Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Elie Wiesel and the Catholics

Expand Messages
  • World View
    Elie Wiesel and the Catholics by Prof. David O Connell http://www.culturewars.com/2004/Weisel.htm RePortersNoteBook memo: An important piece on one the the
    Message 1 of 1 , Apr 3, 2006
      Elie Wiesel and the Catholics
      by Prof. David O'Connell

      RePortersNoteBook memo:

      An important piece on one the the last century's major moral frauds.
      It is known in Israel but not in the US that following WW2, Wiesel
      emigrated to Israel where he became an Israeli and joined Betar, the
      youth organization of the fascist Jabotinsky movement which had become
      the Irgun and became a writer for the Betar paper. At some point, the
      opportunist lurking Wiesel propelled him to leave Israel and emigrate
      to the US where he pretended to be a stateless person and the epitome
      of the eternal Jewish victim. It is for that reason that Wiesel has
      never been popular among Israelis, the right-wing because he hid his
      Israeli citizenship and the left, such as it was and is, because of
      his refusal to say a word about Israel's atrocities against the
      Palestinians and its alliances and military assistance to right-wing
      regimes in Africa and Latin America.


      Elie Wiesel is widely admired by many of the Catholics who wield power
      in the diocesan chanceries and the administrations of the nation's
      Catholic schools and universities. He has received honorary degrees
      from a number of Catholic institutions, including Georgetown, Notre
      Dame, Fordham and Marquette. He is also fawned over by assorted
      Catholic intellectuals. He is accorded this treatment despite the fact
      that he plays a prominent role in exploiting the abusive relationship
      that exists between the representatives of the major Jewish
      Organizations and those Catholics who "dialogue" with them. In the 40
      years since Vatican II, this alleged "dialogue," well intentioned at
      the beginning, has actually turned out to be a monologue in which the
      Jewish side ritually denounces Catholics and Catholicism while the
      Catholic representatives nod in approval. No serious criticism is ever
      made of Jews or Zionism. The dialogue, for instance, is strangely
      "silent" about the unrelenting Israeli war against the Christians of
      Palestine. In 1948, 18-20 percent of Palestinians were Christian.
      That figure is down to about 2 percent today. The Christian population
      of Bethlehem, once 95 percent, has dwindled to about 15 percent. Even
      worse, the "separation fence" now under construction cuts through many
      places that are holy to all Christians.

      The role that Wiesel has assumed in the abusive relationship is to
      exploit his privileged access to the media to attack high value
      Catholic targets. In 1979, he attacked the Pope for not mentioning the
      word "Jew" while visiting the Auschwitz victims' monument, which also
      omitted the word. He also attacked the Pontiff for not mentioning the
      word "Israel" on his visit to the U. N. When the Pope invited him to
      come to Rome for a personal visit, Wiesel turned him down. Then, in
      2000, he rebuked the Pontiff because his apology to Jews for past
      persecutions was not good enough.

      His attacks against Cardinal O'Connor of New York, an honest, sincere
      and terribly naïve man, began in the 1980s. When O'Connor visited
      Jerusalem in 1987, he broke down in tears over Jewish suffering during
      World War II. Upset, he stated that this was a "gift." What he meant
      was that, in Catholic terms, it was a possible occasion of grace, as
      is all suffering. Wiesel and other New York Jewish figures ripped him
      in the media for his supposed bigotry and insensitivity.1 He and
      Wiesel then became "friends" when Wiesel came to visit him. Wiesel
      then convinced O'Connor to do an "interview" book with him. It was
      called Journey of Faith (1991), and in it the Cardinal was on the
      defensive from cover to cover. In 1997, he talked O'Connor into
      helping him dedicate the Jewish Holocaust Museum in New York City.
      While there, the Cardinal took it upon himself to "apologize" for all
      Catholics who had contributed to past Jewish suffering.2 Then, on
      September 8, 1999, very sick and not far from death's door, he wrote
      Wiesel a personal letter in which he made the same kind of "apology."
      Wiesel then paid $99,000 to turn the cardinal's private missive into a
      full-page ad in the Sunday New York Times on September 19. Strongly
      implied in each of O'Connor's gestures was the idea that Jewish
      suffering of World War II replicates the sufferings of Christ in the
      20th century, an idea that a faithful Catholic simply cannot accept.3

      Wiesel's relationship with Cardinal Jean-Marie Lustiger of Paris
      followed the same pattern in the 1990s. First he attacked Lustiger
      because he had converted to Catholicism as a boy, then he achieved
      reconciliation and finally "friendship" with him.

