Posted on May 10, 2012 at 9:35 am

Elie Wiesel Knows Soviet “Liberators” Destroyed the Birkenau Crematoriums

By Carolyn Yeager
copyright 2012 carolyn yeager

The official Holocaust narrative versus Elie Wiesel on what is Auschwitz Liberation Day

The official Holocaust narrative has it that the Red Army did not arrive at the Auschwitz labor camps until January 27th, 1945—where they found some of the barracks burning, and also blown-up crematorium buildings which had housed “gas chambers.” This is the date that is commemorated all over the world as the Liberation of Auschwitz.

However, on page 87 of the novel Night it is stated that the Russians “liberated” the inmates who were left behind at Monowitz (Auschwitz III) on January 20th, two days after the bulk of the prisoners left on the one-day forced march to Gleiwitz, from where they were put on a train to Buchenwald.


The photograph at right is a still photo from a Soviet propaganda film about the Auschwitz liberation.  The clothing warehouses, known as “Canada,” are burning. But who set them on fire?   [Author’s note: In January 2014, I wrote in an article published here:  The photograph at right, a still from a Soviet propaganda film about the Auschwitz “liberation,” had been thought to be of the clothing warehouses burning. But new research suggests it is more likely regular barracks, probably in Compound B1. If this is true, it makes little difference when the picture was taken, as it was certainly after the Russians arrived.]


I included this detail in Night #1 and Night #2, Part Two under the heading “A record of fact it isn’t.” For the first time I’ve seen anywhere, I pointed out this sentence from Elie Wiesel’s book Night:

 A strange detail … is on page 87 of the original Night. Eliezer remarks, after his and his Father’s deliberations and final decision to go on the march: “I learned after the war the fate of those who had stayed behind in the hospital. They were quite simply liberated by the Russians two days after the evacuation.” The evacuation, as we all know, was on the 18th. We also know the Russians did not arrive on the 20th of January! The actual liberation day is January 27. What possessed Wiesel to write this? Well, because it was in Un di velt:Two days after we had left Buna, the Red Army occupied the camp. All the sick had stayed alive.”

It’s important to keep in mind that the Jan. 20th liberation originally appeared in Un di velt hot geshvign, the Yiddish book published in 1955 from which La Nuit was born in 1958 (with the English version Night following in 1960). Whether or not Elie Wiesel is the author of the Yiddish book, there is no doubt that he wrote La Nuit directly from it. So he either wrote that sentence in Un di velt or he copied it from Un di velt for La Nuit. In any event, he has never rejected that sentence as a mistake, nor was it changed in Marion Wiesel’s 2006 translation … perhaps because it appears in the Yiddish Un di velt.

What is the official narrative and what is its source?

There is no easily determined source for the narrative. It consists of the story that the Germans returned to Birkenau on Jan. 20th to blow up Crematorium II and III in order to destroy the evidence of the “gas chambers.”

According to web-based Holocaust Research Project:

On 20 January 1945 an SS division under SS–Corporal Perschel destroys Crematorium II and III and abandons the camp. On 26 January an SS squad blows up Crematorium V, the last of the crematoriums in Birkenau.

An entire division was required to explode two measly crematorium buildings?! I guess what they’re trying to say is that an SS team returned to Birkenau, after the bulk of the prisoners had been evacuated and before the Russians first arrived, to destroy the “evidence.” In other words, they didn’t plan well enough to do it ahead of time so had to sneak back after they had already abandoned the camp. But wouldn’t the ex-prisoners who remained in the hospital buildings that were very close to Crema II and III have heard and seen the explosions? Yes, of course they would, although we don’t have any statements of hospital patients about a demolition in the camp on January 20th.

On Nizkor we find this timetable (source unknown):

“January 20 [1945] … The SS division under Corporal Perschel blows up the already partly demolished Crematoriums II and III and abandons the camp.”

“January 23 [1945] … An SS division arrives in the prisoner’s infirmary camp in B-IIf in the afternoon…they set 30 storeroom barracks [the “warehouses”-cy] in the personal effects camp on fire…. These barracks burn for several days. After the liberation, 1,185,345 pieces of women’s and men’s outerwear, 43,255 pairs of shoes, 13,694 carpets, and a large number of toothbrushes, shaving brushes, and other items such as protheses, glasses, etc., among other things are found in the six remaining partially burned barracks.” [Note: The warehouse barracks were right behind the hospital barracks, where most of the remaining prisoners were staying.]

“January 26 [1945] … At 1:00 A.M. the SS squad with the task of eliminating the traces of SS crimes blows up Crematorium V, the last of the crematoriums in Birkenau.”

“January 27 [1945] …The first Red Army reconnaissance troops arrive in Birkenau and Auschwitz at around 3:00 P.M. and are joyfully greeted by the liberated prisoners….

[Note: If the clothing warehouses were set on fire on Jan. 23, would they still be burning on Jan. 28, 29, 30… however long it took the Soviet movie makers to get there?-cy]

Above: Underneath the roof of the dynamited Crema II in 2005.  Below: Ruins of Crema III taken at the same time (Photos courtesy of

In Danuta Czech’s Calendarium [Auschwitz Chronicle 1939-1945, Henry Holt, 1990, 855 pp], probably the source of the above, Czech has the final destruction of Cremas II and III taking place on January 20, 1945. Her basis for that are two “eyewitnesses”—female prisoners Anna Kowalczyk and Maria Matlak—who had remained behind and who said that they “saw” the SS in the camp on that day, and from them came the name of SS-Unterscharführer Perschel, who had been “capo of the Work Service in the women’s camp”, so they knew him. These two women said that after ordering 200 women outside the camp gates to be shot (!), Perschel selects a group of male prisoners from the infirmary (!) to carry boxes of dynamite to Cremas II and III. This is the entire basis for Czech’s claim that the SS returned on Jan. 20th and blew up the Cremas! This is what the Holocaust Industry passes off as proof.

The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum uses Czech’s timeline, but leaves out the Jan. 20-26 demolition dates.

USHMM’s Chronology of the Holocaust

JANUARY 17, 1945

As Soviet troops approached, SS units evacuated prisoners in the Auschwitz camp complex, marching them on foot toward the interior of the German Reich. The forced evacuations came to be called “death marches.”

JANUARY 27, 1945

Soviet troops liberated about 8,000 prisoners left behind at the Auschwitz camp complex.

I did not find anything on the Auschwitz-Birkenau website either. So one thing is clear: these dates about the SS divisions returning to blow up and burn down “evidence” are not sourced in documents. No order has been produced, and there would have to be an order. The SS troops couldn’t  just do whatever they decided on their own. The witness statements are of dubious value, to say the least. Thus, there is no reason to believe the “Germans-blew-up-the-Cremas-to-hide-evidence-of-crimes” story, except that it became part of the official narrative that was constructed at Nuremberg. It is held .. it is believed … it is thought … but it is not proved.

What does a January 20th liberation mean?

A January 20th liberation by the Soviets means the Germans could not have returned to blow up the crematorium buildings, nor could they have burned down the clothing warehouses. It means that only the Soviets could have done it—because only the Soviets had the opportunity to do it.

Would they do such a thing if they really held “evidence of German crimes” in their hands … in the form of real gas chambers? Certainly not. It was because there was no evidence of German crimes in those buildings. It was to cover up the lack of German crimes that they would destroy the buildings. They reasoned (in their sly, dishonest minds) that the best course would be to invent German crimes, which they had already been doing since 1941 (and the Polish Resistance had been spreading gassing rumors since 1942), and to simply add the destruction of the buildings by the SS to their list of “German crimes.”

I came across an exchange between two revisionists that took place in 2005. It went like this:

 1st revisionist: For me, it seems more plausible that the Soviets (or some other party) destroyed the crematoriums after the war to support their alleged story of genocide. Then they were able to spread this story: “Why would the SS have destroyed the cremas, if not to cover for mass homicide.”

2nd revisionist: I agree with you totally. I also believe the Russians blew them up to destroy the solid evidence that would contradict the lies they were cooking up and about to release on the world.

From the time the Red Army arrived, Soviet Intelligence was in total control. None of the other Allies were allowed to enter this region. In 1947, the Soviets rebuilt the crematorium in Auschwitz I to make it appear that it was used as a gas chamber. Even so, it is not a convincing job. In Birkenau, it was easier to destroy the crematoriums and tamper with them (such as breaking holes into the collapsed roof to match the absurd story of Zyklon B thrown into the chamber through the holes in the roof.) About these chiseled-out holes, court-certified expert engineer Walter Luftl, as quoted by Germar Rudolf in his book Lectures on the Holocaust (Theses and Dissertations Press, 2005), p 246, said:

In the cellars of Crematories II and III, the entire force of explosion was forced upward, causing heavy damage to the roofs. The hole under consideration is characterized by the fact that all the cracks and breaks of the slab are found around it, but do not go through it! According to the rules of construction technology this fact alone proves with scientific certainty that it was made after the roof had been destroyed.

Photo documentation and literature of what the Russians found is scarce.

Why is it that the earliest photo that exists of the destroyed Crema II is this one from February 1945? Why is there no photograph from the time the Russians arrived in January, since such a picture would have much greater propaganda value? To properly document such an important discovery—that the Germans had blown up evidence of crimes as they retreated—many photographs would need to be taken. What happened? Did they run out of film?

As Tom Moran noted on the Nizkor page linked to above:  “It is written the Soviets installed an “Extraordinary Commission” the very day of liberation of the camp and yet no photos are presented on the Holocaust promotional circuit of these buildings, or what was left, lest of course the one and only photograph of Crema II which is nothing more than a collapsed slab of concrete.”

In Photographing the Holocaust: Interpretations of the Evidence (Tauris & Company, London, in association with The European Jewish Publication Society, 2004) on page 143, author Janina Struk writes:

On 28 January, 1945, the day after the camp was liberated by the Red Army, Adolf Forbert was one of the first Polish soldiers to arrive. He described his first impression of Auschwitz as being as “macabre” as Majdanek but on a larger scale.

Forbert stayed to film everything he could, but with only 300 meters of film, a camera of the Bell and Howell type manufactured by the Russians, and one Leica, the possibilities were limited.

He said there were 500 sick women in the women’s hospital in Birkenau. The fate of Forbert’s film and photographs of Auschwitz is not known.

The film “Chronicles of the Liberation of Auschwitz,”  made in 1945, is attributed to four Soviet army filmmakers. The majority of the now well-known stills of the liberation are taken from this film.

Soon after liberation, other photographers began to arrive to take photos for the special investigative commissions established to collect evidence of Nazi crimes.

(Barbie) Zelizer [author of books on the Holocaust and Media -cy] states there was an inconsistency in the way the Soviets reported the liberation of the camps in Eastern Europe generally. Not only did they not publicize the liberation of Auschwitz until after the liberation of the western camps, but they didn’t issue press releases about the extermination camps at Belzec, Sorbibor and Treblinka.

Although their [Red Army] advances through Silesia were reported in detail, there were only two brief mentions about the liberation of the camp. On 29 January in the Guardian, one sentence. On 3 February, the Daily Express had one column on page 4 about the liberation.

In Poland itself, few images were published of the liberation of Majdanek or Auschwitz-Birkenau.

It would be decades before images of Auschwitz would become familiar in the West.

There is almost nothing in Holocaust literature on the arrival of the Soviets to Auschwitz-Birkenau. The only documentation was put together afterward. All the photographs that are exhibited in the various memorial museums (USHMM, Yad Vashem, A-B Memorial & Museum, etc.) and in books, are “stills” from a propaganda film(s) made many weeks or months later … or they are retouched photos, photo-montages and mis-labeled photos that actually show other places and even other national-ethnic groups.

The narrative of a January 27th liberation comes unraveled when scrutinized

Why all the deception? Why all the trickery? The arrival of the Soviets on Jan. 20 instead of Jan. 27 explains it. The person who runs Scrapbookpages Blog and calls himself  “furtherglory” once wrote this to a commenter on his blog:

I have read in several books that the Soviets arrived in the area on January 17, 1945 and were in the area for 10 days before they “liberated” the prisoners on January 27, 1945. I have read at least one Holocaust survivor book which said that the warehouses were still there after the Germans left on January 18, 1945. I believe that the Soviets burned down the warehouses. With all the evidence gone, no one could dispute the Soviet testimony at the Nuremberg IMT that 4 million people had been killed at Auschwitz.

The Central Sauna building at Birkenau was kept off limits to tourists for 60 years. Why? The Sauna building was where the clothes were disinfected. Why weren’t tourists allowed to know that the Germans were trying to prevent typhus epidemics?

Also, keep in mind that the last group of Sonderkommandos were marched out of the Birkenau camp and I think a couple of them are still living. Why did the Germans allow these witnesses to live?

Cremas IV and V were also shower houses with hygiene facilities for disinfection. They were close to The Central Sauna and served the same purpose although on a  smaller scale. Consider that if the only shower facility in the entire camp was the rather modestly-sized one in The Sauna building, it would not have been at all adequate. But with “Cremas IV and V” also serving that function, they got by. Crema IV was heavily damaged in an uprising on Oct. 7, 1944. Both were ultimately totally destroyed, but the question remains—by whom?

The answer has to be by the Russians themselves. And it is Elie Wiesel who has told us. Just as with his failure to mention “gas chambers” in his book Night, Wiesel falls out of step with the official storyline at times and lets the truth slip out. Was he just saying what most people knew at the time, in spite of what was dreamed up at Nuremberg? I think so. He wrote this in 1954. Not even Elie Wiesel should confuse 9 days with 2 days when it comes to a matter of life or death.  Which brings up another question:  Is it reasonable that the prisoners left behind in an unguarded facility would just hang around for nine days waiting for the feared “Red Army” to arrive? Would they not take off once they got the chance? Elie says he was one of the  hospital patients, his father being allowed to stay with him, yet they both were capable of going on the evacuation march and keeping up with the pace. Thus,  many others lying around in the hospital surely could do the same. That is, unless the Soviet representatives surprised them by showing up already on the 20th, before they could prepare themselves to leave.

The story of the Auschwitz liberation is as cloudy as it gets. It has been told in emotion-wrenching photographs that were all staged by Soviet photographers and film makers in the following month of February and even March–every one of them–and by revengeful witnesses who were coached in what to say. As portions of the book by Janina Struk point out, time would pass before a final solution of what happened at Auschwitz could be cobbled together for public consumption  by Soviet propagandists.


20 Comments to Elie Wiesel Knows Soviet “Liberators” Destroyed the Birkenau Crematoriums

  1. by Wilfried Heink

    On May 10, 2012 at 4:58 pm

    Good work, Carolyn. I remember discussing the blowing up of the Kremas with a True Believer years ago, and he admitted that no solid evidence exists as to who blew them up. Sadly I did not keep a record of this, but you are making a good case for the Soviets doing so.

    Again, good work.



  2. by Carolyn

    On May 11, 2012 at 7:50 am

    Thanks Wilf ! It always made sense to me that the Soviets did it all, and when I connected that “mistake” in Night with it being “not a mistake,” I had to flesh it out. Rather than accepting the lame story that the Germans did it to protect themselves from “bad publicity”, Revisionists should aggressively challenge this fabricated story. It has no basis.

    I appreciate your words.


  3. by Jett Rucker

    On May 10, 2012 at 5:47 pm

    An army division is thousands of soldiers. It would be commanded by a SENIOR COMMISSIONED officer, NOT by any level of enlisted man, certainly not of so low a rank as corporal.

    The reference to “division” MAY be an imprecise translation from SOME other language and/or a text written by a person not familiar with military units. The appropriate English term would probably be “detachment” or “detail,” for which the German term is most often “Einheit.”


  4. by Carolyn

    On May 11, 2012 at 7:56 am

    Thanks. You’re right, ‘detachment’ or ‘detail’ would both be correct terms. It shows how one “truth site” takes it from another, which took it from another, without thinking about it for themselves. We don’t know who originally used the word ‘division.’


  5. by Bill

    On May 13, 2012 at 6:39 am

    I can’t believe you people are trying to say this isn’t true. You all are just too blind and too cowardly to believe this actually happened. The germans kept records of every prisoner at every camp who either died or survived. Thousands of prisoners witnessed the germans trying to cover up their atrocities. That isn’t theory it’s fact.


  6. by Carolyn

    On May 13, 2012 at 8:39 am

    Bill: As I already noted to the person calling himself Otto Grein, the only comments I get from believers are dumb ones like this. Show me the records of “every prisoner at every camp” or tell me where I can find them. Show me the “thousands of prisoners” who witnessed the Germans “trying to cover up their atrocities” or tell me where to find their testimony. If this is fact, where are the facts?

    What you and “Otto” and others reveal is that you are blindly believing in something that you will not investigate. So all you have is name-calling and vague accusations with no specifics. Notice that no better informed holocaust historians come here to present facts to disprove what I write. Why not? Because they can’t either.


  7. by Al

    On May 13, 2012 at 9:50 pm

    I can’t believe this guy hasn’t been hung drawn and quartered in the world wide media. He has committed a crime,in fact a few crimes and him being allowed to go around perpetuating this hoax/lie, not only for the financial aspect but the criminal act of furthering a historical lie is disgraceful. What has happened to our laws?


  8. by Carolyn

    On May 14, 2012 at 8:56 am

    Al: If you’re going to accuse someone of committing a crime, you have to specify what the crime is. Otherwise, you’re no different that Bill and Otto. It is not a crime in the U.S. to “further a historical lie.” In Europe, this ‘holocaust’ is the only historical event that it is an actual crime to dispute. In Europe, if you called Elie Wiesel a liar, you would be the one charged with a crime because everything to do with the “Holocaust” is protected by law … even Elie Wiesel, I suppose. Doesn’t it make sense that this is why Elie Wiesel wants the same laws enacted in the United States? Then this website and everything on it would be taken down as a criminal enterprise, and I and everyone involved would be prosecuted! We have to work very hard to not allow such a law to become an exception to our 1st Amendment freedom of speech. Elie Wiesel and most Jews don’t care about our Constitution and guaranteed freedoms; do you hear any of them speaking out against Wiesel’s call to criminalize what he calls “holocaust denial”? I don’t.

    You are right in your feeling of shock over what these people get away with, but you have to speak more specifically, and check your facts, if you want to convince others to your way of thinking. In the article you are commenting on, I pointed out that Wiesel probably told the truth about the date of the Soviet “liberation” of Auschwitz. However, he still joins in the world-wide commemoration of this “liberation” every Jan. 27, adapting himself with no problem to the establishment-approved historical lie. I would appreciate your spreading this news around in as clear and accurate manner as you can. Accuracy and clarity of thought are of utmost importance … not our emotion meeting their emotion.


  9. by Ministry of Truth

    On May 14, 2012 at 12:55 am

    Don’t miss this short tribute film honoring Elie Wiesel and his extraordinary contribution to Jewish rights worldwide.


  10. by Jett Rucker

    On May 16, 2012 at 2:45 pm

    Why is the march to Gleiwitz called a “forced march?” According to Saint Elie, only VOLUNTEERS went on this hike, which was about 31 miles in length (in January in Poland, which is ONE COLD proposition!).

    Why, indeed, WOULD ANYONE have volunteered for such a hike? Had the Germans offered (positive) inducements, like continued food? Did anyone have a FEAR of the Red Army and the “liberation” it offered?


  11. by Carolyn

    On May 17, 2012 at 7:27 am

    Jett: It was not voluntary. You are misreading Night. Hospital patients had the privilege of staying behind, and maybe there were a few other exceptions. There are always exceptions. Elie Wiesel says he was in the hospital at the time, and his father had been given permission to stay with him. Allowing a parent to stay with a child in a hospital was common practice in the camps, it seems to me. I’ve heard of it in a number of cases.

    Otherwise, everyone was expected to go. There was a rumor (always rumors!) that those who stayed behind would be shot or “bombed” after the marchers left. There was a roll call. They had advance notice and put on as much clothing as they could, wore the best shoes they could get hold of, wrapped up their stored and saved food, and so on. Some say everyone was given a blanket. Since there were blankets on the bunks, it only makes sense, and maybe they just took their blankets. Food was given out — mostly in the form of bread they could carry. Nurses were in the middle of the columns to help any who got sick. They left after it got dark, rested the following morning in some abandoned buildings for several hours (?), took off again and reached the Gleiwitz camp in the afternoon. It was a one-day affair. Not fun, but not a Death March.

    People should understand that they had to get to Gleiwitz before they could get on German trains to be taken to Buchenwald. Additional comments on this subject are welcome.


  12. by Hannover

    On May 18, 2012 at 3:23 pm

    I advise veryone to read:
    ‘The so-called “Death March” from Auschwitz’
    The fact that the march was voluntary is confirmed by Primo Levi:
    “Some of Wiesel’s exact words in “Night” are (p. 78 ):
    “The choice was in our hands. For once we could decide our fate for
    ourselves. We could both stay in the hospital, where I could, thanks to my doctor, get him [the father] entered as a patient or nurse. Or else we could follow the others. ‘Well, what shall we do, father?’ He was silent. ‘Let’s be evacuated with the others,’ I told him.”

    Elie’s tale in this regard is corroborated by other “survivor” accounts
    including that of Primo Levi. In Levi’s book “Survival in Auschwitz,” we have his words for January 17th, 1945:

    “It was not a question of reasoning: I would probably also have followed the instinct of the flock if I had not felt so weak: fear is supremely contagious, and its immediate reaction is to make one try to run away.”

    But he’s talking here about running away with the ‘Nazis’–and not ‘Nazis’
    who were mere rank and file party members but supposedly the worst of the worst. He’s talking here about running away with the same ‘Nazis’ and SS who had supposedly carried out the greatest imaginable mass murders of Jews and others in the entire history of the universe. He’s talking about running away with the people who supposedly did the actual killings of thousands daily for several years. But, according to his own words he would probably have gone with them nonetheless, except that he was not feeling good that day; he was feeling weak.
    The “fear” that he overcame was clearly fear of the Russians and not the
    ‘Nazis;’ there is no mention of fear of what the ‘Nazis’ and SS might do when the evacuees entered the forest or sometime later.”

    – Hannover


  13. by Carolyn

    On May 18, 2012 at 9:04 pm

    Hannover: Old ideas die hard, especially those associated with Elie Wiesel. Primo Levi was in the camp hospital at the time, reportedly with scarlet fever. As a hospital patient, he was allowed to remain there. But he was not forced to remain. The healthy prisoners, those NOT in the hospital, had to be evacuated; they didn’t have a choice. You seem to be talking about two different things: that since Primo Levi did have a choice, he wavered as to what to do (as did Elie, in his book anyway, which is very interesting) but that doesn’t mean they all had that choice.

    So the march was not voluntary for the great mass of prisoners.


  14. by Carolyn

    On May 19, 2012 at 9:41 am

    More regarding the Codoh Forum link Hannover gave us:

    Fredrich Paul Berg writes: “When the Jews were given a “choice” to stay or evacuate …”
    Would Berg, or you Hannover, please tell me how you know this choice was given. I know of no reference for that, but I would like to know if there is one.

    If it’s based on what Elie Wiesel and/or Primo Levi wrote, it doesn’t look very good for you. There are numerous errors in that thread, most based on the acceptance without proof of the original phrase from Berg about the ‘choice.’


  15. by mincuo

    On May 22, 2012 at 12:31 pm

    I read from Gilad Atzmon…
    “If, for instance, the Nazis wanted the Jews out of their Reich (Judenrein – free of Jews), or even dead, as the Zionist narrative insists, how come they marched hundreds of thousands of them back into the Reich at the end of the war? I have been concerned with this simple question for more than a while.
    I eventually launched into an historical research of the topic and happened to learn from Israeli Holocaust historian professor Israel Gutman that Jewish prisoners actually joined the march voluntarily. Here is a testimony taken from Gutman’s book:

    “‘One of my friends and relatives in the camp came to me on the night of the evacuation and offered a common hiding place somewhere on the way from the camp to the factory.… The intention was to leave the camp with one of the convoys and to escape near the gate, using the darkness we thought to go a little far from the camp. The temptation was very strong. And yet, after I considered it all I then decided to join (the march) with all the other inmates and to share their fate’ (Israel Gutman [editor], People and Ashes: Book Auschwitz-Birkenau, Merhavia 1957).


  16. by Carolyn

    On May 22, 2012 at 6:25 pm

    To mincuo:

    Gilad Atzmon (forgive me if I don’t take his words as gospel) comes to a conclusion based on a single quote from a book edited by Israel Gutman. This quote does not have an author, but it sounds very familiar … meaning I have heard it before. The unnamed inmate/prisoner reports that he considered an escape plan, under cover of darkness, after a “convoy” got a little way outside the camp. But then he decided that rather than try to escape, he would just go along on the march. There is nothing here about staying behind. Joining the march was not voluntary for this man, even though he writes it in such a way as to suggest this to people who aren’t paying attention.

    The level of proof offered by revisionists on this subject is appallingly inadequate. The question of why the Germans marched so many Jews in their custody back into the Reich, continuing to feed and care for them, is a legitimate one. But nowhere is it said that a choice was given to those Jews, except for those in the hospitals.


  17. by Alvabi

    On March 8, 2015 at 12:39 pm

    Inmates in a hospital in what is routinely labeled a death camp? Family members with permission to stay together in the death camp hospital despite a policy of indifference to inmate wants and desires? It’s like punching that part of the balloon called Fact, only to have Error bulge out somewhere else.



  1. The day that the crematoria at Auschwitz-Birkenau were destroyed — according to Elie Wiesel’s book “Night.” « Scrapbookpages Blog
  2. Parlamento Italiano - Disegno di legge S. 3511 INTRODUZIONE DEL REATO DI NEGAZIONISMO - Pagina 158
  3. Did Auschwitz prisoners have a choice to stay in the camp, or were they forced to go on a “death march”? | Scrapbookpages Blog

Leave a Reply

You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

By submitting a comment here you grant Elie Wiesel Cons the World a perpetual license to reproduce your words and name/web site in attribution. Inappropriate or irrelevant comments will be removed at an admin's discretion.

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