The Original Yiddish Version of Elie Wiesel's "Night"

[joachim neander]

@ Miss Yeager:

I'm afraid your main problem is that you are not aware that autobiographies never, never, are photographic records of the author's life, even if the author states this and is convinced of it. Forget about this. Autobiography as a literary category has been analyzed in great detail by literature scholars, and there exists ample literature about it (ask a librarian!). It is always very helpful in avoiding misinterpretations of a text to know as much as possible about the literary category to which it belongs. In Theology, it is a must for a student who wants to interpret a Bible text, and it should be in history, too.

I will not "defend" Wiesel here - I just said (and stick to it) that that which he tells in the Yiddish text about his "foot experience" sounds plausible. It could have happened so, the text does neither contain immanent contradictions nor is at odds with the general knowledge about the functioning of the HKB at Birkenau in January 1945.

[Eric Hunt]

No, the soccer games were not rare, Jews formed entire teams (not 2-3 Jews kicking a ball around as you falsely claim) and played regularly. So, while I appreciate that small correction, keep going. I don't know where you are taking notes from, probably the echo chamber of anti-Germanic historians.

Your minimizing the Jewish inmates' recreational activities to suit your anti-Germanic conclusions is equivalent to the "historians" who complain that although Jews were shown movies in camps, they were second rate films.

Of course I don't think Auschwitz was like a summer camp. It was a concentration and labor camp on the losing side of the most devastating war in the history of mankind. The camps were under attack by diseases, most which don't exist anymore in the civilized world. I once saw my grandfather's immunization record for the Army, none of these diseases are the common killers they were back then.

You're not being intellectually honest. You call a swimming pool, with decorative features and multiple starting blocks a "fire brigade reserve." It's a swimming pool.

And you haven't corrected the fact the Jewish inmates sent postcards out twice a month, received mail such as money and were paid in "coupons" they could use at the canteen or movie theater. 

You'd think the Nazis wouldn't want Jews getting the word out on their "final solution" via gas chambers. This is why the fact that Jews regularly wrote and received mail is denied by Holocaust promoters. 

You claim that the orchestra was for the sole benefit of the German guards. What about the violin quartets, and plays that the Jews put on stages built for them by the Nazis? Or the grand piano that was brought in for Jews to play?

Were the paintings of Snow White and the seven dwarves on the children's barracks also for the benefit of the Nazis? How could children survive an initial "selection" according to the promoter's scenario? 

One of the few luxuries Jews were denied was the brothel, solely because the race laws prohibited their interaction with the non-Jewish prostitutes.

Yes, conditions deteriorated at the end of the war, when the Allies were flattening Europe.

Yes, Buchenwald was better than Auschwitz.

 So maybe instead of showing lampshades and shrunken heads, the Allies should have shown the Buchenwald film projector and soccer balls. But, they would be real, and the Allied propaganda machine dealt in fiction.

[joachim neander]

Mr. Hunt,
it seems that you have done quite a lot of research about Jewish life at Auschwitz, which makes you paint a picture totally different from that given, for example, in reference works such as "Anatomy of the Auschwitz Death Camp." As you certainly know, revising history is far more than criticizing a witness, a scholarly work or a work of fiction, or a supposed "key" document. It is re-writing history, presenting a different, coherent narrative, based on documents and testimonies. If you have such a new narrative about Auschwitz - and from your remarks one can conclude this - then do not hesitate to present it to the public. You can be sure that it will find many interested readers, particularly among those who have only a negative image of this camp. Let me suggest a title, quite the opposite of Wiesel's dark Night: "Walking on the bright side of Auschwitz."

[HelenChicago]

I vaguely remember reading somewhere --- I forget where --- that in the original Yiddish version Wiesel described going out at night with gangs of other recently-freed young Jewish men and molesting German girls. Can anyone confirm this?

[Balsamo]

Sorry, but all the fuss about the soccer field, the pool and all confort commodities proposed by the camp is a bit funny.
1 tiny pool (600 square feet?) for 35.000 inmates...there must have been HUGE queues in the summer! IIRC, there is one picture with inmates in the pool (6 or7)...7 lucky bastards out of 35.000!
1 soccer field...how many teams in the championship ? 11 male inmates per team... should concern 100 lucky players out of 35.000 inmates!
1 brothel for that kind of population ? All i can say is "Poor girls"...

So to conclude that anyone from the Kapos to the Jews had the opportunity to profit from these installations is...hum...funny...