      Wiesel also delights in desecrating what is for many Catholics the
      beloved memory of Pope Pius XII, routinely trashing him for his
      supposed "silence" during World War II. No other Jewish media voice
      even comes close to Wiesel in terms of the frequency and the vitriol
      of his insults to the Catholic memory of that Pope. Wiesel has been
      claiming for the past 35 years that Christianity died at Auschwitz. As
      early as 1971, he stated: "The sincere Christian knows that what died
      in Auschwitz was not the Jewish people but Christianity."4 Yet, the
      Catholic press, intellectuals and hierarchy treat Wiesel with
      reverence! To Wiesel (as well as to our disproportionately Jewish
      mediarchy), Jewish suffering during World War II has replaced the
      sufferings of Christ as the functioning paradigm of the post-Christian
      era. It is the media's benchmark, the sacred "burnt offering" of the
      secularists. As Rabbi Jacob Neusner has pointed out, "the Judaism of
      Holocaust and Redemption" has become the civil religion of America.5
      Hardly a day goes by without the Judeo-corporate media producing an
      article, report, TV show or movie of some kind on the subject of the
      Holocaust and the dubious "lessons" we are supposed to draw from it.
      Media propaganda, both against Catholicism and in favor of the
      "specificity," or superiority of Jewish suffering, never stops.

      Over the course of his career, Wiesel has told many tall tales about
      his alleged experiences during World War II. They can be called "true
      lies," since they are meant to edify and are told with supposedly good
      intentions, even though they are not true. In the following pages, I
      shall examine closely one of these "true lies." It has to do with his
      internment at Buchenwald. As I tell the story, it will become apparent
      to readers that I avoid using the word "Holocaust."6 Since that term
      is has become a media code word that is all too often used as a
      justification for the Jewish war crimes and crimes against humanity
      that are routinely committed in occupied Palestine, it is tainted. It
      is also associated with the scams and manipulations of various Jewish
      holocaust profiteers, of whom Wiesel himself is probably the most
      flagrant example. It also serves the purposes of the pro-Israel
      Judeo-corporate power structure, since it justifies foreign adventures
      to "prevent another Holocaust."7 I refer instead to the Jewish Ordeal
      of World War II (JOW) to describe the Nazi persecution of innocent Jews.

      Wiesel's Credibility

      But who is Elie Wiesel, and how is he related to the JOW? One Jewish
      commentator, Pierre Vidal Naquet, whose father died at Auschwitz,
      wrote of Wiesel: "For example, you have Rabbi Kahane, the Jewish
      extremist, who is less dangerous than a man like Elie Wiesel, who says
      anything that comes to mind. . . You just have to read parts of Night
      to know that certain of his descriptions are not exact and that he is
      essentially a Shoah merchant. . . who has done harm, enormous harm, to
      historical truth."8 Another Jewish voice made the following comments
      on Wiesel's self-righteous autobiography: "Elie Wiesel's memoir
      is written by a man whose inner postures have gone so long unreviewed
      he cannot persuade us he is on a voyage of self-discovery, the first
      requirement of a testament. His book, I am sorry to say, gives being
      witness a bad name."9 Christopher Hitchens, taking issue with Wiesel
      for his silence about Jewish war crimes in Palestine, wondered out
      loud: "Is there any more contemptible poseur and windbag than Elie
      Wiesel? I suppose there may be. But not, surely, a poseur and windbag
      who receives (and takes as his due) such grotesque deference on moral

