Is this the end of Elie Wiesel?

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
User avatar
Kladderadatsch
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 255
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2012 11:08 am

Re: Is this the end of Elie Wiesel?

Postby Kladderadatsch » 8 years 4 months ago (Mon Jan 09, 2012 8:24 am)

Kladderadatsch wrote:Is there anything in Wiesel's other writings about Hilda also being named Deborah? Can you get to "Hilda" from "Deborah" as a diminutive or nickname? What about Bea? I don't know. But it does seem very odd, no doubt about it.


Answering my own question: Hildebrand. That's generally used as a boys' name, but there are other close variants like Hildeberthe (or Hildebertha) which are clearly girls-only. So that would give Hilde/Hilda for public uses, and Deborah for home. Assuming that's correct, it's still interesting how the different texts present different faces to their respective Jewish and Gentile audiences.
Der grosse Kladderadatsch war da.

-- D. Eckart Der Bolschewismus von Moses bis Lenin, "Er"

User avatar
Zulu
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 506
Joined: Mon May 11, 2009 9:44 am

Re: Is this the end of Elie Wiesel?

Postby Zulu » 8 years 4 months ago (Mon Jan 09, 2012 11:04 am)

Two texts must be read in order to define the personnage Wiesel. Both refer to the book "Night" and its genuine Yiddish version
A Prominent False Witness: Elie Wiesel
By Robert Faurisson
http://www.ihr.org/leaflets/wiesel.shtml
Elie Wiesel and the Scandal of Jewish Rage
by Naomi Seidman
http://www.vho.org/aaargh/fran/tiroirs/ ... uriac.html

Carolyn Yeager
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 355
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 11:55 pm

Re: Is this the end of Elie Wiesel?

Postby Carolyn Yeager » 8 years 4 months ago (Mon Jan 09, 2012 12:14 pm)

Kladderadatsch wrote:
Kladderadatsch wrote:Is there anything in Wiesel's other writings about Hilda also being named Deborah? Can you get to "Hilda" from "Deborah" as a diminutive or nickname? What about Bea? I don't know. But it does seem very odd, no doubt about it.


Answering my own question: Hildebrand. That's generally used as a boys' name, but there are other close variants like Hildeberthe (or Hildebertha) which are clearly girls-only. So that would give Hilde/Hilda for public uses, and Deborah for home. Assuming that's correct, it's still interesting how the different texts present different faces to their respective Jewish and Gentile audiences.


Is there a custom of taking a part of a name, in this fashion, as the family nickname? And would the author use such a family nickname in the book where Eliezer's full name is used, as is Deborah's? That's all we know for sure so far.

"Debra" is not a Jewish spelling. As you say, Hildebrand is a boy's name. Hildeberthe gives us "Deber". The nickname or short name for Hildeberthe is Hilde, or it could be Berthe. So while I understand you're trying to look at every contingency, which is good, I don't find much value in this idea. Let's look farther into it and see what we find as far as family goes.
In Jewish history there are no coincidences ... Elie Wiesel
Learn more at http://eliewieseltattoo.com

Auschwitz: The Underground Guided Tour http://carolynyeager.net/auschwitz-unde ... uided-tour

Carolyn Yeager
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 355
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 11:55 pm

Re: Is this the end of Elie Wiesel?

Postby Carolyn Yeager » 8 years 4 months ago (Mon Jan 09, 2012 12:32 pm)

Zulu wrote:Two texts must be read in order to define the personnage Wiesel. Both refer to the book "Night" and its genuine Yiddish version
A Prominent False Witness: Elie Wiesel
By Robert Faurisson
http://www.ihr.org/leaflets/wiesel.shtml
Elie Wiesel and the Scandal of Jewish Rage
by Naomi Seidman
http://www.vho.org/aaargh/fran/tiroirs/ ... uriac.html


Zulu, to put these excellent background pieces you recommend into perspective, does Robt. Faurisson know whether the Yiddish book is "genuine" or genuinely Night? No. He has not studied that. What he wrote quite a few years back was based on the assumption that Elie Wiesel was a camp inmate. It was before the documents that Grüner brought out and Carlo Mattogno studied and wrote about. Mattogno's final conclusion was that Elie Wiesel is not the Wiesel of the documents. All this is much more recent than Faurisson's work.

Naomi Seidman's article is quoted extensively in my 3-part "The Shadowy Origins of Night," found at http://eliewieseltattoo.com. Being Jewish mainstream, she is not going to upset Elie Wiesel's applecart ... no matter what kind of reservations she might entertain in her own mind. Her article led to some "damage control" among pro-holocaust authors, basically that the two books were written for two different audiences: Yiddish/Jewish and European. People read something like that and are satisfied because they're not prepared to look deeper.
In Jewish history there are no coincidences ... Elie Wiesel
Learn more at http://eliewieseltattoo.com

Auschwitz: The Underground Guided Tour http://carolynyeager.net/auschwitz-unde ... uided-tour

neugierig
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 352
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 7:01 pm

Re: Is this the end of Elie Wiesel?

Postby neugierig » 8 years 4 months ago (Mon Jan 09, 2012 9:52 pm)

The discussion should be about “The Holocaust”, whether it could have happened as told or not. Wiesel has disqualified himself by not mentioning “Gas Chambers”, enough said about him. To expose another charlatan will not further our cause. Also, disagreements are fine, but arguing about who wrote what is counterproductive. Most of us have our Schtick, pardon, issues dear to us and so be it. But in public we should stick to the essentials.

Anyway, my one cent worth.

Regards
Wilf

User avatar
Kladderadatsch
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 255
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2012 11:08 am

Re: Is this the end of Elie Wiesel?

Postby Kladderadatsch » 8 years 4 months ago (Mon Jan 09, 2012 10:48 pm)

Wilf, for what it's worth, "Eliezer Wiesel" does mention gas chambers on in "Un di Velt hot Geshvign," page 13:


Vegn gaz-kamern.GIF
Vegn gaz-kamern un krematories.GIF
Der grosse Kladderadatsch war da.

-- D. Eckart Der Bolschewismus von Moses bis Lenin, "Er"

neugierig
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 352
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 7:01 pm

Re: Is this the end of Elie Wiesel?

Postby neugierig » 8 years 4 months ago (Mon Jan 09, 2012 11:16 pm)

Very well then, Kladderadatsch, and I am not saying that this should not be pursued. As an aside, Wiesel's “official” account however mentions burning pits. What I am suggesting is, why not do this in private and then present the findings when all is confirmed, or not. But I do maintain that whatever the outcome is, it will not change the story as is, other liars have been exposed, yet “The Holocaust” still remains standing.

Regards
Wilf

User avatar
Kingfisher
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1673
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 4:55 pm

Re: Is this the end of Elie Wiesel?

Postby Kingfisher » 8 years 4 months ago (Tue Jan 10, 2012 4:25 am)

SevenUp wrote:There is no shortage of Yiddish-English translation services, so, for crying out loud, why not get a few price quotes and have the thing translated. Enough of this endless speculation about something that can be discovered by a serious person with $500.00 in a week. If $500.00 won't do it, take up a collection, I'll contribute.

Yiddish translation is 12 cents a word. You may get better by shopping around and discounting for quantity but I don't see it going under 8 cents. There are about 35 thousand words. Do the math.

On top of that, any Yiddish translator is going not only to be Jewish, but a person for whom Jewish identity is important (what Gilad Atzmon calls a third category Jew), and may well not want to work for "deniers". In addition, you would be tipping off members of the Jewish community as to what you are up to.

I'd suggest giving consideration to this:
- Get Eric Hunt's better quality scan and OCR it. My OCR was poor because of the poor quality of the PDF.
- Translate it with Google
- Let Kladderadatsh check, correct and polish it.

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

Re: Is this the end of Elie Wiesel?

Postby SevenUp » 8 years 4 months ago (Tue Jan 10, 2012 8:37 am)

Kladderadatsch wrote:Wilf, for what it's worth, "Eliezer Wiesel" does mention gas chambers on in "Un di Velt hot Geshvign," page 13:


Vegn gaz-kamern.GIF
Vegn gaz-kamern un krematories.GIF


Remarkable. It means that Wiesel knew of the gas chamber hoax, of course, but that he, or the translator, decided that it was too preposterous to include in the English version. In any case the mention is not in relation to Auschwitz, but I think we're just lucky that he didn't include it in the English version as it makes a good talking point.

Carolyn Yeager
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 355
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 11:55 pm

Re: Is this the end of Elie Wiesel?

