Elie Wiesel's sisters

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 229
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 10:14 am

Re: Elie Wiesel's sisters

Postby nathan » 9 years 4 months ago (Tue Jul 06, 2010 6:52 am)

Dr Neander wrote:
there are eyewitness reports.

This is almost certainly true. It is almost certainly true that there are eyewitness reports. Detail would be welcome all the same.

joachim neander
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 306
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2007 3:39 pm

Re: Elie Wiesel's sisters

Postby joachim neander » 9 years 4 months ago (Tue Jul 06, 2010 5:46 pm)

I don't have their reports at hand.
There is, however, much in the Auschwitz archives, under "Wspomnienia" - IIRC more than 100 big books.
Everybody can go there and take a look into them.

Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 255
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 2:54 pm

Re: Elie Wiesel's sisters

Postby SevenUp » 9 years 4 months ago (Tue Jul 06, 2010 7:46 pm)

joachim neander wrote:I don't have their reports at hand.
There is, however, much in the Auschwitz archives, under "Wspomnienia" - IIRC more than 100 big books.
Everybody can go there and take a look into them.

Everybody? No. A little googling reveals the following Polish law...

Article 55
He who publicly and contrary to facts contradicts the crimes mentioned in Article 1 (the holohoax), clause 1 shall be subject to a fine or a penalty of deprivation of liberty of up to three years. The judgment shall be made publicly known.

So, best not take a look unless you want to spend three years in a Polish prison.

Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 229
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 10:14 am

Re: Elie Wiesel's sisters

Postby nathan » 9 years 4 months ago (Wed Jul 07, 2010 4:14 am)

"Wspomnienia" – IIRC. I have to confess I have not a clue what that means. It sounds as if I would have to pop around to Poland to find out.

If the Red Army did come upon lots of corpses with gun wounds I find it a bit surprising that the Soviet published report omitted this dramatic fact, which they could have duly exaggerated. Perhaps it seemed a minor matter against the background of four million murders - even though death by exhaution did not.
“The forensic medical commission held an examination of the corpses of 536 prisoners found on the grounds of the camp. It was established that in 474 cases (88.3 percent) the cause of death was exhaustion.”
Nuremberg document USSR-008

The natural inference is that the 62 others died in their bed of some identifiable disease. There must have been some who were neither shot nor exhausted. Is there any doubt anywhere, by the way that least 7,500 survivors were found? Zionists would have a motive to play down this number. The Soviet report speaks of 10,000, but the Russians had a motive to big it up. It represents the number “rescued by the courageous Red Army”.

If there is an article 55, it constitutes a good reason why people should stop challenging Dr Neander to break it.

Posts: 59
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 5:39 pm

Re: Elie Wiesel's sisters

Postby Trude » 9 years 4 months ago (Thu Jul 08, 2010 8:33 am)

When Elie Wiesel was interviewed by Oprah in Nov. 2000, he said the following about his sisters.

Oprah: Did you know your sisters were alive?

Elie: No. When I was still in Buchenwald, I studied the lists of survivors, and my sisters' names were not there. That's why I went to France— otherwise I would have gone back to my hometown of Sighet. In France, a clerk in an office at the orphanage told me that he had talked with my sister, who was looking for me. "That's impossible!" I told him. "How would she even know I am in France?" But he insisted that she'd told him that she would be waiting for me in Paris the next day. I didn't sleep that night. The next day, I went to Paris—and there was my older sister! After our liberation, she had gotten engaged and gone to France, because she thought I was dead too. Then one day she opened the paper and saw my picture [a journalist had come to the orphanage to take pictures and write a story]. If it hadn't been for that, it may have been years before we met. My other sister had gone back to our hometown after our release, thinking that I might be there. It took almost a year [after meeting my other sister] for us to meet again.

It's interesting how they all think the other is dead immediately at liberation because they don't know where they are. If the two sisters were together at Kaufering, we have the question of why one went to look for him in their hometown, while the other thought he was dead so went to France with her fiance. Not much explanation here.

I want to see the picture the journalist took in which Elie was recognizable. Eric Hunt pointed out this picture from the USHMM website to me yesterday.
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/media_ph.ph ... diaId=5747
Is this the one she saw? Can you recognize Elie in it anywhere? He would have to be one of the older ones, especially considering the famous Buchenwald photo he says he's in. Why haven't they circled the one who is Wiesel?

Jerzy Ulicki-Rek
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 526
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2007 10:48 pm

Re: Elie Wiesel's sisters

Postby Jerzy Ulicki-Rek » 9 years 3 months ago (Sun Jul 11, 2010 7:51 am)

"There is, however, much in the Auschwitz archives, under "Wspomnienia" - IIRC more than 100 big books.
Everybody can go there and take a look into them."

Well..not exactly everybody :D

Below is the answer from the Muzeum in Oswiecim .I apply for a permission to look in the documents and they (using my point of view on 'holokaustic" as an excuse ) refused point-blank:

"IV-Bad./87/2668/07 Oświęcim, dnia 23.2.2007 r.
proszę podać ten numer pisma
w dalszej korespondencji

Szanowny Pan
Jerzy Ulicki - Rek

e-mail: [email protected]

Szanowny Panie,
Zgodnie z obowiązującą procedurą wszystkie pisma nadsyłane do Muzeum wpływają do Dyrekcji, która kieruje je zgodnie z kompetencjami do jednego z kilkunastu działów Muzeum. Pana pismo zostanie skierowane do Archiwum.
Proszę pisać na adres: [email protected]

Z poważaniem

Dr Franciszek Piper

Kierownik Działu Historyczno -Badawczego


Oczywiscie napisalem do szanownego kierownictwa.
Oto co dostalem w odpowiedzi :

L.dz.I-Arch - 115/2763/07
Oświęcim, 23.02.2007.


Jerzy Ulicki – Rek


Email: [email protected]

Szanowny Panie,

Przeczytałam uważnie Pana list, zapoznałam się z korespondencją skierowaną
przez Pana do innych działów Muzeum oraz rozmawiałam z moimi kolegami,
którzy mieli dotąd z Panem kontakt. Na tej podstawie postanowiłam nie
udzielić Panu zgody na skorzystanie ze zbiorów archiwalnych Muzeum. Nie
jestem też skłonna podejmować z Panem dyskusji na temat oczywistych faktów.
Informuję również, że w Polsce głoszenie poglądów zaprzeczających zbrodniom
hitlerowskim podlega karze.

Krystyna Oleksy


Państwowe Muzeum Auschwitz - Birkenau"

Jerzy Ulicki-Rek

User avatar
Posts: 296
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2004 4:01 am

Re: Elie Wiesel's sisters

Postby Moderator3 » 9 years 3 months ago (Tue Jul 13, 2010 3:55 pm)

Translation please.

Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 229
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 10:14 am

Re: Elie Wiesel's sisters

Postby nathan » 9 years 3 months ago (Sun Jul 18, 2010 11:04 am)

From the informative Dr Neander we learn above that Elie or Eliezer is a diminutive of Lazar. Lazar is apparently a different name from Lázár. An Eliezer born October 4 1928 signed an American Fragebogen headed Lázár Wiesel at Buchenwald after liberation. (Our Elie was born in September 30.) There exists a German Buchenwald registration card dated 26 January 45, which shows that a Lazar Wiesel, Auschwitz number A7713, was born in 1913. These and other puzzles and discrepancies are listed by Mattogno in February and March issues of Inconvenient History. For Mattogno, writing in February, they were enough to confirm Miklos Grunwald’s tale that Eliezer Wiesel had stolen the identity of an older man. For my part I would expect clerical error and polyglot confusion to abound in the conditions of 1945.

The official view of the Auschwitz Museum is that the number 7713 belongs to a person born in 1913, in which case it cannot belong to our Elie. But such Museum statements as I have seen always mention the transport to Buchenwald which arrived on the 26 January 1945. It may be that a single clerical error is being recycled. To rule this out we need a second wartime document - independent of the Buchenwald registration card - which assigned the number A-7713 to a person born in 1913. In the March 26 issue of Inconvenient History Mattogno in fact mentioned:

http://www.revblog.codoh.com/2010/03/el ... documents/

- 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.

This is unclear. It is the Museum, not the Heigene Institue, which provided the above data.The The Museum 7 July 2003 letter says explicitly that the Hygieine institute list contains only a prison number A7713. It gives no birthdate. So this does not help us to rule out a clerical error as connecting the number A7713 to the birthdate 1913. We still need a second document. However, the list above, as provided by the Museum, does add another embarrassment for Elie. Elie claims that the number A-7712 belonged to his father, who was named Shlomo. According to the Museum's list it belonged to an Abram Viesel. An Abraham Wiesel does figure in Gruener's strange tale as the brother of the one-hit-wonder literary locksmith Lazar Wiesel from whom our Elie supposedly stole Night. But revisionists can hardly regard Gruener as a trustworthy person. Anyone trying to get to the bottom of all this will disappear down a rabbit-hole

Weisels story can interest revisionists only if it has a substratum of fact. Weisel tells us that he walked out of Auschwitz because he believed a rumour about a last-minute shooting of unfit prisoners. There certainly were such rumours and there may even have been such shootings, although the evidence for these is so far known only to Dr Neander.

Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 229
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 10:14 am

Re: Elie Wiesel's sisters

Postby nathan » 9 years 3 months ago (Tue Aug 03, 2010 7:29 pm)

An e-mailer assures me that Mattogno did reproduce a second document which independently connects the number A7713 with the birthdate 1913 . Such a document would of course be fatal to Elie’s claim to the number A7713.

http://www.revblog.codoh.com/.../the-r ... ie-wiesel/ -

http://www.ety.com/HRP/rev/elie-wiesel.htm -

An A7713 Wiesel born 1913 does appear on transport lists of prisoners delivered to Buchenwald on 26 January 1945. And this indeed “confirmed” by a numerical file card and a detainee registration card filled out on the same day. But the basic information on one would have been simply copied from one to the others. It would not result from an independent source.

I am doing my best for Elie here, because I think that Gruner’s fishy tale would generate more puzzles than it would solve. Neither of our two Pinnochios merits anything but suspicion. The odds against any male survivor at Buchenwald appearing in the world’s most famous group photo, as taken by Private Miller on 16 April 1945, must be nearly a thousand to one. Yet each claims that it was his destiny to appear in it, and moreover on a date when each is said to have been ill.

Speaking as Elie’s advocate, I put the case that someone in an orderly room has set down the 1913 birthdate on Elie’s transport paperwork, a single mistake which has been automatically replicated on arrival in Buchenwald on 26 January. Later statements in letters from the Buchenwald Memorial and from the Auschwitz Museum, may all be based on these interdependent documents. It would not be surprising if there were locksmith’s shop at Monowitz. It is a bit surprising that any sort of apprentice should be thirty-one years old.

As to the American questionnaire for Lázár with the 4 October 1928 birthday, it is true that Eliezer Wiesel signed it and, as Mattogno rightly says, when someone writes down his own birthday there is no room for error. But all the Fragebogen exhibited by Mattogno seem to have had their answers set down in English by a military clerk/interpreter for the benefit of the American colonel who had to countersign them. It was a polyglot factory process. There is plenty of room for error. A fifteen-year old Lázár would have been present when the form was filled, so the mistake would only concern the month and the day. There need be only one Lazar/Lázár Wiesel/Vizel in Buchenwald, born at Sighet in 1928. But if you rule out clerical errors and linguistic variations, which abounded, then you have to swallow that there were three distinct sound-alike sons of Sighhet in Buchenwald, to say nothing of the Nobel Prizewinner who later (somehow) impersonated one of them. It has to be a choice of the lesser absurdity.

That is the best I can do. But my client would have made my task easier if he had not also claimed for his father Shlomo the number 7712. Shlomo Wiesel 7712 is supposed to have been transported from Auschwitz along with his son and to have died at Buchenwald. Records show that Abram Viesel 7712 did get transported from Auschwitz and did die at Buchenwald. Unless Gruner has suppressed it, nobody has yet found any record for Shlomo. It was enough of a strain arguing that a Lazar was accidentally assigned the wrong birthdate and that a Lázár, the same person, was accidentally assigned the wrong birthday. Now I have to argue either that an Abram was accidentally assigned the wrong Auschwitz number, or that a Shlomo was accidentally assigned the wrong forename. A jury may not buy so many clerical errors. Speaking as Elie’s press officer, I would advise him to preserve a lofty silence.

If Wiesel really is a cunning imposter, he will not have neglected to acquire a tattoo for his inner arm. This would be the least of his sins. Is Wiesel a holocaust denier? Very probably. It is certainly true that he refused to denounce the genocide of the Armenians. This was not because of any misgivings about the evidence. It was because Wiesel - like the grovelling servant of power that he is - did not want to offend Israel’s regional ally at that time, the Turkish government. Does he deny the Gypsy holocaust? Very probably. But what he chiefly denies is that a Gypsy holocaust should count for anything. There should be no riff-raff in the Memorial Museum. Wiesel has demanded apology from the Poles for massacres of Jews in 1946. But he knows very well that that on April 9, 1948, Arab non-combatants were coldly murdered in the village of Deir Yassin by commandos led by the Jewish terrorist and prime minister Menachim Begin. I have never seen it denied that young Wiesel was then a supporter of Irgun, though not in any role that required valour. The beam is in his own eye. Deir Yassin was of course not the last martyrdom of the Palestinians to have been too insignificant to deserve his concern. To this holocaust humbug the only suffering that matters is Jewish suffering.

Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSN [Bot] and 1 guest