      From November 1947 to January 1949, Wiesel worked for Zion in Kampf,
      the newspaper of the terrorist gangsters of the Irgun. The Irgun
      extermination of innocent Arabs at the village of Deir Yassin took
      place on April 8, 1948, while Wiesel was on the payroll, yet he is
      always appalled by Palestinian "terrorism." Likewise, while he was
      actively campaigning for a Nobel Prize in the 1980's, he made a trip
      to South Africa. Of course, the New York Times was there with him and
      recorded his ritual denunciation of apartheid. Yet Wiesel now strongly
      favors the apartheid wall being built in occupied Palestine even
      though it will impose additional inhuman hardships on the
      Palestinians. Even worse, he has attacked Pope John Paul II for
      proposing that what the Middle East needs is bridges, not walls,
      writing: "From the leader of one of the largest and most important
      religions in the world, I expected something very different, namely a
      statement condemning terror and the killing of innocents, without
      mixing in political considerations and above all comparing these
      things to a work of pure self-defense. To politicize terrorism like
      that is wrong."11 Ironically, the same Wiesel who accuses Pius XII of
      "silence" now wants Jean Paul II to be "silent" about Jewish war
      crimes in Palestine.

      Wiesel and François Mauriac

      Wiesel's claim to fame is his problematic "autobiography," Night,
      which is actually a novel, since it contains a good deal of invented
      material. It was first published in French in 1958, and was based on a
      much longer Yiddish version, which he had published under the title
      And the World Forgot (Und Di Velt hat Geshveyn) in Buenos Aires in
      December 1955. At a reception held at the Israeli embassy in May 1955,
      which Wiesel attended as a reporter for an Israeli newspaper, he
      approached the well-known Catholic novelist, newspaper chronicler,
      man of letters, and 1952 Nobel Prize winner, François Mauriac
      (1885-1970), and asked if he would consent to be interviewed.

      Mauriac was a French right-wing nationalist by birth and upbringing.
      In his family in the early days of the 20th century, they referred to
      the bedroom's chamber pot as "le zola," since the Mauriacs were
      convinced, like many French people, that Dreyfus had been guilty
      despite the media campaign in is favor. But he changed political
      stripes in the mid-1930s, becoming a strong supporter of world Jewry.
      He continued this support through the war years and after, when he
      favored the creation of Israel. Then, in 1951, he was the first
      Catholic to accuse Pope Pius XII of "silence" during the war years.
      Amazingly, just two years later, when his career seemed dead, for he
      had not published a major piece if fiction since 1940, he was awarded
      the Nobel Prize for Literature—for his novels! The Parisian literati
      were stunned! How could this be, they wondered, especially at the
      height of the "existentialist" craze? One question they did not dare
      ask was the possible role of the Jewish lobby, so powerful with the
      Nobel Committee, in this decision. Was the Nobel Prize a payback for
      his support of Jewry through the years of World War II, as well as for
      waving an accusatory finger at Pius XII, who was still very much
      alive? I have not yet been unable to resolve this question.

      In any case, Mauriac invited Wiesel to his home. They talked about the
      war years and the concentration camps. In fact, it seems clear in
      retrospect that this was the only subject Wiesel wanted to talk about.
      The two men became friends, and Mauriac told Wiesel he would help him
      find a publisher for his book. But his book was not only written in
      Yiddish, it was also several times longer than what would eventually
      become La Nuit. How did the transformation take place? Did Wiesel
      rewrite it, as he has always claimed, or did he get help from
      Mauriac? The answer to this question could probably be found in their
      voluminous correspondence, but Wiesel is in possession of both the
      letters received from Mauriac and the ones he wrote to his friend and
      benefactor. Wiesel sits on this correspondence and refuses to publish
      the letters, despite the entreaties of his rather naive liberal
      Catholic admirers.12

      La Nuit became Night when it appeared in New York in 1960. With the
      backing of the ADL, it became mandatory reading in high schools
      shortly thereafter and has sold millions of copies since then. It
      contradicts Jewish holocaust dogma on many key points, and in fact is
      guilty of "holocaust denial" in this respect. Nevertheless, it remains
      the only "holocaust memoir" with any redeeming literary qualities
      (which brings us back once again to the question of who actually wrote
      the final draft of the book). In the meantime, Wiesel moved to New
      York, where he continued to work as a correspondent for an Israeli
      newspaper. Shortly after his arrival, he was struck by a car near
      Times Square. Given to exaggeration by nature, he later claimed: "I
      flew an entire block. I was hit at 45th Street and the ambulance
      picked me up at 44th. It sounds crazy. But I was totally messed up."13
      Then, after the success of Night, he was awarded a tenured teaching
      position at a public institution, Hunter College. Despite his claims
      over the years about having studied philosophy and psychology at the
      Sorbonne and doing a two year internship at the Hôpital Sainte-Anne in
      clinical psychology, he actually never enrolled for any credit-bearing
      course at the Sorbonne, or any other branch of the University of
      Paris. Even worse, there is no evidence that he ever earned a French
      secondary school diploma. Yet, he now earns a huge six-figure salary
      as a year as a Mellon Professor of Literature at Boston University, a
      position that theoretically requires a Ph.D.

      During the years from 1960 to 1967 the two men kept up a regular
      correspondence. After the conquest of Palestine in 1967, Mauriac
      voiced concern in his Bloc-Notes column in Le Figaro that the Israelis
      were now behaving more and more like Nazis. During the war, Mauriac
      had been obliged to give shelter to several German soldiers in his
      home for over four years, and he knew what occupation did to both
      occupier and occupied. The two men quarreled, and there were harsh
      words committed to paper. Wiesel would prefer nowadays not to revive
      this issue, for he probably wrote some things he is now ashamed of.
      Yet, for years he proclaimed he was going to some day publish the
      letters.14 But I believe there might be a much more important reason
      for the suppression of the correspondence, for it could possibly
      reveal Mauriac's active role in the redaction of La Nuit. After all,
      as Naomi Seidman has pointed out, La Nuit differs dramatically from
      the Yiddish original in length, tone, basic themes and meaning. She
      rightfully attributes this difference to Mauriac's "influence."15 But
      how do we define "influence?" While the Yiddish original appears to be
      hated-filled, dripping with a Jewish desire for vengeance against
      goyim, the latter is more oblique and restrained. In a word, it is a
      work of literature and, as such, implies the presence of a mature
      literary hand, like Mauriac's. Conversely, when one compares La Nuit
      to the many novels that Wiesel has written since then, the absence of
      a mature literary hand, like Mauriac's, is obvious. In France, La
      Nuit is mandatory reading in state-sponsored indoctrination classes,
      but none of his other novels are read in schools or taken seriously by
      critics. The same situation prevails in this country. In a word, La
      Nuit is totally different from anything else that Wiesel has written,
      and it is fair to ask if in fact Mauriac's influence went beyond the
      level of mere suggestion and advice.

      Wiesel at Auschwitz and Buchenwald

      Wiesel, along with his parents and three sisters was deported from
      Sighet, Hungary, to Auschwitz in May 1944. Born in September 1928, he
      was fifteen and a half years old. The Germans needed labor for their
      factories, since Nazi ideology forbade German women from engaging in
      such work. Women stayed home in Nazi Germany, a policy that made sense
      to the Nazi racists who ruled the country but left the Germans short
      of blue-collar labor. Wiesel's mother and a sister died at Auschwitz
      in the summer of 1944, probably in the horrible typhus epidemic that
      raged in the women's camp. Their death certificates are in the files
      at Auschwitz, but on a research trip there I was not allowed to see
      them. The two other sisters survived the epidemic, and lived to
      advanced age. Wiesel was sent to the men's camp with his father. In
      late 1944, when Wiesel injured his foot in an industrial accident, he
      was operated on at the camp hospital. According to the vulgate version
      of the Jewish holocaust story, he should have been disposed of in a
      gas chamber since he was not only a child but was also disabled. Yet
      nothing of the sort happened. While in the hospital, he befriended
      the hospital personnel and, as the Russians approached in January
      1945, was offered the opportunity by the Jewish staff physicians to
      stay on and not be evacuated with the retreating Germans. Yet, Wiesel
      preferred to go off with the Germans who, according to the Jewish
      holocaust story, were allegedly sending 20,000 people a day to the gas
      chambers. This decision raises a number of very serious questions. Not
      only that, he also insisted on dragging his sickly father along with
      him, which was the equivalent of writing the man's death certificate.
      The latter, physically weak even before the horrible trauma of the
      camps, died of dysentery shortly after arriving in Buchenwald in the
      dead of winter. Repatriated to France in late April at the age of
      sixteen and a half, Wiesel was reunited there with the two sisters who
      had survived the typhus epidemic.