Postby Carolyn Yeager » 8 years 4 months ago (Thu Jan 12, 2012 3:19 pm)

The following is from the introductory section of "The Wannsee Conference Protocol: Anatomy of a Fabrication" by Johannes Peter Ney, found at http://www.codoh.com/found/fndwannsee.html

Concerning document criticism in the context of the Holocaust, we encounter the remarkable phenomenon that any such practice is dispensed with almost entirely by the mainstream historians around the world. Even a call for impartial document criticism is considered reprehensible, since this would admit the possibility that such a document might be false, in other words, that certain events which are backed up by such documents may not have taken place at all, or not in the manner described to date. But nothing is considered more reprehensible today than to question the solidly established historical view of the Holocaust. However, where doubts about scientific results are deemed censurable, where the questioning of one's own view of history or perhaps even of the world is forbidden, where the results of an investigation must be predetermined from the start, i.e. where research may produce only the 'desired' results--where such conditions prevail, the allowed or allowable lines of inquiry have long since forsaken any foundation in science and have instead embraced religious dogma. Doubt and criticism are two of the most important pillars of science.


It seems to me that what certain forum members are engaging in is exactly this -- wanting to prevent doubt and criticism of a certain established view of Elie Wiesel that they are so comfortable with, and have based some of their writings and public statements on. They want to remain with Prof. Faurisson's treatises of 1986 and use Wiesel's fantastic claims about what took place at Auschwitz and Buchenwald against him. This satisfies them without requiring them to move into unknown territory which might upset some of their comfortably familiar views. In this way, then, they resemble the mainstream historians mentioned above by Ney.

The document in question in this thread is not only the famous 'Buchenwald liberation photo', but the Yiddish book Un di velt hot geshvign, the contents of which some seem not to want to know. Or, they don't want the world to know. They want to control the information that comes out about it, making sure it fits their own preconceptions. How is this different than what the Holocaust Industry does?
In Jewish history there are no coincidences ... Elie Wiesel
Learn more at http://eliewieseltattoo.com

Auschwitz: The Underground Guided Tour http://carolynyeager.net/auschwitz-unde ... uided-tour

User avatar
Moderator
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1695
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 9:23 am

Re: Is this the end of Elie Wiesel?

Postby Moderator » 8 years 4 months ago (Thu Jan 12, 2012 4:19 pm)

Carolyn Yeager said:
It seems to me that what certain forum members are engaging in is exactly this -- wanting to prevent doubt and criticism of a certain established view of Elie Wiesel that they are so comfortable with, and have based some of their writings and public statements on.

There has been no 'preventing of doubt and criticism of a certain established view of Elie Wiesel ...' at this forum. There are arguments against your perspective, but none of your arguments have been 'prevented'. Those that disagree with you are free to do so at this forum, they are 'preventing' nothing.
Thanks, Moderator
Only lies need to be shielded from debate, truth welcomes it.

Carolyn Yeager
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 355
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 11:55 pm

Re: Is this the end of Elie Wiesel?

Postby Carolyn Yeager » 8 years 4 months ago (Thu Jan 12, 2012 6:12 pm)

Moderator wrote:Carolyn Yeager said:
It seems to me that what certain forum members are engaging in is exactly this -- wanting to prevent doubt and criticism of a certain established view of Elie Wiesel that they are so comfortable with, and have based some of their writings and public statements on.

There has been no 'preventing of doubt and criticism of a certain established view of Elie Wiesel ...' at this forum. There are arguments against your perspective, but none of your arguments have been 'prevented'. Those that disagree with you are free to do so at this forum, they are 'preventing' nothing.
Thanks, Moderator


Fair enough, Moderator. But you removed them. Thanks for allowing my post to remain; I think that quote is instructive for us all.
In Jewish history there are no coincidences ... Elie Wiesel
Learn more at http://eliewieseltattoo.com

Auschwitz: The Underground Guided Tour http://carolynyeager.net/auschwitz-unde ... uided-tour

Eric Hunt
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 185
Joined: Sun Nov 01, 2009 2:20 am
Location: Colorado

Re: Is this the end of Elie Wiesel?

Postby Eric Hunt » 8 years 4 months ago (Fri Jan 13, 2012 1:21 pm)

Carolyn Yeager wrote:
The document in question in this thread is not only the famous 'Buchenwald liberation photo', but the Yiddish book Un di velt hot geshvign, the contents of which some seem not to want to know. Or, they don't want the world to know. They want to control the information that comes out about it, making sure it fits their own preconceptions.


You're insinuating that I, the person who found, drove hundreds of miles, scanned and uploaded the book for everyone to see, showed people how to translate it, doesn't want the world to know it's contents!

