Update on the Elie Wiesel identity claims

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
little grey rabbit
Member
Posts: 745
Joined: 12 Mar 2010 04:26

Update on the Elie Wiesel identity claims

Post by little grey rabbit » 27 Jan 2011 13:43

As I believe the previous thread has been locked pending new information I have started a new thread. Mr Thompson may wish to merge the two.

For those not aware an Auschwitz survivor Mr Gruener published a book a few years agon, Stolen Identity, where he alleged that Professor Wiesel had not been in Auschwitz but had essentially plagiarised his book Night from a memoir of an older man, Lazar Wiesel, who had had the A-7713 registration number. Mr Gruener then located a number of documents in the Buchenwald archives that seemed to back his case.

I have brought together some information here
http://littlegreyrabbit.wordpress.com/2 ... ls-tattoo/
which might, and I stress MIGHT, indicate that if Mr Gruener is correct a possible solution is that Professor Wiesel is a relation to the Lazar Wiesel he knew. And that Professor Wiesel in reality had parents called Golda Feig and Mendel Wiesel

The first suggestion is this - a listing of the Feig family tree that suggests there are 3 living children of Golda and Mendel
Image

The second suggestion is that Professor Wiesel seems to strip the names of Sara and Shlomo which appear in the Yiddish version from the French version of Night

The suggestion is that Professor Wiesel seems to misleadingly deal with the issue of Mendel Wiesel and is family in his memoir All Rivers Run to Sea (although everyone does have the right to conceal family matters and not reveal everything in a memoir - so long as there is no intention to deceive). This is the passage
After the war I questioned every survivor of the second transport I could find, seeking news of Uncle Mendel and his family. I thought I found the answer in 1988, when an elderly man called out to me in the lobby of a Miami Beach hotel. [....] And then he told me. At first Mendel and his son had been spared, like my father and me, and had been sent to a camp where conditions were relatively tolerable. But they were in different barracks and saw each other only during the day, at work. One night they could not bear to be separated. When the roll was called, the SS Blockfuehrer counted and recounted the prisoners and order: “Let the prisoner who does not belong in this barracks show himself.” Mendel’s son took a few steps forward. “Closer!” the officer shouted. My young cousin obeyed, halting when he reached the SS man. The officer slowly drew his revolver and shot my cousin in the head, point-blank. My uncle, that sweet and timid man, hurled himself onto his son’s body, as if to protect him in death. The SS man stared at him for a long moment and then shot him in the head too. “Ever since then,” my witness said, “I see Mendel and his son in my dreams.”
For those interested I have also reproduced the documents Mr Gruener located here
http://littlegreyrabbit.wordpress.com/2 ... documents/

And I recommend his book where he, with some dignity and courage, tells his story
http://littlegreyrabbit.files.wordpress ... entity.pdf

Again, I stress this is only a possible solution. I present the material as much to encourage the parties to present the information (such as a tattoo - if it exists) that answers Mr Gruener's questions and remove this issue beyond all doubt. Or at least eliminate the suggestion I present as a possible solution - as no one wants to peddle a falsehood.

little grey rabbit
Member
Posts: 745
Joined: 12 Mar 2010 04:26

Re: Update on the Elie Wiesel identity claims

Post by little grey rabbit » 31 Jan 2011 01:52

I should also add I have written to the compiler of that family tree of the Feigs and asked if she can shed light on the issue. If I get any clarification I will certainly post it on the original blog post and here for regular readers.

I also note that Prof Waltzer of MSU has stated:
kenwaltzer

On November 14, 2010 at 10:34 am

Contrary to Carolyn Yeager’s wishful thinking, Eli Wiesel was indeed the Lazar Wiesel who was admitted to Buchenwald on January 26, 1945, who was subsequently shifted to block 66, and who was interviewed by military authorities before being permitted to leave Buchenwald to go with other Buchenwald orphans to France. Furthermore, there is not a shadow of a doubt about this, although the Buchenwald records do erroneously contain — on some pieces — the birth date of 1913 rather than 1928. A forthcoming paper resolves the “riddle of Lazar” and indicates that Miklos Gruner’s Stolen Identity is a set of false charges and attack on Wiesel without any foundation.
If anyone knows of this forth-coming paper or when it comes out, I would much obliged if they could post details here. I certainly will if it comes to my attention.

I detect a quiet air of truiphalism, but what I write is in good faith, and I am convinced Eva Kor of Candles Museum and Mr Gruener also acted in good faith - so we must just wait and see what is in store.