Now, Wiesel, if he ever was at Auschwitz was at Buna, not Birkenau. So i don't see the relevance of those installations.
I have read somewhere here that there are doubts regarding the fact that Elie wrote Night (the french version in the first place ? I have read a couple of Wiesel crapy books and i can tell they were all written by the same hand. SO i guess the question is "Did he copy a tale written by someone else?"

[Carolyn Yeager]

I vaguely remember reading somewhere --- I forget where --- that in the original Yiddish version Wiesel described going out at night with gangs of other recently-freed young Jewish men and molesting German girls. Can anyone confirm this?

Helen,

You are not following the blogs at http://www.eliewieseltattoo.com! You will find the answer to your question right on the current front page in the article "The Shadowy Origins of Night II". But Elie doesn't say he went with them, but that others went:

The most controversial part of Siedman’s essay is about the Jewish commandment for revenge against one’s enemies. The author of the Yiddish writes that right after the liberation at Buchenwald:

"Early the next day Jewish boys ran off to Weimar to steal clothing and potatoes. And to rape German girls [un tsu fargvaldikn daytshe shikses]. The historical commandment of revenge was not fulfilled.” 34

This reflects the same angry, stern Jew who demands the Jewish law of revenge upon one’s enemies be followed. He does not consider “raping German girls” to be sufficient revenge; thus he says the historical commandment was not fulfilled. In the French and English, it was softened to: “On the following morning, some of the young men went to Weimar to get some potatoes and clothes—and to sleep with girls. But of revenge, not a sign.”35 Siedman comments on this passage:

To describe the differences between these versions as a stylistic reworking is to miss the extent of what is suppressed in the French. Un di velt depicts a post-Holocaust landscape in which Jewish boys “run off” to steal provisions and rape German girls; Night extracts from this scene of lawless retribution a far more innocent picture of the aftermath of the war, with young men going off to the nearest city to look for clothes and sex. In the Yiddish, the survivors are explicitly described as Jews and their victims (or intended victims) as German; in the French, they are just young men and women. The narrator of both versions decries the Jewish failure to take revenge against the Germans, but this failure means something different when it is emblematized, as it is in Yiddish, with the rape of German women. The implication, in the Yiddish, is that rape is a frivolous dereliction of the obligation to fulfill the “historical commandment of revenge”; presumably fulfillment of this obligation would involve a concerted and public act of retribution with a clearly defined target. Un di velt does not spell out what form this retribution might take, only that it is sanctioned — even commanded — by Jewish history and tradition.

[joachim neander]

@ Helen Chicago:

I vaguely remember reading somewhere --- I forget where --- that in the original Yiddish version Wiesel described going out at night with gangs of other recently-freed young Jewish men and molesting German girls. Can anyone confirm this?

I would be careful. Men, especially young men, are prone to exaggerating their sexual "successes" and to bragging about their "virility." Rapes by liberated CC prisoners were feared by the population. NS propaganda had fanned this fear, but they are documented AFAIK only as done by soldiers, not by camp inmates.

Another case were the DP camps, established in Germany and Austria immediately after the end of the war, and most of them in the American zone of occupation. There is ample testimony that young Jewish boys had consentual sexual relations with non-Jewish German girls.Why? First, the DPs had access to much-sought-after goods, such as sweets, cigarettes, white bread, or nylon stockings. Second, many of them spoke Yiddish, which facilitated conversation. Third, there was a big "deficit in (German) men": millions of men in their best ages were dead or in captivity. And last but not least: there is a tendency inherent in females (according to some scientists, genetically fixed and explainable by evolution biology) to mate with the stronger, the victorious male. Maybe young E.W. and/or his colleagues f***ed with German girl,s but if so, as inmates of a DP camp and with the girls' consent. The rest is typical "macho" exaggeration and bragging. Forget about it.

[Carolyn Yeager]

@ Miss Yeager:

I'm afraid your main problem is that you are not aware that autobiographies never, never, are photographic records of the author's life, even if the author states this and is convinced of it. Forget about this. Autobiography as a literary category has been analyzed in great detail by literature scholars, and there exists ample literature about it (ask a librarian!). It is always very helpful in avoiding misinterpretations of a text to know as much as possible about the literary category to which it belongs. In Theology, it is a must for a student who wants to interpret a Bible text, and it should be in history, too.

I will not "defend" Wiesel here - I just said (and stick to it) that that which he tells in the Yiddish text about his "foot experience" sounds plausible. It could have happened so, the text does neither contain immanent contradictions nor is at odds with the general knowledge about the functioning of the HKB at Birkenau in January 1945.

Photographic?!! My main problem? I am not aware? And what makes you an expert rather than an apologist? I am tired of your lectures and attempted put-downs that never leave the arena of vagaries. To say that "autobiography" is a literary category that allows for any and every sort of falsehood -- ESPECIALLY when the author is contradicting his own previous writing without admitting it and giving the reason why -- is absurd in the extreme. You are speaking absurdities.

Of course you won't defend Wiesel - you couldn't; you would be destroyed. Yet you HAVE defended him previously, but now that more of his falsehoods were just exposed here on this thread by yours truly, you have changed your mind. Might I remind you that my working position is that Wiesel is not the author of the Yiddish text, so what is written there (which perhaps we will find out eventually) is not what Wiesel can be held responsible or given credit for.** Wiesel has written La Nuit and Night. For their content, he is responsible. How plausible is the account of his foot operation in those editions?

And I also asked you to account for the change from foot to knee in his memoir All Rivers. Saying that autobiographies are not "photographic" and talking about literary categories is dissembling, not answering the question honestly.

**Since Elie Wiesel claims to have written Un di Velt Hot Gesvign, he is to that extent responsible for its content, too.

[isabelle]

he tries to defend rapists and war crimes

why wouldnt he try to defend elie

he wants us to just forget about all the rapes

sorry i cant

rape is a war crime

never forget and never forgive the rapes

the denial fo all those rapes is a second rape

a person who denies all those rapes becomes part of the crime itself

[joachim neander]

@ C. Yeager:

And I also asked you to account for the change from foot to knee in his memoir All Rivers. Saying that autobiographies are not "photographic" and talking about literary categories is dissembling, not answering the question honestly.

Your "question" is of a type that, for principal reasons, cannot be answered. How could I know what made Mr. Wiesel make this change? Do you think I am a clairvoyant? Please put this question to the author of the texts. Only he will know the answer.

[Carolyn Yeager]

Now, Wiesel, if he ever was at Auschwitz was at Buna, not Birkenau. So i don't see the relevance of those installations.
I have read somewhere here that there are doubts regarding the fact that Elie wrote Night (the french version in the first place ? I have read a couple of Wiesel crapy books and i can tell they were all written by the same hand. SO i guess the question is "Did he copy a tale written by someone else?"

Wiesel claims to have been first at Birkenau, then Auschwitz 1 for about a week or so, then Monowitz (Buna). He says he is familiar with all of these camps, so his descriptions are relevant.

FYI, the Yiddish version was the first. From that came the French version, much edited from the Yiddish. The English is an "exact" translation from the French. I agree with you, Balsamo, that all of Wiesel's books are crappy and his authorship is evident. But we have not been able to read the Yiddish version to be able to include that.

SO your question is proper; that IS the question: Did he copy someone else's tale? That is what The Shadowy Origins of Night, parts one, two and (coming up) three are all about. If you haven't yet, please go and read them at http://www.eliewieseltattoo.com

[Carolyn Yeager]

@ C. Yeager:

And I also asked you to account for the change from foot to knee in his memoir All Rivers. Saying that autobiographies are not "photographic" and talking about literary categories is dissembling, not answering the question honestly.

Your "question" is of a type that, for principal reasons, cannot be answered. How could I know what made Mr. Wiesel make this change? Do you think I am a clairvoyant? Please put this question to the author of the texts. Only he will know the answer.

I asked your opinion only. Of course you don't know Elie's reasons. My question was stated "How do you account for it?" All you needed to answer was that you could not account for it ... it is bizarre. As you have now done, after having to pull it out of you.

The bizarre nature of this "switch" must cause any "scholar" to question Wiesel's account in both books. In fact, it is so crucial a passage that it is MATERIAL (speaking of perjury) to his claim in court that "every word in Night is true." In 1995, thirteen years before he testified in Eric Hunt's trial, he had already contradicted a personal and very key fact of a crucial passage in his book.
Carlo's Cutlass Supreme has commented on this, that Wiesel HAD TO KNOW what he had written in Night. His editors should also have known, but it's possible it passed them by. Hard to believe, though.

Lots of questions to pursue, which I will bring up and attempt to answer in Part III of my "Shadowy Origins of Night." Your attitude, Dr. Neander, that none of it matters much shows you are not a true scholar. I don't say that as an insult, because it simply puts you in the same class as all the other holocaust promoters that write books and call themselves historians. Good manners, while they make things more pleasant, can't cover up dishonesty.

[Eric Hunt]

@ Helen Chicago:

I vaguely remember reading somewhere --- I forget where --- that in the original Yiddish version Wiesel described going out at night with gangs of other recently-freed young Jewish men and molesting German girls. Can anyone confirm this?

 Maybe young E.W. and/or his colleagues f***ed with German girl,s but if so, as inmates of a DP camp and with the girls' consent. The rest is typical "macho" exaggeration and bragging. Forget about it.

Forget about it? I thought we should "Never Forget?" 

You can translate Yiddish, you can clearly read, as Naomi Seidkind has, that Wiesel writes that they went to rape German girls, and that the historic commandment of revenge hadn't been fulfilled. Seidkind's article is about "The Scandal of Jewish Rage." 

He softened the truth about "survivor" rapists for us goyim, like you did, apparently with no evidence, and ignoring his passage, which makes it quite clear.

So, you have spent this post falsely minimizing Jewish access to recreational, cultural, and social activities in the camps and now are falsely minimizing their own heinous crimes, which they admit to in their own language.

Why not translate that section? 

[Eric Hunt]

Eric Hunt wrote:
"I don't buy that the camp documents Gruner writes about don't describe Wiesel and his father.
I think they do, Abraham dying in the same way Salomon did.
Even major differences in dates on these documents are normal.
So, I don't agree with the "Stolen Identity" claims at all..."


Said camp documents give Lazar Wiesel's year of birth as 1913 and the relative's name as Abram or Abraham... a far cry from Shlomo. 

Here's the problem - you and the people who have hope that the documents prove Wiesel to be an impostor deliberately ignore the other documents, which describe a Lazar Wiesel with number a-7713 born within 5 or so days w Elie Wiesel's stated birthday. 

So, this would leave 3 Wiesel's, the 1913, the one born very near Wiesel's stated birthday, and Elie Wiesel.

They're all the same person.

No imaginary "Lazar Wiesel" wrote the Yiddish Night and had it stolen by Elie, who happened to be a writer before and after Night, all books written in the same mysticism-injected style.

In Night, Wiesel claims he said he was older on intake.

Also, Jews had multiple names. For instance, a little known fact is that Wiesel's sister Tzipora was also named Judith. 

"Abraham" dies the exact same time Wiesel says Shlomo did. 

Finally, research and track 5 survivors. If be amazed if their names and birthdays lined up in every document. From my experience, years and names are always wrong.

Then there is the fact that Gruner is a liar and this is probably the only Jew he's ever researched to come to this conclusion.

As far as the tattoo, I still haven't seen any image of it.

[Carolyn Yeager]

Eric Hunt wrote:
"I don't buy that the camp documents Gruner writes about don't describe Wiesel and his father.
I think they do, Abraham dying in the same way Salomon did.
Even major differences in dates on these documents are normal.
So, I don't agree with the "Stolen Identity" claims at all..."


Said camp documents give Lazar Wiesel's year of birth as 1913 and the relative's name as Abram or Abraham... a far cry from Shlomo. 

Here's the problem - you and the people who have hope that the documents prove Wiesel to be an impostor deliberately ignore the other documents, which describe a Lazar Wiesel with number a-7713 born within 5 or so days w Elie Wiesel's stated birthday. 

So, this would leave 3 Wiesel's, the 1913, the one born very near Wiesel's stated birthday, and Elie Wiesel.

They're all the same person.

No imaginary "Lazar Wiesel" wrote the Yiddish Night and had it stolen by Elie, who happened to be a writer before and after Night, all books written in the same mysticism-injected style.

In Night, Wiesel claims he said he was older on intake.

Also, Jews had multiple names. For instance, a little known fact is that Wiesel's sister Tzipora was also named Judith. 

"Abraham" dies the exact same time Wiesel says Shlomo did. 

Finally, research and track 5 survivors. If be amazed if their names and birthdays lined up in every document. From my experience, years and names are always wrong.

Then there is the fact that Gruner is a liar and this is probably the only Jew he's ever researched to come to this conclusion.

As far as the tattoo, I still haven't seen any image of it.

Just to be clear, the camp documents of the other Lazar Wiesels are not being ignored. They are presented with the other documents on The Documents page on the ewtattoo website. You are jumping to the conclusion they are all the same person simply because we have so far not discovered the explanation for these various spellings and birthdates. You talk about proof, but you have no proof they are all the same person. No one so far has any "proof" but we do have documents.

We need to know what was written in the Yiddish version to "claim" what that author actually said.

"Abraham" dies the exact same time Wiesel says Shlomo did. ?? What does that prove? That Elie changed Abraham to "Father"?

Names and dates are not always wrong, and certainly not that wrong.

The tattoo is key. If he were who he says he is, he would have the tattoo and would show it. Doesn't that make sense?

So ... it requres a little patience.