Elie Wiesel, the world’s best known Holocaust survivor, who was a prisoner at both Auschwitz-Birkenau and Buchenwald, famously wrote, regarding the “stories” in his books: “Some events do take place but are not true; others are—although they never occurred.” Elie Wiesel was a Talmud scholar at 15 when he was sent to Auschwitz. At 16 and 1/2, he was one of “the boys of Buchenwald,” the orphan boys who were protected by the other prisoners in the camp.
Now there is a web site, called “Elie Wiesel Cons the World, at http://www.eliewieseltattoo.com, which is devoted to the events in Elie’s life that are true — although they never occurred. This web site claims that Elie Wiesel’s time as a prisoner at Buchenwald did not occur. This could be one of those events that are true, even if it never occurred. Like Anthony Weiner’s Twitter account that was hacked, although this never occurred, as Weiner admitted today when he resigned from Congress.
According to the Elie Wiesel Cons the World web site, there is a new book that has been in the works for six years, which is supposed to be all about the orphan boys at Buchenwald. So what has happened to the book? You can read all about it here. I previously blogged about Ben Helfgott, a Buchenwald survivor, here.
Update, June 19, 2011:
In reading some of my old posts, I noticed a comment, written by Ken Waltzer on Nov. 14, 2010 at 6:57 a.m. Here is the comment:
For the skeptics and know-nothings who have written in suggesting Eli Wiesel was not in the camps, that Night is purely fiction, you are all dead wrong. The Red Cross International Tracing Service Archives documents for Lazar Wiesel and his father prove beyond any doubt that Lazar and his father arrived from Buna to Buchenwald January 26, 1945, that his father soon died a few days later, and that Lazar Wiesel was then moved to block 66, the children’s block in the little camp in Buchenwald. THese documents are backed up by military interviews with others from Sighet who were also in block 66, and by the list of Buchenwald boys sent thereafter to France. All of this is public domain.
Wishful thinking by Holocaust deniers will not make their fantasies true. While Wiesel took liberties in writing Night as a literary masterpiece, Night is rooted in the foundation of Wiesel’s experience in the camps. The Buchenwald experience, particularly, runs closely to what is related in Night.
On the same date, Nov. 14, 2010, at 10:34 a.m., Ken Waltzer made a comment on this post by Carolyn Yeager:
Carolyn Yeager wrote:
Lazar Wiesel, born Sept. 4, 1913 arrived at the camp on January 26, 1945, along with his brother Abram, born Oct. 10, 1900, in a large transport from Auschwitz. They both have Buchenwald registration (or entry) numbers.
After the liberation in April, a questionnaire is filled out by a Lázár Wiesel who accents his name in the Hungarian style, giving a birth date of Oct. 4, 1928, and this Lazar is listed on the “childrens” transport to France in July. Neither of these Lazar Wiesel’s fit Elie Wiesel with his birth date of Sept. 30, 1928, and now we find his signature doesn’t match either.
Ken Waltzer commented:
Contrary to Carolyn Yeager’s wishful thinking, Eli Wiesel was indeed the Lazar Wiesel who was admitted to Buchenwald on January 26, 1945, who was subsequently shifted to block 66, and who was interviewed by military authorities before being permitted to leave Buchenwald to go with other Buchenwald orphans to France. Furthermore, there is not a shadow of a doubt about this, although the Buchenwald records do erroneously contain — on some pieces — the birth date of 1913 rather than 1928. A forthcoming paper resolves the “riddle of Lazar” and indicates that Miklos Gruner’s Stolen Identity is a set of false charges and attack on Wiesel without any foundation. ~~ by kenwaltzer
Has Ken Waltzer finally figured out that there were three separate people involved in this controversy and all three are named Wiesel. One of the three was in the orphan’s barrack, but it was not Elie Wiesel. Is that why his book has not been published?
Scrapbookpages Blog 
[…] writing a comment to my blog, Waltzer first wrote a comment on June 26 to Scrapbookpages Blog. The blogmaster there, who goes by the name of “furtherglory,” had blogged June 16 on my […]
Pingback by Ken Waltzer Replies to My Question — September 5, 2013 @ 4:47 pm
[…] I previously blogged about this whole controversy here. […]
Pingback by Correction on the identification of prisoners in a Buchenwald photo — Updated « Scrapbookpages Blog — May 12, 2012 @ 1:23 pm
[…] 26 to Scrapbookpages Blog. The blogmaster there, who goes by the name of “furtherglory,” had blogged June 16 on my ‘boys of Buchenwald’ article. He checks out new articles about Holocaust on the Internet […]
Pingback by Ken Waltzer Replies to My Question | Elie Wiesel Cons the World Ken Waltzer Replies to My Question | A Blog Dedicated to Finding out the Truth about Elie Wiesel's Tattoo — June 30, 2011 @ 7:36 pm
All the ridiculous claims that Wiesel was not Wiesel, Wiesel was not at Buchenwald, Wiesel was a different Wiesel are false, There was one Lazar Wiesel at Buchenwald. He arrived with his father, who appears as Abram, born 1900, and who died shortly after arrival. (He signs his name Shlomo.) Wiesel was then moved to block 66, the children’s block, part of a large child-saving operation by people aligned with the German-Communist led international underground in the camp. He is there with others from Sighet who affirm he is there. He is there until liberation. He is interviewed by American military authorities there. He goes to France.,…
There is no question, indeed there is firm proof, Elie Wiesel was at Buchenwald. And the sections of Night written about Buchenwald are generally accurate and conform to the experience he had.
Comment by Ken Waltzer — June 26, 2011 @ 6:53 am
Thanks for your comment. A man named Lazar Wiesel was given the tattoo number A-7713 at Auschwitz. A man named Abram Viesel was given the number A-7712 at Auschwitz. Both of them were transferred to Buchenwald in January 1945. Lazar Wiesel, born at Maromarossiget on 4 September 1913, an apprentice locksmith, political detainee and Hungarian Jew, was registered at Buchenwald on 26 January 1945 and assigned the ID number 123565. This must be the man whom you have identified as Elie Wiesel and Abram Viesel is the man that you have identified as Elie’s father. In the records at Auschwitz, Abram Viesel was born on 10 October 1900 at Marmarosz. He was old enough to be Elie Wiesel’s father, but not old enough to be the father of Lazar Wiesel, who was born in 1913, according to the records.
Elie’s full name is Eliezer Wiesel and he was born in Sighet, Romania (Marmarossiget) which was a part of Hungary in 1944. Elie claims he was born on September 30, 1928. Are you saying that his birthdate was mistakenly written as Sept 4, 1913 at Buchenwald?
A man named Lázár Wiesel, (note difference in spelling) born 4 October 1928, was also registered at Buchenwald and given the ID Number 123165. Are you saying that this man did not exist?
You wrote that Elie Wiesel (Lazar Wiesel) was interviewed by the American military. Lázár Wiesel filled out a US Army questionaire on 22 April 1945 at Buchenwald; he stated on the questionaire that he was born at Màromarossziget on 4 October 1928; he was a student who was arrested on 16 April 1944 and interned at Auschwitz and Monowitz. Are you saying that this man didn’t exist?
The records at the Buchenwald Gedenkstätte show that Lázár Wiesel was sent to Paris on 16 July 1945 with a convoy of surviving children and is registered on the transport list. The name Lazar Wiesel is not on the transport list to Paris, which makes sense since he was born in 1913.
Lazar Wiesel’s name was on the transport list from Auschwitz to Buchenwald, but the name Lázár Wiesel was not. That doesn’t mean that Lázár was never at Auschwitz. He could have been sent, from Auschwitz, to some other camp, such as Gross Rosen, and then sent to Buchenwald when Gross Rosen, or whatever other camp, was evacuated.
Comment by furtherglory — June 26, 2011 @ 3:40 pm
Thanks for adding to this blog post, FG.You have summed it up well. Yes, I think we have to conclude that based on the evidence SO FAR, the Lazar Wiesel born Sept. 4, 1913 and the Lázár Wiesel born Oct. 4, 1928 are two separate people and Elie Wiesel is not either one of them.
Myklos Gruner thinks they are both Lazar Wiesel, born Sept. 4, 1913, who was given changed papers so he could live in the childrens’ barrack after his father died and then travel to France, but this is not proven sufficiently. So we have to assume they are two different people. In one of her early blogs, Carolyn Yeager points out that she counted 19 Eliezer or Lazar Wiesel’s or Visel’s from the Maramures District of Romania listed as Shoah Victims on the Yad Vashem Central Database. She commented that “according to their friends and relatives, nineteen men of the same name from this district perished in the camps in that one year. It causes one to wonder how many Lazar and Eliezer Wiesels didn’t perish, but became survivors and went on to write books, perhaps.” http://www.eliewieseltattoo.com/the-shadowy-origins-of-night-ii
Lazar Wiesel was not an unusual name so whenever we see it, we can’t assume it is Elie Wiesel. The question remains: Where is Waltzer’s evidence that it is?
Comment by Skeptic — June 22, 2011 @ 4:12 pm
The problem is that people start with the basic premise that Elie Wiesel was at Buchenwald. There is no record of anyone named Elie Wiesel at Buchenwald, so the only conclusion that one can come to is that he was using a different name at that time. However, if you start with the premise that he was not there, then you can prove it by the fact that there is no record of anyone by that name at Buchenwald. Waltzer’s evidence is that there was someone at Buchenwald who had a similar name and was born in 1928, but that is not proof that this person was Elie Wiesel.
Comment by furtherglory — June 22, 2011 @ 4:26 pm
“I describe incidents which may or may not have happened but which are true.”
– Elie Wiesel, July 1970
http://tinyurl.com/5w6bu82
Holocaust Aggadah (the folk stories in the Talmud) explained in 8 seconds:
rabbit lies from Cherifa Syria on Vimeo.
Comment by Black Rabbit — June 17, 2011 @ 12:24 pm
Furtherglory….Carolyn Yeager has two weekly revisionist history Internet radio programs now. One on the Voice of Reason (VOR) network Monday nights and the other over at the Republic Broadcast Network (RBN) on Saturday afternoons. Why not come out of the closet now and and let her interview you? You’d make a great guest because you know so much about the German concentration camp system. Deanna Spingola has Carolyn on her RBN radio show often and when the two of them get started deconstructing Allied propaganda, listening is as fun as watching was when Lucy Arnez and Ethel Mertz got into mischief on I Love Lucy. Deanna sometimes gets so upset about the lies that have been floated that she cries. Today she got verklempt over the British retreat at Dunkirk. Not because they retreated, but because Churchill and Duff Cooper lied to the nation about why and left the French behind to get massacred. These gals are dedicated to the truth. So what of they think Germans got the short end of the stick in the last two world wars? By sorting out the myths from the facts they’re doing what they can to prevent a third one. You should join their team and step up to the batter’s plate because we know that you can knock the ball out of the park when you want to.
Comment by who+dares+wings — June 16, 2011 @ 7:26 pm