Hopefully materials produced will include a picture of a tattoo.

little grey rabbit
Member
Posts: 745
Joined: 12 Mar 2010 04:26

Re: Update on the Elie Wiesel identity claims

Post by little grey rabbit » 01 Feb 2011 04:34

I have made some alterations in response to the information Prof. Waltzer provided.
http://littlegreyrabbit.wordpress.com/2 ... ls-tattoo/

I am also trying to work out how many were gassed that fateful day of 24 May 1944. At the moment I have
According to the Glaser list, four Hungarian transports arrived that day; the 27th, 28th, 29th, 30th in the series respectively. From the Kalendarium for this day, we know the male A-series received the numbers A-5729 to A-7728 – 2000 Hungarian male Jews exactly. The Kalendarium does not record any other series or the female series of numbers receiving an influx of Hungarian Jews. We also know from the Glaser list that precisely499 + 630 + 494 + 470 = 2093 Hungarian Jews from these four transports were not registered but taken in for transit, including Bea and Hilda Wiesel. That is a total of 4093 Jews from these four transports are accounted for.

To work out how many from these transports are supposed to have been gassed we would need to know approximately how many were on each train. So for example if these transport each contained roughly 1000 Hungarian Jews, then no one was gassed. If on the otherhand, each train carried approximately 3000 Hungarian Jews that day, then roughly 8000 were gassed and the Germans systematically selected exactly one third for labor.
Obviously, I am anxious to get every exactly right. So if there is anyway of finding out for sure how many were on those four transports, I would welcome this immensely.

Von Schadewald
Member
Posts: 1974
Joined: 16 Nov 2004 23:17
Location: Yugo

Re: Update on the Elie Wiesel identity claims

Post by Von Schadewald » 17 Feb 2011 01:58

Is there anything new in this from Israeli journalist Barry Chamish? I myself heard Elie Wiesel speak in London in 1978. I find it hard to believe that he can't speak Yiddish!

Image



"Independent researcher Carlo Matogno has uncovered documents proving that the self-styled "Auschwitz Survivor" Elie Wiesel, adviser to American presidents on all "Holocaust" matters, was never interned at Auschwitz! Lies of unimagi-nable extent are now exposed. Are we approaching the satanic "End of Time?" Carlo's entire work [in German] will be published next week on this website. Here is the background to his documentation.


Is Elie Wiesel "The Most Credible Living Witness to Holocaust?"

By Carlo Mattogno

On the 27th of January 2010, the tenth “Holocaust Remembrance Day,” Elie Wiesel was invited to Montecoitorio Hall, the Chamber of the House of Representatives (Lower House) of the Republic of Italy, where he was invited to make a short speech. The president of the Chamber, Gianfranco Fini, introduced him as the “most credible living witness to the horrors of the Holocaust among the survivors of the Nazi concentration camps.” See the stenographic record at: < http://www.camera.it/cartellecomuni/Leg ... emoria.pdf >

But: Is Elie Wiesel really a witness? Or is he a charlatan, a faker?

On 3 March 2009 a Hungarian website published an article entitled TITEL MÉG MINDIG KISÉRTI A HALÁTÁBOR (The Extermination Camp Is Still Beguiling.) The article sketches highly significant revelations by Miklos Gruner, a former deportee to Auschwitz, and is posted at < http://www.haon.hu/hirek/magyarorszag/c ... 0604233755 >
The article was translated into German and English and appeared the following day under the title “Auschwitz Survivor Says Elie Wiesel Is an Impostor.” It is posted at < http://www.henrymakow.com/translated_fr ... arian.html> and reads as follows:

In May of 1944, when Miklos Gruner was 15, he was deported from Hungary to Auschwitz-Birkenau along with his mother, father, younger brother and older brother. He says that his mother and younger brother were "gassed" immediately after their arrival, and he goes on to relate the following:

His older brother and their father had prisoner numbers tattooed on their arms and were sent to do hard labor in one of the IG Farben factories that produced synthetic fuel, where his father died after six months. His older brother was then sent to Mauthausen, while he, left alone, taken under the protection of two older Jewish Hungarian internees who had been friends of his father. These were the brothers Lazar and Abraham Wiesel.

In the following months, Miklos Gruner and the Wiesel brothers became close friends. Miklos never forgot the number that the Nazis had tattooed on Lazar's arm: A-7713. Lazar was 31 years old in 1944. As the Red Army was approaching in January 1945 / the inmates were transferred to Buchenwald. During the ten-day transfer, which was accomplished partially on foot, half the prisoners died, including Lazar's older brother Abraham. On 8 April the US Army liberated Buchenwald, and Miklos and Lazar were among the camp survivors. Since Miklos had tuberculosis, he was sent to a clinic in Switzerland and separated from Lazar. After recuperating, Miklos immigrated to Australia while his older brother, who had also survived the War, settled in Sweden.

Years later, in 1986, Miklos was contacted by someone from the Swedish magazine SYDSVENSKA DAGBLADET in Malmö who invited to meet "an old friend of his" named Elie Wiesel. When Miklos answered that he knew no one by this name, he was told that Elie Wiesel was the person whom Miklos had known in the concentration camps by the name of Lazar Wiesel and who had the tattooed number A-7713 on his arm. Since Miklos remembered this number and was convinced that he was going to meet his old friend, he gladly accepted the invitation to meet in the Stockholm Savoy Hotel on 14 December 1986.

Miklos remembers: "The thought of meeting Lazar made me very happy, but when I faced Elie Wiesel, I was very surprised to see a man whom I did not recognize at all. He did not even speak Hungarian or Yiddish! Instead, he spoke English with a strong French accent. For this reason, our meeting lasted only about ten minutes. As a parting gift he gave me a copy of his book entitled NIGHT, saying he was the author. I accepted the book, with which I was not familiar at the time, but I told everyone present that this was not the person he was claiming to be!" Miklos remembers that during that unusual meeting Elie Wiesel had refused to show him the number tattooed on his arm, saying he "did not like to expose his body."

He adds that Elie Wiesel once showed his tattoo to an Israeli journalist, who subsequently met Miklos about it. This journalist told Miklos that he was unable to read the number and did not believe it was really a tattoo.

In Miklos's words: "After that meeting with 'Elie Wiesel' I spent 20 years researching his story and I discovered that this man calling himself by that name had never been in a Nazi concentration camp, since his name is not on a single list of inmates."

Miklos also discovered that the book that "Elie Wiesel" claimed to have written in 1986 had actually been written in Hungarian in 1955. It was published in abbreviated form in Paris under the title "UN DI VELT HOT GESVIGEN" (Yiddish for "And the world kept silent.)" The abbreviated book was then translated into French and English was then published under the titles "LA NUIT" and "NIGHT."

The person calling himself "Elie Wiesel" has sold ten million copies of this book all over the world - he even received a Nobel Peace Prize for it, whereas the real author, Lazar Wiesel, mysteriously disappeared. This person would never meet with me again. He became very wealthy, receiving 25,000 dollars for 45-minute Holocaust speeches. I informed the FBI in Los Angeles of his theft of Lazar Wiesel's identity and I filed official complaints in the US and Sweden, but to no avail.

I have received telephone calls warning me that I will be shot if I do not shut my mouth, but I no longer fear death. I have deposited copies of my entire dossier in four different countries; and if I die suddenly they will be made public. The world must know that Elie Wiesel is an imposter, and I am working on an appropriate revelation of this fact. I am in process of publishing the truth in a book entitled "STOLEN IDENTITY A7713."

Miklos Gruner’s revelations have circulated widely, but not until now have they triggered extensive research efforts. We have now investigated them critically, objectively and unemotionally."

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23254
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Re: Update on the Elie Wiesel identity claims

Post by David Thompson » 17 Feb 2011 03:46

Von Schadewald -- You wrote:
Is there anything new in this from Israeli journalist Barry Chamish?
(1) I don't see anything that indicates the article was written by Barry Chamish. Do you have a url for a source making that claim?

(2) This appears to be an English translation of a German article, which introduces, and then reproduces, an article by Carlo Mattagno. See http://globalfire.tv/nj/10en/jews/the_wiesel_file.html , which has a link to the article in German at http://globalfire.tv/nj/10de/juden/die_akte_wiesel.htm .

(3) Mr. Mattogno's name is misspelled "Matogno" in the English-language introduction to his story. The globalfire.tv website itself is definitely quirky, with many articles discussing evil, globalization, hoaxes and Jews, all offered for the sake of "truth and knowledge."

(4) The story has the same content that we've already seen, and discussed, in the locked thread.

little grey rabbit
Member
Posts: 745
Joined: 12 Mar 2010 04:26

Re: Update on the Elie Wiesel identity claims

Post by little grey rabbit » 18 Feb 2011 02:34

Without wishing to rehash what has already been discussed, if you read Stolen Identity (a pdf of which can be downloaded from the links I gave above) I think you will see that Gruener doesn't actually say he couldn't speak Yiddish but he was unwilling to speak Yiddish at their single media event meeting and prefered English. Possibly to make sure there could be no "private" conversations between the two.