Hey revisionists, here are the facts,

Niklaus Gruner claims :

hoax.JPG


Gruner's lie, and Carolyn's perpetuation of it rests on the claim that the writer of the Yiddish book was 31 at the time of entering Auschwitz,but a translation of the book proves the writer was 15, as is Elie Wiesel.

You can clearly see the numbers 15 ,18, and 50 here in the original Yiddish .

bye-gruner-hoax.JPG


And here are the numbers 15, 18, and 50 in Night -

"Here, kid, how old are you?"
It was one of the prisoners who asked me this. I could not see his face, but his voice was tense
and weary.
"I'm not quite fifteen yet."
"No. Eighteen."
"But I'm not," I said. "Fifteen."
"Fool. Listen to what I say."
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."

So this means Wiesel wrote the original Yiddish, not Gruner's nonexistent much older Wiesel.

This misleading of Wiesel skeptics with psychadelic Jewish Holohoaxer-derived lies has gone on long enough, and it's time for a complete restructuring of CODOH's Wiesel site.

One based on truth, not Holocaust scat fiction author Gruner's lies about Elie Wiesel stealing a much older Elie Wiesel's original Yiddish book.

I also believe my point about Carolyn believing in Christian Identity is totally relevant to her pushing the "Stolen Identity" issue.

Carolyn - do you believe the Jews of today stole their "Identity" and the real Jews of the Bible are Europeans?

I also believe the 9/11 conspiracy theories she wants to keep bringing up totally play into her ability to discern reality. I think people buying into her continued promotion of Holohoaxer Gruner's lies should read what they are.

Since Gruner's older "Lazar Wiesel" definitely didn't write the Yiddish book, you now must have to claim that Elie Wiesel stole the identity of another Elie Wiesel, who is the same age as he is, and copywrited the book in Paris. Psychadelic!

Say in writing what you believe, so we can acknowledge how much sense it doesn't make.
Watch THE TREBLINKA ARCHAEOLOGY HOAX

http://holocausthoaxmuseum.com/treblinka-archaeology-hoax

Semitism = Jewish Supremacism

Mkk
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 566
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2011 4:00 am

Re: Is this the end of Elie Wiesel?

Postby Mkk » 8 years 4 months ago (Fri Jan 13, 2012 2:15 pm)

Mr. Hunt,

You have debunked Gruner's claim that the author of the Yiddish book was much older, but you have dodged Carolyn's point that Wiesel would have been a little older than the author of the book. What is your answer for that?
"Truth is hate for those who hate the truth"- Auchwitz lies, p.13

User avatar
Kladderadatsch
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 255
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2012 11:08 am

Re: Is this the end of Elie Wiesel?

Postby Kladderadatsch » 8 years 4 months ago (Fri Jan 13, 2012 2:56 pm)

Dates.

According to Mattogno, citing microfilm records from the Auschwitz museum ("Liste der Judentransporte, Museum of Auschwitz-Birkenau, microfilm no. 727/27," Mattogno's footnote 15), the Auschwitz registration number A-7713 was assigned on May 24, 1944. In his article, Mattogno makes the case that this means Elie Wiesel could not have been assigned A-7713 because he would have arrived at Auschwitz after that date:

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.


That seems pretty conclusive.

On the other hand, however, Carolyn Yeager's article about the various Wiesel signatures makes the case that Wiesel must have been deported from Sighet on May 20, 1944:

In the “revised and updated” new translation of 2006, Wiesel gives his family’s date of deportation to the “small ghetto” as May 17, 1944. I arrive at this date because Wiesel writes that it was “some two weeks before Shavuot” (Shavuot fell on May 28 in 1944 4) that the deportation order was announced to his family and neighbors. [Remember, Sighet had 90,000 residents, at least one-third of them Jews, while Wiesel makes it sound like he lived in a little village.] Departures were to take place “street by street” starting the next day. That would be May 15. But the Wiesel family was scheduled to leave in the 3rd group, which left two days later, on May 17. After being marched to the “small ghetto,” they stayed there “a few days.” On a “Saturday,” they boarded trains.5 The 20th of May, 1944 was a Saturday.


If Mattogno is correct that "transports from Hungary usually took three or four days to reach Auschwitz-Birkenau," which seems probable, and if Wiesel's transport departed on May 20, then it's entirely possible for him to have arrived on May 23, spent the night at Birkenau, and then been marched over to Auschwitz on May 24 to get his prisoner number, A-7713 . . . exactly like Wiesel has always said.

Now I'm pretty sure Carolyn wasn't looking to prove that Wiesel's claim to number A-7713 is legitimate (her focus in the article is actually on discrepancies in various arrest dates in the later Buchenwald paperwork), but if her reconstruction of the deportation's timing is correct, that's what she's done.

So who's right, Mattogno or Yeager?

Both, probably. The problem, of course, is that Wiesel is a moving target. Mattogno is using the original edition of "Night," as translated by Stella Rodway. And sure enough, in that version it says "On the Saturday before Pentecost . . . " But the "revised and updated" 2006 translation, which Carolyn quotes in her article, says "Some two weeks before Shavuot." Since Pentecost and Shavuot are the same thing (Rodway just uses the more familiar term for non-Jewish readers, "Pentecost" being the name of a Christian holiday as well), that means that we have two possibilities:

1) the Saturday before Pentecost/Shavuot,

2) an unspecified date "some two weeks before."

As Mattogno and Yeager both note, Shavuot was on May 28 in 1944 (it's easy to check), a Sunday. So counting backwards, "the Saturday before Pentecost" (May 28) gives May 27, and "two weeks before" gives May 14. In one case, the dates make it impossible for Elie Wiesel to have been assigned A-7713, in the other, they line up perfectly.

So here's a situation where determining what the original text really says is important. Someone reading Mattogno's article and then checking the most recent "revised and updated" edition of "Night" might just conclude that he's dishonest--the text there doesn't say "the Saturday before," it says "some two weeks before." Sheesh. And someone reading Carolyn's article, with Mattogno's in mind, might conclude that while she may start from the "correct" premises (again, according to the "revised and updated" version!), she really just shoots shot herself in the foot by proving that Wiesel left Sighet on May 20, exactly the right date for him to be on the transport recorded by Randolph Braham and to arrive in Auschwitz on May 24 to receive prisoner number A-7713. Is Mattogno lying? Can Carolyn not shoot straight?

Or could it just be that Wiesel is covering his tracks, sowing confusion among revisionists along the way?

"Un di Velt hot Geshwign," p. 22:

Geshen iz dos shbth.GIF


Un azoy zenen teg farlofn, teg velkhe hobn aruntergerisn bleter fun kalendar un undz dernentert tsu yenem shwartsn shbth. Vos vet oyf eybik farbleybn in meyn zkhrwn, afilu ven ikh vel zeyn farmshpt tsu lebn bizn letstn tog fun ale teg, oyf der doziker tsby"wthdiker velt.

Geshen iz dos Shbth far Shbw"wth.

A friling-zun hot oysgegosn ir likht un varemkeyt iber der gorer velt un oykh iber geto. . . .


And so the days raced by, days which ripped away pages from the calendar and brought us nearer to that black Saturday [lit, black Sabbath]. Which will remain forever in my memory, even if I were condemned to live to the very last day of days on this deceiving world.

It happened Saturday [Sabbath] before Shavuot.

The springtime sun had spread its light and warmth over the whole world, and even over the ghetto. . . .


(Notice how he says he'll never forget "that black Saturday" even if he was "condemned to live to the very last day of days." I guess he might still mix the date up, though, right?)

Anyway, case closed? Well, there's one last possibility. Jewish holidays are counted from the evening of the day before, and so maybe the Yiddish text is including Saturday, May 27 as part of Shavuot, thus making "Saturday before Shavuot" one week earlier, or May 20. But of course that still doesn't fix the problem, since that date is just the starting point for the deportation process for the Jewish community: the Wiesel family isn't relocated to the small ghetto until three days later, and not actually shipped out from Sighet until after several more. Which would mean, of course, that Elie Wiesel could not have been on the transport that left Sighet on May 20, and could not have arrived at Auschwitz by May 24 to receive prisoner number A-7713.

And somebody must have pointed that out to our friend Elie. So the whole thing gets wound backwards by two whole weeks. The text is quietly changed . . . and no one is supposed to notice.

Oh, and by the way, the original really does say "it was a beautiful April day":

A sheyner April-tog iz es geven. A frilings-rich in der luft.

It was a beautiful April day. A scent of spring in the air.

"Un di Velt," p. 83


Quietly changed, in 2006, to "It was a beautiful day in May."

Do you suppose Elie reads Carlo Mattogno?
Last edited by Kladderadatsch on Fri Jan 20, 2012 2:24 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Der grosse Kladderadatsch war da.

-- D. Eckart Der Bolschewismus von Moses bis Lenin, "Er"


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests