Archive for the ‘Featured’ Category

Joseph Hirt’s Letter of Apology tells more lies to “explain” his previous ones, Part 1

Sunday, June 26th, 2016

joseph hirt speaks to 7th graders

Psychological terrorist Joseph Hirt speaking to 7th grade students (age 13), filling their heads with horrible lies with the blessing of school teachers and administrators. He was never vetted to find out if he was qualified to influence impressionable youth. Shameful carelessness !

BY CAROLYN YEAGER

The mainstream accounts of Joseph Hirt’s “confession” are showing up everywhere, but they mistakenly report it as Hirt “coming clean” about his lies. Not true. Hirt didn’t just lie about being in Auschwitz, he lied about many of his experiences during the “Holocaust” in general, and continues to do so. And really, how can you expect a man who claimed he saw Adolf Hitler turn his back on Jesse Owens at the 1936 Olympics (when he was 6 years old and living in Poland) to be a man you would ever trust to tell the truth? Particularly on this subject. This is only common sense – a universal human trait that has been made illegal in almost all of Europe, and socially condemned everywhere else  because it is a threat to the “holy holocost” religion. But common sense is what I will be using in this article to show the pure hatefulness and falsity of the stories  Joseph Hirt has been telling Pennsylvania school children for 15 years already.

As I wrote earlier, New York history teacher Andrew Reid did a knock-down, bang-up job in scaring the daylights out of old Joseph Hirt, threatening him with investigations of forgery, fraud and identity theft if he didn’t come clean and admit his Holocost survivor claims were false. After some initial resistance, the cunning 86-year-old realized his game was up and he needed Reid as a friend, not an enemy. Hirt composed a long letter and made it public by sending it to a newspaper. It is now posted at Scribd. for all to read. It’s clear from this letter that he is not sorry for what he did, he is only sorry he was caught and couldn’t wiggle his way out of it with a man of principles like Reid, who did a commendably thorough job. The letter is a combination treatise about the horrors of the Holocost, his personal life story, and a few paragraphs stating he was wrong to “insert himself into the picture” at Auschwitz, but he only had the best of intentions. He asks for forgiveness.

Hirt appears to me as an intelligent, educated man whose self-absorption developed into an obsession with “The Holocaust,” reading many books and surlievor stories about it. His counsel to the 6th through 12th grade students he’s spoken to for so long is to “keep the truth and the memory of the Holocost always in your heart and mind.” Is that good advice? The kind you’d like your children to receive in school? Hirt is convinced he’s turned many into lifetime believers and upholders of the holocost myth, and says that is his goal.

He begins the letter with an overview of what the ‘Holocaust’ was — his own condensed version of the official Jewish narrative — intended to bolster his claim to having the “best of intentions.” His intentions are to prevent it ever happening again … but did it happen the first time? He begins:

The Nazi Holocaust refers to the W.W. II concentration camp system used for the extermination of about six million Jews and about five million non-Jews by Nazi Germany.

False. The camps were not for extermination at all but for separating the perceived disloyal, harmful and or criminal elements from society, just as prisons everywhere. How does he explain that over half a million European Jews received lifetime payments from Germany if the plan was to kill them all? There were the same number of Jews in the world after the war as before – just in different places. Why were Jews still living in Berlin at the end of the war? Did the murderous Nazis forget about them? Why were there millions of displaced persons in Europe after the war? And why was his hero Primo Levi put in the camp hospital at an alleged ‘death camp’, Birkenau, and left there to await the arrival of the Soviets? He could easily have been put to death. There were also 600 or so children in that camp when the Soviets arrived, being well taken care of by Polish women. There is no proof of extermination at all, only assumptions based on a desire to punish Germany and exculpate the Allies.

The killings took place in specially constructed camps, most located in Poland, The victims were herded into cattle cars and transported to the camps. After days on end en route or standing unattended along the way without food, water, or medical care, many died.

Not at all. He can’t just generalize “camps” and make vague references to “days on end”. Transports to Auschwitz-Birkenau were at most two days in length, there was water in the rail cars, they brought their own food, and no one died en route. Many Jews were taken to their destination in passenger cars. Later on, in 1944, available trains were scarce.

On arrival at certain camps the victims were told to undress for showers, but were led instead to rooms where they were gassed to death. Bodies of men, women, and children were removed by specially assigned prisoners whose working units burned them—first in open fires, and later in crematoria built for that purpose.

Really, where is he talking about?! “Certain camps?” He’s afraid to name them lest he can then be proven wrong. “Were gassed to death in rooms” on the pretext of taking a shower? This has been convincingly debunked as atrocity propaganda. Then “burned in open fires.” Did he ever see such a thing? Of course not. No one has. And it doesn’t work either, humans don’t burn that easily. Hirt takes all this from books he has read, books by Jews, every one of them the result of rumors and motives of tribal revenge.

Sometimes inmates were deliberately starved. Those who became weak or ill were sent directly to be gassed. Some were killed in camp hospitals by injection directly into the heart. Others were hanged, beaten, or suffocated in tiny airless cells. Both planned and spontaneous brutality played a role in the treatment of inmates. They were ruled by other inmates, often former criminals imported from actual prisons, who imposed their rule by degradation, mutilation, and torture.

I categorically deny that any inmates were deliberately starved in any German/SS-run camp at any time. There is zero evidence of that except for tales told by surLIEvors, always based on what someone else said, never anything they saw or experienced first hand. Because victims of typhus (and some other diseases ) rapidly lose weight and body tissue, and become “skin and bones,” photographs of these victims have been used to accuse the camp authorities of deliberately starving them. The idea that inmates were kept on a starvation diet is completely false. The same goes for importing criminals from civilian prisons to boss over the camp inmates. The fact is, there were actual lawbreakers in some of the camps because they had been assigned to serve out their prison term there. But  partisans and communists were pretty nasty dudes too.  Any of the rare hangings that did take place were for cause, after the accused was found guilty of a serious offense. Injections through the heart is a rumor that has never been proven. Other camps were solely industrial labor camps for producing war munitions and other wartime needs, like the Auschwitz complex. I have yet to see any evidence that anyone suffocated in tiny airless cells, and I have studied it and written about it.

Certain camps combined labor and extermination, selecting incoming prisoners for one category or the other; the selections at Auschwitz were infamous. Those deemed capable of work or considered useful in (cruel) experiments were assigned to quarters in the camp. Others were immediately taken to the gas chambers. Families were separated forever in this process.

By describing the Holocost in such amorphous terms and dislocating it from the war, by using photographs doctored in the intelligence laboratories, by having the help of the major media outlets and Hollywood—that is how they succeed in keeping the public believing. (Not to mention indoctrination in schools to unprotected, inexperienced children, with fakers like Joseph Hirt coming to visit regularly.) And sorry, there were no cruel experiments being carried out – not even by Dr. Mengele! It is the writers of the surlievor books who have made “the selections at Auschwitz infamous.” In reality, at that place, those who could not work—all those women with children and elderly people—went to Birkenau with it’s numerous barracks where classes and programs, music and theater productions were available to help them pass the time. Some worked in the kitchens and the medical facilities. There were family sections for gypsies and other groups who were not desirable as workers. No one was exterminated. There were no homicidal gas chambers anywhere in the camp, only buildings for gassing clothing and mattresses.

Information about concentration camp behavior exists because of the sharing of details by a relatively small number of inmates who managed to survive. Soon Holocaust memories will be held entirely by those who were not there!

This is painful for him, the fear that “the Holocaust” will lose its power and influence without real surlievors to talk about it as eye-witnesses. But he admits it’s a small number who have given us these details. Not because the rest were killed but because not every camp inmate wants to lie about it, and the true story cannot be published. Jews own all the publishing companies. Plus, anyone who writes a different story is attacked and ostracized, Jew and non-Jew alike. We know now that Joseph Hirt was not there, but he added his voice anyway by copying what the others wrote. Who did they copy from?

“But whoever closes his eyes to the past becomes blind to the present. Whoever does not wish to remember inhumanity becomes susceptible to the dangers of new infection.”

This is said all the time, but it is false; it is sophistry. Plenty of humans, billions of them, have lived perfectly well in the present without knowledge of the past. Most humans make the same mistakes over and over again, and knowledge that we did it before doesn’t stop us from doing it again. Real learning comes only from an individual’s own personal experience, not from being lectured to. The world would be much better off if the holocost went down the memory hole.

I am seeking help from my pastor, who knows my heart and my intent. I am also consulting with a mental health professional to try to understand how I swerved off in my presentations in a direction that should not have been taken.

The pastor and the mental health professional is something Andrew Reid insisted on, but in fact, before his retirement, Hirt was employed as a school mental health professional himself, so he knows how the human psychology, especially in young people, works. I don’t see any change, in this letter, in his attitude that he is an expert on Holocost and should be listened to as an expert.

Primo Levi

Hirt writes that he admired and was very influenced by Primo Levi; he read all Levi’s books and writings that were Holocaust-related. He modeled his own fabricated story on Primo Levi’s. It was Levi’s Auschwitz number, 174517, that Hirt had tattooed on his own arm – “as a symbol and way of remembering him” he says, except he got one number wrong. However, in the schools he passed the number off as his own! Of course, he was never questioned — that would be unthinkable!

Original cover of Primo Levi's book in Italian.

Original cover of Primo Levi’s book in Italian, published in 1947.

Levi was an Italian Jew with a chemistry degree who spent 11 months in Monowitz where he worked as an assistant in IG Farben’s Buna Werke laboratory. Though he had a cushy indoor job, he complained about everything he could think to complain about in his book If this Is a Man (shown right) which he wrote in 1946. A German translation was published in 1961 in which he addressed the German people in a special preface written out of his need to remind them what they had done! (From his book of essays The Drowned and the Saved, Einaudi publishers, 1986, 170 pages)

In If This Is a Man, Levi alludes to “the gas chambers of which all speak” (p.49) but evidently he has neither seen nor met anyone who has seen these things. Then he asks “Is it true what one hears of selections, of gas, of cremation?” and he is answered only with a rumor that persons in the Infirmary who were in decline, who were not going to recover, would be sent to the ‘gas chamber.’ (p.46)  That is the extent of Primo Levi’s knowledge of ‘gas chambers’ after one year at Monowitz.

Shortly before the Soviets arrived, Levi came down with scarlet fever and was hospitalized. Not being recovered enough to go on the march to the West, he was still there in the hospital attended by a Jewish doctor when the Soviets “liberated” the abandoned Auschwitz-Birkenau camp.

To be continued in Part 2

Busted: Joshua Kaufman’s claimed Auschwitz number belongs to someone else

Sunday, June 19th, 2016

kaufman_Israel flag

Zionist Joshua Kaufman in his home in the Los Angeles area of southern California, surrounded by two national flags and the news stories that gave him recognition pinned to the wall behind.

BY CAROLYN YEAGER

Like Joseph Hirt, who is a complete fraud, Joshua Kaufman has now been proven to be at least half a fraud. The number he claimed to be his when he told NBC News, “I am not Joshua Kaufman, I am number 109023” belongs to Mateusz Judasz, born September 12, 1901 in Łaznów, Poland.

A search in the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum online records revealed that Judasz arrived at Auschwitz on March 18, 1943 (over a year before Kaufman allegedly did) and was assigned the number 109023. His profession is listed as “farmer.” He was transferred to Mauthausen (in the Ostmark) in that same year and was eventually liberated from Mauthausen.

For those who demand more in the way of proof, here it is copied from http://www.auschwitz.org/en/museum/auschwitz-prisoners/  (type in name)

Main page > Museum > Auschwitz prisoners

Auschwitz prisoners

Judasz, Mateusz

(prisoner number: 109023)

born: 1901-09-12, place of birth: Łaznów, profession: farmer

Fate:
1. 1943-03-18, Auschwitz, arrived to camp
2. transferred in 1943 to KL Mauthausen, liberated,

Sources:
1. Memorial Book Radom

Consider that the above information on Mateusz Judasz was carefully recorded and kept by the SS who ran the camp. Consider too, that he is probably one whom Jews claim to have been “gassed” shortly after he arrived at Auschwitz. I can just hear them: Von day our friend Matty disappeared. Ve learned from de talk around de camp dat evil Dr. Mengele sent him to da gazz chamber. Oy vey. Ve recited a Kaddish.

Looks like Kaufman should have checked with Auschwitz about the number he selected, but he was sooo confident after the staged reunion went so well and he was featured on a double-page spread in the Daily Mail [*more on that below]. He followed up a year later by crashing the Reinhold Hanning murder trial in Detmold, Germany – and that is where his hubris may have done him in. He made rash claims about his experiences in Auschwitz and Dachau, including announcing his Auschwitz prisoner number as 109023.

I can also tell you that the name Joshua Kaufman was not found in the Auschwitz-Birkenau database, however the Museum reminds us that “the Nazis destroyed most of the documents they created” and that a list with the names of all Auschwitz victims does not exist. Okay, so maybe he was there but his records were destroyed. If so, he would have been given a number. Since we now know the number 109023 belonged to someone else, logic tells us he wouldn’t have used that number if he had one of his own. If he lied about this, then he lied about working in a gas chamber, removing dead bodies and taking them to the crematorium. (Of course, we knew that but it’s good to have it confirmed.)

So here is what has now been definitely determined regarding Kaufman’s story:

1) He lied about his prisoner number

2) He lied about working in a gas chamber in Auschwitz (he was never asked which one) and about being 15 years old at the time.

3) He lied about throwing fellow prisoners in a cement mixer at Dachau.

4) He lied about having to carry 50-kilo bags of cement for more than 12 hours a day.

At this point, we can only wonder what else he lied about. Maybe saying he was a “living corpse” when Dachau was liberated? I somehow don’t believe that.

*The Kaufman-Gillespie “reunion” was arranged by a TV crew

It turns out the Daily Mail received the story and photos from The History Channel Germany, the outfit that dreamed up and arranged the “reunion.”

I had already made the connection that the double page spread in the Daily Mail was published on Jan. 21 to coincide with the Jan. 27, 2015 Day of Commemoration for Holocaust victims, recognized annually at Auschwitz-Birkenau and at the United Nations. Every year, these institutions and the greater media look for (or create) holocaust-related stories to coincide with this commemoration. Because 2015 was the 70th anniversary of the so-called Auschwitz liberation, it was more important than usual to create as much fanfare as possible.

And that is how it came about that Joshua Kaufman, who no one had ever heard of, had such a well-publicized reunion with one of the U.S. Army “liberators” of Dachau, Daniel Gillespie, just prior to the 70th anniversary. I have learned that The History Channel Germany discovered (how is not explained) that these two “survivors” from Dachau lived close to one another in Orange County, CA. Do they have access to concentration camp archives in order to discover these things? I suppose so. The History Channel is one of the prime outlets for WWII and ‘Holocost’ indoctrination for the Holocaust Industry.

reunion_daily mail

A still from the film documentary made at Huntington Beach, CA of the “reunion” of a Dachau survivor and a Dachau liberator. This appeared in the Daily Mail and other newspapers. Notice the photo credit on the lower left to “HISTORY CHANNEL (GERMANY).

So The History Channel peddled the story to the Daily Mail and other news outlets in exchange for the promotion of their then-upcoming TV documentary. You can see the photos at the Daily Mail are credited to “History Channel Germany.” On another site, the same photos are credited to “Dirk Heuer, HISTORY Germany.” The photos in the Bild newspaper layout of Kaufman at home are credited to Nancy Pastor/Polaris Images, who was probably hired locally. Quite a bit of preparation is behind a feature story like this, and this reunion was surely not a spontaneous happening.

I first noticed that the reunion was arranged by The History Channel Germany in this CBS-LA news story. All I could find in a search for THCG was this story. What I didn’t ever see is any mention of the U.S. Army or any official historical associations being involved with this ‘reunion.’ It was purely a commercial enterprise.

The CBS-LA reporter wrote this:

The History Channel Germany arranged the reunion for a documentary that aired last year

[…]

in January 2015, a German documentary team discovered the two were living within an hours’ drive. When they met on a Southern California beach, they talked about the war, and survival.

CBS and other major media were invited to cover the reunion. It was not a private affair, it was a staged event. The Huffington Post also picked it up and ran a story on Jan. 26, 2015:

The meeting was arranged by director Emanuel Rotstein, and will be featured in a documentary, “Liberators of Dachau,” according to a press release from the History Channel.

Emanuel Rotstein – that name tells us a lot about the purpose of the project and the reliability of the research backing it. Another report puts it this way:

The two men were reunited by a television crew for a documentary they were making called Dachau Concentration Camp – The Hour Of The Liberators. It first aired on the History Channel on May 31st, 2015.

Another question that arises is: did the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (USHMM) play a role in this? I bring them up because it turns out that both Kaufman and Gillespie were special guests at the USHMM 2015 Los Angeles Dinner just two months later, on March 16th. That had to be because of The History Channel documentary, for which heart-warming story they were feted at the Dinner. Two months after that, Gillespie died.

USHMM 2015 Los Angeles Dinner

The caption at the Getty Images web page reads: Holocaust Liberator Daniel Gillespie (L) and Holocaust Survivor Joshua Kaufman attend the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum 2015 Los Angeles Dinner at The Beverly Hilton Hotel on March 16, 2015 in Beverly Hills, California.

The following spring, Joshua Kaufman created another splash when he traveled to the Reinhold Hanning trial in Detmold, Germany with two of his daughters. This time there was a big write-up in Bild, Germany’s popular tabloid newspaper, and scores of U.S. news outlets. Kaufman was denied his request to testify at the trial and, since then, I haven’t found more about him.

Kaufman smilingI write this to clue you in that it’s all Shoah Business. Whether Kaufman is the exact frightened prisoner Gillespie said he helped out of the latrine (this contradicts Kaufman’s statements that he “became an animal” in the camps, a violent animal who could throw other prisoners into the cement mixer), neither of them offers any material evidence to prove that. We only have their word for it. We also now have a biased television documentary directed by a Jewish-German named Rotstein (Redstone). None of this inspires confidence that it is anything more than another “heart-warming” holocaust tale to satisfy the voracious appetite of the Holocaust Industry and Holocaust public. Why be concerned about the truth of it when it’s such an inspiring human interest story.

A septuagenarian’s “Holocaust” memories are dangerous to youth and wrong as history

Wednesday, June 15th, 2016

12-4-07 Holst

Dr. Richard Stashevsky pictured with a sixth-grade student at the Algoma Christian School in Kent City MI in Dec. 2007.

 

BY CAROLYN YEAGER

I’m afraid the ability to accurately remember events from childhood is impaired in every adult, but more so as the years go by. In my previous article, I wrote about Andrew Reid’s investigation into the fraudulent claims presented for 15 years in public schools by Mr. Joseph Hirt. No one had thought to question Mr. Hirt’s claims, even though some were quite bizarre. Not until history teacher Reid showed up for one of Hirt’s talks, that is. Reid was so troubled by what he heard and saw that he began searching on the Internet for information about Hirt’s claims. He even contacted a number of people, including Hirt family members, and the Auschwitz-Birkenau Museum archive department.

On the very first page of his report, Reid thought it was important to affirm he was not a Holocaust denier and mentioned (seemingly as proof) his long friendship with a certain Richard Stashevsky. He wrote:

“I was first hired as a teacher by a Polish-American administrator who had survived the Holocaust camp at Bergen-Belsen, who had the scars both physically and emotionally, and who I admired.”

He linked to an article about a talk Richard Stashevsky gave to students at a Christian school in December 2007. I read the article and, in the same way Andrew Reid reacted to Joseph Hirt’s talk, I knew some things Richard Stashevsky said “just weren’t right.” In spite of my positive impression of Reid’s good intentions, I feel the need to deconstruct this talk by his friend and mentor, R. Stashevsky.

First, let me say I don’t question that this is how Mr. Stashevsky remembers his early years, or thinks he remembers them (except for a couple of details where I believe he is creating atrocity propaganda that he never witnessed). It’s known that as the memory of life events fades, we fill in with things we have heard, thought, read, and watched in the intervening years. And this is even more true if we lived through a period of historical importance of which much has been written and spoken, including Hollywood movies and history books on all levels of competence and motivation.

Thus, a man who was only 3 years old in 1939 when dramatic changes occurred in the society around him is not a first-hand source of what actually happened, but someone who was told about it later. We all have flashes of memory of certain moments that made a deeper impression on us, certain scenes, but they are more to do  with how we felt about what was happening. Richard Stashevsky was between the age of 3 and 9 when he underwent these experiences. Born in 1936 in Warsaw, he certainly lived through war and destructive times, but his knowledge of the larger picture and “why” things happened as they did was non-existent. He filled it in later in life and, as we are all prone, not necessarily correctly or without prejudice.

So let’s look at Stashevsky’s words as recorded by Jan Holst.

“You can’t find many people around who went through what I went through,” he told the Algoma Christian School students in Kent City. He has prepared a slide presentation with a collection of photos from the difficult era.

A collection of historical photos. Naturally they are selected to show what he wants to show, not to accurately reflect solely what he himself experienced, or his family experienced. It’s a combination amateur history lesson plus personal testimony. The two get blurred because if you believe his testimony, you will believe his history too. You see the disparity in that he combines “what he went through” and “photos from the period” … not photos restricted to his immediate environment.

And he shared with them how amazing his mere survival is.

“Seven different times, I should have been killed, but God had purpose for my life,” he said.

This is so typical of bible-believers and holocaust survivors, who want to turn their personal story into something miraculous. When you hear this, be warned that you’re about to hear a “story,” a bit of fiction, not an honest “just the facts, ma’am” telling . What does “I should have been killed” mean? Is it a way of signally that survival was the exception, not the norm? Which is not true, by the way. Is it to to make his experience during this time seem more dangerous than it was? It is subjective and the listener has no way to judge it.

Stashevsky was only three years of age, when the Blitzkrieg, or lighting war, hit Warsaw, where the young family lived. “In our life before we were a middle class family,” he said. “My father worked in finance department in the Polish government. But the bombing of Warsaw changed everything.”

He calls it a Blitzkrieg but we need to remember that it was the Poles who wanted a war with Germany; Poland had instigated it. It just didn’t turn out the way they had fantasized about it. This is a good time to remind you of the British War-Guarantee to Poland, dated March 31, 1939, which promised that in any war with Germany, even if Poland starts it, Britain would come in.

“Britain gave Poland carte blanche in its dealings with Germany. Poland intensified its persecutions of the German minority. Abductions became common, speaking German in public was proscribed, German associations and newspapers were suppressed, the German consul in Krakow was murdered. This guarantee from Britain nullified the Munich agreement of Sept. 1938 for Britain and Germany to work closely together to avoid war; also the 1934 German-Polish Declaration of non-aggression.” [How Britain initiated Both World Wars, Nicholas Kollerstrom, 2016, p 75]

In addition, Poland was full of war talk. Its President Edward Rydz-Smigly was quoted in the Daily Mail for August 6, 1939, when in Britain, “Poland wants war with Germany and Germany will not be able to avoid it even if she wants to.” This exactly described the situation at the time.

Poland was the first to mobilize. So Warsaw was not victimized, not at all. If Stashevsky’s father was employed by the government in Warsaw, he knew all this and was probably on board with it.

Injured during the onslaught of German bombs, Stashevsky’s mother carried him to the hospital across a bridge, which seconds later blew apart. Eventually the young mother and son, with no knowledge of what happened to the man of the house, found a home in a small apartment.

His father was probably commandeered by the Polish military (or joined up) as a officer immediately or within the first few days. The invasion began on Sept. 1st but the Germans didn’t reach Warsaw until Sept. 8. However, the Poles successfully repelled the attack, the city was put under a siege that lasted until Sept. 28 when the Polish garrison capitulated. … so we’re talking about a month before Warsaw was fully occupied. He doesn’t say what happened to his father.

For the next five years Warsaw, Poland remained under German occupation, requiring what Stashevsky told ACS students was “forced allegiance.” He showed pictures of people saluting Hitler, with tears running down their cheeks. “They had no choice, if they didn’t raise their arm, they would be shot,” he said.

For 5 years he and his mother lived safely in Warsaw. What does a child of 3 up to 8 years know about “forced allegiance?” This is something he read about much later in Polish history books, I suppose. I would like to see the pictures he showed the students of “people (doesn’t specify Poles) saluting Hitler with tears running down their cheeks.” Could it have been this famous photograph of a German woman in the Sudetenland who was overcome with happiness and broke down in tears as German troops marched into her city? I feel sure it was this picture. See this page. This photo has been mislabeled on many WWII sites to say the woman is crying in misery ’cause Hitler is coming to town – but it’s just the opposite.

sudeten german woman

The weeping woman in this photograph is not Czech, but German. She is not weeping because she is forced to raise her arm, but because she is overcome with emotions of joy and relief at the sight of German troops entering her Sudetenland town.

There is also film of German women crying with happiness while saluting German troops as they enter Austria or the Sudentenland. Maybe he showed them stills from these films.

I’m not sure if the Nazi salute was even supposed to be used by Poles; I can’t find anything on it. But Stashevsky is very wrong when he says “if they didn’t raise their arms they would be shot.” Hardly. No one was ever shot for this reason, nor were Poles just shot down in the street as he implies. This tells me that Stashevsky is not above spicing up his story with contemptible lies.

Children listened intently as he relayed stories from an eight year old boy’s perspective about the Polish uprising, which after six weeks was squelched by the Germans.

This brings us to 1944 and the Warsaw uprising, which began on August 1st. Richard and his mother were living and surviving in Warsaw for five years and would have continued except for their own Polish Resistance Army that, against the advice of just about everybody, brought the peace to an end. In the next two months , the Germans lost 8000 soldiers killed and 9000 wounded putting down the uprising, so they understandably felt no love toward the Poles when they finally did so on Oct. 2nd, 1944.

When the Polish people were rounded up at gunpoint and marched to the boxcars for transportation to concentration camps, Stashevsky choked out his words about what he called the “separation gate.”

Nowhere have I found anyone else mention a “separation gate.” This must be something Stashevsky coined himself to make his story more dramatic. Here is what Wikipedia says about the fate of the Warsaw Poles after the uprising:

“The entire civilian population of Warsaw was expelled from the city and sent to a transit camp Durchgangslager 121 in Pruszków. Out of 350,000–550,000 civilians who passed through the camp, 90,000 were sent to labour camps in the Third Reich, 60,000 were shipped to concentration camps (including Ravensbrück, Auschwitz, and Mauthausen, among others), while the rest [by far the most -cy] were transported to various locations in the General Government [former Polish territory -cy] and released.”

Not really so bad after what they had cost Germany. No one ever thinks of that. The Germans treated the Poles much better than the Poles will ever admit. And that is why Stashevsky needed to embellish his story even more with another little piece of fiction.

“When the family before us was called up, the German soldiers pointed the mother to one car, the father to another…”

He then told how the fussy youngest child clung to her father’s leg, crying and how the soldiers “wasted her.”

This is unconscionable to accuse a German soldier of shooting dead a child like that. Things like that did NOT happen. Naturally he has no evidence, not even a witness, but impressionable young kids will take his word for it. Shame, shame, shame on this retired teacher and school administrator. In the first place, families were not normally separated, and German guards were forbidden to harm prisoners. To prevent it, the death penalty was enforced if they did. Again, why was it always others who were treated so badly, never him or his mother? This is true of most surlievors, by the way, who almost always tell us what they observed done to others because they cannot offer the details necessary to prove it happened to them.

Perhaps the soldiers were still distracted by the commotion, but “somehow when it was our turn, she grabbed my hand and no one stopped us. To my knowledge we were the only ones, who weren’t separated,” he said.

Sure, they were the only ones … to his knowledge at the age of 8 years. The reason stories like this are fabricated is because the first rule for most Poles, just like most Jews, is to make the “Nazis” out to be monsters. They think they have to, but  more and more people are knowing they are not and were not.

Richard and his mother must have been among the 90,000 Poles sent to camps in the Reich, for they ended up at Bergen-Belsen in northern Germany which had been a hospital-and-health-recovery camp as well as an exchange camp for VIP prisoners whom the Reich wanted to use for swapping. But now it was receiving the overflow from the east.

Pictures and stories about conditions at Belsen were and are graphic, but Stashevsky spared nothing sharing the horrors with the school children.

Of course he didn’t — that’s the whole point, isn’t it. The graphic pictures he showed to 6th graders would have illustrated the extreme conditions in the camp due to the heavy Allied bombing that destroyed the fresh water system and incoming food and medical supplies in the final months. There are no terrible pictures of him though, are there? Obviously, his own time there was relatively uneventful. Not everyone living at Belsen contacted typhus or dysentery and underwent such horrific suffering at the end. Even at Belsen, many prisoners remained fit and healthy until the camp was voluntarily turned over to the British. These healthy prisoners can be seen in films that were made at the time.

The liberation came only months later, but the mother and son spent another two years waiting for their chance to leave the camp, where the thousands of prisoners were kept.

The British entered Belsen on April 15, 1945 at the request of the SS because of the above-mentioned conditions. Richard Stashevsky had been there only a few months, and after he and his mother were freed, they remained there because they wanted to go to the United States. They were not forced to stay in the camp, but they would not have wanted to return to Poland which was now under Soviet-communist control. They were being much better cared for by the British and West Germans.

I would never say that Richard Stashevsky was not a victim of the war and that his early life was very negatively impacted, but so it was equally for hundreds of millions of others on both sides. His story really comes down to being born at a time and place where war broke out, and of early-on being a member of the losing side. While life was tough, it was not impossible, and that is why he never spoke about it until he was retired and close to 70 years old. Like so many others.

 

History teacher who outed holocaust fraudster Joseph Hirt calls for apology or criminal prosecution

Sunday, June 12th, 2016

Joseph Hirt-liar

Joseph Hirt points out a number that he had tattooed on his own arm while pretending to be a holocaust survivor at one of the many classrooms in which he has spoken. Hirt was never incarcerated in a concentration camp.

 

BY CAROLYN YEAGER

Andrew Reid, the New York public school history teacher who says he “believes in truth” has posted his own account of his very thorough investigation into the tales of holocaust survlievor Joseph Hirt on Scribd. online and it is a bombshell. Reid has done in this instance what the media and the schools continually fail to do before they publish a story or allow someone to speak to their students – scrutinize and vet the extravagant claims of holocaust survivors.  Of course, the media doesn’t do that because they know the claims won’t hold up; thus one can only conclude the media is helping to defraud the public on the subject of Holocaust. The schools are doing the same out of laziness and mental incompetence.

On pages 27-29 of his document, Reid lays out his idea that Mr. Hirt should have an opportunity to publicly retract his claims and admit his fraud, ask for forgiveness and cease his involvement in any further public presentations. If Hirt refuses to publicly recant, Reid recommends that law enforcement in both Lancaster County, PA and Lewis County, NY should pursue a criminal investigation. Right on, Mr. Reid! It has been the case ever since 1945 that only one side was punished; it’s about time these surlievors are held to legal account too. If they were, there would be a lot fewer of them.

Also at Scribd. Mr. Reid posted a letter he wrote to Joseph Hirt informing him of the above expectations. In it, he said,:

“If I do not see evidence of such a public repentant response in the near future, I will petition the District Attorneys in Lewis and Lancaster Counties to proceed with a criminal investigation, as much of your activity fits the legal definitions (in both the states of New York and Pennsylvania) of felonies and misdemeanors such as fraud, identity theft, and forgery.”

Well, I think Hirt should be prosecuted whether he recants or not. A crime is a crime, and saying you’re sorry doesn’t get a criminal off the hook in any other field.  Why should Holocaust hoaxers get special treatment – or continue to, I should say. I also think his family members should be cited for aiding and abetting his fraud by not speaking up. They’ve known for fifteen years that he was lying in schools and public forums, but said nothing until they were asked by Reid.

Interestingly, Reid wrote at Scribd. that “I am not a Holocaust denier – I believe in truth, and if someone is not telling the truth, I wonder what the lie is covering (the”real” truth.)” We have a lot in common! I believe in truth too, and this site Elie Wiesel Cons The World is “A blog dedicated to finding out the truth about Elie Wiesel’s tattoo,” and other aspects of Wiesel’s testimony. Truth is what we’re after. So I am hopeful Mr. Andrew Reid will continue along this path of investigating holocaust survivors. If he does, he might be in for some unpleasant surprises.

We must get as many people as possible to read the several items that he has posted at Scribd. His main report contains photographs and background material that is not included in the regular news reports which, however, are very scanty – in fact, I do not see any major media outlets reporting on it yet. That says a lot, doesn’t it. It looks like we’ll have to push it into the news.

According to an early local news story, Joseph Hirt has been an active holocaust surliever since at least 2001 when he conducted a 10-week adult night school class about his experiences during the “holocaust.” That led to other speaking engagements and “paved the way for a more intense catharsis: putting pen to paper.” This is a reference to a memoir that he has said he was writing, but obviously with no intention of ever finishing or publishing it. He is smart enough to know it would give him away.

Joseph Hirt speaking to Boyertown high school students in April, 2016. On June 8th, Andrew Reid published the results of his investigation, proving Hirt to be a fraud.

Joseph Hirt speaking to Boyertown High School students in April, 2016. On June 8th, Andrew Reid published the results of his investigation, proving Hirt to be a fraud. No more school talks for him.

He gave as a flimsy reason for remaining silent so long (until 2001) that no one would or could comprehend the horror he had to tell.

“Even today . . . the mere mention of Auschwitz – the name, the word, conjures up images of whippings, of beating, of hunger, of cruelty, of horrible odors and smells, of burnings, of hanging and shootings, of death and destruction,” Hirt writes (in 2006).

Even a friend who became a county court judge continued to believe him. Hirt said that his family is what inspired him to finally speak out. “With two daughters, a son, and six grandchildren, Hirt realized that future generations needed to hear his story.” It’s a fitting irony that today Joseph Hirt has been ostracized by his immediate family and none of his three children will have anything to do with him, according to his nephew. His brother, a retired clinical Psychologist, thinks that Joseph may be delusional and that he actually believes his own stories now.

But no … because his nephew Michael says: “When I confronted him (a couple years ago) he basically claimed that the stories were taken out of context, or that the authors fabricated the stories,” which Michael didn’t believe. However very recently, when reached by phone and asked about Reid’s accusations, Hirt, who lives in the Adamstown area now, stood by his story.

“There’s nothing to defend. I was there and I don’t need to defend it. This is like being forced to defend being raped.”

Hirt has also said he is not Jewish, but is a Polish Christian. However, it is known that he was born to a Jewish family in Poland in 1930, making him 86 years old today, not 90 as he claims. (Another one who can’t tell the truth about his age.)

When it comes to the number Hirt had tattooed on his own arm, 194517, he not only put it in the wrong location on his arm but Reid discovered from Auschwitz-Birkenau records that this number belonged to a man named Kazimierz Sikorski, and it was not assigned until 1944, long after Hirt had “escaped.”

Hirt_april 2014

On April 10, 2014, more than 200 students participated in Wilson Southern Middle School’s third annual “Holocaust Hall of Memories.” Joseph Hirt was there, pictured here poisoning the minds of 6th grade girls Samantha Godal, 11, and Jaylinn Maurer, 12.  The students do research on a holocaust victim (I guess it was him) and read the story of the victim to family and members of the community. It’s pretty disgusting to see this sick old liar hanging out with tender young girls, filling their minds with horrible stories that have nothing at all to do with their lives. Yuk. The schools are responsible for pushing this unhealthy agenda.

Hirt_FG

On Tuesday, April 20, 2016, Joseph Hirt, who claims to be 90 though he’s only 86, now a resident of Lancaster County, told his emotional story of surviving the Holocaust to students at the Boyertown High School. He holds a photo that he claims is himself as a teenager, weighing only 60 pounds, sleeping on a stretcher in the Auschwitz concentration camp. And he tells the students that while in that condition he crawled under a fence, talked a German guard into letting him run away very fast before the guard could shoot him, then traveled to Yugoslavia to find his family. Yikes. Just how stupid are we supposed to be? What does this do to the minds of America’s youth who are told to respect and believe what he says?

Hirt_with pic

Another picture of Hirt with that photo of a typhus victim at Dachau taken after the liberation, that Hirt tells his young audience is himself in Auschwitz in 1942, a victim of starvation! Why should young people be subjected to such gruesome images that will give them nightmares.

Holocaust “experts” like Deborah Lipstatdt, who took over from Ken Waltzer as the go-to person when frauds pop up (as I wrote about here), are only concerned about how it affects their precious and increasingly fragile Jewish myth. To them it’s sad only because it gives food for argument to “deniers.” They don’t care that schoolchildren are being lied to in their classrooms by speakers they’re told to view with reverence and awe. No, it’s not looked at that way. They believe that everything Hirt says did happen … just not to him. And this is what Hirt believes too, and how he justifies his lies. But I say it did not happen at all since most every surlievor is testifying to things that s/he may have heard about, but did not ever personally experience.

What does Deborah Lipstadt have to say about the outing of Joseph Hirt as a liar?

“The saddest thing is that it causes doubt about other survivors’ stories, which we know are true. The guy is a fake, is a fraud. Had people stopped to check the historical references he made it would have been clear that he was making it all up.”

Why then was it never clear to Lipstadt? As a “holocaust historian,” she has never questioned a single surliever story. Not a single one! She is only concerned with holocaust deniers.

Neither did Aaron Breitbart, a senior researcher at the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles, ever look into Hirt’s story that he’s been telling for 15 years. Breitbart said:

“…you’re always going to find someone out there that makes up a story or embellishes a story.”

So what, huh? He added:

“Holocaust deniers, when they find a story that proves not to be true, they use it to deny the entire Holocaust,” he said. “Because you find one thing wrong, everything else is wrong, too.”

But wait. In Hirt’s story, a few things were discovered to be wrong, and it is agreed by all concerned that those crucial errors discredit his entire story. Why then does Aaron Breitbart say it doesn’t work the same with the official Holocaust narrative? Certain crucial errors should bring about the questioning of the entire narrative. The narrative has to withstand scrutiny in every part if it deserves to be believed. And it is the responsibility of those who claim themselves experts, like the Wiesenthal Center, Aaron Breitbart and Deborah Lipstadt, to police their own “industry,” yet they are absolute failures in this regard. The reason why is clear — they know the whole she-bang is a fraud that it is their job to keep propping up. They approve of people like Joseph Hirt and never question them unless they are forced to.

So kudos to Mr. Andrew Reid, a man who cares about the truth. I really hope that, along with following up on Hirt, Reid gets interested in some other surlievors and continues bringing the true facts to light. Be sure to read his report here.

Another childish comment from an outraged Wiesel defender

Wednesday, June 8th, 2016

Pink laptopBY CAROLYN YEAGER

Why is it that no one can mount a sustained argument against the contents of this website? Or even a single good argument. There have been a few who thought they had done so, but after my reply, they disappeared. All I get nowadays are really pathetic, 6th grade-level comments (I wish they really were in the 6th grade; then I might get somewhere with them) like this one from “Leelee” that came a couple of days ago. Rather than post it as a comment (to an article from 2011!), I decided to make an article out of it, as I did with Tiffany Yep. Now Tiffany is a genius compared to Leelee, as you will see. But I’m going to respond to what Leelee says anyway because it’s so typical of the kind of complaints that are sent to this site.

Leelee wrote:

You know what is even more disgusting? That you people think he is a fraud because he won’t show you his numbers. This guy went through something horrific and you won’t give him respect because he won’t show you something that dehumanizes him. Have you actually thought about the truths out weighing the lies? Instead you manipulate people with your little side comments that don’t even give Elie’s true thoughts. If you were only called by numbers and not your God given name (for lets say two years?), would you feel proud of showing people something that made you feel below human, like an animal essentially? Then add starvation,abuse,illness,and disgusting living conditions to that equation. Just use empathy before you accuse somebody, and keep you little side comments to yourself, because it’s not worth dehumanizing someone (again) because you don’t believe that his answers are everything you want to hear or because he won’t show you numbers etched into his skin that he had to hide behind for so long. The human mind is only capable of so much, and Elie is so brave for even telling his story. Please reconsider what you are doing, and base your accusations on a little more proof.

She says Elie’s tattoo “dehumanizes him” and that’s why he won’t show it. Nonsense! He has never said that. If that were his reason he would say so. In fact, he has talked about his tattoo a lot, and used it in his writing and speeches, so if he can talk about it he can show it.

If you were only called by numbers and not your God given name (for lets say two years?), would you feel proud of showing people something that made you feel below human, like an animal essentially?

I never thought that God gave me my name; my mother always said she did. Did God give you the name of Leelee? He wouldn’t be so cruel. It was not two years – you were right to question that – but just under one year. Nor does having a small number tattooed on your arm make you feel like an animal. If you got a number tattooed on your arm, would you feel like an animal? All prison systems give everyone a number and that number is attached to their name because people can have very similar, even identical names — same as in Auschwitz. Why don’t you start a campaign against that practice in today’s prisons? See how far you get.

You are trying to make your thoughts Elie Wiesel’s thoughts but you have no idea what his thoughts are. Nor do I, so I go by his words, not by some imaginary ideas I dream up. You may even be the same person who has written many comments here, saying basically the same thing, using different names. None of these comments have a sincere feeling about them – mainly because they’re so darn silly.

All the suffering you want us to believe Wiesel endured comes out of the fictional book Night. There is no objective proof that he was starved, abused or even ill. There are no witnesses to any of it – it all comes from Elie Wiesel himself. If you think that famous Buchenwald liberation photo shows an image of poor, suffering Elie, you are wrong. I can prove he’s lying about it, anyone can prove it. There is not a single image in existence of him at either Buchenwald or Auschwitz, or in a ghetto.

because it’s not worth dehumanizing someone (again) because you don’t believe that his answers are everything you want to hear or because he won’t show you numbers etched into his skin that he had to hide behind for so long.

He hid behind the number on his skin? How does that work?  You’ve gotten carried away with your own dramatic language. Why not show the number? The only possible reason is because he doesn’t have one. You go on and on about his feeling dehumanized and mentally fragile, when in fact there is no evidence of that. He feels just fine about the power he and his fellow Jews have by using the weapon of the “Holocaust.” He’s very happy about that, and life has been great for him. You are painting a picture of someone who doesn’t exist. Perhaps because you’ve been assigned to this website and you can’t refute what is here so you rely on this kind of righteous indignation.

Please reconsider what you are doing, and base your accusations on a little more proof.

A little more proof? Unreal! I’ve got tons of proof here and you don’t challenge any of it. Instead, you’ve got righteous indignation and you turn things around:  accuse your opponent of what are really your failings and vices. You have no proof for the “poor suffering young Elie” myth. If anyone sincerely looks into it, they won’t find real evidence of it; therefore to distract from that lack of evidence you’re taught to resort to emotional charges. What makes me suspect you’re not a girl named Leelee? Because I’ve received so many comments just like yours with girls names attached. Well, it’s possible a lot of high school girls reading Night search Wiesel’s name on the Internet and end up here. It’s possible they get upset about it and send off a comment. But, except for Tiffany’s, they’re all so much the same.

Saint Elie will be canonized in the Catholic Church -- expect it! And the public will eat it up.

Saint Elie will be canonized in the Catholic Church — expect it! And the Media and public will eat it up.

This brings me back to my original thesis that no one can defend Elie Wiesel’s story with solid evidence. No one ever has. Try to give me an example where you think that has been done. We’re always confronted with sentimentalism and emotional manipulation to cover than lack, which has gotten pretty tired by now. The Elie Wiesel drama is a story, a  fiction, make-believe from start to finish. Wiesel only allows himself to be interviewed by friendly Jews, but even at that, he says a lot of things that give him away. He always tells his story just a little differently. But one has to want to see reality in order to notice it. Elie Wiesel’s fans don’t want to notice it. And the mainstream media doesn’t either. When he dies, will we see his life story presented in a major Hollywood movie? You can bet on it … or gag on it. He may have already made known his preference for who should play him.

 

Further evidence that Joshua Kaufman is lying about being Auschwitz prisoner 109023

Friday, June 3rd, 2016

By Carolyn Yeager

Joshua Kaufman at the USHMM 2015 Los Angeles Dinner at the Beverly Hills hotel.

Joshua Kaufman at the USHMM 2015 Los Angeles Dinner in Beverly Hills.

Just like Elie Wiesel, Joshua Kaufman’s claimed Auschwitz number doesn’t fit his own story of how and when he could have been assigned it.

At the end of my previous article on Kaufman, I asked readers to join me in demanding answers from him about his claim to be Auschwitz number 109023. He said to reporters in the courtroom in Detmold, Germany, as quoted by NBC News:

Can you imagine working in a crematorium, when you are only 15 years old? I had to break the bones of the dead to get them untangled … I am not Joshua Kaufman, I am number 109023.”

I heard nothing from Kaufman, but I did hear from Carlo Mattogno, the accomplished Italian revisionist. Carlo looked up the numbers and helpfully sent me the following information (my bolding):

AGK NTN 156 p. 62

Source: Archiwum Głównej Komisji Badania Zbrodni Przeciwko Narodowi Polskiemu – Instytutu Pamieci Narodowej, Warsaw: AGK, NTN, 156, p. 66

 

A list of inmates compiled by the judge Jan Sehn reports the names of the inmates of a transport that arrived at Birkenau on March 15, 1943. The last number assigned was 108530.

The next number in this list is 109371 – a certain Jakob Zakar – who was part of a transport from Greece which arrived in Auschwitz on March 20, 1943.

This means that the number 109023 was assigned between these two dates.

According to Danuta Czech’s Kalendarium [a source used as official Auschwitz data -cy] the number 109023 was assigned on March 18th, 1943 to a group of 465 male (numbers from 108763 to 109227) and 114 female prisoners (they received the numbers 38469 to 38582) sent to Auschwitz from the SiPo [Security Police] Radom, in the General Gouvernment (now Poland).

Mattogno concludes from this that Kaufman’s story lacks either truthfulness or exact dates. The dates, however, are confirmed by the Kalendarium of Danuta Czech and by the judge Jan Sehn.

    *     *     *

Since Kaufman is Hungarian, and came to Auschwitz from the Debrecen Ghetto in Hungary, which didn’t exist until 1944 (from mid-May to mid-June), he could not possibly be the person who was registered with the number 109023 on March 18, 1943. Did Kaufman just pick that number out of thin air? Did he perhaps know of the person who had that number and knew he would not say anything if he (Kaufman) used it? Is Kaufman going to deny he ever said that? If 109023 is not his number, what is? He has not shown his arm the way all those who have a tattoo are willing to do. Kaufman is like Elie Wiesel in that he never seems to take off his jacket.

So let’s see – gosh, do you think he could be making it all up? (blink, blink) How could he have the nerve to do such a nervy thing, is how most people respond. They can’t believe anyone would be so reckless and therefore try to “fill in” with some reasons that makes sense to them. Well, these holocaust surlievers get treated with such incredible deference that it encourages them to emerge out of the woodwork and tell stories out of whole cloth. They actually do it all the time, and get well-compensated for it. Only in a few cases do they get caught in a big enough way that it stops them. Plus, in Kaufman’s mind he’s doing it for Israel, for the benefit of the Jews of the world, and for “Never Again.” He’s going to die soon, so wants to help out the cause before he’s gone. He believes he’s on the side of justice. What are a few lies compared to that?

Media, which is more powerful than one single nation or the judges in a courtroom, is on his side. Reporters and editors of major news outlets present what he says to the public as believable … as news! They are the biggest criminals of all, in my opinion. Their crime is writing and encouraging false news; helping to railroad an innocent man like Reinhold Hanning by reporting lurid lies spoken by surlievers that they have to know cannot be true. It is NBC News and Joshua Kaufman who should be brought up on charges rather than Reinhold Hanning, who is innocent of any specific wrongdoing. But the law is not written that way – the law is written according to political power. Therefore, only political pressure can change it.

How about a lot of you write to NBC News and attach the NBC article above about Kaufman at Hanning’s trial in Detmold (the final judgement comes on June 9th), and inform them that Kaufman is lying about his number 109023. Include the evidence from Carlo Mattogno. Tell them they need to write an apology for printing information without checking its accuracy. NBC is the most far left of the network news outlets and they make it difficult to contact them. This is what I found:

To report an error or comment on NBCNews.com, please email [email protected]

The reporters are Andy Eckardt and Carlo Angerer, but no email addresses are given, only Twitter accounts.

https:[email protected] – he has Kaufman’s picture on his page. Please visit him if you have a Twitter account.

https:[email protected] – also on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/carloangerer

I’m still asking Joshua Kaufman or one of his daughters to answer for him. He demanded answers from Reinhold Hanning; he needs to give some of his own.

Young holocaust believer defends Elie Wiesel’s tattoo and his “novels”

Wednesday, June 1st, 2016

Elie Wiesel shows his ugly side in an unguarded moment during a ceremony at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in 2012.

Elie Wiesel shows his ugly side in an unguarded moment during a “Holocaust Remembrance Day” ceremony at the U.S. Capitol Rotunda in 2009.

By Carolyn Yeager

TIFFANY YEP, LINKING TO a Google page of that name, wrote a comment to my article “Elie admits he doesn’t have the tattoo A7713.” I thought it called for more attention than a comment usually gets so I’ve made an article out of it. Tiffany is apparently in high school, and I can say the generation gap between us is pretty vast since I don’t understand her Google page at all. (I’m sure I’m not supposed to.)  The comment, however, is easy to understand and I’ve seen quite a few like it. However Tiffany, being pretty bright, adds a slight twist. She says that Elie Wiesel’s version of what took place in the concentration camps, even if he made it all up, is still more valuable as a teaching aid than are more forgiving stories because he portrays the “horror” the Jews felt. I noticed on Yep’s Photo page a couple of holocaust horror pictures – one a very dishonest composite with Dr. Mengele, taken from an exhibit. Here’s her comment to me, all packed into one paragraph:

Tattoos can easily fade over the course of many decades. Even if he is not truly a survivor, his book “Night” has done wonders to teach people what went on in concentration camps. All you hear are tales of bravery and resistance and love from books about the Holocaust. These books betray the true horror of the Holocaust. Many of the survivors did not speak of what if (sic) actually felt like to be imprisoned in Auschwitz or Monowitz. Wiesels’ novel, real or not, accurately displays the anger and helplessness felt by the Jews in Germany and Poland and in other parts of Europe. Even if you are right and he is conning people, he still deserves that Nobel Peace Price (sic). Millions of youths from around the world have learned from “Night”, and in order to mot (sic) repeat history, we must learn the history. he could also have removed the tattoo, since his entire life does not center solely on his novels, and he can possibly be triggered when looking at the tattoo. If you haven’t picked up what I’ve been saying in this essay, basically a) you call him an idiot if he removed the tattoo because he wrote the books-he has his own feelings outside of proving he was at Auschwitz, and he may be triggered by the tattoo and the memories behind it, and b) even if he has never set foot in Auschwitz, his book has still done wonders to educate people on the honest horror and devastation in the concentration camps, versus the stories of faith and love and selflessness of people who managed to avoid it. And answer this question-if he was never in a concentration camp, how on earth was he able to depict them so accurately?

Let’s take the first sentence, Tattoos can easily fade over the course of many decades.

Yes, they can fade, but do not become invisible. “Most tattoo inks will fade over time but never fade away completely. The edges of the tattoo usually become less defined with time,” says the sharpologist. Tattoos are applied to the Dermis, which is underneath the Epidermis (top layer of skin). The Epidermis replenishes itself by forming new skin cells, but the Dermis does not. Tattoos are permanent, although will experience some fading over decades, according to this site.

This page should convince Tiffany that her theory of Wiesel’s vanishing tattoo cannot be right. Please notice the pictures of Auschwitz survivors who are more than willing to show off their tattoos. There is Samuel Bradin (now 86), Henry Flescher (now 92), Leo Zisman (now 84), and Paul Argiewicz (died in Dec. 2013 at age 88). Notice that each of their tattoos is somewhat faded but still very visible.

Elie Wiesel is now 88, in the same age group, but he does not “show” his tattoo because he doesn’t have one. If he had one, it would be just as visible as those of his contemporaries. Wiesel stands out at this event where he was the main speaker as being the only Auschwitz survivor who doesn’t pull up his sleeve. No one would dare ask him to, either. To any but the willfully blind, this behavior (along with photos of his bare arm) proves that Wiesel never had an Auschwitz tattoo.

The next amazing statement Tiffany makes is “Even if he is not truly a survivor, his book “Night” has done wonders to teach people what went on in concentration camps.”

So where did he learn what went on in concentration camps if he had not been in even one of them? I doubt Tiffany is aware that Wiesel gets angry when people suggest his book is a novel, not his faithful testimony. But what Tiffany is actually saying is that people who weren’t there can teach us what it was like to be there just as well or better than people who were there. Read that sentence again. The reasoning goes that those who make it up, who invent stories out of whole cloth, can write more interesting books than those who tell it as it actually was. Does Tiffany likes the gory stuff because that is the focus in her school holocaust lessons?

She’s saying that Wiesel’s novel, whether real or not, is still accurate in it’s depiction of how the Jews felt. No! What is not real cannot be called accurate. Wiesel know Jews, there’s no doubt about that. He describes Jews as he knows them, inside a concentration camp of his own invention, creating peculiar Jewish conversations. When the reader can relate to the characters, and live the event and feel the feelings vicariously, that is a successful novel. But to be a testimony, it has to have actually happened. Tiffany doesn’t care about such distinctions; she wouldn’t bat an eyelash over Wiesel’s own admission that what he writes isn’t true. He has famously admitted in various versions:

“In literature, certain things are true though they didn’t happen, while others are not, even if they did.”

He’s confessing that he’s writing “literature”, not testimony – literature being imagination and story-telling, testimony being a faithful account of what one has observed. And Tiffany goes along with that because she approves of  super-charging the story-line to better get the point across.

Finally, she says. even if he is conning people, he still deserves that Nobel Peace Prize. For conning people?! If the Holocaust is a con (not just by Wiesel), then it is not history. Therefore, there has to be some reason that it is pretending to be history. If we learn not to repeat what never happened anyway, we are learning nothing. What should we be learning instead? We should be learning why and by whom this Holocaust con has been brought to us, that’s what.

When invention and 2nd-3rd hand information are offered in place of faithful testimony, it is then a lie. A LIE cannot be accurate. Tiffany would do well to try to understand the moral distinction. All her nattering about Wiesel’s feelings is meaningless, since she doesn’t know him or his feelings. Rather than imagining what he feels, she would do well to read Holocaust High Priest by Warren B. Routledge and learn something about the real Elie Wiesel.

Wiesel has also done nothing for peace. He is unqualifiedly pro-Israel and Israel is an aggressor-nation ever since it was allowed under strict rules in 1948. It has broken every rule and also sureptitiously developed powerful nuclear weapons. How does the promotion of the false holocaust story bring about peace in the world? Israel and Jewish surlievers collect ever-increasing amounts of money from Germany, along with nuclear submarines, and also huge amounts of money to buy armaments from the U.S. So much is given to Israel there is not much left for anyone else.

At the end of her comment, Tiffany does me a favor by asking me to:  Answer this question-if he was never in a concentration camp, how on earth was he able to depict them so accurately?

Oh, so easy. He didn’t! That is what most of the articles on this website are about – how his stories about Auschwitz and Buchenwald don’t fit the official narrative – and contain numerous inner and outer inconsistencies and contradictions. There is nothing accurate about his descriptions (or lack thereof) of Auschwitz, Birkenau, Monowitz or Buchenwald. He waited 10 years to write his “testimony” in order to have other reports to model his on, not because of the fatuous reasons he gives—and he still got most of it wrong! No, clearly, Tiffany doesn’t have any idea what is accurate when it come to the “Holocaust” or to Elie Wiesel, but I will venture to say she likes the story the way Wiesel tells it because it makes her feel good about herself – she is one of those who will make the world a better place.

So now Tiffany, how about answering a question for me: How on earth can you believe something you know so little about?

By what inner workings have you accepted what you were taught in school without applying any critical analysis? Was there a critical element involved in your Holocaust Study unit? Were students comfortable in asking questions of a critical nature? Do you consider yourself well-educated about Elie Wiesel and the “Holocaust?” Will you even ask these questions of yourself?

Maybe someday you will. I’m glad you let me know that you have read this site. I invite you to read and comment more, as I would be more than happy to get into a dialogue with you.

I want to see Joshua Kaufman’s Auschwitz tattoo – 109023

Sunday, May 22nd, 2016

Joshua Kaufman poses with his daughters Alexandra (left) and Rachel in front of the Chabad building in Berlin, after leaving the show-trial in Detmold.

Joshua Kaufman poses with his daughters Alexandra (left) and Rachel in front of the Chabad building in Berlin, after leaving the show-trial in Detmold. (photo from Jewish Journal)

 

By Carolyn Yeager

That’s not asking too much. He burst on the scene (with the help of Bild news organization) of what is already a show-trial in Detmold, Germany and made it even showier. He sought attention for himself.

He is quoted by NBC News as proclaiming in the courtroom, referring to Auschwitz:

“Can you imagine working in a crematorium, when you are only 15 years old? I had to break the bones of the dead to get them untangled … I am not Joshua Kaufman, I am number 109023.”

I think, under the circumstances, this statement requires him to tell us if he has this number tattooed on his arm. He sought publicity for his story of being a victim of Auschwitz – no one dragged him into that courtroom as they dragged Reinhold Hanning, the defendant. He can’t selectively say what he wants and hold back what he doesn’t want to say. Plus most of his fellow Auschwitz deportees willingly show their tattoo – those that have one, that is.

I have explained elsewhere that according to the bits and pieces Joshua Kaufman has thrown out there (not in any chronological order, by the way), he cannot have had the Auschwitz number 109023. According to the Auschwitz-Birkenau Museum web site, as a Hungarian Jew arriving at Birkenau in 1944, his number would have been preceded by an ‘A’ followed by a number no higher than 20,000. The number he gives is over 100,000. Because of this discrepancy, which he himself originated, he is responsible for answering how he came up with this number.

A second problem with this statement is that it can be shown he was 16 years old when he would have been in Auschwitz in 1944. Yet he even says he was 15 at Dachau, in 1945. It appears he has chosen the age of 15 for his victim story because it has a better ring to it than does sixteen.

A Media Creation

The media won’t ask such a question or bring up any discrepancies. The Joshua Kaufman story is a media creation. Beginning with the Daily Mail UK‘s trumped-up January 2015 story about a reunion with his American “liberator,” then moving on to Germany’s Bild and it’s before-and-after arrival video, plus the US’s NBC News coverage in the courtroom with Kaufman, it is media creating the news. Yet with these three major news outlets covering the man’s story, we still know practically nothing of substance about Kaufman. All they give us are a few outrageous lies (like the one quoted above), and ‘human interest’ profiles.

A Bild photographer took this picture of Kaufman's home and work van when a team visited him before he even left for Germany to crash the show-trial of Reinhold Hanning.

A Bild photographer took this picture of Kaufman’s home and work van when a team visited him in California before he even left for Germany to crash the show-trial of Reinhold Hanning. Note Kaufman walking toward his front door.

Here are some things I’ve learned about him from carefully scanning the news articles:

1. He comes from Hungary, born in 1928.

2. He was a “survivor” of the Debrecen ghetto.

3. He was deported to Auschwitz (probably in 1944), then worked in 3 smaller camps, ending the war in Dachau where he was liberated on April 30, 1945.

4. He moved to Israel at an unknown date after the war, stayed there for 25 years (some sources say 30 years) and served in the IDF during two wars in 1967 and 1973, then moved to the United States before 1975.

5. He married at age 47, which would have been in 1975, and had a family of four daughters.

6. He worked as an independent plumber in California.

7. He never talked about his holocaust experience until recently because he felt guilty about throwing fellow Jews into cement mixers. He’s talking about it now because he says, “In ten years’ time, there will probably be no one left who survived it.”

So let’s start with number one and two:

In this cropped photo from the Daily Mail picture layout in January 2015, we can see Kaufman is wearing the exact same clothes as in May 2016 at the trial in Detmold, and in Berlin.

In this cropped photo from the Daily Mail picture layout in January 2015, we can see Kaufman is wearing the exact same clothes he wore in May 2016 at the trial in Detmold, and in Berlin, above.

Kaufman says he is 88 years old in May 2016 which gives him a birth date of 1928. It was his “liberator” Daniel Gillespie (in photo at left) who identified Kaufman to the Daily Mail as a Hungarian Jew. Bild reinforces that by writing that he was a survivor of the Debrecen ghetto:

Kaufman survived the Debrecen ghetto (Hungary). He also survived the Auschwitz and Dachau concentration camps. In Dachau, he was freed on 30 April 1945. Following his liberation, he lived in Israel for 25 years. Kaufman: “In the concentration camp, I was no longer a human being, but an animal. Aged 15, I had to carry 50-kilo bags of cement for more than 12 hours a day. Everyone who could not manage that was thrown into the cement mixer.

Does anyone at Bild really think that exhausted workers were thrown into the cement mixer? I doubt it, but not a questioning word is heard. Checking out the Debrecen ghetto, I found this on Wikipedia:

The order to erect a ghetto there was issued on April 28, 1944. They finished building the ghetto walls on May 15. On June 14 all Debrecen Jews were deported to the nearby Serly brickyards. Most of the Debrecen Jews were deported to Auschwitz, arriving there on July 3, 1944.

The Debrecen ghetto was only used for one month before they were deported to Auschwitz. Kaufman, being among them, wouldn’t have arrived until July 3, 1944, and spent only 10 months at various camps. Or, he never left Hungary at all.

Debrecen was liberated by the Soviet Army on 20 October 1944. Some 4,000 Jews of Debrecen and its surroundings survived the war, creating a community of 4,640 in 1946 – the largest in the region. About 400 of those moved to Israel, and many others moved to the west by 1970.

Considering he doesn’t say when he was arrested, or what he did immediately after liberation from Dachau, he could very well be one of the 400 who moved to Israel from Debrecen and then to the United States in the 1970’s. But, in any case, his alleged Auschwitz number doesn’t fit his history, as far as we can know it. More on that in a moment. First I want to include some history of Debrecen, Hungary’s second largest city, from Wikipedia:

Jews were first allowed to settle in Debrecen in 1814, with an initial population count of 118 men within 4 years. Twenty years later, they were allowed to purchase land and homes. By 1919, they consisted 10% of the population (with over 10,000 community members listed) and owned almost half of the large properties in and around the town

In 100 years they went from 0 to 10% of the population, from 118 to 10,000, and owned 50% of the large properties. This is why they were and are resented. The mistake came when they were given the same rights as Hungarians by being allowed to purchase land and homes anywhere. If individual Jews are not wealthy themselves, they get money from Jews who are wealthy, even abroad, and buy up everything they can as their agent. So the Hungarians were glad to get rid of these Jews when they were deported — not to a death camp but to a labor or detention camp.

At that time, in 1944, Kaufman was 16 years old. He has shown pictures of himself in the Bild video in which he appears to be a well-to-do Jew, both before and after his “ordeal.”

More on Kaufman’s history

Lookee here. Now-”famous-holocaust-survivor” Joshua Kaufman attends the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum 2015 Los Angeles Dinner at The Beverly Hilton Hotel on March 16, 2015 in Beverly Hills, California. The big layout in the Daily Mail appeared in January 2015.

Lookee here. Now-”famous-holocaust-survivor” Joshua Kaufman attends the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum 2015 Los Angeles Dinner at The Beverly Hilton Hotel on March 16, 2015 in Beverly Hills, California. The big layout in the Daily Mail appeared only two months earlier in January 2015. He became a star.

Of numbers 3 through 6, I have no further information than what is stated.

Number 7 tells us that Kaufman’s objective is to help the Jewish case for “The Holocaust,” just like Martin Gray, Elie Wiesel and Paul Argiewicz, and hundreds of others. It’s not about reality but about what’s good for the Jews. Kaufman jumps right into it.

I lost 100 members of my family, At age 15, I was working in a gas chamber in Auschwitz, dragging out bodies.”

If he became a “sondercommando” working in a gas chamber, he would certainly have been tattooed. Bild newspaper was even told that he had to transport the dead bodies out of the gas chamber with a wheelbarrow. “In Auschwitz, Kaufman had to transport the dead bodies out of the gas chamber with a wheelbarrow. He will talk about this during the trial,” they wrote. A wheelbarrow!? Excuse me, but I have to laugh at that. With 20,000 allegedly gassed per day at that time, you would need a hundred people like him, all bumping into each other with their wheelbarrows!

Then this man Kaufman, who does not answer questions himself, has the gall to make demands on defendant Hanning:

“I would like to hear answers from him. How can you act this inhumanely? How can you live with it? How was he able to happily go home to his family in the evenings? I want him to beg for forgiveness.”

Who is this guy lecturing Germans – showing up at an on-going trial, whether it be right or wrong (it’s wrong, but he’s not trying to right it), with his highly questionable story? What a completely arrogant human being. He goes on:

They should know what happened to us. In ten years’ time, there will probably be no one left who survived it. That’s why I am talking about it now. For a long time, I did not [talk about it] because I did not feel like a hero. I felt guilty. After all, I had to throw people into the cement mixer, too. Not a single minute passes without my having to think of Auschwitz. I will speak for everyone who did not survive.” (Except it was at Dachau where he says he threw people into the cement mixer.)

He was not a hero! He now thinks people see him that way, after all the movies and books and endless newspaper stories he’s seen over the past 50 years. In the Bild video, he gives himself away by anticipating disbelief in advance, saying: “Everything I did – and nothing is copied from a book and nothing from a movie – everything myself experienced.” That means it’s just the opposite. It was all copied because he only mentions extreme things that never took place in reality. His goal is to exemplify the “Nazis” as evil personified and himself as an innocent survivor of that evil, but what he chooses to say portrays him as just the opposite. As a villain. He “broke the bones” of dead Jews and threw others in a cement mixer!

He volunteered for the ‘gas chamber’ work at Auschwitz

Orit Arfa, a friend of Kaufman’s daughters, wrote a story published in the Jewish Journal of her meeting with the three of them after they left Detmold and came to Berlin. The occasion was a Shabat (Friday night) dinner at an Orthodox Chabad meeting place. Orit called Joshua “Yehoshua” and said “he had hurt his knee a few weeks earlier but decided he must travel to Germany to seek justice.”

Justice?! For whom? More justice for Jews is all he can mean. She wrote:

He had prepared his words, how he had lugged dead bodies out of Auschwitz gas chambers, pulling them apart as they stuck together during their murder. He was 15 at the time, and volunteering for such gruesome work helped keep him alive.

I get the feeling she read this in the news accounts of the trial, don’t you? Maybe she then asked him about it because she quoted Kaufman as saying:

“It was a way for me to stay alive and to see what was going on around the camp,” Yehoshua related at the Chabad table.

How casually stated! He volunteered to assist in the gassing and cremating of fellow Hungarian Jews in order to stay alive himself! Since he has also said he was sent out to work from Auschwitz, that is not what kept him alive. Big Lie. Another reason was to see what was going on around the camp? Like a tourist? Or a detective? How superficial and unfeeling is this statement. Note he doesn’t say which gas chamber or crematorium he worked in, as if there were only one. Funny no one asked him. But then Orit tells us:

But he seemed more interested in discussing other subjects, like why I wasn’t married. […] He enthused how pleased he was to see me, and how glad they decided to go to Chabad in the end, despite physical and emotional exhaustion from long train rides and legal roller coasters. He looked proudly around the room of Jews singing Shabbat hymns.

So he wants to change the subject, does he? He’s not interested in going into any detail about his stories. This, I think, is the most important sentence I’ve come across, that he didn’t want to discuss it further. He had his “prepared words” and that’s all he had.

After berating Reinhold Hanning for not confessing to what he did not do and did not know, but remaining silent, Joshua Kaufman reveals himself as the most silent of all when it comes to what he doesn’t know and did not do. The Media also remains silent in the face of obvious and important contradictions and impossible claims. Both Kaufman and the Media are engaging in a hypocrisy so entrenched the public barely notices it. But I notice it and I want to know:

How does Kaufman explain his number 109023? Where is his tattoo? I am demanding answers from him. Why don’t you join me.

Martin Gray: Another Polish Jew surlievor* who wanted his people to be seen as heroic

Friday, May 13th, 2016

Martin Gray in his old age. Throughout his life as an entrepreneur, he wrote a number of books, but his most famous one was written by someone else.

Martin Gray in his old age. Throughout his life as an entrepreneur he wrote a number of books, but his most famous one was written by someone else.

BY CAROLYN YEAGER

When I myself told Gray, the “author”, that he had manifestly never been to, nor escaped from Treblinka, he finally asked, despairingly: “But does it matter?” Wasn’t the only thing that Treblinka did happen, that it be written about, and that some Jews should be shown to have been heroic? -Gitta Sereny, holocaust historian

The French writer Martin Gray, known for his autobiographical book For those I loved, was found dead in the pool of his house in Ciney, Belgium on 25 April 2016 at the age of 93.

So read the newspaper report when his death was announced. But French? Martin Gray was born Mieczysław Grajewski on the 27th of April, 1922 in Warsaw, which made him 17-years old when the Germans and Russians invaded Poland in 1939. Yet in his “autobiographical” book he is only 14 years of age in that year.

September 1939: the month of my real birth. I know almost nothing of the previous fourteen years. [page 3]

Lowering your age is in the tradition of holocaust surliever stories. Elie Wiesel removed a year from his real-life age in his “autobiographical” Night. He took 3 years off his younger sister’s age—she went from ten to seven. Paul Argeiwicz, whom I recently wrote about, reduced his age by five years, from 16 to eleven. It goes in the other direction too. There is a holocaust surlievor in the news recently who claims to be 112 years old. He lives in Israel. I don’t believe for a minute he is that old; he doesn’t look it but gives credit to a “positive attitude.” More likely, he got different papers after the war. There is also a female surlievor who claims she is 97, but looks more like 79. (More pictures here.) They all have some purpose in fiddling with their age – in the case of Grajewski  I think it’s first because the younger he is, the more impressive are his amazing accomplishments. But also because he is portrayed as youthfully ignorant of all that preceded September 1939; all he knows is that their peaceful life suddenly ends, destroyed by the invading German neighbor who unaccountably hates them.

The story he tells is like a child’s fairy tale, with clear-cut good and evil figures, victims and perpetrators. The Germans are the bad guys, of course, the Poles are victims who are turned nasty by the Germans, and only the Jews are authentic good guys. The Jews in Poland do what they have to do to survive the evil of others.

In the story, his father is brave, strong, with admirable character.

To me, my father—tall, straight-backed, and so firm of hand—seemed as if he were himself the origin of the world.

His mother is loyal and loving.

We’d come home, my father would open the door. I can still recall the sweet fragrance. My two younger brothers [and] my mother would be there and the table was set for supper.

They owned a glove manufacturing business. They were prosperous, life was good. Then, as if out of the blue, disaster struck. There is no mention of Polish intransigence born of the British and French promise to defend Poland in just such an eventuality. No mention of the secret US diplomatic correspondence urging the Poles not to cooperate with Germany – diplomacy that went on for months while Poland grew increasingly belligerent toward the German proposals. No, this is a story only about the personal bravery of a young Jew… set among the familiar myths of the Polish Resistance and the role of Jews in it.

He peppers his narrative of life in Warsaw after Poland surrendered with the obligatory incidents of German “soldiers” ridiculing Jews for sport, pulling at their beards, shooting them at will — things that did not happen in the disciplined ranks of either the Wehrmacht or of the police. The type of incidents described are solely meant to portray “the ugly Nazi” in contrast to the more civilized Jews, and to evoke as much sympathy as possible for their plight.

martin gray_order of red star

Young NKVD Captain Mieczysław Grajewski  wearing his Soviet decorations, including the Order of the Red Star.

We don’t hear about the treatment of Poles by the Soviet invaders from the East – like the Katyn massacre and mass burial in pits of many thousands of Polish officers and intellectuals. No, because the Soviets were protective of the Jews while deadly toward the Catholic Poles, and Grajewski and his family were Jewish. Grajewski eventually joined the Soviet NKVD and whitewashes this decision in his story as being the lesser evil, and because he wanted “revenge against the Nazis.” William Forstchen in his forward to the 2006 edition put it this way:

Toward the end of the war, he was recruited by the Soviet N.K.V.D. And served as an officer. Gray says in his defense that his sole mission was to hunt down those who inflicted the Holocaust, and he deserted when he realized they were the mirror image of the other side.

I can imagine he inflicted plenty of damage of his own on defenseless Poles and Germans in enacting his revenge. According to Wikipedia, his job was to  break up the Polish anti-communist underground in the area of Zambrów. Today, on Gray’s Facebook page, you can read:

At 17, Martin is the head of the biggest smuggling organisation of the Warsaw ghetto. He is eventually caught by the Germans and recruited as a Sonderkommando in the infamous Treblinka death camp. All of his family is exterminated there. He manages the impossible feat of escape and participates in the uprising of the Warsaw Ghetto where his father is killed before his eyes.
Consumed with revenge he joins the Soviet Army and becomes the youngest captain at 24.

Let’s understand the Warsaw ghetto was established in October and November, 1940, when Grajewski was 18 1/2 years old, so his claim to be a mere 17 in the ghetto is false. Plus, if he emigrated to the US in 1946, at the age of 24, he could not have first become an NKVD captain in that same year.

The same with his claims about being a Sonderkommando at Treblinka and escaping from there, not just once but many times … and after his final, successful escape to return to the Warsaw Ghetto to participate in the uprising before he becomes a captain in the Soviet Army. Whew! What a hero! According to several holocaust historians, the Treblinka part especially is not true.

But this doesn’t slow down the continuing advancement of his brand. The Facebook page tells us about a new documentary in the works based on the biography that it says has had 30 million readers! It’s titled A MAN. Naturally, his “amazing” life has already been put on film: For Those I Loved  (screenplay by Max Gallo), starring Michael York and Brigitte Fossey. It was also broadcast as a mini-series during the 1980’s in Europe. A second, shorter film was made by Frits Vrij : Seeking Martin Gray.

Max Gallo wrote the book that Gray says he never read!

The original cover, issued in 1971.

The original book cover, issued in 1971. Gallo was prominently given credit then, but in more recent times his name is no longer featured.

But before I go any farther, you need to know that Grajewski didn’t even write his own fabulous story. The author is Max Gallo, a French politician/historian who was a Communist until 1956; later he switched to the Socialist party. It seems it was Gallo’s idea to write the book but he didn’t begin until after Grajewski had emigrated to the U.S , made a fortune in the 1950’s producing fake antiques in New York City, then moved to France with a wife and child in 1960.

The great tragedy of Gray’s life is not found in the stories of his experience in the Warsaw ghetto and the Treblinka “death camp”, but in the death of his wife and four children in a 1970 house fire that took their lives but which he survived. That was harsh reality, while the Warsaw-Treblinka stories are fiction. It was after the loss of his family that he came out with the holocaust tales, very likely at the suggestion of his friend (or acquaintance?), Max Gallo.

In the 1971 original edition of “For those I loved,” a forward written by his neighbor and friend in France, David Douglas Duncan sheds some light:

“Martin Gray never talked about himself—not before the fire. Never a word revealing where he came from or about his family, or how he lost one eye. For some reason—perhaps it was his accent—I always assumed he’d been born in Russia. But then there were references to Berlin and counterespionage and the American army, and that small-boy grin when he confessed to mass-producing haute époque chandeliers in the basement of his Third Avenue antique shop; chandeliers designed by his luminously beautiful Dutch wife, Dina, who rode herd on the taciturn little Puerto Rican in the basement.”

This does more than suggest that Gray’s holocaust story came late, and was done with the same mentality that dreamed up the fake antiques business.  It was Gallo, who was also the ghostwriter for Papillon, the “autobiography” of French convict Henri Charriere which was made into a blockbuster 1973 movie, who  brought his exceptional writing skill to Gray’s story, and intended a similar success.

Max Gallo, the ghostwriter of "For those I loved," the story of Martin Gray.

Max Gallo, the ghostwriter of “For those I loved,” the story of Martin Gray.

After Gray and his wife moved to the French Rivera with their one child in 1960, then had three more children — living an idyllic life in a large 300-year old farmhouse  near the town of Tanneron — the tragic fire swept it all away in 1970. In the very next year, Gallo’s book was released, with the English translation coming out in 1972. Very fast work by M. Gallo … which is hard to fathom considering Gray’s intense personal pain at the time … but it was very possibly therapeutic.

In their book Treblinka, C. Mattogno and J. Graf point out that in an introduction to the 1971 For Those I loved (which does not appear in the 2006 version), “co-religionist” Gallo describes his writing process thusly:

“We saw each other every day for months. […] I questioned him; I made tape recordings; I observed him; I verified things; I listened to his voice and to his silences. I discovered the modesty of this man and his indomitable determination. I measured in his flesh the savagery and barbarism of the century that had produced Treblinka. […] I rewrote, confronted the facts, sketched in the background, attempted to re-create the atmosphere.”

From this it is clear Gallo is the author, sounding very much like Elie Wiesel when he talks about listening to the silence. And, like Wiesel and Buchenwald, we do know that Gallo totally invented the portion of Gray’s story dealing with Treblinka because industry-respected holocaust writer Gitty Sereny wrote the following about Gallo in her 1979  essay, “The men who whitewash Hitler”:

During [my] research for a Sunday Times inquiry into Gray’s work, M. Gallo informed me cooly that he ‘needed’ a long chapter on Treblinka because the book required something strong for pulling in readers.

If that’s not enough, she also wrote:

When I myself told Gray, the “author”, that he had manifestly never been to, nor escaped from Treblinka, he finally asked, despairingly: “But does it matter?” Wasn’t the only thing that Treblinka did happen, that it be written about, and that some Jews should be shown to have been heroic?

Sereny is concerned about Jewish lies “helping the revisionists.” She admits that “there have been books and films which were only party true, or even were partly faked. And unfortunately, even reputable historians often fail in their duty of care.” (She brings up Martin Gilbert as an example.) She continues, “But untruth always matters […] Every falsification, every error, every slick re-write job is an advantage to the neo-Nazis.”

At the end of the article, she declares, “One other thing assists the revisionists: many Jews, including survivors from the Warsaw Ghetto and Treblinka, are unwilling to bear witness and expose people like Gray for what they are.” What Sereny fails to say is that this is because liars don’t expose liars. Every surlievor account of Treblinka is false, as are most accounts of the Warsaw Ghetto. Sereny wants to believe it all happened as stated in the official narrative, but she is enough of a scholar to be embarrassed and angry by fakery that can be exploited by revisionists. So in 1979 she wrote the above-mentioned article in the very pro-Holocaust New Statesman. I want to mention that Dr. Robert Faurisson wrote a letter to the New Statesman commenting on this very article, which you can read here.

Gitta Sereny is not alone in denouncing Martin Gray as a fraud

Sereny, who is Jewish through her mother, has called “For those I loved” a fraudulent book. She is not the only Jew who has done so.

Graf and Mattogno tell us:

Even anti-revisionist authors like the French Jew Eric Conan, who speaks of a work “well-known to all historians of this epoch as fraudulent,” [L’Express, February 27, 1997] have castigated M. Gray ‘s hackwork as a blatant falsification.”

At the French web site Enquete & Debat, the holocaust-believing editors have also called Martin Gray’s book a fraud. They say that Pierre Vidal-Naquet called Gray a liar in 1983, writing in Le Monde:

“Max Gallo has rewritten a pseudo-testimony by Mr. Martin Gray that, exploiting a drama about his family, totally invented a stay in an extermination-camp in which he had never set foot.”

Jewish writer Blake Eskin wrote about Martin Gray in his very successful book about another fraudulent holocaust memoir by Binjamin Wilkomirski: A Life in Pieces. According to reviewer Allyssa A. Lapin:

He said Gray’s book first appeared in France in 1971, where it sold 250,000 copies. It was then translated into 18 languages, becoming what Eskin called “an international sensation.”

However, as Eskin reports, before the book was published in English, the London Sunday Times ran an investigative report questioning its veracity. […] none of the survivors contacted by the London Sunday Times remembered Gray. The elaborate train station he described seeing on his reputed September 1942 arrival at Treblinka was actually constructed several months afterwards. […] “It was impossible to see the things Gray said he saw in Treblinka in the autumn of 1942,” one Treblinka survivor told The Times.

[…] Although Gray threatened to sue the Times, reiterating his claim to have been in Treblinka, according to Eskin he never actually filed a complaint. Subsequently, as Eskin reported, Warsaw uprising survivors interviewed by The New Statesman similarly questioned Gray’s “recollections.”

Gray’s French publisher, Editions Robert Laffont, refused to research the allegations, and the U.S. and U.K. publishers also published their editions–and, later, in paperback, which was followed by a film. Only the German publisher halted the presses pending its own research results.

Finally, to top it off —  There is a Captain Waclaw Kopisto of the elite Polish Cichociemni unit, who took part in the raid on the German prison in Pinsk on 18 January 1943. In an interview with the Polish daily newspaper Nowiny Rzeszowskie (Rzeszów News) on 2 August 1990. he was shown the wartime photograph of Martin Gray (a.k.a. Mieczysław Grajewski) and said he had never seen Grajewski/Gray before in his life.

Yet Gray/Gallo described his participation in this raid in his autobiographical book that we’re discussing.

Kopisto stated that among the sixteen Polish soldiers in his partisan group there was in fact a Polish Jew from Warsaw by the name of Zygmunt Sulima, his own long-term friend and colleague after the war. No man like the one in the photograph of Gray ever belonged to their unit. Kopisto said:

“For the first time in my life I saw Martin Gray in a 1945 photo, which was published in March 1990 in Przekrój magazine (…) There were only sixteen of us participating in the 1943 Pińsk raid, and he was not among us.” [“Kim jest Martin Gray?” (Who is Martin Gray) Nowiny Rzeszowskie (The Rzeszów News daily), Nr 163, 1990]

It should be plainly obvious why it is that all holocaust surlievor books are considered “stories,” or even “memoirs,” but not history. For the publisher, their accuracy is the responsibility of the author; they don’t accept it as their own. It is only when one of these stories is exposed by someone with enough clout and credibility to get major publicity will the publisher take action and rescind the contract with the author. (As with Herman Rosenblat, another Polish Jew who was exposed by then-big-gun Prof. Kenneth Waltzer.) For the most part, in Holocaust literature anything goes. Only a few holocaust  historians will ever speak up against fraudulent stories. Gitta Sereny is one. She has written about Jean Francois Steiner’s book Treblinka:

Steiner’s book on the surface even seems right: he is a man of talent and conviction, and it is hard to know how he could go so wrong. But what he finally produced was a hodgepodge of truth and falsehood, libelling both the dead and the living. The original French book had to be withdrawn and re-issued with all names changed. But it retained its format of imagined conversations and reactions – ie pure fictionincredibly remaining, nonetheless, in serious bibliographies.

Sereny, however, also looks past a lot of nonsense in order to hold to the official holocaust story line. For example, she herself changes the name of Aktion Reinhardt (which is the spelling the Germans always used) to Aktion Reinhard so she can claim it was named after Reinhard Heydrich — an absurd idea. But on some things she draws the line if she fears, as I’ve pointed out, that their lies are so obvious, and they are so popular, that they will help revisionists tear down the holocaust edifice. For her, Martin Gray is one of those, and I can only agree with her.

*Note: Surlievor = survivor who lies about what he/she survived.

Wiesel archivist finds another version of “Night” – now there are six!

Sunday, May 8th, 2016

Elie Wiesel, right, in his office at Boston University with his Israeli editor, Joel Rappel, whose interview with the famous survivor was published on January 28th in Israel's Y-Net News.

Elie Wiesel, right, in his office at Boston University with his Israeli editor and archivist, Joel Rappel, who announced the discovery of a Hebrew version of “Night” in an exclusive report to Haaretz.

BY CAROLYN YEAGER

The controversy about the origins of “Night” is given more fuel by the recent announcement of Dr. Joel Rappel that he found a 150-page, handwritten document in Hebrew in the unsorted mass of Elie Wiesel’s personal papers.

I wrote about Yoel Rappel’s relationship with Elie Wiesel two years ago. Wiesel selected this Israeli journalist, editor and media expert he has known for decades to have control over how his writings and life story will be presented to the public – meaning what will be presented and what withheld. While Boston University is going to house the Wiesel Archive, it is not in control of it. Wiesel brought Dr. Rappel to Boston, put him on the payroll as “visiting scholar”, then put him in in charge of the Wiesel archive project.

I will go into some detail about this “newly discovered document” but first I want to list the six (oh, that number always comes up, doesn’t it?) versions of Night. They are:

1) 1954 – The original Yiddish manuscript, 862 typed pages, (No one has ever seen this, but more on that later)

2) 1955 – The edited and published Yiddish Un di velt hot geshvign – 245 book pages in Hebrew characters, not our alphabet

3) 1958 – La Nuit, original French – about 120 pages

4) 1960 – Night in English, Stella Rodway translation from French – 107 pages

5) 2006 – Night in English, Marion Wiesel new translation with numerous changes – 112 pages

6) late 1950’s, discovered in 2016 – Night in Hebrew, handwritten by Elie Wiesel – 150 pages (unfinished? – no one has seen this one either)

Which one have you read? They are all different, except for numbers 3 and 4 which are identical in content; thus it’s actually more accurate to say there are five versions, but I’m sticking with six. This latest discovery (#6) seems closest to number two in content, and, in fact, the content is not new  if you are familiar with the non-fictional books Wiesel has published over the years, in which all these ideas have been expressed. The Haaretz report written by Ofer Aderet contains the following quotes from the “Hebrew Night”, probably given to him by Rappel. These are passages you won’t find in your conventional Night (#3,4 and 5).

“We believed in miracles and in God! And not in fate … and we [fared] very badly not believing in fate. If we had, we could have prevented many catastrophes. There is no longer a god in the heavens; he whispered with every step we put on the ground. There is no longer God in heaven, and there is no longer man on the earth below. The universe is divided in two: angels of death and the dead.”

And

“I stopped praying and didn’t speak about God. I was angry at him. I told myself, ‘He does not deserve us praying to him.’ And, really, does he hear prayers? … Why sanctify him? For what? For the suffering he rains on our heads? For Auschwitz and Birkenau? … This time we will not stand as the accused in court before the divine judge. This time we are the judges and he the accused. We are ready. There are a huge number of documents in our indictment file. They are living documents that will shake the foundations of justice.”

Also

“Eternal optimists … it would not be an exaggeration on my part if I were to say that they greatly helped the genocidal nation [Germany -cy] to prepare the psychological background for the disaster. In fact, the professional optimists [among the Jews -cy] meant to make the present easier, but in doing so they buried the future. It is almost certain that if we had known only a little of the truth – dozens of Jews or more would have successfully fled. We would have broken the sword of fate. We would have burned the murderers’ altar. We would have fled and hidden in the mountains with farmers.”

This is so disingenuous because Wiesel writes on many occasions that warnings were received but not believed, even by his own father (who was an optimist) because the Jews didn’t want to take action that would discomfort themselves. His own family, he has written, refused help from Christians who wanted to hide them. They did know about the deportations, but they hoped it would pass them by or the Russians would get there first.

“We didn’t know a thing [in Europe], while they knew in the Land of Israel, and they knew in London, and they knew in New York. The world was silent and the Jewish world was silent. Why silent? Why did it not find it vital to inform us of what was going on in Germany? Why did they not warn us? Why? I also accuse the Jewish world and its leaders for not warning us, at least about the danger awaiting us in ambush so that we’d seek rescue routes.”

This paragraph is especially full of lies, and the biggest lie of all is that there was an extermination waiting for Jews. It was not true, no one believed that or feared that, they knew everything anyone else knew. They didn’t know about “gas chambers” because there weren’t any. Wiesel is just looking for someone to blame after the fact. The same is true of the following paragraphs, although his seething hatred can’t be disguised any longer:

“All the residents stood at the entrances of their homes, with faces filled with happiness at the misfortune they saw in their friends of yesterday walking and disappearing into the horizon – not for a day or two, but forever. Here I learned the true face of the Hungarian. It is the brutal face of an animal. I wouldn’t be exaggerating if I were to say the Hungarians were more violent toward us than the Germans themselves. The Germans tended to shoot Jews.” [They never shot him or any of his friends or family, did they? -cy]

“At the end of the war, I refused to return to my hometown because I didn’t want to see any more the faces they revealed behind their disguises on that day of expulsion. However, from one perspective, I am sorry I didn’t return home, at least for a few days, in order to take revenge – to avenge the experts of hypocrisy, the inhabitants of my town. Then it would have been possible to take revenge!

One last passage included in the Haaretz report is one that is not new; it has received a lot of attention in recent years, even by Wiesel himself. However, the wording here is not the same as in the Yiddish text; Wiesel wrote it differently each time, trying to better express it so his orthodox Jews don’t come off looking bad. Of the trip by rail to Auschwitz, Rappel says, Wiesel wrote in detail in the archived text:

“Under the cover of night, there were some young boys and girls who had sexual intercourse. The initial impact of the disaster was sexual. The tension of the final days sparked the desires that now sought release. And the heat also added its own touch, so that the sexual scenes did not provoke protest in the carriage. Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die.”

This is a different Wiesel than the author of La Nuit, which was more the product of Francois Mauriac and the publisher Jerome Lindon. La Nuit was written for the goyim, the Christian West, but it doesn’t say everything Wiesel had originally said to his fellow Jews. Later, he put much of it in other books, essays and interviews, and now it’s coming to us in this “new, expanded version of Night.” Why now? Well, Wiesel will be 88-years old on September 30th and is apparently not in the best of health, so people like Dr. Rappel are getting his legacy in order.

Night is a flexible tale that Wiesel adds to and subtracts from at will

Even Rappel is left to speculate as to why Wiesel decided not to publish this work in Hebrew for Israeli readers, but instead shelved it and agreed to a translation by Haim Gouri of the French La Nuit into Hebrew. Rappel says. “I wondered if someone wanted to make it disappear and get rid of it.”

“This is the version of ‘Night’ that Wiesel wanted the Israeli reader to see. He didn’t write it for anyone else. Therefore, it was so important. Wiesel knew that many Holocaust survivors from Auschwitz and Buchenwald, as well as many Jews living in Israel, would read this version, and so he put more emphasis on the Jewish aspect.”

If that’s true, why did Wiesel store it away, deep in his mass of papers? “He knew that, someday, someone would find this manuscript and leave it for the following generations,” believes Rappel.

This last sentence gives away the nonsensical nature of this whole “discovery” of a lost manuscript. If Wiesel wanted survivors to read it, he wouldn’t at the same time hide it from them, allowing only future generations to read it. Seems to me he decided not to compete with his already published version, maybe at the request of his French publisher. At the time he was supposedly writing it – the late 50’s – the English language Night had not yet been published. But Wiesel is perhaps not satisfied with what is left of his “epic” in La Nuit and begins preparing a Hebrew version that reinstates some of his original. What is described here by Rappel as a “hugely different” version of Night is very similar, in fact, to the 245-page Yiddish Un di velt hot geshvign (And the world remained silent) which Wiesel says he wrote in April 1954 on a ship heading for Brazil. [All Rivers Run to the Sea: Memoirs (New York, 1995), pp. 239-40] It appears he was mining  that book – returning to what he originally wrote and was  published by Mark Turkov as part of the 176-volume Polish Jewry Memoirs Series [Dos poylishe yidntum].

I have always suspected that Wiesel knew about Turkov’s publishing operation in advance of his trip to Brazil since he had close relatives in Buenos Aires who would have informed him about it. He could have used the trip to Brazil to take his manuscript to Turkov in Argentina. The scenario could go like this: Wiesel had been working on his grand “testimony” for several years already and had completed it. On the boat to Brazil, he worked on finishing touches. That was in April 1954. One year later, in May 1955, he meets Francois Mauriac, who urges him to write about his concentration camp experience. Without telling Mauriac he has already done so, he keeps up his friendship with the famous Catholic writer and when the published Un di velt hot geshvign arrives in December 1955, he translates it into French and shows that to Mauriac. Or … another possibility. Did Wiesel not give his “only copy” to Turkov because all along he had  a copy at home in Paris? This makes more sense because it is impossible to credit any sane person giving their only copy of a precious manuscript to a stranger in a foreign land, even if he were a publisher. This question has now been answered for me, since it’s come to my attention that in a 1978 interview with John S. Friedman, published in The Paris Review 26 (Spring 1984), Wiesel said he still had the original manuscript:

INTERVIEWER

Have you destroyed the original nine hundred pages of Night?

WIESEL

No, I have them. Others I destroy; Night is not a novel, it’s an autobiography. It’s a memoir. It’s testimony. Therefore I believe it should be kept and one day I may publish it because I have no right not to. It’s not mine. [“it” refers to the ‘original 900 pages’ he believes should be kept -cy]

Contradicting this in his 1995 memoir, he wrote:

In December [1955] I received from Buenos Aires the first copy of my Yiddish testimony “And the World Stayed Silent,” which I had finished on the boat to Brazil. The singer Yehudit Moretzka and her editor friend Mark Turkov had kept their word—except that they never did send back the manuscript. Israel Adler invited me to celebrate the event with a café-crème at the corner bistro. [ All Rivers Run to the Sea, p. 277]

Of course, if Wiesel had one at home, they wouldn’t need to send it back to him. Except … on page 241 he had also written: “It was my only copy, but Turkov assured me it would be safe with him.” So which is right? Rappel quotes from Wiesel’s memoir several times, thus I believe he would think it necessary to go with the memoir over the interview. However, it’s a major contradiction and I wonder if he would be willing to attempt an answer to it.

So right now the burning question is: Will Dr. Joel Rappel find the original typewritten 862-page manuscript in Elie Wiesel’s 330 boxes of material, as he found the 150-page handwritten Hebrew Night? It should be there since Wiesel told Friedman he kept it. Or did he destroy it between 1978 and 1995 because he no longer believed it should be kept? Or is Rappel keeping it hidden for reasons of his own, perhaps because of the many contradictions that undermine the integrity of Wiesel’s memoir? The only thing we know for certain is that we’re dealing with dishonest people so we can’t expect we’ll ever really know. Most ‘holocaust survivors’ wait for all witnesses to die before they tell their story and Wiesel is no exception.

This is my first question, but there are others, such as: since Un di velt hot geshvign is a published book, those who know Yiddish can easily read it, why therefore does Rappel ignore it?  I have included portions of it translated to French and English here at Elie Wiesel Cons The World. Naomi Siedman, a professor of Jewish studies, has written a well-known article quoting from it, as have others. Yet Rappel speaks of these passages as if they were previously unknown. Well, to the general public, they are.

The archived version of “Night” is hugely different to the published one. It contains entire sections that don’t appear in the finished book, as well as different versions of pieces that were included.

True enough, but is Rappel not familiar with the Yiddish book that Wiesel claims to have written or does he want to discourage attention to it?

Siedman also noted significant differences in the ways each book reveals Wiesel’s writing process: In the Yiddish memoir (#2), he starts to write immediately after liberation, while the French text (#3) says he started writing only after a 10-year vow of silence. I have discussed Siedman’s commentary here.

 Night: Clearly a work of fiction

An article in the Jewish Journal from 2013 gives an interesting insight into Wiesel’s insistence that his book Night is in no way fiction.

‘Holocaust scholar’ Michael Berenbaum has known Wiesel well for 35 years. Berenbaum wrote his doctoral dissertation in the 1970s about Wiesel’s work and later worked with Wiesel on the council that created the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C., in the 1980s. He declared that “Wiesel’s moral power base is directly related to the moral stature that has been accorded to the Holocaust.” (That is, without the public’s belief in the ‘Holocaust’, Wiesel is nothing.) Berenbaum volunteered to Jonah Lowenfeld:

“If you want to get Wiesel angry, all you have to do is call ‘Night’ a novel instead of a memoir.”

In that same article, Gary Weissman, an assistant professor of English at the University of Cincinnati, said he finds Wiesel’s celebrity a distraction.

“I have found that Wiesel tends to be ‘celebrated’ rather than questioned in any probing way. Many are investing in treating — and experiencing! — Wiesel as a holy figure, rather than as a complex and real human being.”

How very true. And it’s guaranteed to get worse, what with his ever-advancing age. I don’t have a clue what could put the genie back in the bottle when it comes to the over-inflated reputation of this man, other than taking the  media out of the hands of Jewish monopolies.

This website makes use of some non-original copyrighted material. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information Click Here