1945, the New York Times published the now famous photograph of the “Crowded Bunks in the Prison Camp at Buchenwald” without identifying anyone in the picture. Further use of the picture follows.

* October 1983, it was published again in the high circulation Sunday NYT Magazine with this caption: “On April 11, 1945, American troops liberated the concentration camp’s survivors, including Elie, who later identified himself as the man circled in the photo.”[2] (Wiesel says he is the last one on top row in this cropped version of the picture).

Wiesel had never claimed to be in this picture before, and this face is not the face of a 16-year-old boy, nor does it resemble an existing portrait of Elie before he was deported. But, the article included the statement: “His name has been frequently mentioned as a possible recipient of a Nobel Prize, for either peace or literature.” So we suspect it was part of the campaign being waged to win him a Nobel Prize.

As David O’Connell has written in “Elie Wiesel and the Catholics,”[3] the NYT had manufactured history by declaring erroneously that Wiesel is seen in the picture, even though Wiesel had stated over the years that he was in the sick bay at Buchenwald on April 16, the day the photograph was taken.

* 14 October 1986. The Nobel award was announced.

* 2 November 1986. The NYT again republished a severely cropped version of the Buchenwald photo with the caption: “Elie Wiesel, the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize (at far right in the top bunk) in the Buchenwald concentration camp in April 1945, when the camp was liberated by American troops.” [4]

* 4 January 1987. The NYT erroneously claimed that Wiesel had been “freed from Auschwitz” during the war. [5]

* 18 January 1988. The NYT wrote on the occasion of his trip to Auschwitz: “Mr. Wiesel was a prisoner at Auschwitz and witnessed the killing there of his father and one of his sisters.” [6] But, according to Wiesel’s account (no records), his father died in Buchenwald [from illness - editor's remark]. However, the NYT knew that Auschwitz was a familiar Holocaust “keyword” to its readers, while Buchenwald was not.

More confusion:

* 3 June 1987, the Chicago Tribune published a photo of Wiesel, accompanied by two other men, standing in front of a blown-up version of the picture and pointing to himself in it. The caption read: “Nobel Prize winner Elie Wiesel points to a picture of himself, taken by a German at the Auschwitz death camp in 1945. The photograph is part of the Holocaust Memorial in Lyon, France.”[7]

* 21 April 1995, Wiesel told the German weekly Die Zeit that the picture had actually been taken the day after the liberation, that is, on April 12, 1945, not on April 11, as he had always implied. (It was actually taken on April 16). He also said: “On the day after the liberation the picture was taken in the Children’s Block at Buchenwald by an American soldier. It shows old men. But these old faces are the faces of men who, in truth, were 15 or 16 years of age like I was.” [8]

There is much more to the story of this photograph, but that must be sufficient for now.

Counter Claims

In March 2009, fellow Hungarian Jew Myklos (Nikolaus) Grüner’s accusation that Elie Wiesel is an imposter broke onto the Internet, mainly via an article [9] on Henry Makow’s website that he picked up from a Hungarian website.[10] Naturally, it didn’t get much coverage in the media, even though Grüner had documents from both Auschwitz and Buchenwald to back him up, including undisputed records that show him registered as a prisoner in both camps. Back in January 2003, Grüner had issued an “international press release to the world” from his home in Sweden:

“Elie Wiesel A-7713 has never existed, and the man claiming himself to be “Elie Wiesel” with the concentration camp number A-7713, knowing full well that this number belonged to someone else, is an imposter of the worst kind. For this statement, I, Nikolaus Grüner A-11104, have certified and written knowledge of.” [11]

In a press release of 2006, Grüner states: “I […] take full responsibility in revealing that the 1986 Nobel Peace Prize winner ‘ELIE WIESEL’ has been impersonating Lazar Wiesel A-7713 who was born 1913 in Marmaros, Hungary. Further more I also state that the archives in Auschwitz and Buchenwald are missing evidence to prove that ‘ELIE,’ known as A-7713, was ever registered as a prisoner in any German concentration camp at all.” [12]

The evidence Grüner presents is compelling, and can be found in an organized fashion in two articles written by Carlo Mattogno and posted at Inconvenient History Revisionist Blog [13] on 24 Feb and 26 March of this year. One small piece of this evidence is that Elie Wiesel was born on 30 September 1928, and another is that the ID number A-7713 was given out on 24 May, but Elie Wiesel says in his book Night that he wasn’t deported from Sighet (Marmaros) until after 28 May and possibly not until 3 June 1944.

But the most persuasive evidence to me is registration cards and other official documents from the Auschwitz Museum archives that show Lazar Wiesel, born 4 September 1913 received number (and tattoo) A-7713 and his brother, Abraham, born 10 October 1900 was given A-7712.

A-7712 is the number Elie claims belonged to his father Shlomo, who was with him. There are no such records for Elie and his father. Nor for his two sisters who supposedly survived Auschwitz too.

The situation at Buchenwald is similar and the evidence against Elie Wiesel being a survivor of Auschwitz and Buchenwald at all continues to build to a veritable mountain, all of which will be graphically presented and archived at a website that is now under construction and soon to open.

Where’s the tattoo?

Our new website will carry the theme “Where’s the tattoo?” – an idea originally suggested by a poster on the CODOH forum. We present this to viewers as a world-wide challenge and to encourage investigation and demand for answers. We will ask for independent efforts by diverse groups to work with film, Youtube videos, petitions and letter-writing campaigns to Universities, especially Elie’s employer, Boston University.

We will challenge those in the “mighty mainstream media” to force attention on this issue. Everyone—you—can act as an individual entrepreneur, make use of the information we will provide, contribute information to I Con The World, coordinate with us. Our spotlight on Elie Wiesel and the issue of who he really is will be intense and unrelenting. We are not talking about speaking in riddles here, but of evidence that is in- your-face… or in-his-face. We urge your participation, we urge you to recruit others by bringing I Con The World to their attention, by encouraging others to contribute in whatever way they can.

Watch for us. Get ready to help.

[The Elie Wiesel Cons The World website is now up online at http://www.eliewieseltattoo.com - Editor's note]

[1] Jewish Daily Forward, 9 June 2010. http://forward.com/articles/128652/
[2] Samuel G. Freedman, “Bearing Witness: The Life and Work of Elie Wiesel,” NYT, 23 October 1983.
[3] “Elie Wiesel and the Catholics,” Culture Wars, November 2004.
[4] Martin Suskind, “A Voice from Bonn: History Cannot be Shrugged Off,” NYT, 2 November 1986.
[5] “A Survivor’s Prize,” NYT, 4 January 1987.
[6] “Wiesel and Walesa Visit Auschwitz,” NYT, 18 January 1988.
[7] “Elie Wiesel and the Catholics,” ibid.
[8] “1945 und Heute: Holocaust,” Die Zeit, 21 April 1995.
[9] http://www.henrymakow.com/translated_from_the_hungarian.html
[10] http://kuruc.info/r/6/36390/
[11] Nikolaus Grüner, Stolen Identity, Stockholm, 2005-2006.
[12] Grüner, ibid.
[13] Carlo Mattogno, ”Elie Wiesel: ‘The Most Authoritative Living Witness’ of The Shoah?” http://www.revblog.codoh.com/2010/02/elie-wiesel-the-most-authoritative-living-witness-of-the-shoah/; ”Elie Wiesel: New Documents” http://www.revblog.codoh.com/2010/03/elie-wiesel-new-documents/

In my study Special Treatment in Auschwitz. Origin and Meaning of a Term[1] I have written as follows:

«“Special Units” of the Crematoria
Danuta Czech explains the origin and meaning of the term “Sonderkommando” (special unit) as follows:
“The extermination camp created also one other group of people, those who were forced to work in the crematoria and gas chambers – the unfortunate people were assigned to the work of the special unit. The SS used code words if they spoke about the mass extermination of those ‘unworthy of life.’ It called the mass extermination as well as the transports leading
to selection ‘special treatment’ (often abbreviated as SB). Thus, also, the expression ‘special unit.’”
In other words, since criminal activity described by the code word ‘special treatment’ was allegedly being conducted in the crematoria, the staff employed there had of necessity to be a ‘special unit.’ Naturally it was the only work unit at Auschwitz that merited the prefix ‘special’ [sonder] – otherwise the word would have lost the criminal significance that it possessed according to official historiography.
Based on the documents, the reality is entirely different. First of all, the expression ‘special unit’ does not appear in a single document referring to the crematoria. In its ‘magnum opus’ the Auschwitz museum attempted to prove, on the basis of two documents, that this term was used for the crematoria personnel. The first document is a duty roster for July 18, 1944 [”Dienstplan für Dienstag”, dated 17 July], the second order no. 8/43 of April 20, 1943 from the Commandant’s Headquarters. But the first document merely mentions the term ‘special unit’ in connection with a gate control [Torkontrolle]»

Here a correction is necessary. The mention of the ”Sonderkommando” is not related to the ”Torkontrolle” written on the left (the document is written in two columns) but to four names listed on the right: ”Buch, Kelm, Schultz, Bickel”. Franciszek Piper considers them all to be “members of the SS directly employed in the gas chambers and crematoria”, but this assertion is based solely on the document in question.[2] He also states that Buch, Kelm and Schulz are mentioned as the members of the SS-Sonderkommando of the crematoria by the witnesses Alter Feinsilber (alias Jankowski) and Henryk Tauber,[3] but the first one speaks only of a ”Scharführer Buch” and a ”Kell”,[4] while the other mentions a ”Schultz” and a ”Köln”.[5] One Scharführer Buch, an Unterscharführer Kelm and an Unterscharführer appears (with their proper names) in an undated list of SS-men containing a column of written signatures under the heading ”receipt”, likely related to the payment of salaries. Their tasks are not specified.[6] The Heinz Schulz who according to Piper (whose source refers to a “Schultz”) was a Kommandoführer (commando leader) of the crematoria was identified at the Frankfurt Auschwitz Trial as SS-Unterscharführer Arthur Heinz Schulz, who was the “ Kommandoführer im Arbeitskommando Zerlegbetriebe” (commando leader of the disassembly work commando).[7] Hermann Buch, who according to Piper also served as a Kommandoführer in the crematoria, served, according to the same book in which the Auschwitz historian makes this claim, as Lagerführer of BIIe (head of camp BIIe, the “Gypsy family camp), at the beginning of April 1944. In the eight lines of his biographical note there is no hint that he occupied the – in the context of the ”Holocaust” claims most important – position of a crematoria Kommandoführer.[8]

There exists a similar docuent, the ”Dienstplan für Donnerstag, den 10.05.1944” (Service schedule for Tuesday, 5 October 1944), dated 4 October, in which the term Sonderkommando appears but with only one name written next to it: ”Buch”. In the second column on the same line is written “Sola, Hütte” (Sola [river], works) and close to this ”Kelm”.[9]

Because, as explained below, the staff of the crematoria at the time was divided into 8 Kommandos, 2 for each crematorium (one day and one night shift), a total of 8 Kommandoführer were required daily. The first document mentions only 4 SS non-commissioned officers, while the second mentions only a single name, which means that the ”Sonderkommando” mentioned in them had nothing to do with the crematoria staff.

«The second [document] speaks simply of the pursuit of two Jews “who were on the run from the special unit.” [von 2 Juden, die vom Sonderkommando flüchtig waren] Therefore, the assumption, based on the above two occurrences of the term, is that there was in Auschwitz a single ‘special unit,’ which consisted of the crematoria staff!
However, in the documents, which explicitly mention the crematorium staff, its designation is simply “staff of crematorium” [Krematoriumspersonal][10] or it is identified by numbers – “206-B boiler, Crematorium I and II, 207-B boiler, Crematorium II and IV”[”206-B Heizer Krematorium I. u.II. 207-B Heizer Krematorium III. U. IV”].[11]
In the second place, there were numerous ‘special units’ in Auschwitz, of which not a single one had anything whatsoever to do with the crematoria. I list those below, for which I have found documentary evidence:

• Installation by special unit Birkenau BW 20 POW camp [“Installation des Sonderkommando-Birkenau BW 20 KGL”]: unit of electricians serving in the power plant of Birkenau (BW 20).
• pest control special unit [“Sonderkommando-Schädlingsbekämpfung”] (made up of women).
• special unit Reinhardt [“Sonderkommando-Reinhardt”]: women’s unit assigned to the sorting of clothing.
• special unit Zeppelin [“Sonderkommando Zeppelin”]: outside unit based in Breslau.
• special unit I [“Sonderkommando 1”]: unit for the warehousing of the personal effects of the Jews deported to Auschwitz.
• special unit II [“Sonderkommando II”]: no information with regard to its function.
• construction depot special unit (S.K.) [“Bauhof-Sonderkommando (S.K.) ”]: unit employed in the store of the construction depot.
• Dwory special unit (S.K.) [“Dwory-Sonderkommando (S.K.)”]: unit working in Dwory – a village about 10 km east of the town of Auschwitz.
• Buna special unit (S.K.) [“Buna-Sonderkommando (S.K.)”]: unit working in Monowitz.
• clothing workshops special unit [“Bekleidungs-Werkstätte-Sonderkommando (Bekl.Werkst.S.K.)”]: unit in the workshops producing clothing.
• DAW special unit [“D.A.W.Sonderkommando (S.K.)”]: unit employed in the German Equipment Works [Deutsche Ausrüstungswerke].
• Sonderkommando, occupied at the “Sola-Hütte.”

One may comb the orthodox historical publications, beginning with those of the Auschwitz Museum, for even a scant reference to the above ‘special units’ – but, alas, in vain!»

Recently the Auschwitz Museum website (www.auschwitz.org.pl) published two documents which mentions the term ”Sonderkommando”, one of them with explicit reference to a ”Krematorium” (crematorium). Below I present the documents with transcriptions and translations.

DOCUMENT:

TRANSCRIPTION:

«[Column 1]
a) Geheime Staatspolizei Auschwitz
b) Stadtrevier Auschwitz
Pezola, Wachtm[eister] d[er] S[chutzpolizei] d.A. [?]
c) 7.9.44. 1915 Uhr Wilczek
[Column 2]
Fluchtmeldung.
Gegen 1400 Uhr ist heute aus dem K.L. Auschwitz II vom Sonderkommando (Krematorium) eine größere Anzahl Häftlinge ausgebrochen meist Juden. Die Flüchtigen wurden bereits zum Teil bei der sofort aufgenommenen Verfolgung erschossen. Die Suchaktion wird fortgesetzt.
Kennzeichen: geschoren, auf dem l[inken]. Unterarm eintätowierte No. Kleidung teils Civil mit roten Streifen. Weitere Fahndungsmaßnahmen u[nd]. Verständigung der untergeordneten Stellen bitte ich sofort durchzuführen.
Es sind nur noch 4 Häftlinge flüchtig.
[Column 3]
Verstärkte Streife zum [vom?] Bahnhofsgelände entsandt».

TRANSLATION:

«[Column 1]
a) Secret State Police [i.e. Gestapo] Auschwitz
b) Auschwitz city hospital
Pezola, marshal of the security police d.A.[?]
c) 7.9.44. 19.15 hours Wilczek
[Column 2]
Escape report.
Towards 14.00 hours today a larger number of detainees belonging to the Sonderkommando (crematory), mostly Jews, escaped from K.L. Auschwitz. Part of the escapees were shot during the pursuit, which was commenced immediately. The search operation continues.
Dinstinguishing marks: cropped hair, number tattooed on the l[eft]. lower arm. Clothes partly civilian with red stripes. I request that you urgently notify subordinate agencies and carry out further search measures.
4 prisoners are still on free foot.
[Column 3]
Send a reinforced patrol to the station area».

It is rather curious that such an important document was discovered (?) only after 65 years and then published without any supplementary information. I will return to this issue at the end of the article.

The second document is an officer’s service report (Führer v. Dienst) from 9-10 December 1942.[14]

I will translate here only its most important parts:

«At 12.25 hours it was reported that 6 detainees had escaped from Sonderkommando I. [...]. At 20.30 hours there was a call from Harmensee that 2 detainees had been captured there. [...]. It was the two Jewish detainees no. 36816 and 38313 who had escaped from Sonderkommando II early on 7.12.42.»
[«12.25 wurde gemeldet das [sic] beim Sonderkommande [sic] I 6 Häftlinge geflüchtet sind. [...]. 20.30 wurde v. Harmenze [sic] angerufen, das [sic] dort 2 Häfltinge aufgegriffen worden sind. [...]. Es waren die beiden Juden häflinge [sic] N 36816 + 38313 welche am 7.12.42 früh v. Sonderkom. II geflüchtet sind»].

Danuta Czech, in her Auschwitz ”Kalendarium” summarizes the document in question as follows under the entry for 9 December 1942:

«At 12.25 the officer on duty received a notification that six detainees had escaped from the Sonderkommando».[15]

She then informs us that «the two prisoners, with the numbers 36816 and 38313», had escaped «from Sonderkommando II». In the entry for 10 December she adds:

«The two Jewish prisoners Ladislaus Knopp (No. 36816) and Samuel Culea (No. 38313) who had escaped from Sonderkommando II on 7 December are confined in the Bunker of Block 11 and released the same day into the camp.
Two Jewish inmates, who fled the day before from the Sonderkommando, are captured and imprisoned in the Bunker of Block 11. These are Bar Borenstein (No 74858), born 10 February 1920, and Nojech Borenstein (No 74859), born 25 March 1925 in Szreńsk. [...]. Both are probably executed in the presence of the Sonderkommando in order to terrorize the other prisoners».

In a footnote Czech explains with regards to Bar Borenstein and Nojech Borenstein:

«Next to the names of the both detainees, near the annotation “released” is written the letter “Ü”».[16]

It is not clear from what the author of the ”Kalendarium” draws her conclusion that these two prisoners were executed, as “Ü” is doubtlessly an abbreviation of “überstellt”, transferred. In fact, the numbers of these two inmates are not listed as dead among the entries of the Leichenhallenbuch (the registry of deaths from the morgue in Block 28 of the main camp) from 9 December 1942 or the following days.[17] But the most important aspect of the above summaries by Czech is the fact that she has omitted the number of the Sonderkommando from which the six prisoners had escaped: ”I”. The reason for this is easy to understand. Under the date of 3 December 1942 Czech writes:

«The approximately 300 prisoners of the Sonderkommando used for the exhumation and cremation of 107,000 corpses buried in mass graves are driven by the SS from Birkenau to the Auschwitz main camp. There they are taken to the crematorium and killed with gas. Thus the witnesses to the cremation of the corpses are eliminated».[18]

In the entry for 6 December 1942 she notes:

«A new Sonderkommando is formed, which includes several dozen detainees selected from camp BIb. It probably bears the name Sonderkommando II. Among its members are Meilech (Milton) Buki (Nr. 80312) and Szlama Dragon (Nr. 80359) [...]. At the trial of Rudolf Hoess he [Szlama Dragon] deposed as a witness for the prosecution, stating that the group of Jewish prisoners were assigned to the Sonderkommando on 9 December and the following day were employed in the cremation of corpses. From the camp documents it appears that the Sonderkommando [II] aready existed, because on 7 and 9 December prisoners employed in it attempted escape».[19]

The mention of «camp documents» clearly refer to the officer’s service report from 9 December 1942.

To recapitulate, the Sonderkommando allegedly massacred on 3 December 1942 was replaced by a “Sonderkommando II” on 6 December, which means that the former unit was the ”Sonderkommando I”. D. Czech claims that the detainees who escaped on 7 and 9 December were all from ” Sonderkommando II”, but the officer’s service report explicitly states that the six detainees in question were employed in Sonderkommando I”. By omitting the number “I” from her entry for 9 December and falsely asserting in the entry for 6 December that all the prisoners who had escaped belonged to “Sonderkommando II , Czech sought to to hide the fact that on December 9, 1942 there existed a “Sonderkommando I” as well as a “Sonderkommando II”, something which upsets her flawed reconstruction of events. It is all too obvious that, if the two Sonderkommandos existed at the same time, the first one could not have been exterminated on 3 December, and the second one could not have taken its place days later.

Elsewhere I have explained that the Sonderkommando I and II had nothing to do with the crematoria, but were working at sorting the booty of ”Aktion Reinhard” in Auschwitz.[20]

The imposture of Czech sought to confirm the thesis that at Auschwitz there existed one single, unique Sonderkommando employed in the crematoria. It had to be the only one because, as explained above, its name was to recall its supposed involvement in the alleged Sonderbehandlung. It is evident that the author of the ”Kalendarium” had to resort to this imposture because at that time there existed no documents which could establish a relationship between the Sonderkommando and the crematoria.

Now, the “escape report” mentioned above tells us of a Sonderkommando belonging to the “crematory”, but this was just one of many Sonderkommandos that existed in Auschwitz. This is confirmed by the document itself, since it specifies within brackets that the Sonderkommando was that of the “crematory”, thus implying precisely that there were other Sonderkommandos. Furthermore, the fact that the escapees from this Sonderkommando were “mostly Jews” contradicts the exterminationist axiom that all, or virtually all, of the members of the crematoria Sonderkommando were Jews.

This document is important also in another aspect, which perhaps explains the fact that it was “forgotten” for so many years. The only mass escape of Auschwitz crematoria staff mentioned by Holocaust historiography is supposed to have taken place in connection with the alleged “revolt of the Sonderkommando” of 7 October 1944. The only date to appear in the document in question is, however, 7 September 1944. The document, moreover, speaks of an escape, not of a revolt, which, among other things, is claimed to have led to deaths among the SS personnel – but in our ”escape report” there is no mention of any such deaths.

The one single document that is cited in confirmation of the alleged revolt, Standortbefehl (garrison order) No. 26/44 of 12 October 1944, states:

True to their oath to the Führer, there fell before the enemy in their line of duty, on Saturday 7.10.44 [«In Ausübung ihres Dienstes fielen vor dem Feind getreu ihrem Eid auf den Führer am Sonnabend, dem [sic] 7.10.44»]

This is followed by the names of three SS-Unterscharführer: Rudolf Erler, Willi Freese and Josef Purke.[21] It does not mention, however, under which circumstances these three non-commissioned officers died.

To this document is added the fact that, according to the series of reports on the Arbeitseinsatz (work deployment) of the men’s camp in Birkenau, the crematoria staff – called ”Heizer Krematorium I-IV” (firemen crematoria I-IV) and divided into one Kommando per crematorium, with each of those in turn broken down into two shifts, day an night: 57B, 58B, 59B, 60B – consisted of 663 prisoners on 8 October 1944, while on the following day it counted only 212.[22] But the decrease of 451 inmates does not necessarily indicate that they were killed during a revolt. On the other hand, if this alleged revolt had actually occurred on October 7, the decrease in the strength of the Sonderkommando would have been recorded on the following day, not on the 9th. Moreover, according to the sources referred to in footnote 22, from 10 October on, the staff of crematorium IV vanishes from the Arbeitseinsatz reports. The staff of crematorium I, II and V continues to be divided into two shifts, day and night, 33 prisoners each, practically until October 31.[23] The decrease could thus also have been caused by a reduction of the crematoria staff for administrative reasons. With regard to crematorium IV, no known document clarifies its fate.

On 7 September 1944 the crematoria staff consisted of 870 detainees,[24] while on 2 October it was down to 661.[25] If this decrease of 209 prisoners was not the result of the escape of September 7 (with which it is compatible, considering that the Arbeitseinsatz report for this day relates to changes in the work force which had taken place the day before, while the subsequent reports have not been preserved) it could also have been due to administrative reasons.

In conclusion: The fact that such an enormously important event as the alleged ”revolt of the Sonderkommando” is not explicitly mentioned in any German document, starting with those of the Litzmannstadt Gestapo, which in connection with any escape from Auschwitz as a rule always sent out a telegram to all affected offices,[26] is the most disturbing aspect of this story for Holocaust historiography.

Carlo Mattogno
8 March 2010

[1] Theses & Dissertations Press, Chicago 2004, p. 101.
[2] F. Piper, «Vernichtung», in: W. Długoborski, F. Piper (eds.), Auschwitz 1940-1945. Studien zur Geschichte des Konzentrations- und Vernichtungslagers Auschwitz, Verlag des Staatliches Museums Auschwitz-Birkenau, Oświęcim 1999, vol. III, p. 261.
[3] Idem, pp. 261-263.
[4] Inmitten des grauenvollen Verbrechens. Handschriften von Mitgliedern des Sonderkommandos, Verlag des Staatlichen Auschwitz-Birkenau Museums, 1996, p. 45.
[5] The Höss Trial, vol. 11, p. 142.
[6] GARF, 7021-108-54, pp. 97 and 98.
[7] Der Auschwitz Prozeß, edited by the Fritz Bauer Institut (Frankfurt am Main) and the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum, Digitale Bibliothek, Verlag der Directmedia Publishing GmbH, Berlin 2005, p. 33519, 46036 and 46043.
[8] Aleksander Lasik, «Die Organisationsstruktur des KL Auschwitz», in: W. Długoborski, F. Piper (eds.), Auschwitz 1940-1945. Studien zur Geschichte des Konzentrations- und Vernichtungslagers Auschwitz, op. cit., vol. I, p. 239.
[9] GARF, 7021-108-59, p. 3.
[10] APMO, Übersicht über Anzahl und Einsatz der Häftlinge des Konzentrationslager, 31 January 1944. APMO, D-f/402, n. inv. 167217, p. 34.
[11] E.g. in Arbeitseinsatz für den 15. Mai 1943, APMO, D-AuII-3a/1a, p. 333a.
[12] In the list compiled by Otto Wolken. AGK, NTN, 149, pp. 139-140.
[13] Idem, p. 149.
[14] This document is dated ”9/10.42”. This should not be read as 9 October, but instead as 9-10 December (the month omitted here is indicated later in the report), the two days being when the officer in question performed his service (in all likelihood, judging from the times mentioned, which range from the 9th of December to the 10th).
[15] D. Czech, Kalendarium der Ereignisse im Konzentrationslager Auschwitz-Birkenau 1939-1945, Rowohlt Verlag, Reinbek bei Hamburg 1989, p. 355.
[16] Idem.
[17] AGK, Leichenhallenbuch, Collection “OB”, 385, pp. 42-43 and following pages.
[18] D. Czech, Kalendarium der Ereignisse im Konzentrationslager Auschwitz-Birkenau 1939-1945, op. cit., p. 349.
[19] Idem, pp. 352-353.
[20] “Azione Reinhard” e “Azione 1005”, Effepi, Genoa 2008, pp. 24-31.
[21] Standort- und Kommandanturbefehle des Konzentrationslager Auschwitz 1940-1945, K.G. Saur, Munich 2000, p. 499.
[22] GARF, 7021-108-99, p. 164 and 168.
[23] Idem, pp. 166-167.
[24] APMO, D AuII/3a/49, p. 88.
[25] Idem, p. 93. The intermediate reports have not been preserved.
[26] E.g. the telegram concerning the escape on 7 April 1944 of Walter Rosenberg (alias Rudolf Vrba) and Alfred Wetzler, who later became known as the authors of the ”Auschwitz Protocols”, APMO, JZ-8 / 6 Łódź / 4, p. 65.

Abbreviations:

AGK: Archiwum Głównej Komisji Badania Zbrodni Przeciwko Narodowi Polskiemu – Instytutu Pamieci Narodowej (Archive of the Chief Commission for the Investigation of Crimes against the Polish People – National Memorial Institute), Warsaw
APMO: Archiwum Państwowego Muzeum w Oświęcimiu (Archive of the State Auschwitz-Birkenau Museum)
GARF: Gosudarstvenni Archiv Rossiskoi Federatsii (State Archive of the Russian Federation), Moscow
RGVA: Rossiiskii Gosudarstvennii Vojennii Archiv (State Russian War Archive), Moscow.

It is an acknowledged fact that Holocaust historiography reached its peak in 2002 and has since begun a gradual and inexorable decline. Revisionist historiography, by contrast, has flourished in the last decade. As for myself, I have in this time published a dozen studies, the most recent being Auschwitz: assistenza sanitaria, “selezione” e “Sonderbehandlung” dei detenuti immatricolati (“Auschwitz: sanitary service, ‘selections’ and ‘special treatment’ of registered inmates, Effepi, Genoa 2010), in which I have dealt with all the basic aspects of the Auschwitz camp. The other two alleged “labor and extermination camps“ were carefully studied by Jürgen Graf and myself in the books Concentration Camp Majdanek. A Historical and Technical Study (Theses & Dissertations Press, Chicago 2003) and Concentration Camp Stutthof and its Function in National Socialist Jewish Policy (Theses & Dissertations Press, Chicago 2003). The alleged extermination camp Chełmno is the subject of my study Il campo di Chełmno tra storia e propaganda (“Camp Chełmno in History and Propaganda”, Effepi, Genoa 2009), while the alleged eastern extermination camps of Bełżec and Treblinka were treated by me in the book Bełżec in Propaganda, Testimonies, Archeological Research, and History (Theses & Dissertations Press, Chicago 2004) and by J. Graf and myself in our work Treblinka. Extermination Camp or Transit Camp? (Theses & Dissertations Press, Chicago 2004). There remained the last camp, that of Sobibór, which was the most difficult to treat due to the near lack of preserved documentation. Now finally this gap has been filled with the recent publication of the book Holocaust Propaganda and Reality (The Barnes Review, Washington D.C. 2010), written by J. Graf, Thomas Kues and myself. This work amounts to 434 pages, with 6 documents, 15 photographs and a comprehensive bibliography (pp. 414-429).

Regarding the contents I refer to the table of contents, which I reproduce below. I will here mention briefly some of the new key arguments presented.

Chapter V (Critical Analysis of Material Evidence) critically examines the fundamental “material evidence” presented by the Polish archeologist A. Kola in his almost impossible-to-find ”Report on the archeological investigation at the site of the former Jewish extermination camp of Sobibór”. The critique focuses on the mass graves and remains of barracks identified by Kola (who found no traces of the alleged gas chambers) and the problem of the outdoor cremation of the alleged gas chamber victims, demonstrating that the official historiographical narrative is untenable.

Chapter VIII (The Führerbefehl and the Origins of the “Extermination Camps” in the East) outlines the history of “Aktion Reinhardt” and explains its real significance within the framework of the “Generalplan Ost“, as well as shows the inconsistency of the exterminationist historiography on the construction of these alleged death camps.

Chapter X provides the most comprehensive study yet on the fate of the Jewish prisoners deported to the East. The thesis of the book is that Sobibór was in fact a transit camp (Durchgangslager), just as stated by Himmler in a letter from 5 July 1943 addressed to the SS-Wirtschafts-Verwaltungshauptamt and seven other SS instances. Related arguments are also set out in Chapter IX.

With this work the revisionist bibliography on the alleged extermination camps of Bełżec, Treblinka, Sobibór and Chełmno has reached 1,218 pages.

Holocaust historiography, gravely embarrassed as always, keeps silent. To compensate it flings accusations of “antisemitism” to the right and left. Being completely unable to counter anything it can react only with hysteric invectives or, possibly, a real debate.

Carlo Mattogno, 22 June 2010

Table of Contents

1. Introduction …………………………… 9
Measurement Conversions …………………………….. 14

2. The Sobibór Camp and its Historiographic Representation ……….. 15
2.1. Sobibór as Described in the Encyclopedia of the Holocaust …….. 15
2.2. Sobibór as Described in Contemporary Documents ……………….. 20
2.2.1. Himmler’s Directive of 5 July 1943 and Pohl’s Reply ….. 21
2.2.2. Documents about the Sobibór Uprising ………………………. 21
2.2.3. The Höfle Radio Message ………………………………. 22
2.2.4. Provisional Summary ……………………………… 22
2.3. Sobibór in Official Historiography and “Holocaust” Literature …….. 23
2.3.1. N. Blumental’s Documents and Materials (1946) ………… 23
2.3.2. Report by the “Main Commission for the Investigation of German Crimes in Poland” (1947) ……… 24
2.3.3. Yuri Suhl (1967) ………… 25
2.3.4. Adam Rutkowski (1968) …………. 26
2.3.5. Stanisław Szmajzner (1968) …………… 28
2.3.6. Adalbert Rückerl (1977) ………… 31
2.3.7. E.A. Cohen (1979) ………… 31
2.3.8. Miriam Novitch (1980)……………. 31
2.3.9. Richard Rashke (1982) …………… 34
2.3.10. E. Kogon, H. Langbein, A. Rückerl et al. (1983) …………. 35
2.3.11. Yitzhak Arad (1987) …………………. 37
2.3.12. Witold Zbigniew Sulimierski (1993) …………39
2.3.13. Jules Schelvis (1993) ……………….. 40
2.3.14. Thomas (Toivi) Blatt (1996) ………………….. 41
2.3.15. Shaindy Perl (2004) ………………… 45
2.3.16. Michael Lev (2007) …………………… 46
2.3.17. Dov Freiberg (2007) ……………………. 46
2.3.18. Barbara Distel (2008) …………………….. 46
2.3.19. Jules Schelvis (2008) …………………….. 47
2.3.20. Conclusions ……………………….. 55
2.4. A Revisionist Article about Sobibór …………… 56
2.5. Heinrich Himmler’s Visit to Sobibór …………… 58
2.6. Sobibór’s Claimed Number of Vicitms …………… 60

3. Origins and Evolution of Claims about Sobibór ……………. 63

4. Critical Analysis of Eye Witness Testimonies ……………..77
4.1. Alleged Contacts with Inmates in camp III ……………….. 77
4.2. Alexander Pechersky, the Main Witness ………………… 84
4.3. “The Most Conclusive Evidence” …………………… 93
4.4. Miscellaneous Anomalies and Absurdities ………………… 98
4.5. Testimonies by Former Camp Personnel ………………. 102
4.6. The Value of Eye Witness Testimonies ……………… 105

5. Critical Analysis of Material Evidence ……………… 107
5.1. The State of Evidence ……………………. 107
5.1.1. Forensic Post War Survey by Polish Authorities ……….. 107
5.1.2. Photographic Evidence …………….. 108
5.1.3. Kola’s Archeological Research at Sobibór 2000-2001 ……. 109
5.2. Mass Graves…………….. 112
5.2.1. Mass Graves in Testimony, Verdicts, and Historiography…………….. 112
5.2.2. The Switch from Burial to Cremation ……………… 115
5.2.3. Mass Graves Identified by Kola ………………. 118
5.2.4. The Significance of Unincinerated Corpses ………………. 120
5.2.5. Area and Volume of the Graves …………………. 122
5.2.6. A Note on the Ground Water Level at Sobibór ………………. 125
5.3. Fuel Requirements ……………………. 130
5.3.1. The Percentage of Children among the Deportees ………….. 130
5.3.2. The Average Weight of the Children ……………….. 132
5.3.3. Fuel Requirements for the Cremation of One Body …………….. 133
5.3.4. Decomposed Bodies ……………….. 136
5.3.5. Emaciated Corpses ……………….. 138
5.3.6. Factors Influencing the Cremation ………………. 139
5.3.7. Wood Requirements for Corpse Cremation at Sobibór …………. 140
5.3.8. The Duration of the Cremation …………….. 145
5.3.9. The Ashes ……………. 148
5.4. Excavated Building Remains ……………. 149
5.4.1. The Alleged Second Phase Gas Chambers in Testimony, Verdicts and Historiography ………………. 149
5.4.2. Building Remains Excavated by Kola ……………… 152
5.5. Continued Archeological Research 2007-2008 …………………. 162
5.6. The Official “Memorial Map” of the Sobibór “Death Camp” …………….. 167
5.7. Estimate of the Sobibór Death Toll …………….. 168

6. The Sobibór Trials……………………. 171
6.1. Legal Proceedings as the Basis for Historiography ……………….. 171
6.2. The Trial of Erich Bauer in Berlin in 1950 ………………. 172
6.3. The Frankfurt Trial of Hubert Gomerski and Johann Klier (1950) …………… 178
6.4. The Sobibór Trial at Hagen (1965/1966) ……………….. 182
6.5. The Sobibór Trial that Never Took Place ………………… 189
6.6. The Three Sobibór Trials in the Soviet Union ………………… 190
6.7. The Brazilian Extradition Proceedings against F. Stangl and G. Wagner………….. 191

7. National-Socialist Policy of Jewish Emigration ……………. 193
7.1. Emigration …………………… 193
7.2. The Madagascar Plan ………………. 198
7.3. From Madagascar Plan to Deportation to the East ……………… 201
7.4. First Deportations to the East …………………. 213

8. The Führerbefehl and the Origins of the “Extermination Camps” in the East ……………. 219
8.1. The Führerbefehl and Holocaust Historiography ……………….. 219
8.2. Origins and Significance of “Aktion Reinhardt” ………………. 236
8.2.1. The “Generalplan Ost” ……………………. 236
8.2.2. “Aktion Reinhardt” …………………….. 243
8.3. Alleged Genesis and Organization of the Extermination Camps of Aktion Reinhardt ……………….. 251
8.3.1. Administration and Financing …………….. 251
8.3.2. Construction of the Camps ……………… 252
8.3.3. Construction of the Alleged Gas Chambers: General Problems……………….. 254
8.4. The Alleged First Gas Chamber Building at Sobibór ……………. 262
8.5. Euthanasia and Aktion Reinhardt ……………….. 269
8.6. Himmler’s Cremation Order …………………. 281

9. Sobibór: Propaganda and Reality ………………… 283
9.1. Fake “Baths” or Real Baths? Sobibór as a Transit Camp …………… 283
9.2. The Ostwanderung ……………………. 290
9.3. Jewish Transports into the Lublin District in 1942 ……………….. 296
9.4. Evacuations to the East: Höfle Telegram and Korherr Report ……………… 311
9.5. Registration of Deportees in the Aktion Reinhardt Camps ……………. 331
9.6. Prof. Kulischer on the Expulsion of Jews …………….. 333

10. The Fate of the Deportees…………………. 347
10.1. The Fate of Jews Deported Directly to the East ……………………. 347
10.2. Number of Jews Moved to the East ………………………. 349
10.2.1. Via the Aktion Reinhardt Camps ………………………. 349
10.2.2. Via Chełmno……………………. 351
10.2.3. Via Auschwitz …………………….. 352
10.2.4. Balance ………………….. 353
10.3. The Dissolution of Polish Jewry in the USSR………………… 354
10.4. Western Jews in the Eastern Territories ………………. 357
10.4.1. Steffen Werner’s White Ruthenia Hypothesis ………………. 357
10.4.2. American Jewish Yearbook …………………… 360
10.4.3. Judisk Krönika ………………… 361
10.4.4. Further Evidence for Western Jews in the East …………….. 363
10.4.5. The Diary of Herman Kruk ………………….. 366
10.5. The Fate of Western Jews – a Hypothesis ………………. 369

11. The Demjanjuk Case……………………. 375
11.1. Hunting Down Old Men …………………… 375
11.2. The OSI…………………….. 379
11.3. Demjanjuk’s Extradition to Israel and His Trial ……………… 380
11.4. Demjanjuk’s Extradition to Germany ………………….. 387
11.5. The Run-Up to the Munich Trial ………………… 389

12. Conclusions …………………. 391
12.1. The Moral Responsibility of the Camp Personnel ………………… 391
12.2. “I am a Portion of that Force…” …………………….. 393
12.3. The Emperor’s New Clothes ……………………. 394
12.4. The Moloch …………………….. 395

13. Appendix …………………… 401
13.1. Documents and Photographs ………………………. 401
13.2. SS Ranks and U.S. Army Equivalents ……………………….. 413
13.3. Bibliography …………………….. 414
Media Items ……………….. 414
Monographs, Anthologies, Published Document Collections ………………. 415
Documents …………………. 425
Internet Sources ……………….. 426
Judicial Documents ……………………. 429
13.4. Abbreviations ………………………… 429
13.5. Index of Names…………………………. 430

Click here to purchase Sobibór. Holocaust Propaganda and Reality from The Barnes Review Book Store

In a discussion of my study Special Treatment in Auschwitz. Origin and Meaning of a Term (Theses & Dissertations Press, Chicago 2004), Holocaust blogger Sergey Romanov puts forth the following critique:

«Mattogno discusses lots of Auschwitz documents which contain the code words, and an unsuspecting reader might be duped into believing that Mattogno really did discuss (and rip to shreds) all the Auschwitz-related documentary evidence containing the code words. However, Mattogno deceptively omits the most crucial source on the use of the code word»

He concludes:

«Therefore, by omitting any mention of these prominent documents Carlo Mattogno has engaged in a gross and unforgivable deception. We hope to treat Mattogno’s other arguments from this and other books in the future, but it has already been established that one cannot rely on him to present the evidence fairly».[1]

If there is anyone who is “deceptive” here it is Sergey Romanov. In the abovementioned book I not only have never claimed to have considered «all the Auschwitz-related documentary evidence containing the code words», but I explicitly stated otherwise. In footnote 18 on pp. 11-12 I alert the reader:

«Likewise, a systematic treatment of all registered prisoners who were subjected to a “special treatment” would amount to an extensive analysis of the current claims of gassing as well as of the fates of various groups of prisoners, which would exceed the bounds of this investigation. [...]. In addition, a comprehensive study on this subject in preparation».

Therefore, by omitting any mention of this notification, Sergey Romanov has engaged in a gross and unforgivable deception, thus confirming once again his true nature, which has already been abundantly demonstrated in my book Olocausto: dilettanti nel web (Effepi, Genoa 2005).

The announced study, one of the most difficult I have undertaken, has now finally been published. Its title is Auschwitz: assistenza sanitaria, “selezione” e “Sonderbehandlung” dei detenuti immatricolati (Auschwitz: sanitary service, “selections” and “special treatment” of registered inmates) and it consists of 333 pages (sized 17 x 24) with 60 documents, many virtually unknown to specialists.

The table of contents below clearly shows the structure of study, so I will limit myself to presenting the conclusion. Here should only be noted that Chapter 4 contains detailed statistics on the number of prisoners unfit for work and unemployable, the stationary ill and invalids (!) who were constantly present in the hospitals of Auschwitz-Birkenau, which were established in accordance with the directive of the SS-WVHA of June 24, 1942. In Chapter 7 I have further devoted 28 pages to analyzing the documents which, according to Sergey Romanov, I ”omitted” from my previous book.

Here follows the conclusion:

«The thesis that at the hospitals of the Auschwitz camp complex registered inmates who due to illness had become unfit for work were selected to be sent to the alleged gas chambers has no documentary basis. On the contrary, documents show that at Auschwitz the SS always tried to improve, wherever possible, the living conditions and health of the inmates by establishing hospitals for the sick in which, inter alia, thousands of surgeries were performed. Some sick detainees were even transferred to other camps in order to receive a more appropriate care.

The plans – fully documented but implemented only in part due to undetermined reasons – for a huge camp hospital in Birkenau Bauabschnitt III, originally revealed by Pressac, blatantly contradicts the claims of mass extermination and demonstrates that the SS policy toward inmates unfit for work was not one of killing, but of medical treatment.

An analysis of the alleged selections of registered inmates for the gas chambers as listed by Danuta Czech shows that none of them has any historical documentary basis; rather they are often flatly contradicted by the documents. In fact, they are all based on not only the mere speculation of witnesses, but above all on unheard-of manipulations which reveal the true nature of the Auschwitz “Kalendarium” as not an historical and historiographical instrument enabling us to understand the events, but a propaganda tool for their systematic distortion».

Table of Contents:

PART ONE – THE INMATES

CHAPTER 1 – THE LIVING CONDITIONS OF THE INMATES
1.1 Provisions related to the improvement of the inmate living conditions
1.2. The selection of prisoners upon arrival
1.3. Treatment of inmates according to concentration camp regulations
1.4. Punishments
1.5. Premiums for productivity
1.6. The postal service
1.7. Food
1.8. Releases and the “Arbeitserziehungslager Birkenau”

CHAPTER 2 – THE INMATE HOSPITAL (HÄFTLINGSKRANKENBAU)
2.1. Measures taken by the SS-Standortarzt and the SS-Lagerärzte for safeguarding the health of the inmates
2.2. Reports on the medical treatment of inmates
2.3. The medical registry of the Häftlingskrankenbau
2.4. The inmate hospital in the camp Auschwitz III-Monowitz
2.5. The projected circulating air delousing facilities (Umluft-Entwesungsanlagen) for the sick inmates of Birkenau Bauabschnitt II

CHAPTER 3 – THE HÄFTLINGSLAZARETT IN BIRKENAU BAUABSCHNITT III
3.1. The discovery of Jean-Claude Pressac
3.2. Origin and implementation of the project for a camp hospital in Birkenau Bauabschnitt III

CHAPTER 4 – THE FATE OF THE REGISTERED INMATES UNFIT FOR WORK
4.1. The treatment of registered inmates unfit for work
4.2. Statistics on the sick in the Quarantänelager
4.3. Registration and transfer of sick inmates

PART TWO – THE “SELECTIONS” OF SICK INMATES FOR THE “GAS CHAMBERS”: A HISTORICAL DOCUMENTARY ANALYSIS

CHAPTER 5 – THE “SELECTION” OF SICK INMATES FOR THE “GAS CHAMBERS” ACCORDING TO THE AUSCHWITZ “KALENDARIUM”: THE MINOR “SELECTIONS”
5.1. “Sonderbehandlung 14 f 13” and the origin of the “selections” at Auschwitz
5.2. The death certificates of the “selected”
5.3. “Sonderbehandlung 14 f 13” and the “phenol injections” at Auschwitz
5.4. THE “SELECTIONS” IN THE “KALENDARIUM” OF DANUTA CZECH
5.5. THE “SELECTIONS” IN 1941: THE “FIRST GASSING”
5.6. THE “SELECTIONS” IN 1942
5.6.1. The “selection” of 11 June 1942
5.6.2. The “selection” of 3 August 1942
5.6.3. The “selection” of 29 August 1942 in Auschwitz Block 20, Room 3
5.6.4. The “selection” of 5 September 1942
5.6.5. The “selection” of October 1942
5.6.6. The “selection” of 14 November 1942
5.6.7. The “selection” of 3 December 1942
5.6.8. The “selection” of 5 December 1942
5.6.9. The “selection” of 8 December 1942
5.7. THE “SELECTIONS” IN 1943
5.7.1. The “selection” of 17 January 1943
5.7.2. The “selection” of 28 February 1943
5.7.3. The “selection” of 21 August 1943
5.7.4. The “selection” of 29 August 1943
5.7.5. The “selection” of 8 October 1943
5.7.6. The “selection” of 22 October 1943
5.7.7. The “selection” of 19 November 1943
5.7.8. The “selection” of 10 December 1943
5.7.9. The “selection” of 12 December 1943
5.7.10. The “selection” of 19 December 1943
5.8. THE “SELECTIONS” IN 1944
5.8.1. General considerations
5.8.2. The “selection” of 23 January 1944
5.8.3. The “selection” of 3 February 1944
5.8.4. The “selection” of 3 April 1944
5.8.5. The “selections” of inmates in the women’s camp BIIc in October 1944: the deceptions of L. Langfus and D. Czech
5.9. THE “SELECTIONS” LISTED BY THE FORMER INMATE OTTO WOLKEN
5.9.1. The documentation of Otto Wolken
5.9.2. The “selection” of 29 August 1943
5.9.3. The “selection” of 2 October 1943
5.9.4. The “selection” of 10 October 1943
5.9.5. The “selection” of 14 November 1943
5.9.6. The “selection” of 1 January 1944
5.9.7. The “selection” of 14 January 1944
5.9.8. The “selection” of 22 January 1944
5.9.9. The “selection” of 14 April 1944
5.9.10. The “selection” of 18 April 1944

CHAPTER 6 – THE MAJOR “SELECTIONS” ACCORDING TO THE AUSCHWITZ “KALENDARIUM”: THE THERESIENSTADT FAMILY CAMP AND THE GIPSY FAMILY CAMP
6.1.1. The establishment of the “Family camp” BIIb and the alleged homicidal gassings
6.1.2. The sources
6.1.3. The inmate strength of camp BIIb
6.1.4. The transports in September and December 1943
6.1.5. The “gassing” of the Jews of the “Family camp”: a historically sound thesis?
6.1.6. The cremation of the corpses from the “gassing” on 8 March 1944
6.1.7. The transport to Heydebreck
6.1.8. The “liquidation” of the “Family camp” (July 1944)
6.1.9. Deaths and survivors
6.1.10. The transport of 7 October 1943
6.2.THE SELECTION AND GASSING OF THE GYPSIES AT AUSCHWITZ ON 2 AUGUST 1944
6.2.1. The historical reconstruction of Danuta Czech
6.2.2. The documents
6.2.3. Interpretation of the documents

CHAPTER 7 – DOCUMENTS ON “SONDERBEHANDLUNG”
7.1. Documents concerning the “Frauenlager”
7.2. The “Sonderkommando Zeppelin”
7.3. “S.B.” in the main registry of the Gypsy camp (Hauptbuch des Zigeunerlagers)
7.4. “S.B.” in the reports on inmate strength and employment in the Frauenlager (women’s camp)
7.5. “S.B.” in the Stärkemeldung of the Frauenlager
7.5.1. The Jewish inmates of the “Durchgangslager”
7.5.2. Changes in the inmate strength of the Frauenlager in October 1944
7.5.3. “S.B.” and the “Durchgangs-Juden”
7.5.4. The “S.B.” of 3 October 1944
7.5.5. The “S.B.” of 7 October 1944
7.5.6. Conclusions
7.6. The “selections” at the HKB of the camp Auschwitz III-Monowitz
7.7. The report of SS-Untersturmführer Kinna from 16 December 1942
7.8. The “selections” of Polish boys from Zamość and other locations in Poland
7.9. The letter from the head of SS-WVHA Amt DII dated 26 April 1944

CONCLUSION

[1] Mattogno’s special treatment of evidence, http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/03/mattognos-special-treatment-of.html. Bolds in original.

Two important document sources to which I have had access recently prompt me to write a sequel, with some revisions, to the two articles I have published earlier on the present subject [1], in order to bring the matter up to date.

1) The accusations of Miklos Grüner

In his book Stolen Identity. Auschwitz Number A-7713 [2], Miklos Grüner, a Hungarian Jew and former deportee to Auschwitz (ID number A-11104) and to Buchenwald (120762), accuses Elie Wiesel, Nobel Peace Prize laureate of 1986, to have appropriated the identity of another Hungarian Jewish inmate of Auschwitz and Buchenwald, Lazar Wiesel, as well as the Yiddish publication Un di velt hot geschwign (And the world remained silent) which Lazar Wiesel published in Buenos Aires in 1956. Grüner’s account contains a sizable documentation, parts of which are new, although it must be said that the author’s interpretation of some of these documents appears somewhat questionable.

Grüner’s credentials as a former deportee are beyond reproach. A letter from the Auschwitz Museum dated 7 July 2003 and addressed to him (cf. below) states that the detainee Grüner Miklos, a Hungarian Jew born on 6 April 1928 at Nyiregyhaza, was attributed the Auschwitz ID number A-11104. As far as Buchenwald is concerened, Grüner is mentioned in a “Concentration Camp Inmates Questionnaire” of the Military Government of Germany which I have published in my first article, and in the register of Block 66 to which he had been assigned: ID number (120762), last name and and first name (Grüner Miklos) and the note “U. Jun. A2” which probably means “Ungarischer Junge” (Hungarian boy).[3]

According to his book Night,[4] Elie Wiesel was deported to Auschwitz on 3 June 1944.[5] He spent one night at Birkenau and was moved to Auschwitz the following day here he was tattooed with the ID number A-7713.[6] Yet, according to Wiesel, “it was a beautiful day in April”.[7]

In my first article, I stated that the time sequence is pure invention. If Wiesel did leave his hometown of Sighet on 3 June 1944, he could not have arrived at Auschwitz in April. Moreover, the ID number A-7713 was issued on 24 May when 2,000 Hungarian Jews were assigned the numbers A-5729 through A-7728.[8] In his book, Elie Wiesel writes that he was tattooed as A-7713,[9] a statement he repeated under oath at the trial of the State of California vs. Eric Hunt on 8 July 2008,[10] adding that his father’s number was A-7712.

Grüner disputes, above all, that Elie Wiesel was assigned the Auschwitz ID number A-7713 and his father A-7712. Actually, these numbers were assigned to two Hungarian Jewish inmates who Grüner claims to have befriended – the brothers Lazar and Abraham Wiesel.

The existing documents do not allow any doubt in this matter:

  -  A letter from the Auschwitz Museum to Miklos Grüner, dated 7 July 2003, stating that the detainee with this ID number appears in a list established by the SS Hygiene Institute, dated 7 December 1944 – Monowitz, which provides the following data:

A-11104 Grüner Miklos, Hungarian Jew, born 6.04.28 at Nyiregyhaza
A-7712 Viesel Abram, born 10.10.1900 at Marmarossiget†
A-7713 Wiesel Lazar, born 4.9.1913 at Marmarossiget, locksmith [11]

This list, published by Grüner,[12] is not very helpful, however, as the title is illegible and the significance unclear. It is not even clear what the stamped date of 7 December 1944 refers to, possibly a transfer of these detainees to Monowitz or something else.

  -  A letter dated 15 May 2002 addressed to Grüner by the Buchenwald Memorial (Gedenkstätte) gives the following details:

Lazar Wiesel, born on 4 September 1913 at Maromarossziget, arrived at Buchenwald with a transport from Auschwitz (Buchenwald archives, microfilm Auschwitz, p. 41). On this page, 41, under entry number 2438, you will find the data on Lazar Wiesel: Buchenwald number 123565, born on 4 September 1913, Auschwitz number A-7713. These data are confirmed by the numerical file card at the camp office [Schreibstube].[13] Lazar Wiesel appears on the American questionnaire (NARA Washington, RG 242, microfilm 60) with the number 123165 and a different date of birth (4 October 1928); he went to Paris on 16 July 1945 with a convoy of surviving children (Buchenwald archives, 56-6-12, p. 9). Here, however, there is a disgreement with respect to the numerical file card. The Schreibstube file card numbered 123165 was made out for a Slovenian Jewish detainee, Pavel Kun, who died at Buchenwald on 8 March 1945.”[14]

The list of new arrivals drawn up at Buchenwald on 26 January 1945 (Zugänge vom 26. Januar 1945) for the date in question has, in fact:

2438 123565 Wiesel Lazar 4.9.13
Marmarossziget Schlol.[15] A 7713 [16]”:

Also:

“2372 123488 Viezel Abram 10.10.00
Marmaros Schl. A 7712″[17]:

  -  The personal file card for Lazar Wiesel, which I have published in my first article.

In this document,[18] we have, in the upper left hand corner, the handwritten note “Ung. Jude” (Hungarian Jew), at center: Ausch. A 7713 (Auschwitz A-7713) the former Auschwitz ID number, on the right “Gef.-Nr. 123565” (prisoner number 123565) the new ID number for Buchenwald. The date of birth is given as 4 September 1913.

A registration card for detainees, probably stemming from the Buchenwald archives, has the following data:

“123565
Wiesel Lazar
Political.

Born 4.9.13 at Maromarossiget
Hungarian Jew
26 Januar 1945
apprentice locksmith“:

  -  “Variations account” of Buchenwald from the set of documents entitled “Veränderungsmeldungen Buchenwald”:

“
Datensatz: 9315
Häftlingnr.: 123488 [A 7712]
Name: Viezel, Abraham
geboren: 10.10.00
Nationalität:
Kategorie: polit. Jude
Einlieferung:
gestorben: 02.02.45 in:
Block 57
Meldung vom: 03.02.45“[20]

This means that Abraham Viezel, born 10 October 1900, a political detainee registered as A-7712 at Auschwitz and as 123488 at Buchenwald, died on 2 February 1945 in Block 57 , as reported on 3 February.

For this detainee, there exists a further document concerning his death, giving his ID number, which I have published in my second article.

It is thus an established fact that Lazar Wiesel was deported to Auschwitz and registered there as A-7713, then to Buchenwald where he became 123565, and that his brother Abraham had the Auschwitz number A-7712, the Buchenwald number 123488 and died there on 2 February 1945.

Therefore, these numbers were not assigned to Elie Wiesel and/or his father Shlomo.

Problems arise when we want to trace Lazar Wiesel’s fate at Buchenwald and after this departure from the camp. Actually, this Lazar Wiesel, born at Máramarossziget on 4 September 1913, registered at Buchenwald as 123565, disappears and instead we have a Lázár Wiesel who takes his place, but with a different date of birth and a different ID number.[21]

The “Concentration Camp Inmates Questionnaire” of the Military Government of Germany for the Buchenwald camp does, in fact, mention a Lázár Wiesel, ID number 123165, born on 4 October 1928 at Mármarossziget, in Romania who was interned at Auschwitz for four weeks, at Monowitz for eight months and at Buchenwald where he stayed for a further three months [22] (cf. my second article). On the subject of this Lázár Wiesel, Grüner supplies us with two significant documents. The registry for Block 66 mentioned above, provides the following information:

“[123]565 Wiesel Lazar U. Jun. A 4”[23]:

Furthermore, an excerpt of the list of children moved from Buchenwald to Paris on 16 July 1945 has, under number 405, the entry:

“Wiesel, Lazar, 4/10/28 Marmorossziget, Romanian”[24]:

Grüner explains several times what he believes happened. Lazar Wiesel was assigned to Block 66:

“About a week later, I couldn’t believe my own eyes to see Lazar in our Block 66. He told me that Abraham had passed away four days after our arrival at Buchenwald. He made it clear that he had received special permission to join us children in Block 66, since he was so much older than us.”[25]

A few pages on, he affirms Lazar Wiesel’s presence in Block 66.[26] Nothing strange about that, so far. But then he states in a somewhat confused and enigmatic way:

“From the Archive’s of Buchenwald: Sabine Stein; 08.12.00 and 15.05.02. Stating that: Lazar Wiesel’s identity Number; 123565 according to the Military Government of Germany’s Inmates Questionnaire (NARA Washington, RG 242, film 60) were changed to Number 123165 and the date of birth to 04.10.1928. With this new identity he (Lazar Wiesel) left Buchenwald with a HIAS [Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society] convoy of 675 survived children (S-414) on the 16th of July 1945 to Paris. However there is a noticeable difference of contents between Lazar Wiesel’s original registration card 123563 (???) and the new Number 123165; this latter number originally belonged to a Jewish inmate from Slovakia; Pavel Kun, who died on the 8th of March 1945 in Buchenwald.”[27]

Further along, commenting on the questionnaire mentioned above, Grüner adds:

“Concerning Number: 123165 the inmate “Wiesel Lazar” Male; Born, October 4.-1928 Dated Buchenwald: April 22- 1945 to follow.

This Affidavit [28] was drawn up in good faith to benefit Wiesel Lazar who was originally Born 04.09.1913 in Maramorossziget, and his registered Number in Buchenwald is 123565 was changed to 123165 for reason to suit Wiesel Lazar’s future and the purpose to benefit his coming future.”[29]

Elsewhere, he speaks of a “falsified Buchenwald number 123165”.[30]

Hence, according to Grüner, someone (he does not say who) gave “in good faith (?)” false indications in the questionnaire mentioned. But the reasons he proposes are absolutely ludicrous: In what way would the true date of birth (4 September 1913) and the true Buchenwald ID number (123565) not have suited “Wiesel Lazar’s future” and not benefitted “his coming future”? And how could anyone seriously hope to slip a man of 32 into a convoy of youths bound for Paris by making him 17?

Grüner supplies us with two documents (one page from the list of new arrivals at Buchenwald on 26 January 1945, and a personal file card) from which we can see that the Buchenwald number 123165 was assigned to the detainee Pavel Kun, born on 6.7.1926 at Velka Bytca, registered at Auschwitz as B-14131 who died on 8 March 1945.[31] But why would the number of this detainee have been assigned to Lazar Wiesel by “falsifying” the latter’s real number 123565?

One could also think that this ID number, precisely because it had already been assigned to Pavel Kun, was caused by a mistake – 123165 instead of 123565, but then how are we to explain the date of birth of 4 October 1928?

The questionnaire was surely established by one of the three British officers who are listed at the end of the document and it is not unlikely that they made such a mistake: but then, the detainee in question signed the document personally, using the surname “Wiesel”, thereby accepting the alleged mistake and/or the alleged falsification; hence, in any case, he would be responsible for the deception.

Furthermore, we must take into account the fact that Lázár Wiesel named as a reference a certain Sámuel Jakobovits (or Jakubowits). This young man was born on 2 October 1926, deported to Auschwitz where he was assigned the ID number A-5763 on 24 May 1944 (together with 2,000 other Hungarian Jews who where given the numbers A-5729 through 7728, among them both Abram Wiesel [A-7712] and Lazar Wiesel [A-7713], born on 4.9.1913, but – according to the questionnaire dated 22 April 1945 – also Lázár Wiesel born on 4 October 1928) and then moved to Buchenwald where he was registered as 121761 on 26 January 1945 and also assigned to Block 66.

That Lázár should have named Sámuel as one of three trustworthy persons, is perhaps in better agreement with the hypothesis of a 17-year-old boy giving as a reference a youth of 19 than with the idea that a man, 32 years of age, would name a boy 15 years his junior as a reference.

It is thus difficult to give credence to the falsification of Lazar Wiesel’s personal data, even though this might explain the Lazar Wiesel’s exit and the appearance of Lázár Wiesel. On the other hand, if we are dealing with two different persons, why is the Lázár born on 4 October 1928 not mentioned on the list of the detainees who arrived at Buchenwald from Auschwitz on 26 January 1945? And why is there no trace of his ever having been deported to Auschwitz in the first place?

It is here that we face the riddle of Elie Wiesel. Grüner does not explain in what way he may partly have taken over Lazar Wiesel’s personal data. Maybe on the basis of documents? As we have seen, Lazar Wiesel appears in in a number of documents, but the names of his parents are given only in his personal file for Buchenwald, where his date of birth is still 4 September 1913, however. If he had wanted to turn himself into Lazar Wiesel, Elie would also have had to know the documentation regarding Lázár Wiesel (especially with respect to his story about Block 66, where the youngsters were housed, but then why did he not assume the date of birth of 4 October 1928 as well, to be more convincing? And why did he never speak of either of the two Buchenwald ID numbers (123165 or 123565)?

The alternative to the use of documents is a personal contact. Elie Wiesel may have known Lazar Wiesel and built his own story on the latter’s account, embellished where needed. Here, however, we are moving into the region of conjecture, even though it is likely that the truth will have to be looked for in this direction.

The other possibility – that Elie Wiesel is himself Lazar Wiesel – must be excluded for obvious reasons of chronology: he would now be 97 years of age! On the other hand, why “change” the date of his birth once again, to 30 September 1928, after having “falsified” it to 4 October 1928?

The birth certificate issued by the Romanian authorities on 27 November 1996 for Lazar Vizel, born at Sighet to Solomon Vizel and Sura Feig, does give the date of birth as 30 September 1928 (and not 6 October 1928 as is handwritten at the top of the document, but also typed in the lower part, and as I gave it in my second article: this is the date the document was issued),[32] but does not prove anything because we don’t know to whom it refers, who requested it and why. In particular, even if it were to refer to Elie Wiesel, it could still be based on a self-declaration, as is the case for Elie Wiesel’s father whose name was added to the Central Database of Shoah Victims’ Names [33] at Yad Vashem on 8 October 2004 at Elie Wiesel’s request.

The relationships between these four persons, which I have set out in my second article, have not yet found a satisfactory explanation:

For Grüner, the whole matter hinges upon the book Un di velt hot geschwign. He asserts that Lazar Wiesel, with the new name of Lázár, wrote a manuscript of 862 pages in Yiddish which the publisher Mark Turkov cut down to 253 pages.[34] The book, according to him was “published in Paris in 1955”[35] and “is a Copyright by the then 43 year old Eliezer Wiesel, Paris. Published 1955, Buenos Aires. The copyright shall prove that he was tattooed in Birkenau with the number A-7713”.[36] Elsewhere, Grüner writes that the book is a “Copyright by Eliezer (in Yiddish the name means the same as Lazar) Wiesel, Paris 1954”.[37] Elie Wiesel, appropriating Lazar Wiesel’s copyright, is said to have published a summary of Un di velt hot geschwign entitled La Nuit in 1958.[38]

However, there is no proof that the author of the Yiddish book really is Lazar Wiesel. Grüner believes this, because on p. 87 of the book the author states that he was assigned the Auschwitz ID number A-7713 [39] and on p. 239 that he was housed at Buchenwald in Block 66,[40] but this is not sufficient to accept beyond doubt that Lazar Wiesel was the author of the book.

On the other hand, why would he have used the name “Eliezer” instead of “Lazar”? It is not correct, as Grüner will have it, that the two names, in Yiddish, “meant the same”: they certainly are not interchangeable. As I have stressed in my second article, while Lazar is indeed a diminuitive of Eliezer, its Yiddish pronunciation sounds more like Leizer or Lozer. Why would Lazar Wiesel, who appears as “Lazar” in all known documents, have chosen to call himself “Eliezer”? This is all the more mysterious, as Wiesel’s naturalization certificate, dated 21 January 1963, is made out for “Lazare” and not for Eliezer.[41]

The question of “copyright” to which Grüner seems to attach so much weight, says nothing about the author of the book. In this connection, it is not at all clear why the “copyright” was issued in Paris if the book actually appeared in Buenos Aires. If Lazar Wiesel was indeed the author, he would have cried out against the blatant plagiarism committed by Elie Wiesel less than two years later, and the publisher Mark Turkov would have sued him (unless, of course, both had somehow entitled Elie Wiesel to do so). But nothing like that happened.

