Scrapbookpages Blog

September 14, 2016

Youngest survivor of Auschwitz now lives in Munich

Filed under: Germany, Holocaust, World War II — furtherglory @ 12:49 pm
The following quote is from a news story which you can read in full at,7340,L-4854115,00.html
 Eva Umlauf was only two years old when she was liberated from [Auschwitz-Birkenau] the Nazi death camp. Despite her young age, she received the Auschwitz ‘trademark’: The number A-26959, which was tattooed on her left arm. Today, at 73, she is a successful pediatrician in Munich who has devoted her life to the treatment of small children.
Upon first listening to Eva Umlauf’s story, it’s hard to believe it. Only a writer with a totally wild imagination could have produced such a story. Well, it did happen. Umlauf is the youngest survivor of the Auschwitz death camp. She was only two years old when the Soviet Army arrived at the camp on January 27, 1945, yet she emerged alive.
I heard her story a long time ago, but I only recently got to meet her for the first time and discover that this woman, flesh and blood, who is still young and works as a pediatrician in Munich, is the infant from that amazing story I first heard years ago.

Eva Umlauf. Today, she looks back at her life with satisfaction (Photo: Dana Bloch)

Eva Umlauf. Today, she looks back at her life with satisfaction (Photo: Dana Bloch)
[continue quote]

It turns out that there was complete chaos and disorder in the SS prior to the war’s end, with one hand not knowing what the other hand is doing. On the first days of November 1945, after the Germans, who were preparing to withdraw from Upper Silesia, had already destroyed the gas chambers and the crematoria, a transport of young people suddenly arrived in Auschwitz, most of them from Slovakia.

Who had decided on this odd move, why and for what purpose? After all, the Auschwitz camps were in fact no longer operational, and if the Germans wanted to kill these Jews too, why send them to Auschwitz instead of murdering them in Slovakia?

In any event, that shipment arrived and the Germans did not touch it. They put the young people in barracks where they stayed until the survivors left the camp on the night between January 17 and 18. There were no longer gas chambers, but the young Eva, who arrived there with her mother, received the Auschwitz “trademark” anyway: The number tattooed on her left arm—A-26959.

End quote from news story

Strange as it may seem, there were many child survivors of Auschwitz-Birkenau, even babes in arms. These were the children that were too young to march out of the camp when it was abandoned.

Babies being carried as the child survivors march out of Auschwitz-Birkenau

Babies being carried as child survivors march out of Auschwitz-Birkenau

One would think that the Nazis would have been better organized in their plan to exterminate the Jews.  They should not have left babies and young children behind for the Soviet soldiers to find.

You can read all about the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau on my website at


  1. I have no time to shoot you. But I still have enough time to tattoo your arm. Don’t move. A…zzzzz…..2….zzzzz……6 (the magic number on your arm, lucky girl)… A bit of patience if you please. 9…..zzzzz…..5…

    And since there are numerous babies in the camp, I can’t just call you ‘the baby of Auschwitz’ or something similar. So you need a tattoo so that we can distinguish you from all the other babies in the camp.

    Comment by hermie — September 15, 2016 @ 3:12 am

  2. To me, she does look suspiciously youthful to be a 73 year old woman – and it is interesting that the article states that she is still working as a Pediatrician at that age. Most professional people these days have retired before the age of 70.

    There is just a fleeting reference to her mother – who Eva says arrived with her at Auschwitz. But then no more is said about this parent, who obviously would be a very important guardian in a vulnerable young infant’s life.

    So we really need to know more about Eva, before we can pronounce her as the genuine article.

    Comment by Talbot — September 15, 2016 @ 2:27 am

    • And quite frankly – what is so special about this woman anyway. Many tens of thousands of children, infants and babies were displaced by the war, which – by 1944/45 – was reaching a terrible crescendo throughout the lands of central and eastern Europe.

      Families were split asunder, leaving refugees scattered all over the place. There is no doubt that many people – including infants – found themselves temporarily placed in former German labour or displacement camps. They weren’t just Jews (bless ’em), but Germans, Poles, Russians, Czechs and all kinds of nationalities.

      No – its only the name “Auschwitz” which gives Eva’s story any resonance. Take that name away, and all you left with is a normal “hum-drum” wartime tale that might be of sufficient interest to the readers of a local parish magazine – but certainly no further afield than that.

      Comment by Talbot — September 15, 2016 @ 3:47 am

    • I was gonna say that too. She must have one helluva cosmetic surgeon.

      Comment by Tim — September 15, 2016 @ 7:55 am

  3. She’s lying her ass off. You posted the story about babies being born there in ’44. Don’t take much to do the math there. It was story you did,with all the smiling mothers and their newborns in the picture you put with the story.

    Comment by Tim — September 14, 2016 @ 3:08 pm

    • Well, Tim, mind to tell me what do you think of what I was able to find (actually in an hour or less) about “that lady that’s lying”?

      Now: a baby mentioned in two different official lists, an article about Auschwitz… and matching datas: tattoo, 1st name, birth, liberation.
      I found a baby Eva Hecht in Auschwitz, tattooed A-26959, freed on Jan, 27, 1945, and IMHO it’s the baby’s name of Eva Umlauf that you – oh, so politely! – suggest isn’t telling the truth…

      Notice how tattoo numbers and birth date are the same here in the thread and in the article, and that these datas are registered in Auschwitz official papers (“Hefte von Auschwitz”. Verlag Staatliches Auschwitz-Museum, 20, 1997, S. 369-455) that I found mentioned in Carlo Mattogno’s article about Auschwitz and Mengele’s baby twins.

      Find her onto Table 1 “Namensliste der von den Sowjets in Auschwitz aufgefundenen Kinder” (that’s the “Name list of the children discovered by the Soviets in Auschwitz”), at page 56
      A-26959 – HECHT Eva, F, 2yrs. Jude, Slowakei , arrived in lager on Nov 02, 1944

      and find her also again onto Table 2 “Liste der Zwillinge von Auschwitz” (that’s “List of Auschwitz twins”) at page 61
      A-26959 – HECHT Eva Hecht, 2yrs. Freed Jan 27, 1945

      Have a look at my post reply to JR, you’ll find links

      Comment by FabioB — September 14, 2016 @ 5:12 pm

      • Fabio ! Done any,” I can’t believe it’s not butter”,commercials lately ? Just messin with ya sport.

        Hey look. Damned all you smoke and mirrors you provide. She’s lyin because,there were four babies I know of, that were born,”after” she was. Ask FG. She’ll provide you with a link to read the article,she wrote dealing with the shit.

        Another thing. Why bother putting a tatt on a baby ? From what I’ve read here,they didn’t pass go and collect their $200.00. They went straight to the gas house. I’m pretty sure that was policy at all the prisons,where they gassed Jews . This is the military. Trust me when I say,” military policy is consistent in all branches of the military”. If infants are offed at one facility,they’re gonna be gassed at all the facilities that offer such services.

        Even if she was the youngest,she wouldn’t be around to tell her shit. We know she wasn’t,because of the carpet crabs that were born after her. Bottom line,she lyin.

        As for all the documents. I’m wary of docs,that “either side” in this debate produce. Get the right person,and right materials,a person can forge shit,like a fat f–kin dog. Especially now after a half a billion years,the Ruskies pop up with shit,they say has been stashed at the archives in Moscow. I trust those bastards no further than I can throw them.

        Comment by Tim — September 15, 2016 @ 9:30 am

        • You wrote: “She’s lyin because,there were four babies I know of, that were born,”after” she was. Ask FG. She’ll provide you with a link to read the article,she wrote dealing with the shit.”
          Here is the link:

          Comment by furtherglory — September 15, 2016 @ 12:56 pm

          • That’s why I said she was lying her ass off. I guess she didn’t know that 4 kids were born there,long after she’d been in this world. That was the first red flag that went up. She said she’s the youngest kid to survive there. You wrote that article with the picture of the 4 mothers that were holding their newborns from that prison. So how how can this goof say she’s the youngest person to survive that?

            Something else I gotta question. I thought I’ve time and again,”babies were tossed in the gas house”. A 2 year old is still an infant. So if they’re gassing all the carpet crabs,how did she escape that one? If they’re gonna gas her,why tattoo her? That’s a waste of time.

            Comment by Tim — September 15, 2016 @ 5:05 pm

  4. What was the reason for tattooing babies? I thought they just tattooed workers? I guess this baby worked in the baby care ward overseeing all the other little ones that were supposed to have been killed when they entered the camp. I guess they missed these little ones.
    Not to mention the thousands of babies that were born in the camps and survived.
    There are many horror hoax stories of the Germans snatching the babies out of the arms of the women and throwing them into the fire pits.
    How about the ones of them being thrown into the crematorium alive….
    I would like to see her tattoo, it would of been pretty noticeable on a baby, yet as time went on it seems like it would be unrecognizable today.
    Is there anyone checking this story out? No way….when the lie becomes accepted as truth print the lie.


    Comment by Jim Rizoli — September 14, 2016 @ 1:07 pm

    • You wrote: “I would like to see her tattoo, it would of been pretty noticeable on a baby, yet as time went on it seems like it would be unrecognizable today.”

      On a baby, the tattoo on the forearm would have covered that entire part of the arm. What would have happened to the tattoo as the baby grew? I think that the tattoo would be unreadable now.

      Comment by furtherglory — September 14, 2016 @ 3:29 pm

    • JR, FWIW I had the chance, years ago, to see the tattoo on an old man’s arm. He was rounded up in Garfagnana (Italy) in 1944 as a teenager for TODT forced labour, and then sent almost immediately in Germany It was a bluish tinge but still perfecty readable in late 90s.
      I don’t see why tattoo’s ink should react differently onto a baby’s or a teenager skin, really.

      To answer to all your questions, anyway, a remarkably informative piece on tattoos is here
      but note that, even if there is reported that womens’ “A series” tattoos in Auschwitz ended with number A-25378, in the same article is earlier specified “There exist virtually no official period documents relating to the practice; what we know stems from anecdotal evidence contained in camp records and the accounts of those who were at the camps.”

      About records, there is an official registration of “A-26959 Hecht Eva 2 27.1.1945” in Carlo Mattogno’s article “Dr. Mengele und die Zwillinge von Auschwitz” at page 51 of “Vierteljahreshefte fuer freie Geschichtsforschung – 2005 Nr. 1” magazine, here
      Eva Hecht is listed at page 58, you will also note that “Eva Hecht” and “Eva Umlauf” both have the same name and birth date.

      The late Eva Umlauf, anyway, showed her tattoo to the Guardian UK journalist, and you can seeit clearly pictured here:

      So, I imagine, that’s what is needed, isn’t it?

      Comment by FabioB — September 14, 2016 @ 4:38 pm

      • My bad, a correction: it’s page 56 and 61, eventually see my reply to Tim above.

        Comment by FabioB — September 14, 2016 @ 5:13 pm

      • Fabio B wrote: “He was rounded up in Garfagnana (Italy) in 1944 as a teenager for TODT forced labour, and then sent almost immediately in Germany”

        Where in Germany?

        Comment by hermie — September 15, 2016 @ 4:05 am

      • Tattoos affect people differently. I got em all over me. The first one I got,was when I was locked down. I got the whole thing removed some years back. It faded so bad it looked like morse code. My artist always used dry pigment on me. It worked better and they fade very little.

        I can say this. If it was on a baby,chances are it may not be there at all now. Tatts don’t go with the flow as skin ages. Thats why you don’t want to tattoo over a scar. I knew a girl that hat a mastectomy . She got roses tattooed over the scar. It was top shelf work ,but over the years as her skin changed,it started to look like hell.

        Comment by Tim — September 15, 2016 @ 7:52 am

        • You wrote: “Thats why you don’t want to tattoo over a scar”
          For years, I had a scar on my face, caused by a ceramic cup that someone threw at me. Eventually, the scar disappeared completely.

          Comment by furtherglory — September 15, 2016 @ 12:59 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: