Posted on June 1, 2016 at 11:50 am

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

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 87, 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.

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

  1. by Carolyn

    On June 2, 2016 at 6:13 pm

    Of the 4 men who showed their tattoos on the Jeff Malet page, two of them (Bradin and Zisman) said they were 13 years old when they got to Auschwitz. One, Argiewicz, says he was 11! The phony story that everyone under 16 was immediately sent to the “gas chamber” doesn’t seem to ever apply. (No one was ever sent to a “gas chamber” since they didn’t exist.)

    Bradin, only 13 when he got there in 1943, says he was the only one of his family to survive! How logical is that? Zisman, according to his given age, would have been born in 1932 – thus not 13 until 1945! Yet, it says a documentary film has been made about him, “The Lion of Judah.” That ought to be rich.

    They are all in good company together.


  2. by Eddy88

    On June 7, 2016 at 9:01 pm

    Wow! The ability to understand basic logic just doesn't seem to be happening anymore. I attended elementary and high school in the 50's and 60's when we occasionally had the "duck and cover" drills. The holocaust wasn't really pushed on us like it is now. We did cover Anne Frank for a class or two and thinking about it now, it must have been something newly added to the curriculum that the teachers glossed over because I don't really remember it making a big impact on me concerning Jews one way or the other. Jews weren't really regarded very highly among the Pennsylvania Dutch and were looked upon as being shysters and perverts. Something to be avoided that our mother cautioned us about.
    What's really amazing here is the way the holohoax lie has taken root and become "history" in the most illogical ways imaginable. It's a pity the schools are in such shambles.
    Thanks for de-constructing this "essay." I hope that the person who wrote it has the opportunity to read your response.


  3. by Carolyn

    On June 8, 2016 at 8:05 am

    Eddy – I went to school in the 50's in Illinois and there was no mention of anything to do with a holocaust. I do remember in senior year U.S. History, when we got to WWII, there was a paragraph about German concentration camps in our textbook, with a picture of something. I was a bit apprehensive because by then I had read some things, like in magazines, about how terrible Hitler was (naturally, since he was our enemy) to the Jews. But our teacher didn't even talk about it in class. Mine was probably one of the last school years that got by without any mention of it. And look how I turned out! LOL


  4. by hank bernath

    On June 8, 2016 at 9:31 am

    I don't know whether you are a holocaust denier or just have an ax to grind against ELi Weisel. Both my parents were in various concentration camps during the war. they refused to tell us anything about what they went through. My father made a tape for the Spielberg archive project, i could not watch it through. I found out recently that my mother recorded an interview as well, but can not get a copy, I don't know about the details of the testimonies you claim to be debunking, but the stories were, however, more horrible than you can imagine or anyone can describe. Individual memories fade with time, details are lost with no documentation, but the horror was there. Anything you care to imagine is probably insufficient. The US army made some films of what they found after the liberation of the camps they found [you can find them on the internet as well],[I see you have some as links on the left of this page, but you have along article on revisionism as well][the holocaust videos link is to a godaddy site offering the domain name for sale] ,the piles of rotting bodies, the burial of bodies in mass graves that they undertook to clear away the dead,…well you covered all that. Someone knew that someday somebody would say "it didn't happen, they're lying, it's a hoax"… someone was right.


  5. by Carolyn

    On June 8, 2016 at 5:13 pm

    Hank – You could very well be lying, sorry to have to say so. If you are not lying, then your parents are. You said they refused to tell you anything. Why not make your father's Spielberg tape available to us because, you know, you can't just claim things, you have to prove them. Is his name Bernath too?

    I know about the U.S. Army films – they are known to be war propaganda made to also prevent any legal actions or criticisms directed at the US Army for it's numerous war crimes. The US Army had a huge propaganda division. I cannot convince you that you are brainwashed, but I can make you provide proofs for what you say here.

    How about going to this page – – and watch some of the videos there. The newest ones are on top, but they are all equally worthwhile. You should just give them a chance and have an open mind. But if you’re telling the truth about your parents, then they have been collecting a monthly check from Germany since around 1950. Why don't you tell us about that?


  6. by Cressida de Nova

    On July 3, 2016 at 9:30 pm

    I have only discovered this issue by accident. I was going to write a tribute poem for Elie Wiesel and include a line about his mandatory tattoo. On investigation I came upon articles which throw doubt about him being in Auschwitz. I was shocked and found it upsetting. I then tried to find an explanation and I cannot find one. I thought there would be many but if there are, I cannot find them. It is puzzling and I do think an explanation should be forthcoming. I am not a holocaust denier and I believe that the horrors of the holocaust existed. I have known survivors. I cannot help feeling there is a complicit silence about this. I do not see holocaust deniers as a threat. There is too much evidence for these unhinged extremists to make a case. Fearing them means one has doubts. I do not.


  7. by Carolyn

    On July 4, 2016 at 8:57 am

    Cressida – I want to thank you for sharing your honest reaction to the Elie Wiesel tattoo issue. I’m gratified that you kept an open mind. You put your finger on the important point — no explanation is given. If you have the time to really study it, you will find that no explanation is ever given when it comes to “Holocaust.” That is what started the revisionist movement–looking for answers that were not forthcoming.

    I am interested to know what is the story of the survivors you have known. I myself have never met a survivor in person, no, never laid eyes on one that I know of. I would like to because I would have many questions to ask. I’m not surprised that you believe the “horrors of the holocaust” happened, but when you begin to search for knowledge and begin to use common sense, you also will begin to have doubts. I’m glad you’re strong enough to face that. Hope to hear from you again.


  8. by eah

    On July 4, 2016 at 4:27 am

    I then tried to find an explanation and I cannot find one.

    The simplest “explanation”, meaning resolution of the matter, would have been for Wiesel to simply show his tattoo. But he never did that; as to why, you can think about possible reasons. But let me suggest one: after the Madoff scandal, it became known that Wiesel’s foundation lost nearly all of its assets, and Wiesel lost nearly all of his personal fortune, estimated at $20m. So it’s pretty clear that via his ‘Holocaust’ persona, Wiesel had become a wealthy and famous man, feted around the world. To admit he did not have a tattoo would have been disastrous to all of that.

    I am not a holocaust denier and I believe that the horrors of the holocaust existed.

    You mean happened, not “existed”. But there is no forensic evidence for it — supposedly the largest mass murder in history, and absolutely no forensic evidence.

    There is too much evidence for these unhinged extremists to make a case.

    What would that evidence be?


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