If you read my proposed solution, there would likely be a family connection between Elie and Lazar, so you would expect Elie to speak Yiddish. I suggest that Elie and is two sisters may in fact be the children of a Mendel and Golda Wiesel - the rootsweb family tree I present above.

I have written to the person who compiled that family tree, Ms Leslie Gsli nee Feig, to see if she could spread any light on the subject of these mystery Wiesels. Alas, she has not yet responded.

Possibly she was non-plussed by my suggestion that I would make an excellent United Nations Cultural Attache to Vienna or that a reasonable exchange might be to allow Demjanjuk to return to spend his remaining time with his family in the US (if she felt attacking octagenarians was poor form).

However, should she respond at any time I will certainly update you here.

User avatar
Sergey Romanov
Member
Posts: 1893
Joined: 28 Dec 2003 01:52
Location: World

Re: Update on the Elie Wiesel identity claims

Post by Sergey Romanov » 10 Sep 2016 12:43

Elie Wiesel absolutely was who he said he was, the divergent information in the official camp documents can be shown to have been a bureaucratic mistake. E.g. there are Buchenwald documents that show that "Abram" Wiesel actually was Shlomo (and there is more). Grüner is a liar. And deniers of course didn't bother to get the documents.

I'm waiting for a permission to post the information online, then I'll post a link here.

michael mills
Member
Posts: 8820
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 12:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Update on the Elie Wiesel identity claims

Post by michael mills » 15 Sep 2016 09:55

Is there any information about the background of Miklos Gruener? For example, is there a record of his having been a prisoner in Auschwitz-Birkenau and Buchenwald? Did the meeting with Elie Wiesel in Stockholm in 1986 actually take place?

User avatar
Sergey Romanov
Member
Posts: 1893
Joined: 28 Dec 2003 01:52
Location: World

Re: Update on the Elie Wiesel identity claims

Post by Sergey Romanov » 15 Sep 2016 18:02

There is a record of Grüner in Auschwitz (see the letter from Au. Museum to Grüner), he is on the famous Buchenwald photo (this is accepted by Buchenwald* and USHMM**) and I don't have a reason to doubt that the meeting took place, because the letter Grüner wrote to Wiesel after the meeting contradicts his later story, which we wouldn't expect if MG simply made everything up. Rather he changed his story, after already having accepted Wiesel as his former co-inmate. And since A-7713 can be shown to be Shlomo Wiesel, and certainly not a brother of A-7714, contrary to Grüner's claims (because the actual documents contain information about parents), Grüner is a documented liar.

----------------
* Block 56 im Kleinen Lager. Stehend: Simon Toncman, untere Pritsche 1. v. l. Miklos Grüner, 4. v. l. Max Hamburger, 2. Reihe, 4. v. l. Hermann Leefsma, 7. v. l. Elie Wiesel, 3. Reihe, 3. v. l. Paul Argiewicz, 5. v. l. Naftalie Fürst, 4. Reihe, 4. v. l. Mel Mermelstein. Harry Miller, U.S. Signal Corps, 16. April 1945
** Former prisoners of the "little camp" in Buchenwald stare out from the wooden bunks in which they slept three to a "bed." Elie Wiesel is pictured in the second row of bunks, seventh from the left, next to the vertical beam. Abraham Hipler is pictured in the second row, fourth from the left. The man on the third bunk from the bottom, third from the left, is Ignacz (Isaac) Berkovicz. [He has also been identified as Abraham Baruch.] Michael Nikolas Gruner, originally from Hungary, is pictured on the bottom left corner. Perry Shulman from Klimitov, Poland is on the top bunk, second from the left (looking up). Buchenwald, Germany, April 16, 1945. — National Archives and Records Administration, College Park, Md.; US Holocaust Memorial Museum

User avatar
Sergey Romanov
Member
Posts: 1893
Joined: 28 Dec 2003 01:52
Location: World

Re: Update on the Elie Wiesel identity claims

Post by Sergey Romanov » 02 Apr 2017 14:05

I have now posted a refutation of the "Wiesel was an impostor" claim based on previously published, as well as unpublished documents.


http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... iesel.html

User avatar
Sergey Romanov
Member
Posts: 1893
Joined: 28 Dec 2003 01:52
Location: World

Re: Update on the Elie Wiesel identity claims

Post by Sergey Romanov » 08 Sep 2019 20:32

Sergey Romanov wrote:
02 Apr 2017 14:05
I have now posted a refutation of the "Wiesel was an impostor" claim based on previously published, as well as unpublished documents.


http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... iesel.html
Updated with a new ITS doc - Wiesel's Revierkarte.
It lists the removal of the appendix and the tonsils - something that Elie Wiesel described in his books as having experienced as a child.

DavidFrankenberg
Member
Posts: 708
Joined: 11 May 2016 01:09
Location: Earth

Re: Update on the Elie Wiesel identity claims

Post by DavidFrankenberg » 09 Sep 2019 02:07

If EW had a tatto on his left arm, why did he not show it ?
No photo of it ?

If he pretends A7713 is his tattoo and that you find that the A7713 corresponds to Lazar Viesl... I dont know how you can conclude that Elie Wiesel said the truth.

User avatar
Sergey Romanov
Member
Posts: 1893
Joined: 28 Dec 2003 01:52
Location: World

Re: Update on the Elie Wiesel identity claims

Post by Sergey Romanov » 09 Sep 2019 08:02

DavidFrankenberg wrote:
09 Sep 2019 02:07
If EW had a tatto on his left arm, why did he not show it ?
No photo of it ?

If he pretends A7713 is his tattoo and that you find that the A7713 corresponds to Lazar Viesl... I dont know how you can conclude that Elie Wiesel said the truth.
Interesting how the Holocaust denial lie that you regurgitate is exposed at the very link posted above, at length.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 6628
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

Re: Update on the Elie Wiesel identity claims

Post by Sid Guttridge » 09 Sep 2019 11:55

Hi Guys,

As few, if any, posters seem to have read the link given above, I include its text here. For the photos you'll have to go to: http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... iesel.html


Lying about Elie Wiesel


Author: Sergey Romanov

[Updated on 08.09.2019]

A whole cottage industry has sprung up in recent years devoted to "proving" that the late Elie Wiesel was a total fraud: an impostor who stole an actual Auschwitz survivor's identity. Most of the crazies are of course Holocaust deniers. One notable exception is an actual Jewish Auschwitz and Buchenwald survivor, Nikolaus Grüner, whose book Stolen Identity. Auschwitz Number A-7713 serves as a springboard for the deniers.

To remind our readers: according to Elie Wiesel (1928-2016) in Auschwitz he had the number (and a corresponding tattoo) A-7713, his father Shlomo Wiesel had the number A-7712.

The basic denial claims look like this:

1. Elie Wiesel allegedly had no visible Auschwitz tattoo.

2. Camp documents allegedly show that Lazar Wiesel A-7713 from Auschwitz was born in 1913 (not 1928 as Elie Wiesel; note: both "Elie" and "Lazar" are variants of the name "Eliezer") and that A-7712, who Elie Wiesel said was his father Shlomo, was actually someone named Abram Viezel.

3. Grüner claimed that he knew the "actual" Lazar Wiesel A-7713 in Auschwitz (Monowitz) and Buchenwald and that he wasn't the same person as Elie Wiesel. Moreover, Grüner claimed to have also known the prisoner A-7712, Lazar's brother Abram.

From this the conspirologists conclude that Elie Wiesel stole Lazar Wiesel's identity, sometimes claiming that he also stole the book Night, which is a shorter version of a thicker volume in Yiddish Un di velt hot geshvign, which was, according to some of them, written by the "real" Lazar Wiesel.

They never provide a plausible account of why, how and at what point the "switch" is supposed to have occurred, what happened to the "real" Wiesel and why none of the people who knew Elie Wiesel since Buchenwald have spoken up except Grüner. But such "minor" matters have never stopped the deniers, have they?

Anyway, let's take a brief look at the claims of fraud.


The Tattoo

This has become sort of a staple of denial. There is a whole site called eliewieseltattoo.com run by a ridiculously ignorant neo-Nazi Carolyn Yeager.

The deniers point to a couple of low quality videos in which Wiesel's bare forearm can be seen and say that since the tattoo is not discernible in them he must have had none. Here is the "argument" summed up by the neo-Nazi website Daily Stormer:




Now, the argument hardly makes sense. Individual tattoos differed in how "bright" and distinct they were, depending on the specific circumstances. It is thus of no use pointing to some survivors' still distinct and clearly visible tattoos and claiming that Wiesel's should have looked exactly the same. If Wiesel's tattoo was faint from the start, it would have gotten even fainter with age, since tattoos fade somewhat with time. And the bright sun shining on it like in the video would have actually obscured it on film rather than making it more clear - that is, if the deniers marked the right place on his arm at all, which, as we'll see in a moment, is not even the case.

For a comparison, here is another barely visible tattoo, this one from Andy Roth, A-8520 in Auschwitz (photo credit: Tom Rogers).




Such a tattoo would not have been visible under the exact same circumstances Wiesel was filmed in the instances above.

Similarly, Martin Greenfield's (Maxmilian Grünfeld's) A-4406 tattoo is barely legible (photo by Joseph Victor Stefanchik/The Washington Post):



There is photographic evidence that Elie Wiesel had exactly this kind of a faint tattoo. Yeager even gathered some of it in the article "How Wiesel’s “tattoo” looks from where I’m sitting", in which she grudgingly acknowledged that some kind of a tattoo can be seen.

It is sufficient to post just two of those photos, or, to be more precise, the closeups of the tattoo from those photos.

One photo is from 1945:




The other one is a 2006 photo for Haaretz by Eyal Toueg:






It's faint, but it's there.

Yeager then sort of moves the goalposts, complaining about how the number is not readable, but this doesn't change the fact that the original argument has been debunked: deniers can't show that Wiesel didn't have the tattoo he claimed to have and should have had as the survivor A-7713. The denier arguments about videos and photos "not showing" the tattoo were bunk from the start.


The Documents

Now we come to the interesting part. Neither Grüner, nor the deniers are lying when they say that authentic wartime documents exist that show the prisoner A-7713's date of birth as 04.09.1913 (not 30.09.1928, Wiesel's official DOB, or 04.10.1928, his DOB in some of the post-liberation documents) and A-7712's name as Abram (and not Shlomo).

The Holocaust denier Carlo Mattogno summed up some of them in "Elie Wiesel: New Documents" at the Inconvenient History blog. The most prominent one is Lazar Wiesel's personal card from Buchenwald:




This doesn't automatically mean, however, that Wiesel's claims about his identity are somehow false. For some reason the deniers have refused to seriously entertain the possibility that that is merely a series of clerical mistakes (where there is one, there could be more...).

Mattogno, for example, claims:

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.
Elsewhere he claims that Elie Wiesel was "never interned at Birkenau, nor at Auschwtz, nor at Monowitz, nor at Buchenwald". And in "The Riddle of Lazar-Lázár-Eliezer-Elie Wiesel":

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?
Mattogno, Yeager and others have tied themselves into a Gordian knot inventing more and more of various separate Wiesels/Viezels/Vizels/... whereas the most parsimonious solution is so simple: Eliezer (Lazar, Elie) Wiesel is one person and the contradictory information in the documents stems from mere clerical mistakes.

That documents can be mistaken on such details is a given. An example of the Polish aviator Janina Lewandowska comes to mind. She was the daughter of Jozef Dowbor-Musnicki, born on 22.4.1908 and was one of the Katyn victims. She figures in a 1940 NKVD transport list as Janina Lewandowska, daughter of Marian, born in 1914. It would be plain idiotic to claim on such a basis that there were two different Janina Lewandowska's in Katyn.

As a whole, the documents used by Grüner and the deniers so far actually fit Elie Wiesel's identity with the notable exception of the above-mentioned two contradictions: there was a Lazar Wiesel (from Sighet) A-7713 in Auschwitz whose parents were Solomon Wiesel and Serena Wiesel née Feig (cf. the Buchenwald card for prisoner 123565). This fits with Elie Wiesel's official birth certificate. Contrary to Mattogno there is no evidence that it was issued on the basis of a self-declaration rather than official Sighet records - indeed, we even know the date on which the birth (30.09.1928) was entered into the civil registry (06.10.1928) and even the civil registry number (511); comparing an official state civil registry with the Yad Vashem database is asinine, but typically Mattognesque. Elie Wiesel's father was Solomon Vizel, his mother was Sura (i.e. Sarah) Vizel née Feig (Sarah and Serena are used interchangeably on rare occassions) This also fits with the A.E.F. D.P. Registration Record published by the International Tracing Service after Wiesel's death. His parents are specified as Salomon Wiesel and Szerena Feig there.

The prisoner no. 123565 was also registered in block 66 which was a children's block, not a block for 31-year-old men. In the American Buchenwald questionnaire the same prisoner figures under no. 123165 ("1" instead of "5" is a proven clerical error since this is actually Pavel Kun's number). This prisoner was born in 1928 in Sighet, was in Auschwitz, and could name Samuel Jakobovits as one of his references. Samuel Jakobovits in turn also names Lazar Wiesel as one of his references. Thus they knew each other. And Jakobovits was about the same age as Lazar-1928, from the same town and actually arrived in Auschwitz in the same transport as Lazar-1913. So the identity of Lazar-1913 and Lazar-1928 is rather obvious. And Lazar-1928 was transferred from Buchenwald to Paris. Again, this fits the Elie Wiesel life story. It should be noted that Jakobovits was moved to France with the same transport and kept in touch with Elie Wiesel and his family. There is simply no "opening" in this chain of events in which an impostor could insert himself.

It is true that Nikolaus Grüner claimed to have known brothers Lazar and Abraham Wiesel (A-7713 and A-7712) since his stay in Monowitz (p. 49) but his own book undercuts his credibility on this issue. Remember: he claimed not to have recognized Elie Wiesel as his old Lazar Wiesel during a meeting in 1986 (pp. 31-33). And yet on 05.01.2000 he wrote a letter to Elie Wiesel (fig. 14 and 14.1 in his book):

Ever since you regained your freedom from the eternal threat of the gas chambers in Auschwitz, you have shown great courage and furthermore displayed a huge sacrifice so as to save mankind from yet another Holocaust to come. For this action, in respect, you have also received the Nobel Prize for Peace.

Honourable Chairman and Participator A-7713, I would like to ask you kindly to study my plea for correction (given below) to the Swedish 'Living History Project' which contains erroneous information and which proposes further measures to protect the world against another Holocaust in the future.

[...]

Honourable Chairman! I have reached the point of confidence when I would like you to remember the day when we were liberated, when our joint weight was less than 55 kg. Today, however, fifty five years later and both of us in our seventies, despite all the tremendous work, time, money, effort and energy invested in the teaching of the history of the Holocaust, we are yet again being accused of being a serious threat to the average man's economy and thus are probably facing in the future yet another Holocaust to come.

[...]

With this in mind I enclose with this letter a proposition to set up an organisation whose aim is the 'Worldwide Memorial Protection of the Holocaust and all the other Genocides'.
In this text he doesn't doubt Wiesel's age (Lazar-1913 wouldn't have been in his seventies), his camp number and their shared experiences.

It would seem then that it is only after Wiesel ignored Grüner's letter that the whole "I knew the real Lazar Wiesel" story was concocted. (I'm thankful to the user "uberjude" at the AHF for this observation).

So far we have examined only the published documents and have seen how weak the denier arguments are. But now is the time to cut right through this Gordian knot.

And this we can do with the documents of the International Tracing Service about the prisoners A-7712 and A-7713 (see Appendix 1; the original set provided by Dr. Kenneth Waltzer and later updated with the other documents from the Arolsen Archives).

Of them the most important documents concerning the prisoner A-7712 are the following:
•A personal card from Buchenwald given to Abram Viezel, Buchenwald number 123488, death on 02.02.1945, official reason: collapse from general body weakness. Born in Sighet on 10.10.1900, wife: Serena Viezel née Feik.
•Another card (Nummernkarte) about the same prisoner, new details: his father was Lazar Viezel, mother - Betty Viezel née Bosch. Wife is Serena Viezel née Faik. Most importantly there is Viezel's signature and it reads: "Viezel Salomon". His occupation is given as "Schlosser" (locksmith).
•The personal effects card for the same prisoner. With his personal signature, which, again, reads "Viezel Salomon". Someone struck out "Salomon" and wrote in "Abram" instead.
We see therefore how the Nazi bureaucracy functioned in this case: Shlomo Wiesel wrote his own name as "Salomon" and apparently some functionary corrected it to the official "Abram", because that's what the other documents said. It was useless to protest. Ordnung muss sein.




The most important ITS documents concerning the prisoner A-7713:
•A personal card from Buchenwald, which has already been published (and mentioned above), given to Lazar Wiesel, number 123565. Born in Sighet on 04.09.1913, not married. Father: Szalamo Wiesel (with the comment that he is also in Buchenwald), mother: Serena Wiesel née Feig (in Auschwitz). Profession: "Schlosserlehrling" (locksmith's apprentice). Bears Lazar Wiesel's signature.
•Another card (Nummernkarte) about the same prisoner, also bears Wiesel's signature.
•The hospital card (Revierkarte) listing Lazar Wiesel's pre-existing conditions: a congenital heart defect; removal of appendix in 1939; removal of tonsils in 1943. It lists his height as 171 cm and weight as 45 kg.
The signatures on these two cards of the prisoner A-7713/123565 correspond to the signature on the questionnaire of the Military Government of Germany mentioned above (mistakenly ascribed to prisoner 123165), in which Lazar Wiesel says he was born on 04.10.1928. This confirms that the previously specified date of birth in 1913 was a clerical mistake. This also confirms the identity of Lazar Wiesel born in 1928 with the Auschwitz prisoner A-7713.




Moreover, we can clearly see that contrary to Nikolaus Grüner's claim A-7712 and A-7713 were not brothers and A-7712's real name was Salomon, not Abraham.

These documents also confirm Elie Wiesel's claim that A-7712 was his father Shlomo (Solomon, Salomon):


•A-7712 was Salomon Viezel, the husband of Serena Viezel née Faik/Feik.
•A-7713 was a son of Szalamo Wiesel and Serena Wiesel née Feig.
•Therefore A-7713 was A-7712's son, just as Elie Wiesel claimed.
As mentioned before, this also corresponds to the data in Elie Wiesel's birth certificate and the A.E.F. D.P. card. (And this further buttresses the fact that "1913" was a clerical mistake, since Lazar Wiesel's father was registered as having been born in 1900.)

Elie Wiesel described the removal of tonsils and appendix in his autobiography Open Heart (2012) in which he is about to undergo an open heart surgery and reminisces:

To chase this onset of anxiety, I let my thoughts take me back to a distant past. I am eight or nine, and a doctor, my cousin Oscar, is removing my tonsils. During the operation I take refuge in heaven, where angels are running back and forth, paying me no heed. Clearly, they do not think me worthy of their attention. I recall this dream because when I awoke, I told it to Oscar.

A more serious operation: I am ten or eleven years old, and I am on a train with my parents. It is Shabbat, a day on which, in principle, a practicing Jew may not travel. However, our close neighbor, the Rabbi of Borshe, a brother of the famed Rabbi Israël of Wizsnitz, had granted my parents permission to violate the sanctity of the Seventh Day to take me to Satmar. My appendix has to be removed, and the only Jewish hospital is located there. The surgery takes place the next day. They try to put me to sleep with ether, but I refuse to inhale. Amazingly, what I remember most vividly after all this time—decades—is the young and beautiful nurse with long dark hair and a warm smile. She reassures me: “Let me put you to sleep.” I let her. She takes care of me the entire following week.
The tonsillectomy episode is also mentioned in his Day: A Novel (2006) and The Accident (1990), in both it happens when Wiesel is 12. The sequence and the chronology is somewhat off, as could be expected after so many decades, and is probably more symbolic than anything. But the coincidence of both the tonsils and appendix removal is striking.

True, there are still some minor contradictions. For example the date of Shlomo Wiesel's death - was it Jan. 27, as Elie Wiesel claimed in his Yad Vashem submission for his father, or was it the night between Jan. 28 and 29, as he wrote in Night, or was it Feb. 2, as the camp documents state? Wiesel could have been very easily misremembering the date, plus generally we shouldn't rely on memoirists' memory-based chronologies. But we should also not assume that Feb. 2 was the exact date of death either, rather than, say, the day when Wiesel's death was officially registered. There could be a confluence of mistakes at play here again, and again it simply doesn't matter for the issue at hand: at worst it's a case of bad memory.

Then there is the matter of Elie Wiesel's date of birth, given as 04.10.1928 in the 1940s (with the exception of the DP card, where it is given as 04.05.1928; the card was filled out in May so that may explain the mistake) and as 30.09.1928 in the official birth certificate. However the teenager who, according to transport lists, traveled to a children's home in France and whom we know to be Elie Wiesel (from numerous photos, from other Buchenwald Boys' memoirs, from the reminiscences of the educators, etc. - it's not like these things happened in a vacuum) also had the same October date of birth listed, so whatever the reason for the discrepancy, it doesn't matter as far as Elie Wiesel's identity is concerned.

The convergence of the documentary information that we do have proves that Elie Wiesel was what he claimed to be, some inevitable mistakes and minor contradictions notwithstanding. I summed up the most relevant sources in two tables in Appendix 2.

So in the end we know that Nikolaus Grüner lied about Elie Wiesel being an impostor. It's not plausible to suggest that it's a mere false memory, because aside from the details of Grüner's testimony being based on the clerical mistakes discussed above he also invented a story about his imaginary grown up "Lazar Wiesel" having been allowed into the children's block - he had to, in order to mask the contradiction caused by real Wiesel's documented registration in this block.

And the deniers - especially the ever laughable neo-Nazi Carolyn Yeager and the bumbling and mendacious pseudoresearcher Carlo Mattogno, who have been exposed so many times by us, - have shown their true faces once again, latching onto Grüner's tall tale, jumping to conclusions not warranted by the documents they had at their disposal, not applying Occam's razor and not trying to do a better research. These frauds have been discredited - once again.

DavidFrankenberg
Member
Posts: 708
Joined: 11 May 2016 01:09
Location: Earth

Re: Update on the Elie Wiesel identity claims

Post by DavidFrankenberg » 13 Sep 2019 01:41

Could anyone post a decent photo of Elie Wiesel's tatoo ?

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”