Scrapbookpages Blog

March 28, 2013

Why did the Jews at Auschwitz march out of the camp with the Nazis instead of waiting for the Soviet liberators?

Filed under: Dachau, Germany, Holocaust — Tags: , , , — furtherglory @ 8:29 am
Prisoners on a death march out of Dachau

Prisoners on a death march out of Dachau on April 26, 1945

The photo above shows some of the 6,887 Jewish prisoners and Russian POWs, who were marched out of the Dachau concentration camp on April 26, 1945.  Today’s students are taught that the purpose of this “death march” was to kill the prisoners before the camp could be liberated by the Allies.  Note the two German soldiers who are marching with them.  There is no photo of the march out of Auschwitz, but the photo above will give you an idea of how the Auschwitz march might have taken place.

On a similar march out of Auschwitz-Birkenau, on January 18, 1945, the German soldiers marched at the head of the column, tramping down two feet of snow to make it easier for the Jews to march.

I am on the e-mail list of Bradley Smith, a famous Holocaust denier, and today I received an e-mail from him, which included a letter which he had recently sent to Kent State University, where Elie Wiesel was expected to give a talk to the students.

As you may know, Elie Wiesel and his father were allegedly on the death march out of Auschwitz on January 18, 1945.  Elie wrote, in his book Night, that they were given a choice of either marching or staying behind to be liberated by Soviet soldiers.  The Dachau prisoners, shown in the photo above, were not given a choice.  They were marched out of Dachau, so that they could not attack civilians in the town of Dachau, after they were liberated.

I love Bradley Smith and I am a great admirer of his writing.  I read the copy of Bradley’s letter to the University and laughed out loud.  I am quoting from the letter, so as to share it with those who may not be on Bradley’s e-mail list.

Quote from letter written by Bradley Smith to Kent State University:

=====
In his autobiographical book Night, Elie Wiesel writes that in January 1945, when he and his father were both prisoners of the murderous German Nazis at Auschwitz, they were asked by their captors if they would prefer to remain in that death camp, where countless Jews had already been murdered in gas chambers, to await the imminent arrival of their Soviet liberators, or would they rather leave with the Nazi Jew-killers who were abandoning the camp. Elie Wiesel and his dad, talking it over, agreed they would prefer to leave on the death-march retreat with German Nazis dedicated to exterminating Jews as a race rather than wait for their Soviet liberators.

Is there one professor at Kent State University who thinks it might be worthwhile that students consider the significance of this confession? Why not?
=====

I don’t think that Bradley Smith will get an answer to his letter, so I am going to explain to him and to the students, the purpose of the death march out of Auschwitz.

I learned the reason for the death marches from Professor Harold Marcuse, who teaches the history of the Holocaust at the University of California at Santa Barbara.

Professor Marcuse wrote the following in a comment on my blog several years ago:

In any case the death marches in 1945 were a largely futile attempt to keep human evidence of and witnesses to atrocities from falling into Allied hands. That rationale hinged on the illusory notion that the Germans would ultimately defend some territory and in some bizarre way “win” the war. When some responsible German officials realized beyond doubt that the war was lost, they drew the “logical” conclusion and burned the marching prisoners alive, as happened at Ohrdruf, Gardelegen and numerous other places. For them apparently, dead evidence was better than alive evidence.

I am assuming that the professors at Kent State University teach the students the same story that is taught at the University of California, Santa Barbara.

Elie Wiesel and his father trusted the Nazis not to burn them alive on the march, so they didn’t stay behind at Auschwitz, when given a choice. If you have ever read Elie Wiesel’s book, you know that Elie and his father survived the burning ditches at Auschwitz on the Night that they arrived.  They expected to survive the burning of the prisoners on the march out of the camp.  They didn’t know what the Soviets might do, so they chose the Nazis instead.

Children were burned alive in a burning ditch at Auschwitz on the night Elie Wiesel arrived

Children were being burned alive at Auschwitz on the night Elie Wiesel arrived

The Jews who stayed behind at Auschwitz found out that they had made the wrong choice because the Soviets didn’t take care of them at all.

After the three Auschwitz camps were liberated, the survivors were on their own. Unlike the concentration camps in Germany, where the liberated prisoners remained in the camps as Displaced Persons and were cared for by the Americans or the British, the Auschwitz prisoners from 29 countries were released to find their own way home.

Primo Levi was an Auschwitz survivor who wrote a book, later made into a movie, about his long journey home to Italy which took him many months. He described how the Jewish prisoners were greeted with hostility in every country along the way.  (Primo Levi was forced to stay behind because he was sick at the time of the death march out of the camp.)

Binjamin Wilkomirski, who falsely claimed to be a child survivor of Auschwitz, wrote in his fake book, entitled Fragments, that there was no liberation. “We just ran away without permission,” he wrote. “No joyous celebration. I never heard the word ‘liberation’ back then, I didn’t even know there was such a word.” Binjamin Wilkomirski also describes this in his book, Fragments: “And the people outside the camp, in the countryside and the nearby town — they didn’t celebrate when they saw us.”

Wilkomirski’s fake book is still being taught in American schools, but it is now called a novel.  Elie Wiesel’s fake book was at one time classified as a novel, but is now being taught in American schools as the Gospel truth.

19 Comments

  1. Russian POWs faced a VERY different choice from the others. If their erstwhile comrades found them in a POW camp, they arrested them right away, and they moved right back into being prisoners of their OWN country, for the treason of having surrendered. The great majority of these spent many awful years in the GULAG, and a great proportion of these didn’t survive.

    In any case, the Germans held (vain, theoretical) hopes of re-employing at least SOME of the prisoner/laborers in camps/factories/mines, etc. deeper in the Reich. No doubt some thousands actually WERE so re-employed, but even this minority of them was mostly re-employed for only a brief period.

    Comment by Jett Rucker — March 31, 2013 @ 5:48 pm

  2. A good book to read about jewish immigrants betraying the country that invited them in is David Horowitz’s Native Son.

    Comment by hermanking — March 30, 2013 @ 11:18 am

    • I think Horowitz’s book was “Radical Son.” At least, that’s what the cover of my copy says (and yes, I read it). It’s very good, and does indeed well cover the subject of “Jewish immigrants betraying the country that invited them in.” “Red-diaper babies” and all that. Horowitz is a very engaging, prolific writer, still active today.

      Comment by Jett Rucker — April 1, 2013 @ 6:16 am

  3. There is so much error and repetition of “old stories” in this blogpost and comments that I must try to straighten it out. First, when Auschwitz and Dachau are talked about at the same time, people get it confused and can’t distinguish the difference in their memory later.

    But Bradley Smith, a very nice man who I like on a personal level also, did not accomplish a thing with his letter to Kent State. But I say this perhaps not for the reason you think. Your title of this blog post indicates that all the prisoners had a choice – to march or stay. That is not true. They were ordered to leave. Only those in the hospitals were allowed to stay, with some doctors and nurses in attendence. But Elie Wiesel was not involved in any of this. This story from his book “Night,” that he made the decision to go on the March with SS guards when he could have stayed, has become so popular with revisionists that they are unwilling to give it up.

    Sufficient evidence (proof) has been gathered, sifted and organized by me at Elie Wiesel Cons The World (http://www.eliewieseltattoo.com) that Elie Wiesel was never at Buchenwald — enough to satisfy anyone who is willing to believe it. But, strangely, revisionists of all kinds are unwilling to repeat this. OR they both accept it and continue spouting the old version at the same time!

    Logic says that if Wiesel was never at Buchenwald, he could not have been on a March that came there from Auschwitz/Buna. If he’s lying about Buchenwald, why is he not lying about Auschwitz? He may have been at Auschwitz, but if he didn’t go on the March his story about how he went on it is false. When he wrote that story in 1955 or so, he had no knowledge of what the consequences would be of what he was saying. How many people will keep in mind that I pointed out that he wrote in his memoir in 1995 (forty years later) that he was in the hospital/clinic at Auschwitz because of surgery on his knee, whereas in “Night” it was surgery on his foot. This discrepancy seems to make no impression on anyone.

    There are revisionists of whom all they know about Elie Wiesel is this story (and a couple other whoppers he told), and are satisfied with this and show no interest in learning the real facts pertaining to whether Wiesel really is a “holocaust survivor” or whether his whole thing is a big lie. If that were the case, they would have to give up their favorite tale, wouldn’t they? There is no excuse for this. We need to move on past repeating the same old stories, thinking that what didn’t change anything 10 or 20 years ago, will change something now, or tomorrow. It won’t. It can only be described as laziness, combined with sentimentality.

    I wish revisionists would stop seeing this as a form of entertainment for themselves and start seeing it as a job to be done … and let’s get it the hell done. We don’t have to refute every little detail of every part of it, but only a few big blows will do it.

    Comment by Carolyn Yeager — March 29, 2013 @ 11:43 am

    • Jesus Christ. You nitpick what is obviously a snide reference to Eli Wiesel’s lies.

      Of course it is all lies and most of us didn’t need your attempt to “straighten it out” to know this.

      Comment by BMan — March 30, 2013 @ 12:46 pm

      • You don’t get it, BMan, and you don’t know at all. Why don’t you use your real name so we can have a real discussion.

        Comment by Carolyn Yeager — March 30, 2013 @ 1:29 pm

    • You wrote: “Your title of this blog post indicates that all the prisoners had a choice – to march or stay. That is not true. They were ordered to leave. Only those in the hospitals were allowed to stay, with some doctors and nurses in attendance.”

      I believe that you are incorrect in the above statement. There are numerous photos showing healthy people leaving the camp after it was liberated. There are photos showing prisoners at the camp shortly after they were liberated, and they do not look sick.

      Otto Frank claims that he tried to talk the young boy, who hid with the Frank family, out of leaving on the march out of the camp. But the boy left anyway, on the advice of another prisoner. This clearly indicates that the prisoners had a choice.

      Primo Levi indicates in his book that the prisoners at Monowitz had a choice to leave or stay. He wanted to leave on the march, but he was too sick. Elie Wiesel’s fake story is that he was at Monowitz.

      You wrote: “When he wrote that story in 1955 or so, he had no knowledge of what the consequences would be of what he was saying.”

      I believe that you are correct in that statement. I was writing magazine articles in the 1950s, and never thinking of what the consequences would be 58 years later. The Holocaust was not talked about in 1955, or at least, I never heard about it. Elie Wiesel probably never anticipated that the Holocaust would become a world-wide religion some day and every detail that he wrote would be very important.

      Comment by furtherglory — March 30, 2013 @ 3:34 pm

      • Thanks very much, FG, for your reply so we can figure this out.

        You wrote: “There are numerous photos showing healthy people leaving the camp after it was liberated. There are photos showing prisoners at the camp shortly after they were liberated, and they do not look sick.”

        How do you know these are actual liberated Auschwitz prisoners? Almost all the photos of the masses of people supposedly taken at “liberation” were actually taken later, up to a month later, or even more. I wrote about this at the end of this article at EWCTW: http://www.eliewieseltattoo.com/elie-wiesel-knows-soviet-%E2%80%9Cliberators%E2%80%9D-destroyed-the-birkenau-crematoriums/ When I was on “the tour” at Auschwitz, the Polish tour guide stood before a big blow-up of a well-known photo of healthy (even chubby) youngsters behind a barbed wire fence, some in over-size striped shirts over their street clothing … and said matter-of-factly that it was taken “several months” after the liberation. I jumped on that and she explained that all the liberation photos, or most of them, were stills from a film made later with local people dressed to look like prisoners. Any photography from the actual first days of “liberation” is lost (been destroyed, more likely).
        In my opinion, there was no “liberation” at Auschwitz of the type at Dachau and Buchenwald; it had to be invented by Soviet Intelligence. I really need to do a new article just about this.

        You wrote: “Otto Frank claims that he tried to talk the young boy, who hid with the Frank family, out of leaving on the march out of the camp. But the boy left anyway, on the advice of another prisoner. This clearly indicates that the prisoners had a choice.”

        If this is true (a big If), the boy, because he was looked after by Otto Frank, who was in the hospital, probably was given the choice for that reason … just as Elie Wiesel’s father (according to his lie) was given a choice to stay with his son, and others caretakers of hospital patients could stay with them.

        You wrote: “Primo Levi indicates in his book that the prisoners at Monowitz had a choice to leave or stay. He wanted to leave on the march, but he was too sick. Elie Wiesel’s fake story is that he was at Monowitz.”

        I have not read Levi’s book, I admit, but he was as much a liar as Elie. What he is saying is that he had a choice as a sick person – he could leave or stay. He didn’t feel strong enough to leave. Does he clearly say that everyone at Monowitz could stay if they wanted? I wish you would quote the passage, and add whatever context is necessary. This is not what is in Wiesel’s book, not at all. Wiesel says the camp was ordered to be evacuated! Only those under doctor’s care could stay, with the doctor’s permission.

        I don’t think Primo Levi is a good source. It’s a mistake to use these survivor tales as evidence of anything. At least there needs to be documented corroboration, which doesn’t mean another survivor tale. 🙂

        Comment by Carolyn Yeager — March 30, 2013 @ 5:12 pm

      • FG
        Not all Jews seem to have perished at Dachau, I am attaching a letter of thanks to my father in law of the help he had given them and took risks in doing so during their internment . This is not the only one I have kept. What is strange to me is that many after the so called Death March returned to Dachau and settled there. In another letter of “Thanks” the inmates of the sub-camp Präzifix Factory which was just north-west of the camp knew the date of their departure on the 26.4.1945 and my father in law provided them, who had anticipated their plight with 500 loaves of bread at his expense, which was greatly appreciated by them, and here again I am somewhat confused from other sources that so many apparently perished, about fifteen of the former inmates signed this document in the event that the ‘Liberators’ would treat him as a prosperous ‘Nazi’ and he had to be punished. Which they actually did in 1947.
        PS.: I failed to include the letter as I have not the facilities to do so, but it appears in one of my blogs, sorry

        Comment by Herbert Stolpmann — April 1, 2013 @ 1:34 am

        • FG
          This is the letter in question: http://dachaukz.blogspot.co.nz/2011/01/i-am-publishing-one-of-more-than-half.html

          Comment by Herbert Stolpmann — April 1, 2013 @ 1:47 am

        • How was your father-in-law punished by the liberators in 1947?

          Comment by furtherglory — April 1, 2013 @ 7:20 am

          • FG
            Basicly my father in law lost all rights to his company plus confiscation of the working capital which amounted at that time to RM 40,000, a considerable sum. To maintain an enterprise like his, he had to join the NSDAP, and was by the American Military Administrator classified as ‘Mitläufer (Running along) and the bakery became the ownership and control of the Military Government as at November 24th 1945. An inmate who was in fact a criminal, with an appropriate name ‘Trinkgeld’ out of the KZ became the Manager of the firm, who only lined his own pocket and at the end of 1951 when the De-Nazification program was declared Nil and Void the business was in heavy debt to the bank. The document dated 12. Dezember 1945 relating to this action reads in parts as follows:
            Betreff: Entnazifizierung-
            Eigentumskontrolle.
            An
            Firma Josef Bielmeier
            Dachau, Schleissheimer Str. 45
            “Laut Verfügung der hiesigen Mlitärregierung vom 24.11.45 wird ihre Firma auf Grund Ihrer Zugehörigkeit zur NSDAP und deren angeschlossenen Organisationen unter Eigentumskontrolle der Militärregierung gestellt.
            (signed)

            Comment by Herbert Stolpmann — April 1, 2013 @ 7:00 pm

  4. Professor Harold Marcuse’s father Herbert Marcuse Sr. was a Marxist philosopher founder of The Frankfurt School and an OSS officer tasked with organizing the Nuremburg IMT. German Jewish refugee Frankfurt School members Franz Neumann and Theodore Adorno were also at Nuremburg. Neumann’s analysis of National Socialism: Behemoth: The Structure and Practice of National Socialism, 1933 – 1944 was the ur text of the Allied occupation forces. Neumann’s job at Nuremberg was to gather evidence of Nazi depredations against the German churches. Their colleague Otto Kirchheimer was also an OSS officer, but remained stateside. The man in charge of procuring all personnel for the trial, Col. David “Micky” Marcus was an American Zionist Jew who became Israel’s first modern general.

    I recently heard Carolyn Yeager reading about these “Death Marches” from a German memoir she’s been translating. I was multi-tasking so I can’t recall the details, but the author indicated that the camp inmates were moved out of Poland and back into Germany in accordance with the Geneva Convention rules of warfare. We know now, General Eisenhower threw the Geneva Conventions out the window when he declared the defeated Germans “disarmed enemy soldiers” instead of “prisoners of war” to facilitate the starvation of over a million of them in vast pens guarded by snipers.

    Professor Marcuse’s statement that “In any case the death marches in 1945 were a largely futile attempt to keep human evidence of and witnesses to atrocities from falling into Allied hands…etc.” is a Holocaust Industry canard. Academic prevarication and obfuscation is what
    fuels the tsunami university press books published annually by mediocre scholars precision placed in Holocaust Studies depts. around the globe who must “publish or perish.”

    Comment by who+dares+wings — March 28, 2013 @ 9:31 am

    • You are correct that the Geneva Convention stipulates that prisoners must be evacuated out of a war zone. Poland was a war zone.

      However, the prisoners who were death marched out of Dachau were taken out of the camp so that they could NOT be liberated. The Germans anticipated that the Jews and Russian POWs would attack German civilians if they were released. That is exactly what happened when Buchenwald was liberated by the Communist prisoners.

      Elie Wiesel wrote about the Jews going in American jeeps to the town of Weimar where they raped and pillaged. Hitler did not want that to happen when other camps were liberated. That’s why he ordered all the prisoners, except those who were too sick to walk, to be marched out of the Sachsenhausen camp.

      I think that it was Himmler who ordered that the Jews and Russians be marched out of Dachau.

      The Germans didn’t care if the Jews attacked the people in Poland. They wanted to take the Jews back to Germany to put them to work in picking up the rubble that was what was left of German cities.

      Comment by furtherglory — March 28, 2013 @ 11:00 am

      • FG wrote; “I think that it was Himmler who ordered that the Jews and Russians be marched out of Dachau.”

        You’re right about what happened after the liberation of Buchenwald and about the evacuation of camps located on the German soil. The German leaders didn’t want to see again the things that had happened at Weimar after Buchenwald was captured by American troops. But there was a limit to that policy. When the epidemics got uncrotrollable at Belsen, Himmler ordered that camp to be surrendered to the British troops.

        Comment by hermie — March 28, 2013 @ 6:12 pm

      • **Elie Wiesel wrote about the Jews going in American jeeps to the town of Weimar where they raped and pillaged. Hitler did not want that to happen when other camps were liberated. That’s why he ordered all the prisoners, except those who were too sick to walk, to be marched out of the Sachsenhausen camp **

        I continue to be amazed that Elie Wiesel is used as a source of information, as well as Primo Levi & Prof. Marcuse (you can add to that Prof. Waltzer, of whom I’m currently finishing a new article for EWCTW) without strong qualifications. You have come to the conclusion that Wiesel’s book is a lie, yet you still quote from it, making him appear as someone who was there. It is as I’ve said: OLD HABITS DIE HARD.

        I am disappointed, FG, that you have not responded to my two refutations of your points about photos showing healthy people leaving Auschwitz at the time of “liberation” and Otto Frank’s advice to his young ward to stay rather than leave. Are you still convinced that all these prisoners had a choice? And how would you reassess and update the sources of information that are being used by so many people, including at times yourself and Bradley Smith? This is where we really get down to the nitty-gritty — where we need to get — and you prefer to avoid it? Along with so many others. I hope you will answer because you usually do.

        Comment by Carolyn Yeager — April 1, 2013 @ 7:51 am

        • I have been busy, but I intend to answer your comment. My blog is getting more comments than usual. I have close to 900 blog posts that are still up, and it takes time to keep up with the comments.

          Comment by furtherglory — April 1, 2013 @ 9:22 am

    • I corrected your comment on the name of the Professor: Harold Marcuse, not Herbert Marcuse, which was his father’s name.

      Did you catch the error made by Harold Marcuse who claims that the prisoners who were marched out of the camps WERE BURNED ALIVE? He later admitted in another comment that he was wrong about that.

      Comment by furtherglory — March 28, 2013 @ 11:05 am

    • WDW – to “Academic prevarication and obfuscation is what fuels the tsunami (of) university press books published annually by mediocre scholars precision placed in Holocaust Studies depts. around the globe who must “publish or perish.”

      Prof. Ken Waltzer of MSU (Michigan) is a perfect example. 🙂

      Comment by Carolyn Yeager — March 29, 2013 @ 11:52 am


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.