Grüner apparently believes that Elie Wiesel’s alleged plagiarism altered Lazar Wiesel’s original text to a certain degree by inventing false stories and thereby exposing the true survivors to criticism by the revisionists. In this respect, he writes:

“The book “Night” is a masterpiece designed to defame us and our Jewish God, while spreading lies about the Holocaust without any kind of reasonable explanation. To mention the horribly twisted story making account for the huge flames coming from the ditches holding incinerated bodies of men, women and children, without mentioning of course, that they were dead, or that they were under the circumstances, already suffucated to death on arrival at the flaming ditches.”[42]

Elsewhere he notes:

“I had never seen or even come close to ditches burning with open fire, where people or children could be seen burning on my way to the washroom in Birkenau, as written in ‘Night’ by Elie Wiesel.”[43]

Hence, Grüner accuses Elie Wiesel to have invented at least the story of the babies being burned “alive” in the cremation trenches, which I have analyzed in my first article.

Actually, though, the same description is given in the Yiddish text, as we can see from a comparison of the two corresponding excerpts (On the left, the excerpt taken from Night [44], on the right, the text as per Un di velt hot geschwign [45]).

The Yiddish text contains another passage, also found in Night (p.41), which raises further doubts on Lazar Wiesel’s authorship. An Auschwitz detainee asks the protagonist about his age:

“‘I’m not quite fifteen yet.’
‘No. Eighteen.’ [...]
Then he questioned my father, who replied:
‘Fifty.’
The other grew more furious than ever.
‘No, not fifty. Forty. Do you understand? Eighteen and forty.’

Why would Lazar Wiesel – who was 31 years old when he arrived at Auschwitz – have stated that he was not yet fifteen? This would mean that he was born in 1929, something that is in disagreement with both Lazar Wiesel (allegedly turned into Lázár Wiesel later) who was born on 4 October 1928 and with Elie Wiesel whose date of birth was 30 September 1928.

In this puzzle, the only thing which is certain is that Elie Wiesel lied about the ID numbers assigned to himself and to his father at Auschwitz – but why would he do that if he and his father actually were deported to Auschwitz? In that case, they would necessarily have been assigned ID numbers different from A-7713 and A-7712, but for what reason would Elie Wiesel have had to hide their real numbers?

As far as Stolen Identity is concerned, Grüner, as we have seen, accuses Elie Wiesel to have discredited the true witnesses by his fantasies, but he himself follows that very same line. We will not go into this aspect of the book and will only present one quotation to back this up:

“They had saved my skin from being turned into lampshades or from being made into a burning torch. Most of all, I was spared from being turned into a cake of soap bearing the initials R.J.F. (reine jüdische fett [46] [sic]) on it.”[47]

 
Carlo Mattogno

10 April 2010

[1] Elie Wiesel: “The Most Authoritative Living Witness” of The Shoah?: http://www.revblog.codoh.com/2010/02/elie-wiesel-the-most-authoritative-living-witness-of-the-shoah/; Elie Wiesel: New Documents: http://www.revblog.codoh.com/2010/03/elie-wiesel-new-documents/
[2] Printed in Stockholm, Sweden, 2007 (private printing by the author).
[3] Idem, section entitled The Evidence, figure 2 (no page number). It is not clear whether the letter “A” stands for “Auschwitz”, but one may exclude that “A2” indicated “Auschwitz 2(II)”, because on the same list we have the entry “U. Jun. A8”.
[4] Elie Wiesel, Night, Penguin Books, New York 1981.
[5] Elie Wiesel: “The Most Authoritative Living Witness” of The Shoah?, art.cit.
[6] E. Wiesel, Night, op. cit., pp. 53-54.
[7] Idem, p. 45.
[8] Liste der Judentransporte, Museum of Auschwitz-Birkenau, microfilm no. 727/27.
[9] E. Wiesel, Night, op. cit., pp. 53-54.
[10] Elie Wiesel: “The Most Authoritative Living Witness” of The Shoah?
[11] Text in Stolen Identity. Auschwitz Number A-7713, op. cit., figure 18.1; http://kuruc.info/r/6/51815/, figure 17 (in English) and 19 (in Polish).
[12] Idem, figure 19.1-3.
[13] Document 2 published in the first article.
[14] Stolen Identity. Auschwitz Number A-7713, op. cit., figure 11.1; http://kuruc.info/r/6/51815/, figure 5.
[15] Abbreviation of Schlosserlehrling, apprentice locksmith.
[16] Stolen Identity. Auschwitz Number A-7713, op. cit., figure 11.3.
[17] Idem, figure 11.5.
[18] NARA, A 3355, RG 242.
[19] Idem, figure 7.1; http://kuruc.info/r/6/51815/, figure 6.
[20] Text in: http://kuruc.info/r/6/51815/, figure 7.
[21] I am writing “Lazar” for the person Wiesel born on 4 September 1913, and “Lázár” for the person Wiesel born on 4 October 1928.
[22] NARA, A 3355, RG 242.
[23] Stolen Identity. Auschwitz Number A-7713, op. cit., figure 2.
[24] Idem, figure 12.4.
[25] Idem, p. 28.
[26] Idem, p. 49.
[27] Idem, p. 51.
[28] Obviously, the questionnaire cannot be considered to be an “affidavit”, i.e. a declaration under oath.
[29] Stolen Identity. Auschwitz Number A-7713, op. cit., p. 59.
[30] Idem, p. 34.
[31] Idem, figure 7, 12.1 and 12.3.
[32] Text in: http://kuruc.info/r/6/51815/, figure 8.
[33] http://www.yadvashem.org/wps/portal/IY_HON_Welcome
[34] Idem, p. 43. Actually, the story ends on p. 245, with an explicit “Sof” (The End, in Yiddish). The remaining pages contain publicity (a list of the works published in the series Der poilische jidntum, Polish Judaism).
[35] Idem, p. 44.
[36] Idem, p. 55.
[37] Idem, p. 46. Printing of the book ended on 10 November 1955 and it was published in 1956, it contains the printed indication “Copyright by: Eliezer Wiesel, Paris”, undated.
[38] Idem, p. 44, 46 and figure 17.
[39] Idem, pp. 55-56.
[40] Idem, p. 57.
[41] http://www.codoh.com/forum/download/file.php?id=203&sid=4fe256698b50783e96cf239458dea8d6&mode=view
[42] Idem, p. 45.
[43] Idem, pp. 34-35.
[44] E. Wiesel, Night, op.cit., pp. 43-45.
[45] Eliezer Wiesel, Un di velt hot geschwign, op. cit., pp. 67-70.
[46] R.I.F. (and not R.J.F.) actually stands for Reichsstelle für industrielle Fettversorgung, Reich agency for industrial fat supply.
[47] Stolen Identity. Auschwitz Number A-7713, op. cit., unnumbered page entitled “In Gratitude”.

After the publication of my article Elie Wiesel: “The Most Authoritative Living Witness” of The Shoah?[1] I learned about a Hungarian website on which Miklòs Grüner has compiled a substantial documentation regarding this subject.[2] Grüner has, for years, made highly commendable efforts to ascertain Elie Wiesel’s personality, but his work has been passed by for too long.

I will not go into Grüner’s denouncements of identity theft on the part of the Nobel laureate, levelled against various authorities and will limit myself to the corresponding documents.

1)  A letter dated 15 May 2002, addressed to Grüner by the Buchenwald Gedenkstätte (memorial) contains the following information:

Lazar Wiesel, born on 4 September 1913 at Maromarossziget, arrived at Buchenwald with a transport from Auschwitz (Buchenwald archives, microfilm Auschwitz, p. 41). On this page 41, under entry number 2438, you will find the data on Lazar Wiesel: Buchenwald number 123565, born on 4 September 1913, Auschwitz number A-7713. These data are confirmed by the numerical file card at the camp office [Schreibstube].[3] Lazar Wiesel appears on the American questionnaire (NARA Washington, RG 242, microfilm 60) with the number 123165 and a different date of birth (4 October 1928); he went to Paris on 16 July 1945 with a convoy of surviving children (Buchenwald archives, 56-6-12, p. 9). Here, however, there is a disagreement with respect to the numerical file card. The Schreibstube file card numbered 123165 was made out for a Slovenian Jewish detainee, Pavel Kun, who died at Buchenwald on 8 March 1945.

2)  A detainee registration card, probably stemming from the Buchenwald memorial archives, has the following data:

“123565
Wiesel Lazar          Polit.
Geb. 4.9.13 Maromarossiget          Ungar
Schlosserlehrling            Jude
26. Januar 1945”

This means that Lazar Wiesel, born at Maromarossiget on 4 September 1913, an apprentice locksmith, political detainee and Hungarian Jew, was registered at Buchenwald on 26 January 1945 and assigned the ID number 123565.

3)  A Buchenwald “Record of changes” on the subject of Abraham Viezel:

“Datenbank:     Veränderungsmeldungen Buchenwald
Datensatz:     9315
Häftlingsnr.:     123488 [A 7712]
Name:       Viezel, Abraham
geboren:       10.10.00
Nationalität:
Kategorie:       polit. Jude
Einlieferung:
gestorben:       02.02.45
in:          Block 57
Meldung vom:        03.02.45”

Hence, Abraham Viezel, born 10 October 1900, a Jewish political detainee, with the ID numbers A-7712 for Auschwitz and 123448 for Buchenwald, died on 2 February 1945 at Block 57, according to the camp record of 3 February.
Concerning this detainee, we also have the document shown below; the date of birth and the ID number are exactly the same, “5514” is the registration number for his death.

DOCUMENT 1: Death certificate of Abram Viezel (Click to enlarge)

4)  A birth certificate of the Romanian “Central national record office” dated 27 November 1996 for Lazar Vizel, born at Sighet on 6 October 1928 to Solomon Vizel and Sura Feig.

5)  A questionnaire of the American military government in Germany for the Buchenwald camp concerning Lázár Wiesel, born 4 October 1928, ID Number 123165.

This document is furnished here as a more easily legible copy, including the reverse page.[4]

DOCUMENT 2: Buchenwald questionnaire for Lázár Wiesel dated 22 April 1945 – front (Click to enlarge)

DOCUMENT 3: Buchenwald questionnaire for Lázár Wiesel dated 22 April 1945 – back (Click to enlarge)

6)  A letter from the director of the Auschwitz Museum, Kazimierz Smoleń, to Mrs. Eva Kor, founder of CANDLES (Children of Auschwitz Nazi Deadly Lab Experiments Survivors), dated 15 March 1987, where it is said, under point 2:

“In the concentration camp of Auschwitz a Mr. Lazar Weisel was given A-7713. He was born 4/9/13. He was a Jew from Hungary, born at Marmarossiget. This particular prisoner arrived in Auschwitz 5/24/44. He was there til [sic] the end of 1944 in KL Auschwitz III called Monowitz. Towards the end of the evacuation he was transferred to KL Buchenwald. He was registered there on the day of 1/26/45”

7)  A letter from the Auschwitz Museum to Miklós Grüner dated 7 July 2003 which states that detainee ID A-7713 appears in a list of the SS Hygiene Institute dated 7 December 1944-Monowitz and giving the following data:

A-11104 Grüner Miklos, Hungarian Jew, born on 6 April 28 at Nyiregyhaza

A-7712 Viesel Abram, born on 10 October 1900 at Marmarosz

A-7713 Wiesel Lazar, born on 4 September 1913 in Marmarossziget, Schlosser (locksmith)

8)  A portion of the minutes dated 8 July 2008[5] of the trial of the State of Califrnia vs. Eric Hunt[6], at which Elie Wiesel made the following statements under oath:

A. French Lanueit, L-A-N-U-E-I-T, and in English Night.

Q. And was Night your first book published in English?

A. Yes.

Q. First book published anywhere, correct?

A. First book published anywhere.

[...]

Q. And is this book Night that you wrote a true account of your experience during World War II?

A. It is a true account. Every word in it is true.

[...]

Q. And what was your – what day were you born in Sighet, Romania?

A. September 30th, 1928.

[...]

Q. And what [number] was tattooed on your left arm?

A. My number was A7713. My father’s number was 7712.

In short:

• The Auschwitz ID number A-7713 was assigned on 24 May 1944 to Lazar Wiesel, born on 4 September 1913 at Maromarossziget, who was later registered at Buchenwald under the ID number 123165;
• The Auschwitz ID number A-7712 was assigned on 24 May 1944 to Abraham Viezel, born on 10 October 1900 at Maromarossziget, registered at Buchenwald on 26 January 1945 under the ID number 123488, who died in this camp on 2 February.
• Elie Wiesel has stated under oath that, at Auschwitz, he was assigned the ID number A-7713 and his father the ID number A-7712.

This statement is obviously false.

There is still the problem of the questionnaire filled out at Buchenwald by Lázár Wiesel on 22 April 1945. This detainee was born at Màromarossziget on 4 October 1928, he was a student, was arrested on 16 April 1944 and interned at Auschwitz and Monowitz. According to the Buchenwald Gedenkstätte, he was sent to Paris on 16 July 1945 with a convoy of surviving children and is registered on the respective list. Is this Lázár Wiesel the writer Elie Wiesel?

We see right away that the dates of birth are not identical: Lázár was born on 4 October 1928, Elie on 30 September of the same year. The birth certificate presented by Miklos Grüner for Lazar Vizel shows yet another date: 6 October 1928. As Lázár Wiesel, by his own hand, signed the questionnaire mentioned above – using the last name “Wiezel” – we may exclude an error as far as the date of his birth is concerned.

The second important point is that the Auschwitz ID number of Lázár Wiesel is not known, but it could not have been A-7713 in any case, because at the Auschwitz Museum there is only one ID number A-7713 in the men’s series, assigned to Lazar Wiesel, born on 4 September 1913. What is more, on the transport manifest for the transport from Auschwtz to Buchenwald there is only one Lazar Wiesel, the one born on 4 September 1913 and having the Auschwitz ID number A-7713. Where did Lázár Wiesel come from? And what connection is there between Lazar Wiesel and Lázár Wiesel or Lazar Vizel who have such similar record data (except for the dates of birth).

At the moment, we cannot answer these questions.

The third point is the fact that the date for the arrest of Lázár Wiesel – 16 April 1944 – does not agree with that of Elie Wiesel’s: after 27 May 1944, as we have seen in the preceding article.

The fourth point is that Lázár Wiesel, in the questionnaire mentioned above, declared that he spent “4 weeks” at Auschwitz, another 8 months at Monowitz and 3 months at Buchenwald, whereas Elie Wiesel’s stay at Auschwitz lasted 3 weeks.

The fifth point is the Buchenwald ID number – if Elie Wiesel is indeed Lázár Wiesel, why did he not mention the ID number 123165?

Even the name is significant. It is true that Lazar is a diminutive of Eliezer, but this name in Yiddish sounds like אליעזר (Eliezer), while Lazar is לייזער (Leizer) or לאזער (Lozer). Why did the alleged Elie Wiesel at Buchenwald sign his name as Lázár? And why did he never indicate his ID number for this camp?

Actually, the question is even more complicated than that, because we have yet a third detainee, assuming that Lázár Wiesel and Lazar Vizel are the same person.

Hence, the table I presented in the previous article now looks like this:

Lázár Wiesel’s Buchenwald ID number fits into the series of numbers assigned on 26 January 1945 to the convoy of 3,927 detainees arriving from Auschwitz: 120348 – 124274. It does not follow, however, that Lázár Wiesel was included in this list.

In the Buchenwald questionnaire, answering the question “Give names and addresses, if known, of three reliable persons living in the locality where you intend to go, who can vouch for you” Lázár Wiesel wrote: “Ur [Mr.] Ferenc Stark, Ferenc Pollak, Sámuel Jakobovits”. This latter person was also at Buchenwald; he had arrived there from Auschwitz in the convoy of 26 January 1945. His file card shown below indicates that, at Auschwitz, his number had been A-5763, whereas his Buchenwald registration number was 121761; he was born on 2 October 1926 at Marmarossziget, his mother’s maiden name was Pollak who was probably related to the inmate Ferenc Pollak mentioned by Lázár Wiesel.

DOCUMENT 4: Buchenwald file card of Samuel Jakobovits (Click to enlarge)

That Lázár and Sámuel knew each other is confirmed by the questionnaire reproduced below which they filled out at Buchenwald on 22 April 1945. The one bearing the name of “Jakobovits Sámuel”, lists on the reverse side, as references, the names of Hersch Fischmann, Antal Meisner and, specifically, Lázár Wiesel. The front page also gives the date of Sámuel’s arrest – 16 April 1944, the same date as Lázár Wiesel’s. At Auschwitz, Sámuel received number A-5763, assigned on 24 May 1944: on that day, 2,000 Hungarian Jews were registered under the file numbers A-5729 through 7728. Hence, both Abram Wiesel (A-7712) and Lazar Wiesel (A-7713), born on 4 September 1913, were part of this transport, but also Lázár Wiesel, born on 4 October 1928, who stayed at Auschwtz for 4 weeks. But, as we have already seen, the Auschwitz Museum knows nothing of this Lázár Wiesel.

DOCUMENT 5: Buchenwald questionnaire of Sámuel Jakobovits dated 22 April 1945 – Front (Click to enlarge)

DOCUMENT 6: Buchenwald questionnaire of Sámuel Jakobovits dated 22 April 1945 – Back (Click to enlarge)

In conclusion, we can say that Elie Wiesel can be neither Lazar Wiesel, nor Lázár Wiesel, nor Lazar Vizel and that the ID number A-7713 was not assigned to him but to Lazar Wiesel, while ID A-7712 was not assigned to his father but to Abram (or Abraham) Viesel (or Wiesel).

The charge of identity theft raised against Elie Wiesel by Miklos Grüner does not concern Lazar Wiesel only, but Lázár Wiesel as well: from the former, he took the Auschwitz ID number (A-7713), from the latter the stay at Buchenwald and the later transfer to Paris.

As far as his book, La Nuit, is concerned, what is the value of his sworn statement that “it is a true account. Every word in it is true” in the face of the analysis I presented in the previous article?

In this respect, it is interesting to note that the book in question does not contain any mention of the alleged “gas chambers” of Auschwitz. Elie Wiesel is perhaps the only self-styled Auschwitz witness not to speak of “gas chambers”, something quite surprising to say the least, which can – and must – be explained only by himself.

Finally, let us go back to the Buchenwald photograph on which Elie Wiesel is said to appear. At the Buchenwald Gedenkstätte this picture is exhibited with the caption:

“Häftlinge in Baracke 56 des Kleinen Lagers. | Foto Harry Miller, 16. April 1945 / National Archives, Washington”,
“Detainees in barrack 56 of the small camp. Photograph by Harry Miller, 16 April 1945. National Archives, Washington”[7]

The date of 16 April 1945 is thus confirmed officially. In his book, Elie Wiesel writes:

“On April tenth, there were still about twenty thousand of us in the camp, including several hundred children. [...].

Three days after the liberation of Buchenwald I became very ill with food poisoning. I was transferred to the hospital and spent two weeks between life and death.”[8]

The camp was liberated on 11 April 1945. Three days later, on 14 April, Elie Wiesel fell ill and was taken to the camp hospital where he stayed “between life and death” for two weeks, i.e. until 28 April.

But then how could he have been, on 16 April, in barrack 56 which was obviously a normal housing barrack? And how could he have signed, on 22 April, as Lázár Wiesel, the questionnaire mentioned above?

Carlo Mattogno, 9 March 2010

[1] http://www.revblog.codoh.com/2010/02/elie-wiesel-the-most-authoritative-living-witness-of-the-shoah/
[2] The title of the article translates roughly as “A self-styled Elie Wiesel comes to Hungary with a false identity”, in: http://kuruc.info/r/6/51815/
[3] Document 2 published in the first article.
[4] NARA, A 3355, RG 242.
[5] Superior Court of California. County of San Francisco. Before the Honorable Robert Donder, Judge Presiding, Department Number 23. People of the State of California, Plaintiff, vs. Eric Hunt, Defendant. Testimony of Elie Wiesel, July 8, 2008, p. 7 and 13.

[6] Eric Hunt was accused of having aggressed Elie Wiesel but asserted to have shot elsewhere to obtain an interview concerning his stay at Auschwitz: http://erichunt.net/category/the-liar-elie-wiesel/
[7] http://www.buchenwald.de/index.php?p=168
[8] Elie Wiesel, Night, Penguin Books, New York 1981, p. 125f.

In 1995, Ernst Lobethall gave his testimony as a survivor of “The Holocaust” to the Survivors of the Shoah Foundation for their video library, as thousands of others have done. In it, he had some words to say about a British soldier he met while interned at Auschwitz III (Monowitz) who had done him a favor.

Lobethall records that the soldier he called Ginger “gave me a letter and 10 packs of cigarettes, and a bar of chocolate from my sister. Ten packs of English cigarettes – it’s like being given Rockefeller Center.” He also said, “I had no heavy socks to put on my boots; for two packs of Players cigarettes, (pause) and that, later on, came, again, to save my life on the death marches that took place in 1945.” This clip from the video was shown on the BBC Online News Magazine on November 29, 2009.[1] The article says that

Mr Lobethall traded two packs of Players cigarettes in return for getting his shoes resoled. It helped save his life when thousands perished or were murdered on the notorious death marches out of the camps in winter in 1945.

Lobethall’s testimony was at some point taken under consideration by the Yad Vashem Memorial Museum’s “Commission for the Designation of the Righteous,” a rather pompously-named committee, headed since 2005 by Israel Supreme Court Justice Jacob Tuerkel, that examines candidates before bestowing upon them the equally grandiose title of “Righteous Among the Nations.”

Yad Vashem, Israel’s official institution for Holocaust research and propaganda, set up this commission in 1963 with the intent, according to their website, to “single out within the nations of perpetrators, collaborators and bystanders, persons who bucked the general trend and helped the persecuted Jews.” (my emphasis)

As I understand this, to Yad Vashem — the highest Holocaust authority for not only Israel’s Jews but all Jews — every country that had “perpetrators” and “bystanders” are included in “the nations.” Thus, only Israel, which did not exist at the time, is separate, or above, “the nations” (something I will get back to later).

According to the website, this “Commission for the Designation of the Righteous” is made up of volunteers, most of them holocaust survivors, each of whom are “expert in the history of the Holocaust in a certain region of Europe. They receive cases for evaluation and present their recommendations to the Commission to discuss.”[2] Then the final decision is made by the Chairman, always a Supreme Court Justice. The “righteous” are defined as non-Jews who risked their lives to save a Jew(s) during the Holocaust. Yad Vashem has now given over 22,000 people this title. They come mainly from the greater European area, but with several from beyond, such as from Chile, Japan, Vietnam and the USA.

Currently there are six who did their “righteous” duty at Auschwitz; Denis Avey will apparently be the seventh. Thus, we want to look into Mr. Avey’s conduct at the Auschwitz camp and how he saved the life of a Jew to find what the standards for this award really are.

Denis Avey came into the picture because Ernst Lobethall, a German Jew originally from Breslau, in his testimony referred to above, remembered a British soldier who had befriended him — whom he called “Ginger” due to his red hair. He said this soldier had managed to send a letter to Lobethall’s sister in England asking her to send him cigarettes and other items that he, Avey, would be able to get to her brother Ernst. He said she sent 10 packs of Player’s cigarettes, a bar of chocolate and a letter, which Mr. Avey smuggled to Lobethall.

Lobethall claimed in his Survivors of the Shoah interview that trading the cigarettes enabled him to have his boots resoled, which saved his life on the “death march” later on when Auschwitz was abandoned. A Times article says Lobethall purchased boots and also scraps of food, which helped him to survive the “death march.”

Apparently, Yad Vashem searched among the British POW’s, with the help of the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) [3], and came upon Denis Avey. At this point, the details are unclear. Did the BBC approach Avey? Did Avey just spontaneously begin “telling his story” at this time? Nothing is said of this in any of the three UK news articles. It’s only said that Avey opened up and told his incredible story after 65 years of silence only last October, when he was also “reunited” with Lobethall’s sister Susanna Timms, 86, after she was traced to Solihull, West Midlands. The result is that Yad Vashem had another candidate for their “Righteous Among the Nations” award.

Here is what Yad Vashem says: “For obvious reasons this honour cannot be based on Avey’s word alone,” says Susan Weisberg, spokeswoman for Yad Vashem. “Each case must be substantiated by eyewitness testimonies and archival documents of the period.” (my emphasis) This process is now ongoing, so let’s look at the news articles about Denis Avey and see if there are eyewitnesses and archival documents.

The prestigious Times did their own tribute to Denis Avey in a Feb. 25, 2010 article [4], written by Jacob Wallis Simons. Some of the details change and one has to wonder whether it’s the writer Simons, the Times staff, or Avey himself who made the changes from the BBC version. It begins with a description of Avey as “a formidable figure, even at the age of 91. More than 6 ft. tall, with a severe short back and sides (?) and a piercing glare, he combines the pan-ache (sic) of Errol Flynn with the dignity of age.”

Denis Avey, who currently lives in Derbyshire with his wife of seventy-some years, looks relaxed, but says he has remained traumatized for 65 years. (The Mail Online)

Simons also tells us that Avey has a glass eye.

I ask him about it. He tells me that in 1944, he cursed an SS officer who was beating a Jew in the camp. He received a blow with a pistol butt and his eye was knocked in.

This is unlikely because the SS guards were under strict rules forbidding the beating of prisoners, let alone a British Prisoner of War who was under the authority of the Wehrmacht. The guard would have been severely punished, possibly even given a death sentence. Do Avey’s records say he was then hospitalized and had his eye removed? You can be sure there aren’t any such records.

Avey grew up on an Essex farm, describing himself as living a rough-and-tumble lifestyle. “I had a shock of red hair and a temperament to match.” In 1939 he volunteered for the Army — because he was too impatient to wait a week for the RAF (my emphasis). “I ended up in the 7th Armoured Division, the original Desert Rats,” he says. “We operated behind enemy lines in Egypt. In 1942 we were ambushed. I was wounded and taken prisoner by the Germans.”

For all his bravery, Avey told The Mail reporter, Andy Dolan, the reason he took so long to speak about his experience was because “I was so traumatised at my whole experience of the Auschwitz camps it took me 60 years to be able to recount the horrors I saw.”[5] We will see that Avey’s experience of the regular “Auschwitz camps” consisted of two nights supposedly spent in an Auschwitz barracks.

Avey at Auschwitz

The Times article continues:

Avey was a troublesome prisoner. In the summer of 1943 he was deported to Auschwitz, in Poland, and interned in a small PoW camp on the periphery of the IG Farben factory. The main Jewish camps were several miles to the west. “I’d lost my liberty, but none of my spirit,” he says. “I was still determined to give as good as I got.”

By “main Jewish camps,” Simons means Auschwitz (I) and Birkenau (Auschwitz II). The “main Jewish camp” by the IG Farben plant was named Monowitz (Auschwitz III). The British POW camp was near the construction site of the Farben Buna plant and several hundred meters west of the Monowitz workers’ camp. The first 200 British POWs arrived in September 1943. The barracks for the Monowitz camp were built in 1942 and all the prisoners who worked at the Farben industrial complex were moved into them. No Farben workers remained housed at Auschwitz or Birkenau after that.

Auschwitz Complex: Auschwitz I is the tiny orange rectangle in the center; Birkenau is on the left; Monowitz is the orange rectangle on the far right.

Avey says he “immediately” knew the situation at Monowitz:

“The Stripeys — that’s what we called the Jewish prisoners — were in a terrible state. Within months they were reduced to waifs and then they disappeared. The stench from the crematoria was appalling, civilians from as far away as Katowice were complaining. Everybody knew what was going on. Everybody knew.”

The POW camp was separate from the “Jewish camp” and administered by the Wehrmacht, not the SS, so how does he know what state they were in? The Poles from the area say they did not know what was going on. The part about the stench cannot be true; nowhere is it said there were crematoria in Monowitz, and it is at least 10 km from Birkenau where the crematoria were. The city of Katowice is approximately 50 km away, and is a highly industrialized area that could be considered to have “polluted” air. Same with the Buna synthetic rubber plant—some odors would probably have come from there.

Remarkably, for a “hothead,” Avey was able to think beyond the war.

I knew in my gut that these swine would eventually be held to account. Evidence would be vital. Of course, sneaking into the Jewish camp was a ludicrous idea. It was like breaking into Hell. But that’s the sort of chap I was. Reckless.

Simons tells us that

Avey’s audacious plan was made possible by Ernst Lobethall, a German Jew from Breslau, who worked alongside Avey at the Farben factory. Although fraternising was forbidden on pain of death, the two men became friends. “We spoke out of the corner of our mouths,” Avey says, “a difficult thing to do in German.”

Avey’s plan was made possible by Lobethall? How so? Lobethall says nothing about “Ginger” trading places with a Jewish prisoner in his testimony; he only spoke of getting cigarettes. It’s Avey who’s filled in all the rest. And did POW’s and Jewish prisoners “work together?” Sometimes, no doubt, but it’s rare to hear about it. If “fraternizing was forbidden on pain of death,” what would compel them to take the chance? And when did Avey learn to speak German, growing up on a farm in Essex and clearly disliking Germans, whom he called swine?

Lobethall revealed to Avey he had a sister living in England, so Avey says he

“wrote to my mother, who told Susana that Ernst was alive. She posted 200 cigarettes to me via the Red Cross. Miraculously, four months later, they arrived. The cigarettes were worth a king’s ransom. Ernst suddenly became rich.”

The problem here is that if Lobethall knows his sisters address in England, he could have written to her himself. She could have sent a package with cigarettes and chocolate directly to her brother and the Red Cross would have delivered it. Dennis Avey is superfluous in this instance. This is Giveaway No. 1 that the story is fake. The BBC article even tells us that Avey contacted his mother with a “coded letter.” Why? There was nothing he was saying that was against the rules, except that he was “fraternizing” with an inmate from the labor camp. Maybe careful wording is what he meant by “coding.”

Avey’s “meticulous plan” turns out to be this:

(He) found a Dutch Jew with a similar physique and persuaded him to exchange places for a day. Avey knew that they marched past each other at the same time every week. “The Nazis were rigid, you see,” he says. “To them orders were orders, to be carried out exactly. That was what allowed me to find a way round them.”

Once again, in spite of the Nazis’ rigidity, he manages to persuade a Jew to risk his life in order to get one night outside his own barracks. The BBC article said,

He arranged to swap for one night at a time with a Jewish inmate he had come to trust.

Who was this inmate? The BBC article doesn’t tell us. The article in the Daily Mail says the inmate was Lobethall:

The pair met while being used as slave labour at a nearby synthetic rubber factory. At the end of their shift one night, Mr Avey changed into Mr Lobethall’s stripy uniform, took his ID card and returned with the Jewish prisoners to Birkenau, also known as Auschwitz II.[6]

Apart from Lobethall never saying anything in his Survivors of the Shoah video testimony about trading places with Denis Avey, or going into the British POW camp, the prisoners did not carry ID cards. That’s what the tattoos were for, to keep track of them. Where did Andy Dolan get such an idea?

The Times continues:

Avey shaved his head and blackened his face. At the allocated time, he and the Dutch Jew sneaked into a disused shed. There they swapped uniforms and exchanged places. Avey affected a slouch and a cough, so that his English accent would be disguised should he be required to speak.

Try to imagine this, if you can. The POW’s and the Jewish prisoners are marching in different directions and pass each other. Time stops; everyone else goes into suspended animation while the two men leave the ranks and go into a shed nearby. They change into each other’s uniforms and return to take each other’s place in the ranks. Time resumes and so does the marching.

In addition to this, the British Prisoner of War has shaved his head, while the Jew with a shaved head is pretending to be a British Prisoner of War. And the rigid, order-bound SS guards don’t notice anything wrong. This is Giveaway No. 2.

Avey then tells Simons:

“I joined the Stripeys and marched into Monowitz, a predominantly Jewish camp. As we passed beneath the Arbeit Macht Frei sign, everyone stood up straight and tried to look as healthy as they could. There was an SS officer there, weeding out the weaklings for the gas. Overhead was a gallows, which had a corpse hanging from it, as a deterrent. An orchestra was playing Wagner to accompany our march. It was chilling.”

Avey is really warming up to his subject now. But he doesn’t know Monowitz from Auschwitz where the Arbeit Macht Frei sign is. Auschwitz had very few Jews in it; they were all at Birkenau and Monowitz. Giveaway No. 3.

The BBC article said:

He fully intended to get as far as Birkenau, where the gas chambers and crematoria were constantly in operation, belching acrid fumes. He only made it as far as Auschwitz III, (Monowitz) where he spent the night on two occasions.

So where was he? Since he doesn’t know, we can conclude he was never in these places. Especially when he describes it this way:

They were herded through the camp, carrying the bodies of those who had died that day. “I saw the Frauenhaus — the Germans’ brothel of Jewish girls—and the infirmary, which sent its patients to the gas after two weeks. I committed everything to memory. We were lined up in the Appellplatz for a roll call, which lasted almost two hours. Then we were given some rotten cabbage soup and went to sleep in lice-infested bunks, three to a bed.”

Here he is definitely describing Auschwitz I, 7 km from Monowitz where they worked. But he’s incorrect in everything he says. The brothel was called Die Puff, and didn’t have Jewish girls working in it, but Polish women from outside the camp. Jews could not use the brothel at all, following the Nuremberg laws of racial purity. The infirmaries would not care for patients for two weeks only to then send them to the gas chamber. The camp administration was constantly fighting lice in the barracks and on the inmates. That’s what the Zyklon B was for.

I wonder what happened in the British POW camp when the “Dutch Jew” brought his lice-infested body (according to Avey) into it and spent the night?! What about when Avey returned there after spending the night in a lice-infested bed? Here’s Avey’s description of the night:

The night was even worse than the daytime. “As it grew dark, the place was filled with howls and shrieks. Many people had lost their minds. It was a living hell. Everyone was clutching their wooden bowls under their heads, to stop them getting stolen.”

Only enamel covered metal bowls were used at all camps, so Avey reveals he’s making it up when he specifies wooden bowls. He also doesn’t tell us which barracks he stayed in. Giveaway No. 4.

Lobethall had bribed Avey’s bedfellows with cigarettes. “They gave me all the details,” he says, “the names of the SS, the gas chambers, the crematoria, everything. After that, they fell asleep. But I lay awake all night.”

Where is Lobethall? If Avey traded places with the Dutch Jew, can we assume he spent the night in Lobethall’s barracks? Again, I repeat that Lobethall didn’t mention anything about his friend Avey’s “prisoner exchange” in his testimony. If he “bribed Avey’s bedfellows with cigarettes,” he was a part of it. But why would suffering Jewish prisoners need to be bribed to talk about their sufferings? They wanted to get the information out to the rest of the world, as I understand it. And what good were the names of the SS to Avey; has he ever reported any crimes by guards whose names he got that have resulted in action taken? Also, the alleged gas chamber had not operated in Auschwitz I since 1942; now it was 1944. In spite of the shrieks and howls in this “living hell,” his bedfellows fell right to sleep. In the morning, after roll call and breakfast, they were marched back out of the camp.

“When we passed the shed again, I slipped in to meet the Dutch Jew,” he says. “That was hair raising. Although I trusted him, I couldn’t be sure that he’d turn up. And if an SS officer had looked in the wrong direction at the wrong time,
that would have been it.”

Amazing how the SS cooperated with his plan.

The changeover went smoothly, and Avey returned to the PoW camp. “The Dutch Jew perished, but I’m certain that this short reprieve prolonged his life by several weeks,” he says. “Whether that was a good thing, I don’t know.”

Returned to his camp with his shaved head? How many of his fellow POW’s knew what he was up to? And how convenient that the nameless Dutch Jew died, so there is no one, including relatives, alive today to corroborate Avey’s story… or not. In these far-out holocaust tales, the essential characters always die early, and are usually nameless. Giveaway No. 5.

Here would be a good place to show you what the British POW’s at their camp at Monowitz looked like. This is a picture of their soccer team, wearing matching team sport shirts, looking healthy, well-treated, and on friendly terms with their benign-looking Wehrmacht guards.

The Times article continues:

In 1945, as the Soviet Army closed in, the Nazis abandoned the camp and herded 60,000 prisoners in the direction of Germany, in what would become known as one of the Death Marches. Avey, who by then was suffering from tuberculosis, was among them. Around 15,000 prisoners died on the way. “The road was littered with corpses,” he says. “I saw a chance to escape and seized it.”

Giveaway No. 6. The POW’s didn’t go with the 60,000 regular prisoners. They didn’t leave until January 21, while the regular prisoners began their march on January 18. This is very important because it shows that Avey could not have been there if he didn’t know what kind of a march he was on. He’s saying things off the top of his head, depending on what he has read or heard. He knows about the “death march” of the 60,000 but not that the POW’s left later on a separate march.

He found his way to Allied lines and was transported back home. Two days before VE Day, he arrived at his parents’ Essex farm half-dead with exhaustion and sickness. They had not expected to see him again.

I think it’s certain the British or American Army would have hospitalized him right there if he had TB, not transported him “sick” and “half-dead” to his parents home, where he arrived on May 6. This arrival date to his parents in England may be documented, but Avey doesn’t say how long his March lasted or anything else about it. Again, this is typical of false stories. I would like to see the official military record for Mr. Avey!

Simons now reveals even he knows this story doesn’t make sense.

If Avey’s story still sounds implausible, there is no doubt about the help he gave to Lobethall. Last year the BBC screened a moving documentary, during which Avey learnt for the first time that his old friend had survived the war and died in New York in 2001. Before his death, Lobethall recorded a video testimony for Steven Spielberg’s Shoah Foundation, during which he emotionally recounts how his life was saved by Avey’s (actually Ginger’s – he never says he knew the soldier’s name) initiative and Susana’s cigarettes. This is the only moment that I see Avey’s steely façade falter.

In other words, if you can’t believe Avey, then at least believe Lobethall!

“I was hospitalised for two years after the war,” Avey continues. “In 1947, I went to the military authorities to submit my information about Auschwitz. Their eyes glazed over. I wasn’t taken seriously. I was shocked, especially after the risks I’d taken. I felt completely disillusioned, and traumatised as well. So from then on I bottled it up, and tried to piece my life back together.”

This may just be his way of explaining why he waited 65 years to speak of this—until Yad Vashem and the BBC came looking for a red-haired British POW.

Readjusting to normal life was hard. Avey became addicted to adrenalin, racing fast cars, travelling to Spain for the running of the bulls. He was plagued by nightmares and flashbacks. Even today he shows signs of trauma. He always carries an expensive gold watch, so that “if ever I find myself in a fix again, I’ve got something to fall back on”.

Two nights spent in an Auschwitz barracks (assuming that it really happened) would not create such Post Traumatic Stress in a tough, ready-for-anything Desert Rat, as he describes himself. This is Giveaway No. 7. Avey is clearly a man who has always had a myriad of psychological problems. His reckless nature leads him to take advantage of this opportunity for a claim to fame as a “Righteous Among the Nations.” But what does it say about Yad Vashem that they appear to be on the verge of accepting Avey’s preposterous account? Why is Yad Vashem so anxious to confer this designation upon as many Gentiles as possible?

How Yad Vashem gains from their “Righteous” program

Let’s look further into the meaning of this honor bestowed by Jews upon Gentiles. Yad Vashem says: Each case must be substantiated by eyewitness testimonies and archival documents of the period.

Signed and notarized testimonies by survivor and other witnesses of the rescue attempt. Testimonies should include all known personal data on rescuers and survivors, a detailed account of the rescue attempt (how the contact with the rescuer was made; the form of rescue; places and dates of rescue; what arrangements or agreements were made between rescuers and survivors; how did the danger to the rescuers manifest itself; any other details that may shed light on the nature of rescue.) [7]

Where are the testimonies for Avey and Lobethall? They come only from Avey, Lobethall and Lobethall’s sister, a rather ingrown group. There are no outside neutral parties. The BBC tells us that Avey briefly met Susana Lobethall in 1945, when he came home from the war, traumatized by what he’d witnessed and endured. They both thought Ernst was dead. But where are the witnesses to this meeting? Susana lost touch with Avey and thus never told him the good news when she found out Ernst was alive.

Is it because all Avey did was to smuggle cigarettes to Lobethall (according to Lobethall) that they needed to build up a grander picture of him as risking his life? Yad Vashem and the British news media go to great lengths always to keep the “horror” of Auschwitz alive in the public consciousness. Denis Avey serves this purpose for them, in spite of the unbelievability of his story. As we can see from the comments from readers to these three articles, they accept what he says without question.

As for Yad Vashem, they have an even more sinister purpose for their “Righteous Among the Nations” than just pushing holocaust horror stories. This program has created for Israel a moral high-ground for Jews, from whence they look down upon and reward Gentiles who have put their own lives in danger to save Jews. This is a subtle, or not so subtle statement that good Gentiles defend and protect Jews. Do they ever say it is the responsibility of Jews to protect Gentiles? Never — this is never brought up at all. Because in their Jewish universe, Gentiles can only be “perpetrators” or silent “bystanders,” while Jews are perpetual victims of Gentiles. No matter what kind of murderous behavior Jews exhibit, this never changes.

Elie Wiesel, that personification of everything that is wrong with the “holocaust industry,” speaking at the 2005 opening of the new Yad Vashem Museum in Jerusalem, made this statement:

The Holocaust was not man’s inhumanity to man. It was man’s inhumanity to the Jews.[8]

This sums up the ethnocentric view of world Judaism, of religious Judaism and Zionism both — it’s all about us, and we are working to make that the legal framework of this planet. Watch out, Gentiles!

It’s instructive to look at the situation of the Roman Catholic Church and the path to sainthood of one of their beloved Popes, Pius XII. Jewry is doing everything in its power to stop the canonization of Pius XII because, in their estimation, he didn’t do enough to “help the Jews” during their holocaust. Therefore, in their eyes he is not Righteous. Wrongly, they make it his responsibility, not their own, to look out for Jews. This is the message that’s being transferred to the rest of us by constant barrage of Jewish outrage and interference in Gentile affairs. While some of us can see through it, most cannot.

But what if the tables were turned and concerned Gentiles were to do everything in their power to stop the “Righteous Among the Nations” from being conferred on Denis Avey, on the basis that he is unworthy of it? He is certainly lying about his exploits back in the camps; what was his status there exactly? The Jews are demanding all documents relating to Pius XII during the war years be released to them; we should likewise demand to see Denis Avey’s military records, at the very least. We should make it our business, just as they make the Church’s sainthood process their business.

In closing, I’d like to quote from a recent article [9] by Steven Walt (co-author of The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy). “Challenging Orthodoxy Is a Form of ‘Asymmetric Conflict’: You Win By ‘Not Losing.’ As long as you remain part of the debate, you’re winning. Minds don’t change overnight, and it is difficult to know how well an intellectual campaign is going at any particular point in time—some days you might think you’re winning big, while other days the deck will appear to be stacked against you. But the real question is: are you still in the game?”

[1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8382457.stm
[2] http://www1.yadvashem.org/righteous_new/about_the_program.html
[3] Ibid: news.bbc.co.uk. “The BBC has now reunited the pair after tracing Susana, who is now Susana Timms and lives in the Midlands.”
[4] http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/the_way_we_live/article7039572.ece
[5] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1235566/How-British-PoW-swapped-uniforms-sneak-IN-Auschwitz-Jewish-pal-slip-out.html#ixzz0i0XQUEm7
[6] Ibid.
[7] http://www1.yadvashem.org/righteous_new/how_to_apply.html
[8] http://www.jweekly.com/article/full/57402/yad-vashem-ramping-up-effort-to-combat-holocaust-denial/
[9] http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/02/22/on_grabbing_the_third_rail

On 27 January 2010, the tenth “Holocaust Remembrance Day”, Elie Wiesel was invited into Montecitorio Hall, the seat of the Chamber of Deputies of the Italian Republic where he had the opportunity to give a brief speech. The president of the Chamber, Gianfranco Fini, introduced him as “the most authoritative living witness of the horrors of the Shoah among the survivors of the Nazi concentration camps”.[1] But is he really a witness?

Is Elie Wiesel an impostor?

On 3 March 2009, a Hungarian website published an article entitled Még mindig kísérti a haláltábor (The extermination camp is still tempting)[2] and outlining important revelations by Miklós Grüner, a former deportee to Auschwitz. The article was translated and appeared the following day under the title Auschwitz Survivor Claims Elie Wiesel is an Impostor[3]. The text reads as follows:

«In May 1944 , when Miklos Gruner was 15, he was deported from Hungary to Auschwitz-Birkenau with his mother and father as well as both a younger and an elder brother. He says that his mother and his younger brother were immediately gassed after their arrival in the camp. Then he, his elder brother and their father had an inmate number tattooed on their arms and were sent to perform hard work in a synthetic fuel factory linked to IG Farben where the father died six months later. After that, the elder brother was sent to Mauthausen and, as the young Miklos was then alone, two elder Jewish inmates who were also Hungarians and friends with his late father took him under their protection. These two protectors of the young Miklos were the Lazar and Abraham Wiesel brothers.

In the following months, Miklos Gruner and the Wiesel brothers became good friends. Lazar Wiesel was 31 years old in 1944. Miklos never forgot the number Lazar was tattooed with by the Nazis: A-7713. In January 1945, as the Russian army was coming, the inmates were transferred to Buchenwald. During the ten days this transfer took, partly by foot, partly by train, more than half of the inmates died and amongst them was Abraham, the elder brother of Lazar Wiesel. In April 8, 1945, the US army liberated Buchenwald. Miklos and Lazar were amongst the survivors of the camp. As Miklos had tuberculosis, he was sent in a Swiss clinic and therefore was separated from Lazar. After recovering, Miklos emigrated to Australia while his elder brother, who also survived the war, established himself in Sweden.

Years later, in 1986, Miklos was contacted by the Swedish journal Sydsvenska Dagbladet in Malmo and invited to meet “an old friend” named Elie Wiesel… As Miklos answered that he doesn`t know anyone with this name, he was told Elie Wiesel was the same person Miklos knew in the Nazi camps under the name Lazar Wiesel and with the inmate number A-7713… Miklos still remembered that number and he was therefore convinced at that point that he was going to meet his old friend Lazar and happily accepted the invitation to meet him at the Savoj Hotel in Stockholm on December 14, 1986. Miklos recalls:

“I was very happy at the idea of meeting Lazar but when I confronted the so-called ‘Elie Wiesel’, I was stunned to see a man I didn`t recognize at all, who didn`t even speak Hungarian or Yiddish and instead he was speaking English in a strong French accent. Therefore our meeting was over in about ten minutes. As a goodbye gift, the man gave me his book entitled ‘Night’ of which he claimed to be the author. I accepted the book I didn`t know at that time but told everyone there that this man was not the person he pretended to be!”

Miklos recalls that during this strange meeting, Elie Wiesel refused to show him the tattooed number on his arm, saying he didn`t want to exhibit his body. Miklos adds that Elie Wiesel showed his tattooed number afterward to an Israeli journalist who Miklos met and this journalist told Miklos that he didn`t have time to identify the number but… was certain it wasn`t a tattoo. Miklos says:

“After that meeting with Elie Wiesel, I spent twenty years of research and found out that the man calling himself Elie Wiesel has never been in a Nazi concentration camp since he was not included in any official list of detainees”.

Miklos also found out that the book Elie Wiesel gave him in 1986 as something he has written himself was in fact written in Hungarian in 1955 by Miklos’ old friend Lazar Wiesel and published in Paris under the title “Un di Velt hot Gesvigen”, meaning approximately “The World Kept Silent”. The book was then shortened and rewritten in French as well as in English in order to be published under the author`s name Elie Wiesel in 1958, under the french title “La Nuit” and the English title “Night”. Ten million copies of the book were sold in the world by Elie Wiesel who even received a Nobel Peace prize for it in 1986 while – says Miklos – the real author Lazar Wiesel was mysteriously missing…

“Elie Wiesel never wanted to meet me again”, says Miklos. “He became very successful; he takes 25 thousand dollars for a 45 minutes speech on the Holocaust. I have officially reported to the FBI in Los Angeles. I have also complained to governments and media, in the US and Sweden with no result.

I have received anonymous calls telling me I could be shot if I don`t shut up but I am not afraid of death any more. I have deposited the whole dossier in four different countries and, if I died suddenly, they would be made public. The world must know that Elie Wiesel is an impostor and I am going to tell it, I am going to publish the truth in a book called “Stolen Identity A7713”.”»

Miklós Grüner’s declarations have been repeated many times, but have not caused any major research effort. We will thus scrutinize them critically but soberly.

First of all, some biographical data on Elie Wiesel:

Born on 30 September 1928 at Sighet in Romania, the son of Shlomo and Sarah Frig, the daughter of Dodye Feig, deported to Birkenau on 16 May 1944.[4]

The most important point to be verified is the reliability of the accuser. What can be considered established on the subject of Miklós Grüner is the fact that he was at Buchenwald in May of 1945. In a “Concentration Camp Inmates Questionnaire” of the Military Government of Germany, we have an entry giving his name, and the date of his birth – 6 April 1928 – also conforms. The ID number is handwritten in the upper left hand corner: 120762.[5]

Document 1: Questionnaire concerning Miklós Grüner. Buchenwald, 6 May 1945. (Click on the picture to view it in full size).

However, the key person here is Lázár Wiesel. Fortunately, the file card concerning his stay at the Buchenwald camp also exists and allows us to verify Miklós Grüner’s assertions. This file card [6], has in its upper left hand corner the handwritten entry “Ung. Jude” (Hungarian Jew), in the center, “Ausch. A 7713”, i.e. “Auschwitz A-7713”, the former Auschwitz ID number, and, on the right, “Gef.-Nr.:123565”, (Detainee number 123565, the new Buchenwald ID number). This detainee was born on 4 September 1913 (Lázár Wiesel’s year of birth according to Miklós Grüner) at Maromarossziget and was the son of Szalamo Wiesel, who was at Buchenwald, and of Serena Wiesel née Feig, interned at KL Auschwitz. The stamp “26.1.45 KL. Auschwitz” indicates that Lázár Wiesel was registered at Buchenwald on 26 January 1945 coming from Auschwitz.

Document 2: Personal file card for Lázár Wiesel (KL Buchenwald). (Click on the picture to view it in full size).

Note: Maromarossziget [Máramarossziget in Hungarian], now Sighetu Marmaţiei (in Rumanian) is the same place which Elie Wiesel calls Sighet.[7]

The name “Szalamo” is the same as “Shlomo”, while “Serena” is phonetically close to “Sarah”.

The following table summarizes the results of the above verification:

Miklós Grüner is perfectly right: Elie Wiesel has taken on Lázár Wiesel’s identity.

Another accusation levelled by Grüner concerns the origin of Elie Wiesel’s book “La Nuit” (in English “Night“). In the Hungarian version of the article mentioned in note 2, it is said that the book was published in Hungarian in Paris in 1955 by his friend Lázár with the name of Eliezer and the title “A világ hallgat” (And the world remained silent). In the English version of the article, mentioned in note 3,
the title, instead, is in Yiddish and reads “Un di Velt hot Gesvigen” (And the world remained silent).

A search for the title in Hungarian gave no result, whereas the Yiddish book is, indeed, documented. It is registered in the Bibliography of Yiddish Books on the Catastrophe and Heroism [8], n. 549 a p. 81. The entry, in Yiddish, states: Eliezer Wiesel, Un di Welt hot geschwign (And the world remained silent). Buenos Aires, 1956. Central Association of Polish Jews in Argentina. Series Das poilische Jidntum, vol. 117, 252 pages. There is an English translation of this book, which corresponds to chapter VII of “La Nuit”. We will discuss it further along in this article.

Michael Wiesberg provides some noteworthy details on this subject:

«Wiesel has often mentioned the story of how this book came about. Naomi Seidmann has noted that Wiesel himself, in Alle Flüsse fließen ins Meer [All rivers run to the sea] has drawn attention to the fact that, in 1954, he gave the Argeninian publisher Mark Turkow the original manuscript of “La Nuit”, written in Yiddish. According to Wiesel, he never saw it again, but Turkow strongly denies this. This manuscript was published at Buenos Aires in 1955 under the title Und di Velt hat Geshveyn (And the world remained silent). Wiesel asserts to have written it in 1954 while on a cruise in Brazil. However, in an interview, he declared that it was only in May of 1955, after an encounter with François Mauriac [9], that he decided to break his silence. “And in that year [1955], in the tenth year, begins my story. It was then translated from Yiddish into French and I sent it to him. We were very, very good friends until his death”.

Naomi Seidmann, in her research on “La Nuit”, brought to light that there are considerable differences between the Yiddish and the French versions, with respect to the length, the tone, the argumentation and the topics treated in the book. She attributes these differences to the influence of Mauriac who can be described as a very particular person”»[10]

In this respect, hence, the least that can be said is that the origin of the book is quite uncertain and misty.

Is Elie Wiesel a false witness?

This having been stated, we have yet to establish whether Elie Wiesel is also a false witness on the subject of Auschwitz.

We will examine his “eye-witness account” as it is set out in his “masterpiece” (Fini), “La notte”.[11] As early as 1986 Robert Faurisson wrote an article entitled Un grand faux témoin: Élie Wiesel [12] (A prominent false witness: Elie Wiesel). More recently, Thomas Kues has written a further article entitled Una donnola travestita da agnello [13] (A weasel in sheep’s clothing). Both authors approach the subject in general terms; now the time has come for a more through analysis. We must stress that the overall tone of the account in question is that it tells a story rather than describing something factual; Elie Wiesel goes to great lengths to avoid any verifiable details and what he says about Birkenau, about Auschwitz, about Monowitz or about Buchenwald is so vague that his story might have taken place, just as easily, somewhere in Siberia or in Canada.

Quotes are from Elie Wiesel Night, His Record of Childhood in the Death Camps of Auschwitz and Buchenwald, Penguin Books edition (Translated from the French by Stella Rodway), New York 1981.

a) Deportation

Elie Wiesel does not specify the date of his deportation to Auschwitz. His narrative starts, though, with reference to a specific date: “On the Saturday before Pentecost [“Shavuòth” in the Italian edition], in the spring sunshine, people strolled, carefree and unheeding, through the swarming streets.” (p.22-23). In 1944, this festival fell on 28 May 1944 [14], a Sunday. The day in question was thus 27 May. The first transport of Jews left Sighet on the following day, hence, on 28 May. “Then, at last, at one o’clock in the afternoon, came the signal to leave” (p.27). Elie Wiesel then speaks of “Monday” (p. 29), the dawn (p.29), the day after tomorrow (p. 29) saying, at the end, “Saturday, the day of rest, was chosen for our expulsion” (p. 33) He then speaks about the traditional Friday evening meal and goes on to say: «The following morning, we marched to the station […]» (p. 33, which means that the trip to Auschwitz began on Saturday, 3 June 1944.

The duration of the trip is not given, but transports from Hungary usually took three or four days to reach Auschwitz-Birkenau. Elie Wiesel spent the night at Birkenau and was moved to Auschwitz the following day where he was given the number A-7713, which was tattooed on his arm (p. 54). Yet, according to him, “it was a beautiful April day” (p. 51).

This schedule is pure invention. If he did leave Sighet on 3 June 1944 he could not have arrived at Auschwitz in April. Moreover, the ID number A-7713 was given out on 24 May, the day on which 2,000 Hungarian Jews were assigned the numbers A-5729 through A-7728 [15]. According to Randolph L. Braham, a Jewish transport left Máramarossziget on 20 May 1944.[16] Allowing four days for the journey, this was the transport of Lázár Wiesel who was assigned the ID number A-7713 precisely on 24 May 1944. But apparently, Elie Wiesel was unaware of all these things.

b) Arrival at Birkenau

Elie Wiesel writes:

«But we had reached a station. Those who were next to the windows told us its name: ‘Auschwitz.’ No one had ever heard that name» (p.37).

«Toward eleven o’clock, the train began to move. We pressed against the windows.The convoy was moving slowly. A quarter of an hour later, it slowed down again. Through the windows we could see barbed wire; we realized that this must be the camp» (p. 39).

«And as the train stopped, we saw this time that flames were gushing out of a tall chimney into the black sky» (p. 39).

«In front of us flames. In the air that smell of burning flesh. It must have been about midnight. We had arrived – at Birkenau, reception centre for Auschwitz» (p. 39).

From the geographical point of view, this tale is nonsense. The spur towards Birkenau left the main track at a station, (the so-called “old ramp”) some 500 meters from the camp – as the crow flies – and then ran obliquely to the east of the camp fence. The spur was about 700 meters long.

There were four crematoria at Birkenau, named II, III, IV and V. The chimneys of the crematoria closest to the “old ramp” (II and III) were some 1,400 m away, in a straight line, and the other two (IV and V) about 1,800 meters. Over the last 400 m, the spur ran perpendicularly to the camp fence, which means that crematoria II and III could not be seen from the windows of the train, being situated straight ahead, as they were; the others were hidden behind at least 12 rows of barracks and had, moreover, two chimneys each.

As far as I know, no other witness ever spoke of having seen the chimneys of the crematoria from the deportation trains, and for good reason.

Document 3: Aerial photograph of the Birkenau camp, taken on 31 May 1944 (NA, 60PRS/462, D 1508, Exp. 3056). The circles mark the crematoria; (left to right) II, III, IV, V. The building in the shape of a “T”, marked “ZS” is the Central Sauna. “EG” is the entrance building (Eingangsgebäude). The arrow (at bottom) marks the railway spur. (Click on the picture to view it in full size).

Elie Wiesel’s arrival at the camp is described only vaguely in his account; he takes great care to skirt any detail that might be verifiable. Aside from the “chimney” which will be discussed later, he speaks only of “barbed wire” (p. 39), then, inside the camp, of a crossroads (p. 40), a “ditch” (p. 43), “another large ditch” (p. 43), a “barrack” (p. 45), and “another barrack” (p. 48).

There is no mention of all the things which attracted the attention of the real deportees, as is shown in the photographs of the so-called Auschwitz Album [17] (which were taken a few days after the arrival of Lázár Wiesel’s convoy: The entrance building (Eingangsgebäude) with its archway through which the trains entered the camp, the ramp (the so-called Judenrampe or Jewish ramp) with its three railway tracks inside the camp, the fences, the innumerable rows of barracks on either side, the long roads which split the camp lengthwise and crosswise, the drainage ditches, the watch-towers, the water basins for fire-fighting, or crematoria II and III at the far end of the ramp.

Document 4: Entrance building (Eingangsgebäude) of the Birkenau camp © Carlo Mattogno

Then the tale becomes a little more specific:

«A barrel of petrol at the entrance. Disinfection. Everyone was soaked in it. Then a hot shower. At high speed. As we came out from the water, we were driven outside. More running. Another barracks, the store. Very long tables. Mountains of prison clothes. On we ran. As we passed, trousers, tunic, shirt, and socks were thrown to us» (pp. 47-48).

This is pure invention: At the time, Birkenau had four disinfestation and disinfection installations (Entwesungs- und Desinfektionsanlagen). The main one was the so-called Zentralsauna (Entwesungsanlage, BW 32) in the shape of a T near the western fence of the camp with its three hot-air disinfestation chambers (Heissluftentwesungskammern), three steam autoclaves (Dampf-Desinfektionsapparate), shower hall complete with undressing room and dressing room, barbershop; there were two more such installations, designated as BW 5a and 5b, located in sectors BIb and BIa, similarly furnished with a shower hall, undressing room and dressing room, but one of them had a disinfestation gas chamber working with Zyklon B, the other one had two hot-air disinfestation chambers. Moreover, BIIa, the Gypsy camp, had 8 electrical disinfestation devices (elektrische Entlausungsapparate).[18] In the first three installations, with their undressing rooms (Auskleideraum) and dressing rooms (Ankleideraum) all stages of the operation took place indoors. The disinfection procedure did not make use of petrol. But of all these things, Elie Wiesel did not have a clue.

We should also mention, at this point, the little tale of the “good” detainee who went around among the new arrivals, telling them to make themselves older or younger than their real age, in order to avoid being “gassed”. Elie Wiesel, who was not yet 15, was told to say that he was 18, while his father, who was fifty, was advised to say “forty” (p. 41) This is a foolish story, because each transport was accompanied by a transport manifest which contained, i.e., the last name, first name and date of birth for each of the new arrivals which means that any such pious lie would be discovered immediately upon registration. It is also nonsense from the point of view of the holocaust historians, because, according to a publication of the Auschwitz Museum, all children below ge 14 were systematically gassed [19], whereas there was no age limit for adults. In the Auschwitz death registers (Sterbebücher) for 1943 we have 4,166 entries for persons between 51 and 90 years of age (no such registers are extant for 1944).[20]

c) “The” flaming chimney

Elie Wiesel had no idea of how many crematoria there were at Birkenau, what they were like and where they stood. Even though, at one point, he speaks of “six crematoria” (p. 78) he always talks about “the” chimney as if their had been only one, without identifying the crematorium. Actually, there were six chimneys at Birkenau: which one was spouting flames?

He dwells on a single strange phenomenon: «Do you see that chimney over there? See it? Do you see those flames? (Yes, we did see the flames.)» (My italics) (p.41). Now, at last, we know where the chimney was: “over there”!

The tale of the flaming chimneys was very popular in the 1950s, when Elie Wiesel wrote “Night” (1958). Nowadays, nobody treats the matter seriously, not even Robert Jan van Pelt who made an effort to prove that smoke came out of the chimneys of the crematoria… period.[21] Actually, there is no technical basis to this tale, as I have shown in a specific article.[22]

Document 5: A convoy of Hungarian Jews at the Birkenau camp – End of June, 1944. The arrows show crematoria II and III, without “flames” or smoke (from: L’Album d’Auschwitz, p. 51)

d) The “cremation pits”

We have here the most frightening part of his “eye-witness account”:

«Not far from us, flames were leaping up from a ditch, gigantic flames. A lorry drew up at the pit and delivered its load – little children. Babies! Yes, I saw it – saw it with my own eyes… those children in the flames. (Is it surprising that I could not sleep after that? Sleep had fled from my eyes.)

So this was where we were going. A little farther on was another and larger ditch for adults.

I pinched my face. Was I still alive? Was I awake? I could not believe it. How could it be possible for them to burn people, children, and for the world to keep silent? No, none of this could be true. It was a nightmare… Soon I should wake with a start, my heart pounding, and find myself back in the bedroom of my childhood, among my books…

My father’s voice drew me from my thoughts:

‘It’s a shame… a shame that you couldn’t have gone with your mother… I saw several boys of your age going with their mothers…’

His voice was terribly sad. I realized that he did not want to see what they were going to do to me. He did not want to see the burning of his only son.

My forehead was bathed in cold sweat. But I told him that I did not believe that they could burn people in our age, that humanity would never tolerate it…

‘Humanity? Humanity is not concerned with us. Today anything is allowed. Anything is possible, even these crematories…’

His voice was choking.

‘Father,’ I said, ‘if that is so, I don’t want to wait here. I’m going to run to the electric wire. That would be better than slow agony in the flames.’

He did not answer. He was weeping. His body was shaken convulsively. Around us, everyone was weeping. Someone began to recite the Kaddish, the prayer for the dead. I do not know if it has ever happened before, in the long history of the Jews, that people have ever recited the prayer for the dead for themselves.

‘Yitgadal veyitkadach shmé rabai… May His Name be blessed and magnified…’ Whispered my father.

For the first time, I felt revolt rise up in me. Why should I bless His name? The Eternal, Lord of the Universe, the All-Powerful and Terrible, was silent. What had I to thank Him for?

We continued our march. We were gradually drawing closer to the ditch, from which an infernal heat was rising. Still twenty steps to go. If I wanted to bring about my own death, this was the moment. Our line had now only fifteen paces to cover. I bit my lips so that my father would not hear my teeth chattering. Ten steps still. Eight. Seven. We marched slowly on, as though following a hearse at our own funeral. Four steps more. Three steps. There it was now, right in front of us, the pit and its flames. I gathered all that was left of my strength, so that I could break from the ranks and throw myself upon the barbed wire. In the depths of my heart, I bade farewell to my father, to the whole universe; and, in spite of myself, the words formed themselves and issued in a whisper from my lips: Yitgadal veyitkadach shmé rabai… May His Name be blessed and magnified… My heart was bursting. The moment had come. I was face to face with the Angel of Death…

No. Two steps from the pit we were ordered to turn to the left and made to go into a barracks» (pp. 43-45).

Where does all this take place? As usual, Elie Wiesel takes care not to furnish any kind of reference point as to the location. According to the holocaust historians, the “cremation pits” were located at two sites: one was outside of the camp, across from the Zentralsauna at the alleged “Bunker 2” [23] and another was in the northern yard of crematorium V. We must exclude the first site, because otherwise Elie Wiesel would have had to mention their leaving the camp and walking several hundred meters in open terrain.

What about the other site?

In the study Auschwitz: Open Air Incinerations [24], I have shown, on the basis of an analysis of all available aerial photographs of Birkenau, that the story of the “cremation pits”, as far as their number, their size or their purpose are concerned, is not borne out by the reality on the ground. The only documented site of any kind of cremation that may have existed at Birkenau was a space behind crematorium V, it covered an area of some 50 square meters – whereas, if we follow the holocaust propaganda, the alleged extermination of the Hungarian Jews is said to have required “cremation ditches” with an area of about 5,900 square meters altogether – as we can see from this photograph:

Document 6: Aerial photograph of Birkenau taken on 23 August 1944 – Northern yard of Crematorium V. The smoking site is very small, as can be seen from the size of crematorium V which was about 13 meters wide. (Click on the picture to view it in full size).

We must remember, moreover, that in order to reach this point it would have been necessary to pass crematoria IV and V which surely would not have escaped the eye of as acute an observer of chimneys as Elie Wiesel – there were four chimneys, after all. What is more, there were no barracks in the vicinity, there was only crematorium V. Finally, the nearest wire fence against which our witness wanted to throw himself (on the north side) ran along on the far side of a drainage ditch.

Wiesel’s tale is not only historically unfounded, it is also absurd, because if Wiesel had really come within two steps of a real “cremation pit” – which would have had to be run at a temperature of about 600 degC to be effective – he would have been killed by the intense heat.

The scene of the truck unloading children into a “cremation pit” is also one of the ludicrous propaganda arguments of the post-war era. It was illustrated by one of David Olère’s drawings in 1947 which was then to inspire a number of later “eye-witnesses”.[25]

Wiesel’s story thus turns out to be both false and absurd, but it is also a blatant subterfuge: if he and his father had really been “selected” for work, why were they taken anywhwere near the “cremation pit”? So that they would discover the “terrible secret” of Auschwitz and spread their story to other camps?

It is obvious that we have here nothing but a simple trick used by Wiesel to style himself as an “eye-witness” of a horrific but purely fictitious event.

e) The transfer to Auschwitz

After a night spent in a barrack of the Gypsy camp, Elie Wiesel was moved to the Auschwitz main camp. Here too, the description is exceedingly vague:

«The march had lasted half an hour. Looking around me, I noticed that the barbed wires were behind us. We had left the camp.

It was a beautiful April day. The fragrance of spring was in the air. The sun was setting in the west.

But we had been marching for only a few moments when we saw the barbed wire of another camp. An iron door with the inscription over it:

‘Work is liberty!’

Auschwitz» (pp. 51-52).

He does not even seem to have noticed passing through the archway of the Birkenau entrance building. Along the way, he notices nothing, neither the bridge across the railroad tracks, nor the long tree-lined road leading to the main camp. On the other hand, he immediately sees the inscription “Arbeit macht frei” (but does not render it in German), as could anyone who ever heard of Auschwitz.

Needless to say that he makes sure not to provide us with an even sketchy description of the new camp. On arrival, he was taken to Block 17 about which he does not tell the reader anything, for obvious reasons.

«In the afternoon we were made to line up. Three prisoners brought a table and some medical instruments. With the left sleeve rolled up, each person passed in front of the table. The three ‘veterans,’ with needles in their hands, engraved a number on our left arms. I became A-7713» (pp. 53-54).

Even this facet is false. I have already spoken of the fraudulent ID number. Here, Tadeusz Iwasko informs us that

«The new arrivals (Zugang) were taken to the bathhouses which, at Auschwitz I, were located in block no. 26».[26]

Elie Wiesel keeps quiet about all the preparatory operations prior to admission, which he is obviously unfamiliar with:

«Registration took place immediately after the bath and the consignment of the clothes; it involved the filling-out of a form (Häftlings-Personalbogen) giving personal data and the address of the nearest relatives. […]. The detainee was then assigned a serial number which would be used instead of his name throughout his stay at the camp. Registration ended with this number being tattooed on his lower left arm».[27]

He goes on to speak of the evening roll call:

«Tens of thousands of prisoners stood in rows while the SS checked their numbers» (p.54) (my italics)

The Auschwtz camp strength, however, was far lower. On 12 July 1944, the camp held about 14,400 detainees.[28]

f) The transfer to Monowitz

After having spent three weeks at Auschwitz (p. 55), Elie Wiesel was transferred to the Buna camp (p. 59), also called Auschwitz III, at Monowitz. Here, again, we have no verifiable particulars.[29] What little details he gives us are all fanciful. He starts out right away with a contradiction:

«Our convoy included a few children ten and twelve years old» (p. 58).

Perhaps these youngsters, too, had told the Germans that they were eighteen years of age, so that they would be spared the gas chambers?

Then «[…] we were installed in two tents» (p. 58), as if Monowitz did not have the 60 barracks which Primo Levi told us about:

«Our Lager is a square of about six hundred yards in length, surrounded by two fences of barbed wire, the inner one carrying a high tension current. It consists of sixty wooden huts, which are called Blocks, ten of which are in construction. In addition, there is the body of the kitchens, which are in brick; an experimental farm, run by a detachment of privileged Häftlinge; the huts with the showers and the latrines, one for each group of six or eight Blocks. Besides these, certain Blocks are reserved for specific purposes. First of all, a group of eight, at the extreme eastern end of the camp, forms the infirmary and clinic; then there is Block 24 which is the Krätzeblock, reserved for infectious skin diseases; Block 7 which no ordinary Häftling has ever entered, reserved for the “Prominenz”, that is,the aristocracy, the internees holding the highest posts; Block 47, reserved for the Reichsdeutsche (the Aryan Germans, ‘politicals’ or criminals); Block 49, for the Kapos alone; Block 12, half of which, for use of the Reichsdeutsche and the Kapos, serves as canteen, that is, a distribution centre for tobacco, insect powder and occasionally other articles; Block 37, which formed the Quartermaster’s office and the Office for Work; and finally, Block 29, which always has its windows closed as it is the Frauenblock, the camp brothel, served by Polish Häftling girls, and reserved for the Reichsdeutsche»[30]

When compared to this text, Elie Wiesel’s non-description can only be qualified as pathetic.

When he spoke at Montecitorio, Elie Wiesel boasted of having known Primo Levi:

«At a certain point, both of us were assigned to the same barrack, but he was not there during the death-march towards the [railroad] cars which took us to Buchenwald, he stayed in the hospital» (my italics)[31]

However, Primo Levi was assigned to Block 30 [32], then to Block 45 [33] and finally to Block 48.[34] Which Block was Wiesel’s? The answer is not as simple as that. Initially, Wiesel speaks of «the orchestra block»[35] which was, indeed, near the door of the camp (p. 60), then he mentions Block 36 a couple of times: «with all my might I began to run to block 36» (p. 84), «I ran to block 36» (p. 87) without telling us whether he eventually stayed there, finally he says clearly that he stayed in Block 57 (p. 96). In fact, Elie Wiesel and Primo Levi were never housed in the same barrack. A little white lie right in the middle of Montecitorio, right smack in the face of so many listeners!

The little tale of ripping out gold teeth from the mouths of living detainees (p. 63) and the ensuing closure of the dental station (Zahnstation) is unfounded. Gold teeth were removed from corpses and the Zahnstation, located in Block 15 and run by the SS, was never closed down.

Elie Wiesel then goes on to tell us about a detainee “selected” for death in the “gas chamber”:

«When the selection came, he was condemned in advance, offering his own neck to the executioner. All he asked of us was:

‘In three days I shall no longer be here…. Say the Kaddish for me.’

We promised him. In three days’ time, when we saw the smoke rising from the chimney, we would think of him. Ten of us would gather together and hold a special service. All his friends would say the Kaddish.

Then he went off toward the hospital, his step steadier, not looking back. An ambulance was waiting to take him to Birkenau» (pp. 88-89) (my italics)

Our “eye witness” had either forgotten that he was at Monowitz where there was no crematorium or had such a keen eye that he could see the smoke from “the chimney” (one of six, the choice is yours) at Birkenau, something that would be rather improbable in view of the fact that the two camps were 5 km apart as the crow flies and the town of Auschwitz stood between them.

Also, sending an ambulance to take a detainee to the gas chamber would really be an example of “Sonderbehandlung“, a very “special treatment”!

On the subject of “selections”, Elie Wiesel asserts that «the notorious Dr. Mengele» was present at one of them (p. 85); but Mengele was Lagerarzt of the Gypsy camp (BIIe) at Birkenau and certainly had other duties than to go to Monowitz and carry out “selections” there. Mengele, incidentally, is the only physician mentioned by Elie Wiesel, and is also the one who received him at Birkenau (p. 42); the name is very well known among those who never even came near Auschwitz.

Our eye-witness even mentions an occurrence that one can verify: an allied air-raid.

It took place «one Sunday» (p. 70), he remembers the day very well because he had decided «[…] to stay in bed late in the morning» (p. 70) «The raid lasted over an hour” (p. 72) and he comments: «To see the whole works (la fabbrica in the Italian edition, p. 62) go up in fire – what revenge!» (p. 72) (my italics).

In reality, the raid took place on 13 September 1944, which was a Wednesday, it lasted 13 minutes, from 11:17 through 11:30 (a.m.) and destroyed only part of the installations. Actually, at Monowitz there was not only one plant but quite a few.

We will not go into minor silly statements, such as the death sentence pronounced «in the name of Himmler […]» (p.74) and move on to his stay at the camp hospital (probably inspired by Primo Levi’s account). It took place «in mid-January» when his right foot swelled up because of chillblains and he had to be operated on. He had to move into the hospital and immediately noticed that «it was indeed true that the hospital was very small […]»(p. 90). Actually, it consisted of only nine Blocks, two for recovery (13 and 22), two for surgery (14 and 16), one for internal medicine and dentistry (15), two for internal medicine (17 and 19), one for out-patients and reception(18) and one for infectious diseases.[36]

g) The transfer to Buchenwald

We do not have to go into the motivations for Wiesel’s decision to leave with the Germans rather than wait for the Soviets to arrive, because, in its literary context, it is psychologically explained by the (unjustified) fear that all those remaining behind in the camp would be shot.

Leaving aside the evacuation march itself and the ride on the train, we will consider the details of the arrival at Buchenwald, keeping in mind only the duration of the whole trip: three days’ stay at Gleiwitz (p. 107), plus one day for the march from Monowitz, and «ten days, ten nights of travelling» (p. 111) for a total of at least 14 days. On arrival at Buchenwald we have the usual fogginess – no part of the camp can be identified in any way. Wiesel speaks of showers «On the third day after our arrival at Buchenwald» (p. 118) but avoids any kind of detail regarding the registration procedure. We have already seen that Miklós Grüner and Lázár Wiesel who really did go to Buchenwald were respectively assigned the ID numbers 120762 and 123565.

If Elie Wiesel had in any manner wanted to speak of the registration which he had to go through like everyone else, obviously, he would have had to say something about two ID numbers. Worse still, there is no record of a person by the name of Elie (or Eliezer) Wiesel in the Buchenwald files.

Let us take a look at the account of his arrival at Buchenwald to see whether it agrees with the documents.

He states that he went to have a shower «on the third day after our arrival at Buchenwald» (p. 118) and that this had occured on «January 28, 1945» (p.123), which means that he left Monowitz on 11 January and arrived at Buchenwald on 25 January. Actually, there were three convoys of deportees from the Auschwitz-Birkenau complex which went to Buchenwald [37] in January of 1945:

No convoy left on 11 January, no convoy took longer than 8 days to arrive. The one arriving on 26 January had both Lázár Wiesel and Miklós Grüner on board, as we can see from the ID numbers assigned to them – 120762 and 123565.

As has been mentioned above, the original Yiddish text from which Elie Wiesel took chapter VII of his book (the account of the journey from Gleiwitz to Buchenwald) has been translated into English by Moshe Spiegel under the title “The Death Train”[38]. The two texts are very similar, except that in the first book the number of detainees loaded into Elie Wiesel’s car is not 100 but 120.[39] Moreover, there is a mention here of the number of cars on the train: 25.[40] On the other hand, the number of detainees in Elie Wiesel’s car still alive on arrival at Buchenwald is the same for both: 12 (p. 101).[41] This means that, in this car, there was a mortality of 88 or 90%, respectively. But the entire convoy would have had a similar death rate:

«The journey lasted ten interminable days and nights. Each day claimed its toll of victims and each night paid its homage to the Angel of Death».[42]

On the day of the arrival at Buchenwald, there were 40 deaths.[43]

Thus, initially, there would have been (25 x 100 ~ 120 =) 2,500 ~ 3,000 detainees altogether on this train, with most of them dying on the way.

On the other hand, it is known from the train manifests, that the transport which reached Buchenwald on 26 January comprised, on departure, exactly 3,987 detainees [44]; if 3,927 of them were registered at Buchenwald on arrival there were 60 deaths, or a mortality of 1.5 percent, along the way.

Taking all these aspects into account, one can see that the description given by Elie Wiesel for the journey from Gleiwitz to Buchenwald cannot be true.

In short, Elie Wiesel was never interned at Birkenau, nor at Auschwtz, nor at Monowitz, nor at Buchenwald.

As far as Elie Wiesel’s father Shlomo is concerned, while his name [45] does appear in the Central Database of Shoah Victims’ Names [46] at Yad Vashem, this information was provided on 8 October 2004 by Elie Wiesel himself!

One last remark: It is asserted that Elie Wiesel’s presence at Buchenwald is borne out by the fact that he appears on a photograph showing a group of detainees at this camp:

«Photo by Harry Miller of slave laborers in the Buchenwald concentration camp after U.S. troops of the 80th Div. entered the camp. Taken on 16 April 1945. Miklos Grüner (Haft-Nr. 120762) is on the left at the bottom, while Elie Wiesel (Haft-Nr. 123565) is on the next row up, seventh along, nearest to the third pillar from the left».[47]

However, the interpretation that the face of the person shown on this photograph is Elie Wiesel’s is based solely on his own statement to the effect that he recognized himself. As to “his” ID number – 123565 – that number belonged to Lázár Wiesel!

Carlo Mattogno [48]

[1] See the shorthand minutes in:
http://www.camera.it/cartellecomuni/Leg16/files/pdf/opuscolo_giorno_della_memoria.pdf
[2] In: http://www.haon.hu/hirek/magyarorszag/cikk/meg-mindig-kiserti-a-halaltabor/cn/haon-news-FCUWeb-20090303-0604233755
[3] In http://www.henrymakow.com/translated_from_the_hungarian.html
[4] Elie Wiesel, section on “Early life”,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elie_Wiesel
[5] NARA, A 3355, RG 242.
[6] Idem.
[7] Sighetu Marmaţiei, in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sighetu_Marma%C5%A3iei
[8] YIVO Institute for Jewish Research, New York, 1962.
[9] François Mauriac wrote a preface for Elie Wiesel’s book.
[10] Michael Wiesberg, Unversöhnlich – Elie Wiesel zum 80. In: Grundlagen, Sezession 25, August 2008, p. 25.
[11] Giuntina, Firenze, 1986.
[12] In: R. Faurisson, Écrits Révisionnistes (1974-1998) , vol. II, De 1984 à 1989. Édition privée hors commerce, 1999, pp. 606-610. Online: http://www.vho.org/aaargh/fran/archFaur/1986-1990/RF861017.htm (French); http://www.ihr.org/leaflets/wiesel.shtml (English).
[13] Elie Wiesel: la donnola travestiata da agnello, in:http://andreacarancini.blogspot.com/2010/01/elie-wiesel-la-donnola-travestita-da.html
[14] http://www.hebcal.com/hebcal/?year=1944&v=1&month=5&yt=G&nh=on&nx=on&i=off&vis=on&set=on&c=off&geo=zip&zip=&m=72&.cgifields=nx&.cgifields=nh&.s=Get+Calendar
[15] Liste der Judentransporte, Museum of Auschwitz-Birkenau, microfilm no. 727/27.
[16] R.L. Braham, A Magyar Holocaust. Gondolat Budapest-Blackburn International Inc., Wilmington, 1988, p. 514.
[17] L’Album d’Auschwitz, Éditions du Seuil, Paris 1983.
[18] These installations have been well described by Jean-Claude Pressac in: Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers, The Beate Klarsfeld Foundation, New York 1989, pp. 53-85.
[19] Auschwitz. Il campo nazista della morte. Edizioni del Museo Statale di Auschwitz-Birkenau, 1997, p. 122.
[20] Thomas Grotum, Jan Parcer, “EDV-gestützte Auswertung der Sterbeeinträge”, in: Sterbebücher von Auschwitz, State Museum of Auschwitz-Birkenau, Ed. K.G. Saur, Munich, New Providence, London, Paris 1995, vol. 1, p. 248.
[21] R.J.van Pelt, The Case for Auschwitz. Evidence from the Irving Trial, Indiana University Press, Bloomington/Indianapolis 2002, p. 504.
[22] «Combustion Experiments with Flesh and Animal Fat on cremations in pits in the alleged extermination camps of the Third Reich», in: The Revisionist, Vol. 2, Number 1, February 2004, pp. 64-72.
[23] But no photograph shows the presence of smoke in this area.
[24] Theses & Dissertations Press, Chicago 2005.
[25] See also my study Le camere a gas di Auschwitz. Studio storico-tecnico sugli “indizi criminali” di Jean-Claude Pressac e sulla “convergenza di prove” di Robert Jan van Pelt, Effepi, Genoa 2009, p. 552.
[26] Auschwitz. Il campo nazista della morte, op. cit., p. 52.
[27] Idem, p. 54.
[28] D. Czech, Kalendarium der Ereignisse im Konzentrationslager Auschwitz-Birkenau 1939-1945, Rowohlt Verlag, Reinbek bei Hamburg 1989, p. 821.
[29] Except the mention of the barrack of the camp orchestra.
[30] Primo Levi, Survival in Auschwitz. The Nazi Assault on Humanity (re-titled edition of If This Is a Man), Collier, New York 1961, p. 27.
[31] http://www.camera.it/cartellecomuni/Leg16/files/pdf/opuscolo_giorno_della_memoria.pdf
[32] Primo Levi, Survival in Auschwitz, op.cit., p. 33.
[33] Idem, p. 51.
[34] Idem, p. 116.
[35] The Block for the orchestra was not counted with the other barracks of the camp, numbered 1 through 60.
[36] Irena Strzelecka, Piotr Setkiewicz, «Bau, Ausbau und Entwicklung des KL Auschwitz und seiner Nebenlager», in: W. Długobordki, F. Piper, Auschwitz 1940-1945. Studien zur Geschichte des Konzentrations- und Vernichtungslager Auschwitz, Verlag des Staatlichen Museums Auschwitz-Birkenau 1999, Bd. I, p. 128.
[37] Het Nederlandsche Roode Kruis, Auschwitz, Deel VI, ‘s-Gravenhage, 1952, p. 39.
[38] In: Jacob Glatstein, Israel Knox and Samuel Margoshes (Eds.), Anthology of Holocaust Literature, A Temple Book, Atheneum, New York 1968, pp. 3-10.
[39] Idem., p. 10.
[40] Idem., p. 9.
[41] Idem., p. 10.
[42] Idem., p. 5.
[43] Idem., p. 10.
[44] Andrzej Strzelecki, Endphase des KL Auschwitz, Verlag Staatliches Museum in Oświęcim-Brzezinka 1995, pp. 338-229. Reproduction of two pages of the original transport manifest.
[45] He is listed there as Shlomo Vizel, son of Eliezer and of Nisel, born at Sighet and died at Buchenwald on 27 January 1945. The year of his birth is not indicated.
[46] http://www.yadvashem.org/wps/portal/IY_HON_Welcome
[47] Elie Wiesel’s identity crisis, in:http://christopherhitchenswatch.blogspot.com/2009/03/elie-wiesels-identity-crisis.html
[48] The Italian original of this article, Elie Wiesel: «Il più autorevole testimone vivente» della Shoah?, dated 3 February 2010, is found online at: http://ita.vho.org/056_Elie_Wiesel.htm (This English translation contains some minor revisions made for it by the author).

Dear Dr. Neander,

Thank you for your letter of February 3rd. First let me assure you that you are welcome to any assistance I can give you in keeping the facts about Irene Zisblatt and the entire “Auschwitz experience” in order. (See 2nd paragraph at:
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2010/02/response-to-c-yeager.html#_ftnref2)
As a self-described independent scholar who has moved to Poland from Germany (I gather) and lives in Cracow, close to the Auschwitz-Birkenau (A-B) Memorial Museum, you obviously have a desire to be, or believe that you are, an “expert” on A-B. Very good, since we certainly need real experts to help us deal with the many, many falsehoods and perversions promulgated about this place since at least 1941, but especially after 1945.

You and I have agreed that Mrs. Zisblatt (by the way, she is no more “Mrs.” Zisblatt than I am Mrs. Yeager, so I will just call her Zisblatt and you may call me Ms. Yeager) has written a fantasy with her book, The Fifth Diamond. Of course, that means you also agree that the account she gives of her Auschwitz experience in Steven Spielberg’s documentary film, The Last Days, is also fantasy (a very important and potent point). As you have previously stated, the main theme of her book and of her testimony in the film is her ingesting, defecating, retrieving and ingesting again, over and over during her year spent in camps and on what she terms a “death march,” four diamonds given her by her mother before they entered Birkenau. Thus you agree that Zisblatt is lying in a very bold way about her experience, although you prefer to call her a “confused old lady” with a “dysfunctional memory” who “deserves our pity.” Hmmm, I dare say Zisblatt probably prefers my description of her as liar to yours as object of pity.

But more on that later. I want to follow your comments in a chronological order, so I’ll speak first about Stehzelle. You “prove” the existence of such torture by referring to the Auschwitz archives, saying that out of 275 reports you counted 28 reports that speak of Stehzelle given as punishment. This you expect to be accepted at face value. Yet, the entire holocaust legend is based on false reports, forgeries and lying and/or coerced witnesses. Therefore, a holocaust skeptic such as I am does want to see some physical evidence or unquestionably genuine documentation, which you have not produced.

My reference to the Auschwitz Wikipedia page, where Stehzelle is discussed, was not meant as “gospel” but had a purpose. If the most popular, most-relied upon quick source of information on the Internet cannot give a single real source of documentation for such cells, but instead dissimulates, it just shows how confused the entire subject is. It may have skipped your notice, but Maximilian Kolbe was not in a standing cell at the end, but in a regular cell, yet his detention in this cell was used at Wikipedia as evidence of the existence of “standing cells.” Going to the A-B website, one finds no archival information such as you say you have, but only a panoramic photo of the same reconstruction that I showed a photo of in my critique of your original article. And the Auschwitz archives are not The Gospel either.

It is also possible that “standing cell” was not what was described by some witnesses, who do like to go overboard in their descriptions. Why, for instance, do we only have reconstructions today, as seen in the photo mentioned above taken in Block 11 at Auschwitz, with those ridiculous tiny doors that adults would find it extremely hard to get through (and how did they get sick or unconscious people out, not to speak of dead ones?), and that are NOT shown to regular tour-goers who are not taken into the basement? It is typical that there are a lot of words written and spoken about things like Stehzelle, but no desire to show anything real to the public. Why? Because when the more intelligent of the public can look things over for themselves, they begin to see the improbabilities and impossibilities of the story that’s been given out.

It’s also of note that “standing punishment” has been around for a long time—it was called Field Punishment No. 1 by the British Army in WWI (soldiers referred to it as “the crucifixion”); the French Legionnaires called it “the Silo.” By the 1920’s it was routine police torture in America. In the 1930’s, Stalin’s NKVD used forced standing to coerce confessions for show trials. South African and Brazilian police made prisoners stand on cans or bricks, which caused excruciating pain to the feet. In 1956 the CIA commissioned two experts to study the effects of enforced standing. They found that the ankles and feet swell to twice their normal size within 24 hours; large blisters develop, and it gets worse from there.[1] It follows that it’s unlikely those so punished could work after spending over one day in such a cell.

With such wide usage, it’s no wonder it became a favorite story at the German concentration camps. No, I do not automatically accept the story that Commandant Liebenhenschel had the standing cells allegedly erected by Commandant Hoess torn down. I do not consider myself a scholar, Dr. Neander, as you do. I am an intelligent person who likes to use a common sense approach (anathema to holocaust scholars!). I think it is very telling that all alleged standing cells were torn down prior to the camp liberation or immediately afterward, leaving us with no physical record. In the case of Dachau, it was the U.S. Army itself that tore them down without taking any photographs. This makes no sense, since they were eager to find all evidence of Nazi crimes and publicize them. An intelligent person has to conclude that the standing cells at Dachau, today represented by a diagrammatic exhibit, are just another false publicity story. Would you not conclude that yourself, Dr. Neander?

This is all there is as evidence of Stehzelle at Dachau. The sign says prisoners were kept in these cells for as much as 72 hours at a time (3 days!). A Dachau exhibit reports that a Soviet prisoner, Yuri Piskunov, was confined to one of these cells for 10 days (!) in October 1944, but with no mention of his crime. According to the CIA study I cited, he would not have survived, but Piskunov was still alive when this exhibit opened in 2000. (photo by litlnemo at flickr)

Stehzelle drawing

More evidence? Drawing from a “survivor” of the so-called “Standing Cells” shows how belief is generated from fantasy. From http://www.dachautour.com/

Moving on, you also make the comment that your original statement in your “Diamond Girl” article — “On the other hand, according to her story, Chana obviously did not have health problems with ingesting feces, as the Stehzelle episode shows. During the five days in this dungeon, the girls relieve themselves into the ankle-deep water in which they stand and drink the same water repeatedly (47), without becoming sick.” — was meant ironically, and I was unable to detect this. I doubt very much that I was the only reader who was unable to detect any irony in your wording and presentation of this idea. One would have to be a mind-reader to do so, and scholarly articles do not demand such mind-reading (well, Raul Hilberg does expect us to believe in mind-reading among the Nazi “final-solutionists,” which just shows that he is not a true scholar). Yet, even though you fault me for not picking up your ironies, you have misread or “mystified” several things that I wrote.

For instance, I was not “criticizing” you for not confronting the three main versions of Zisblatt’s story—her book, her Surviviors of the Shoah testimony, and the Spielberg film—and all the unacceptable discrepancies between them, in my first response to you: “Holocaust Scholar Finds ‘Fifth Diamond’ to Be a Work of Fiction.”[2] I only pointed that out so the reader would know there was an even bigger problem with Zisblatt’s integrity as a holocaust survivor than what you presented in your article. I accept your position that you wanted to keep your critique to a manageable length—that is certainly understandable—although the other reasons you give are less convincing. You say that the book cannot be altered anymore and is the product of thorough reflection as opposed to “the contingencies of an interview or a film scene shot live.” I have to object that the (Shoah) interview was taped, with opportunity to change and correct if desired; the film also must have given opportunity for several takes and was carefully prepared for. I don’t think there is any wiggle-room for claiming she was not able to say what she really meant to say. Therefore, we cannot divorce Zisblatt’s book from her Shoah testimony and especially from the film, The Last Days, and from all her public talks; they must be taken as a whole in the long run. I am not saying you are avoiding this; I don’t think, at this point, that you are.

Another instance: You are misrepresenting my words when you say that by “smoothing over” I meant you did not mention everything that was erroneous in Zisblatt’s narrative. That is not at all what I wrote. My words of “smoothed over” were clearly in regard to several of Zisblatt’s errors that you made light of or excused; thus they were in reference to what you DID say—not to what you did not say. An example is her incorrect timing for her arrival at Birkenau, putting herself there a full month before Jews from her area arrived there. She was very clear in Shoah testimony and book (written 10 years later) that all Jews in her town were deported by two days after Passover. This is not something that she would be confused about. Yet you call my criticism of survivors unable to assign correct dates to their memories an unreasonable expectation on my part. You then launch into a lecture of moral outrage at my “ignorance” of how impossible it was for concentration camp inmates to have any sense of time, and suggest I read “some good (non-revisionist) literature” about concentration camp life. This is typical holocaustian tactics of going on the offence rather than defend one’s position.

Do you suggest I read the most famous concentration camp literature of all — Night and other books by Elie Wiesel? How about Deborah Lipstadt’s works, or Danuta Czech? There are so many books to choose from, I wouldn’t know where to start. Perhaps you could direct me to the ones you most recommend.

Dr. Neander, do you deny that prisoners at A-B were able to subscribe to newspapers that were delivered to them in the camp? Do you deny that they received mail from family and friends, which certainly had dates on it? Do you deny there was a network of rumor and talk of all sorts, including an underground that managed to send radio messages to London? Let’s get real here. Even poor Zisblatt with her dysfunctional memory says they “somehow” knew when Jewish holidays came up and fasted for Yom Kippur for 24 hours, dumping their soup into the dirt, even though they were “starving.” How heroic! They were punished for that by the SS, she says, who deprived them of soup for the next five days. Contradictory to that, she also says she lost her faith in God and disassociated herself from her religious beliefs as soon as she found herself in the camp—survival became her only goal. How does that fit with choosing to fast when you’re starving?

So when you say that “for the average prisoner even the possession of paper and pencil — to take notes, to write a diary — was a ‘crime’ punishable by severe flogging, Stehzelle, or, if the SS man had a bad day, by killing on the spot” it is you that is showing ignorance, not I, by exaggerating beyond belief.

You continue in this vein when you still insist that “All the atrocities reported by Zisblatt did happen, somewhere, sometime” (tearing Jewish babies in half and throwing them in a river or into burning pits or banging their heads against trucks, or skinning prisoners with “smooth skin” to make lampshades, or putting anti-fertility chemicals into the soup?) and that “There can be no doubt that a multitude of criminal medical experiments” were performed on prisoners. (You also use the phrase “doubtless” many times, which any debater knows is a mark against you because it is used in place of proof or solid argument.) Now, I did not say that the medical experiments you refer to are absolutely untrue; I just know that it is necessary to doubt the simplistic, broad-brush claims you make about them.

Taking the camp doctors you mention one by one, let’s fact check your claims to be a scholar against what you’re now calling my “deep ignorance.”

1)  Dr. Sigmund Rascher, contrary to what you say, was never sentenced to death by an SS court; he was not even put on trial in an SS court or any other court. Rascher and his wife were arrested by the Munich police in April 1944 and put into a Munich jail for a crime that had nothing to do with his “experiments” at Dachau, but for Kindesunterschiebung, the kidnapping of two infants that they claimed Mrs. Rascher had given birth to. This was a very serious crime in Germany. They were also charged with financial irregularities and scientific fraud. Rascher was later moved to the Dachau prison bunker in preparation for being sent to the South Tyrol as part of a prisoner-exchange [3]; his wife to Ravensbruck. They were “executed” right before liberation under unclear circumstances that are too complicated to go into, but were not according to SS procedure. As a doctor, Rascher used Dachau for his investigations into the effects of high altitude on German pilots, commissioned by Himmler for the Luftwaffe. According to the post-war testimony of his assistant Walter Neff (who was also a prisoner), 180 to 200 prisoners, only one a Jew, were provided—the great majority of whom had already been condemned to death by German courts. Forty of them were Russian POWs who were also subject to death because they were Communist Commissars (the “Commissar Order”) and 10 were ‘volunteers.’ Again according to Neff, about 70 to 80 of these prisoners died.[4] Himmler is said to have told Dr. Rascher that the subjects who survived should be pardoned to life imprisonment.[5] If so, this is another indication that the prisoners turned over for this experiment were condemned to death already. It’s also noteworthy that three of the doctors who worked with Rascher on the Luftwaffe high altitude experiments were acquitted at the Nuremberg “Doctor’s Trial” in 1947.[6]

To put this in perspective, let me remark that the Nazi justification for these experiments was that this was done in an effort to save the lives of German pilots. Please remember that the “good” Americans claim their “experimental” atomic bombing of Japanese cities was justified because it saved American servicemen’s lives. These hundred thousand plus of Japanese citizens had not been condemned to death by a court for criminal activities, but they were condemned by the American President and Military Command in absentia! The moral seems to be: killing to save American lives can be justified, but not German lives—victor’s justice. Also, America confiscated the results of the experiments they found by Dr. Rascher and used them for the U.S. Air Force.[7] They also used the results of experiments at Buchenwald. Many of the doctors who did experiments in the camps were brought to America to continue their experiments.

2)  Dr. Waldemar Hoven was accused of being the commandant’s wife’s lover. According to the Buchenwald camp guidebook “Ilse (Koch) selected prisoners with tattooed skin to be killed by her lover, Dr. Waldemar Hoven, in order to make leather lamp shades to decorate her home.”[8] We know that is not true—it is one of the famous atrocity legends (lies)—so why believe anything in the Buchenwald guidebook, or Buchenwald archives either if they have them? (I was at Buchenwald and I could see how hard they try to make it seem like a much worse place than it was. They have something of an inferiority complex because they don’t have a gas chamber, poor things, so they’ve turned the crematorium into a shrine and invented the “killing room” in the basement below.) The prisoners didn’t like Ilse Koch and because there were so many complaints about them, both Hoven and Ilse Koch were tried by Dr. Konrad Morgen in his tough SS court. Ilse Koch was acquitted, but Hoven was convicted and sentenced to death for murder. He spent 18 months in prison at Buchenwald, but was then reprieved because of the critical wartime shortage of doctors. He remained practicing at Buchenwald. He was not sent to the Eastern front by Himmler, as you said.

Strangely, an official U.S. Army Report dated April 24, 1945 accused Dr. Hoven of being a communist ally who was charged with killing anti-communist prisoners in Buchenwald with lethal injections. He was prosecuted by the IMT at “The Doctor’s Trial” and executed in 1948. Who is to say of what he was really guilty?

3)  Dr. Carl Clauberg and Dr. Horst Schumann are accused by holocaust crazies without any evidence. In the few articles about them on the “world wide web,” there are no sources or exhibits to confirm the nonsense about Clauberg’s sterilization of women “experiments,” and the same goes for Schumann. Nothing on the USHMM or A-BMM sites except the same accusatory words. You speak of a thick paper trail, yet all that is found is one unverified letter to HH, that could very well be made up, and probably is because it sounds ridiculous. Dr. Clauberg was known to be a respected medical doctor in Germany.

So, Dr. Neander, do you repeat any holocaust rumors and character assassinations that come down the pike, with little concern for true scholastic rigor? And still you accuse me of ignorance of the “facts.” What actual facts have you presented? What is going on here is that holocaust “Exterminationists” can’t stand it that there were capable doctors, nurses, hospitals and infirmaries in all the main camps taking good care of the prisoners who were ill or injured, so they have to turn these doctors into “Frankensteins” who were only concerned with evil and crazy experiments. You are the one who should better inform yourself before making rash statements.

As for Zisblatt’s hateful attitude toward Germans, it speaks for itself throughout her book and testimonies. She also makes it clear that her hateful attitude is directed toward all Gentiles—there is not a decent one in any of her versions of her story. (Of course, to holocaust-obsessed people like Zisblatt, a “good Gentile” is only one who helps Jews; there is no other standard.) It is astounding that you defend this on the basis that a German woman would feel and write the same against the Soviet and Jewish-Allied “retribution” they experienced at the end and after the war. As you must know, German women who suffered horrendous experiences (some far worse than anything Zisblatt could have experienced) do not write books or make speeches about it in anywhere near the numbers that Jews do.[9[ Even this statement is overly generous—the ratio must be something like 1000 to 1. So yes, there is a great deal of resentment against “the Tribe”, not just from me, and it is well-deserved.

Thus, your efforts to continue to “smooth over” and “soften the blow” to Zisblatt are noticeable. You attempt to pass over to me the blame of wrongdoing by calling me “harsh and disparaging” in my attitude toward this woman who is involved in a “noble cause.” I do not agree with that, but still you are confusing things badly when you say I called her insane, mentally retarded, and a congenital liar. What I said, as you well know, was that she could not subjectively believe what she wrote was true (as you suggested) UNLESS she was insane, mentally retarded or a congenital liar, which I did not think she was. Therefore she must be seen as an egotist and a business woman marketing herself. Are those words too harsh, in your opinion, for what she had done and continues to do, Dr. Neander? Do you deny she is marketing herself and her fantasy story? Do you deny she is paid for many of her public appearances? Do you deny she loves the limelight and the attention? She began doing this in 1994 when she was 16 years younger than she is today, so you really can’t blame it on her old age. It would be distasteful to “market herself” as she is doing even if her story were true—that it is completely false makes it over-the-top disgusting.

And speaking of disgust … I wonder why you lower yourself to post your articles on a site with such low standards as “Holocaust Controversies?” Is that the only place that will accept them? Or are you one of the team? You appear to want to personally uphold good manners and proper forms, but the people you associate with there are anything but “proper.” They are name-callers and haters extraordinaire! Regular contributor Sergey Romanov seems overly reliant on four-letter words. Here are some he used to describe me after my article in response to yours was posted on Inconvenient History Blog: “neo-nazi scum,” idiotic paranoid,” “not very bright,” “dumb neo-nazi liar,”[10] and just yesterday a friend of theirs named Nathaniel called me an “ignorant fuck.” I would think you would not want to be associated with such language that reveals such immature behavior. I certainly don’t! Therefore, while I am willing to converse with you in the further exposure of Irene Zisblatt as the fraud that she is and in putting other myths about Auschwitz-Birkenau in their proper perspective, be informed that I will not reply to anything more that is posted at “Holocaust Controversies.” Good day to you, Sir.

[1] http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20040514&slug=torture14

[2] http://www.revblog.codoh.com/2010/01/holocaust-scholar-finds-%e2%80%9cfifth-diamond%e2%80%9d-to-be-a-work-of-fiction

[3] In the last days of the war, the “prominent” prisoners from all the camps and prisons were sent to Dachau, from which they were then sent to the South Tyrol, allegedly as part of Himmler’s negotiations with Allies for a conditional surrender. Both Nerin E. Gun, a journalist and prisoner at Dachau, in his book The Day of the Americans, 1966, and veteran holocaust writer Gerald Reitlinger in his book The SS, Alibi of a Nation, 1922-1945, say that Dr. Rascher was on that trip. Reitlinger wrote “Captain Payne-Best met Sigmund Rascher during the southward evacuation of the Dachau political bunker at the beginning of May 1945.” However, Payne-Best was a British intelligence agent who was arrested in 1939, given special treatment in camp, and whose book The Venlo Incident must be taken with that in mind. Gun wrote that Dr. Rascher was shot in Innsbruck, after the VIP prisoners had been turned over to Captain Payne-Best.

[4] Paul Berben, Dachau 1933-1945: The Official History, London: The Norfolk Press, 1975. pp. 125-135

[5] George J. Annas, Michael A. Grodin, The Nazi doctors and the Nuremberg Code: human rights in human experimentation. Oxford University Press US. 1995. pp. 71–73.

[6] “Dr. Hans Wolfgang Romberg, [mentioned above], was put on trial at Nuremberg in the Doctors Trial which started on December 9, 1946 and ended on August 20, 1947. Dr. Romberg was acquitted, as were Dr. Siegfried Ruff and Dr. August Weltz who were also involved in the Luftwaffe experiments at Dachau.”
http://www.scrapbookpages.com/DachauScrapbook/experiments.html

[7] A. Scott Berg, Lindbergh, G.P.Putman, 1998

[8] http://www.scrapbookpages.com/Buchenwald/Atrocities.html

[9] Jewish survivors are encouraged to speak out, write books and even to embellish and fabricate (The Last Days “documentary” film is an example), and are rewarded (and given awards) for it, while the far more numerous German survivors have been discouraged to the point of ostracism if they should “complain” or “whine” about their sufferings. Once again, victor’s justice.

[10] http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2010/01/yeager-vs-neander.html

Joachim Neander claims that he is able to give the name of two prisoners who were gassed at Auschwitz. He notes that the “Bunkerbuch” on 5 September 1941 has recorded the death of three detainees, Fritz Renner, Bruno Grosman and Roman Drost, of which the first two are Germans. Since «they all died the same day when the first mass gassing was carried out in the basement of Block 11 (date Sep 5, 1941, according to reports that, shortly after the event, reached the Polish Government-in-Exile in London)» this shows that they were gassed. He adds that «Carlo Mattogno does neither take into consideration the “Bunker” ledger nor the Rögner report nor the accounts of the Polish prisoners who were involved in the September 5, 1941, “action”».[1]

The French historian Jacques Baynac has written:

«For the scientific historian, the testimony is not really history, but an object of history. A testimony does not have much weight, and weighs still less if not confirmed by a genuine document. The postulate of historical science thus is, to put it bluntly: no document(s), no verified fact.»[2]

A testimony, if not supported by a document, is worthless from the historical point of view, regardless of the notion of “converging testimonies”, as is shown by the example of the “converging” testimonal evidence for the Auschwitz 4 million victim figure.

However, in this case, as I have demonstrated in my study Auschwitz: The First Gassing. Rumor and Reality (Theses & Dissertations Press, available online:http://vho.org/dl/ENG/atfg.pdf) the testimonies are not only not supported by any documents, but all are moreover contradictory on all essential points, namely:

• on the location of the first gassing,
• on the duration of the first gassing,
• on the date of the first gassing,
• on the hour of the first gassing,
• on the preparations for the first gassing,
• on the physician present at the first gassing,
• on the perpetrator of the first gassing,
• on the nature of the victims of the first gassing,
• on the number of the victims of the first gassing,
• on the persons who removed the corpses,
• on the beginning of the removal of the corpses,
• on the duration of the removal of the corpses,
• on the fate of the corpses removed,
• on the technique of the gassing,
• on the duration of the agony of the victims,
• on the number of Zyklon B cans used for the gassing.[3]

The interpretation made by Joachim Neander is completely unfounded for two reasons:

1) He arbitrarily chooses the date September 5, 1941 among the various contradictory dates given by the self-styled “eyewitnesses”:

• Michał Kula: 14-15 August 1941
• Zbigniew Baranowski: 15 August 1941
• Walter Petzold: 9 October 1941;

Others – Henry Storch: spring of 1941; Maximilian Grabner: beginning of 1941; Hans Aumeier: November or December 1942.

Among these datings he chooses the one mentioned in «reports that, shortly after the event, reached the Polish Government-in-Exile in London» and which were published in the Polish Forthnightly Review on 1 July 1942. But why should this date be more reliable than the others? Danuta Czech, in her Kalendarium, has explicitly stated 3 September 1941 as the starting date of the alleged gassings. Why is this date unreliable according to Joachim Neander? The answer to this is simple and brings us to the second reason.

2) It is true that these three prisoners were listed as dead in the “Bunkerbuch” on 5 September 1941, but it is also true that they were locked up there the same day. Now, according to Danuta Czech, the “first gassing” began on 3 September and ended the day after that with the death of all the victims; on 5 September there was thus no “gassing” but only an evacuation of the bodies. Neander knows the Kalendarium, since he drew from it (the entry for 6 September 1941) the information regarding the three prisoners confined in the Bunker.[4] In addition, his statement that «Carlo Mattogno does neither take into consideration the “Bunker” ledger» is false, since I have written on the matter:

«The “Bunkerbuch” does not provide us with any information regarding the alleged homicidal gassing of September 3-5, 1941. On September 5, three detainees are registered as having entered: Fritz Renner (ID 11179), Bruno Grosmann (ID 15083), and Roman Drost (ID 10992). They die on the same day (in the register of the Bunker, next to their names, there is the note “ver.”[storben] = deceased). On September 5, the civilian Ladisław Maślak, who had entered the Bunker on August 10, is also entered as having died. The cause of death is not indicated for these four detainees».[5]

In this context Adolf Rögner’s statement that

«in the prison, there were still 2 Germans, they were not released … The 1st Camp Physician had told them they would be released early if they agreed to participate in a short treatment».

has no value. It can not refer to the two German prisoners mentioned above, because they entered the Bunker of Block 11 on 5 September 1941 and died there the same day – what sense does it then make that «there were still 2 Germans, they were not released»? Moreover, in the brief quote made by Neander, Rögner does not indicate the names of the detainees nor the date. He therefore does not have any indication that it refers to Fritz Renner and Bruno Grosman in relation to 5 September 1941.

Equally untrue is the statement that I did not mention «the accounts of the Polish prisoners who were involved in the September 5, 1941, “action”». In this regard I have gathered, from all available sources, over forty such accounts, a number vastly superior to that given by Danuta Czech.[6]

In conclusion:

• there is no evidence that the Bunker of Block 11 in Auschwitz was ever used for a homicidal gassing;
• the dating 5 September 1941 for the alleged event is merely one of the conflicting dates provided by the witness accounts;

therefore the deaths of Fritz Renner and Bruno Grosman in the Bunker on September 5, 1941 does not prove anything and the two can not be considered as “gassed”.

Carlo Mattogno

[1] http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=5909

[2] J. Baynac, «Faute de documents probants sur les chambres à gaz, les historiens ésquivent le débat», in: Le Nouveau Quotidien, 3 September 1996, p. 14.

[3] Auschwitz: The First Gassing. Rumor and Reality, pp. 69-90.

[4] D. Czech, D. Czech, Kalendarium der Ereignisse im Konzentrationslager Auschwitz-Birkenau 1939-1945. Rowohlt Verlag, Reinbek bei Hamburg, 1989, p. 120.

[5] Idem, p. 106.

[6] Idem, pp. 31-68.
]]> http://www.revblog.codoh.com/2010/02/rebuttal-to-joachim-neander/feed/ 0