      On July 4, 2004, Parade magazine featured an article by Wiesel. It
      included what is probably the most famous propaganda picture from
      World War II. In it, a circle is drawn around the face of a man who is
      supposedly Wiesel. The picture was taken by Private H. Miller of the
      Civil Affairs Branch of the U. S. Army Signal Corps at Buchenwald
      concentration camp on April 16, 1945, five days after the American
      arrival there on April 11. It was not taken on the spur of the moment
      on April 11, but was one of a larger group of about a dozen photos in
      which professional montage and mise en scène techniques were used.16
      The shot was then released to the media to be used for the usual
      propaganda purposes: project an image of the Germans as war criminals
      while distracting the American public from the horrible war crimes
      then being committed by Allied forces. The fact that the picture is
      still being exploited almost 60 years after it was taken shows how
      successful and adaptable it has proved to be.

      The last two pages of Night recount the events associated with the
      flight of the Germans and the arrival of the Americans at Buchenwald.
      Wiesel writes in Night that "three days after the liberation of
      Buchenwald, I became very ill with food poisoning. I was transferred
      to the hospital and spent two weeks between life and death." Thus,
      Wiesel's first claim about his mysterious illness is that it occurred
      "three days after the liberation of Buchenwald," that is, on April 14.
      He was immediately hospitalized, and "spent two weeks between life and
      death." According to this scenario, he would have been in the hospital
      from April 14 to April 28. Since the picture was taken on April 16, he
      could not have been in it.

      Wiesel later changed this basic story a number of times. Here is the
      second version of events, which he invented many years later. "After
      the liberation I became sick and it's strange how it happened. I
      hinted at it in Night but it's not the full story. April 11, 1945,
      when the Americans came, we were some 20,000 left in Buchenwald out of
      some 60,000 or 80,000, and we hadn't had food for a week or so.
      Suddenly the Americans came and brought their food but they really
      didn't know what they were doing; they gave fats. 5,000 people died
      immediately from food poisoning. . . and my body rebelled; I lost
      consciousness immediately and was sick for ten days or so—unconscious,
      in a coma—blood poisoning or something." In this second version,
      Wiesel says that he ate the food "an hour or two after the
      liberation,"17 which contradicts his original claim in Night that he
      only got sick three days after liberation. Also, in this new version
      he is sick, unconscious and in a coma for ten days, or from April 11
      until about April 21. Here, once again, he could not have been in a
      picture that was taken on April 16. As for Wiesel's claim of 5,000
      deaths from food poisoning, it is pure hysteria, and is not supported
      by the historical record.

      Wiesel, Mendacity and the New York Times

      The Buchenwald picture first appeared in the New York Times on May 6,
      1945, several weeks after it was taken. The caption read: "Crowded
      Bunks in the Prison Camp at Buchenwald." The caption does not date the
      photo, but it does imply that the picture was taken when the prisoners
      were being liberated on April 11. The media has always implied this
      date, but that is the basic lie on which everything else is based.
      Also, the New York Times does not identify any of the men in the
      picture, which did not so much portray the chaotic reality of
      Buchenwald on April 11, but rather the Holywoodized version of it that
      had been carefully crafted by the Signal Corps. The photo appeared in
      conjunction with an article by correspondent Harold Denny, in which he
      communicated the official U. S. Government propaganda line. Entitled
      "The World Must Not Forget: What was done in the German prison camps
      emphasizes the problem of what to do with a people who are morally
      sick,"18 his piece was a distraction from what the Allies were doing
      to innocent German civilians. As he wrote, Germany was a smoldering
      ruin as a result of Allied carpet bombardment of civilians, Dresden
      and Hamburg had been bombed to a pulp, the dams on the Rhine had been
      destroyed drowning untold numbers of innocents and destroying their
      homes, countless German civilians whose families had lived in East
      Prussia and Poland for generations were being forcefully evicted by
      the advancing Soviets, the five million Volga Germans who had been
      settled in Russia since the 18th century had been deported to Siberia
      during the war where most of them would perish, the valiant men of the
      Red Army were in the process of raping millions of German women as
      they advanced through Germany, and, most dreadful, Hiroshima and
      Nagasaki, were on the drawing board. For the NYT, however, it was the
      Germans who were "morally sick." But the Allies had saved "civilization."

      The third version of Wiesel's liberation from Buchenwald is linked to
      this photo. In 1983, almost 40 years after the picture was taken, the
      NYT published it with the caption: "On April 11, 1945, American troops
      liberated the concentration camp's survivors, including Elie, who
      later identified himself as the man circled in the photo." It is
      important to note here that Wiesel had never claimed to be in this
      famous picture before 1983. Why had he never told anyone about this
      before 1983? And why did the NYT suddenly want to associate Wiesel
      with this picture, especially since the individual circled in it was a
      young man, and clearly not a boy of 16? Furthermore this man does not
      resemble in any way what Wiesel actually looked like at this age!
      Obviously, no checking was done by the paper to see if Wiesel's claim
      was true, but the NYT knows that in the matter of the Jewish holocaust
      story, no one would dare to challenge them. In retrospect, however, it
      is clear that this bogus claim was a first step in the NYT campaign to
      secure a Nobel Prize for Wiesel, either for literature or peace.19 The
      picture was published in the high circulation Sunday NYT Magazine, and
      included the statement, "His name has been frequently mentioned as a
      possible recipient of a Nobel Prize, for either peace or literature."20

      Incredibly, after the NYT had manufactured history by declaring
      erroneously that Wiesel is seen in the picture, they had the nerve a
      few years later to castigate Buchenwald Museum authorities for not
      repeating their lie as fact! In 1989, a NYT reporter visiting
      Buchenwald wrote: "A large photograph in the [Buchenwald] museum shows
      Mr. Wiesel, among others, on the day of liberation. He is not
      identified in a caption. And the guide who has shown visitors around
      Buchenwald for 14 years had never heard of the author, who has written
      eloquently about that camp."21 In addition to Wiesel's earlier claims
      that he was sick when the picture was taken, another major problem
      with Wiesel's alleged image in this picture is that it is quite unlike
      his appearance in a photo taken shortly before his deportation eleven
      months earlier. Clearly, he was merely a boy at the time, and his
      image bears no relationship to that of the man shown in the bunk
      at Buchenwald.22 This picture, coupled with the fact that he has
      stated repeatedly over the years that he was sick on April 16, offers
      double proof that his claim be to shown in the Buchenwald shot is
      nothing but a Jewish holocaust scam. Tragically, this true lie
      exploits the tragic sufferings of Wiesel's relatives and all the other
      innocent Jews.

      As the Nobel campaign went forward, the NYT usually tried to present
      Wiesel in dramatic terms, even if it meant telling more "true lies."
      His image as a JOW survivor needed to be enhanced. Thus, for example,
      when he made a trip to Berlin in January 1986 to attend a JOW
      conference, the NYT reporter declared solemnly: "Elie Wiesel returned
      to Germany this week for the first time since he was released from the
      Buchenwald concentration camp almost 41 years ago."23

      Unfortunately, this dramatic statement was nonsense, as the NYT should
      have known, since Wiesel had begun his career as a New York journalist
      in December 1962 when he published a hate-filled article appropriately
      entitled "An Appointment with Hate" in Commentary, the organ of the
      American Jewish Committee. Its subject was a recent trip he had made
      to Germany. In it, he wrote: "Every Jew, somewhere in his being,
      should set apart a zone of hate—healthy, virile hate—for what the
      German personifies and for what persists in the Germans. To do
      otherwise would be a betrayal of the dead." The word "Catholic" can
      easily be substituted for "German" here.

      Likewise, even after the Nobel award was announced on October 14,
      1986, the NYT would continue to embroider the facts, always trying to
      dramatize Wiesel's life experience. For instance, on November 2, they
      triumphantly republished a severely cropped version of the Buchenwald
      photo with the caption: "Elie Wiesel, the winner of the Nobel Peace
      Prize (at far right in the top bunk) in the Buchenwald concentration
      camp in April 1945, when the camp was liberated by American troops."24
      The picture was cropped in such a way that the man who is supposed to
      be Wiesel remains barely visible. The NYT also suggests the picture
      was taken on April 11, 1945 without, of course, actually saying so.
      Then, in January 1987, they erroneously claimed that Wiesel had been
      "freed from Auschwitz" during the war.25 A year later, when he made a
      trip to Auschwitz, the NYT wrote: "Mr. Wiesel was a prisoner at
      Auschwitz and witnessed the killing there of his father and one of his
      sisters."26 Of course, Wiesel's father died in Buchenwald, and the
      tragic details of his sister's death are contained in the unavailable
      (to me at least) Auschwitz camp records. But the word "Auschwitz"
      is one of the three Jewish holocaust terms that have been sloganized
      in the pages of the NYT, along with "six million" and "gas chambers,"
      while "Buchenwald" is not.

      In 1987, a year after cashing his $270,000 Nobel check, Wiesel
      appeared at the Klaus Barbie trial in Lyons, France. Here, once again,
      the Buchenwald photo was put to use by the media, although it is not
      clear to what extent Wiesel was involved in this particular Jewish
      holocaust fraud. On June 3, 1987, the Chicago Tribune published an AP
      photo containing a cropped version of the men in the bunks at
      Buchenwald. What was completely new in this fourth tall tale about his
      liberation was that Wiesel, accompanied by two other people, one of
      whom might have been French Prime Minister Lionel Jospin, was shown
      standing in front of a blown-up version of the picture and pointing to
      himself in it. The caption read: "Nobel Prize winner Elie Wiesel
      points to a picture of himself, taken by a German at the Auschwitz
      death camp in 1945. The photograph is part of the Holocaust Memorial
      in Lyon, France."

      This caption is totally mendacious, and the only problem with this
      particular scam is determining Wiesel's role in it. However, when we
      recall words he wrote early in his career and has repeated many time
      since then, we have a possible key. "Some events do take place but are
      not true; others are true although they never occurred."27 Telling a
      "true lie" with good intentions is simply not a problem for Wiesel.
      Also, since the Barbie trial focused on deportations to Auschwitz, not
      Buchenwald, the former was in the news every day during the summer of
      1987, while hardly a word was being said about the latter. Thus,
      Wiesel, never shy about generating publicity for himself, might well
      have felt that a "true lie" was called for here.

      In 1995, Wiesel offered a fifth version of his liberation experience
      in an interview published in the German weekly Die Zeit. It contained
      two new pieces of information. The first was the claim that the
      picture had actually been taken the day after the liberation, that is,
      on April 12, 1945, not on April 11th, as the media had always implied.
      This new date not only contradicts the date of April 16 given by the
      U.S. Army, but it also made it impossible for him to be in it if we
      believed his second claim that he had been put in the hospital for ten
      days immediately upon eating American food on April 11th. The second
      new assertion to emerge from this interview was that the picture was
      taken in the children's barracks, or Kinderblock at Buchenwald, where
      Wiesel was lodged. The following statement to this effect appears
      twice in the article, once in the text and once again as the caption
      to the picture (in which the person alleged to be Wiesel is circled as
      it had been in the NYT in 1983): "On the day after the liberation the
      picture was taken in the Children's Block at Buchenwald by an American
      soldier. It shows old men. But these old faces are the faces of men
      who, in truth, were 15 or 16 years of age like I was."28 Since 1945,
      when the NYT first made propaganda use of this picture, no one has
      ever claimed that it depicts children. Yet, Wiesel actually expects us
      to believe that these men, some of whom are heavily bearded or
      partially bald, were mere boys. Finally, when Wiesel states that the
      picture was taken "by an American soldier," he gives the impression
      that it was a spur-of-the-moment event and not one that was carefully
      orchestrated for propaganda purposes.

      A sixth version of events at the liberation of Buchenwald was
      concocted by Wiesel in 1989 when a black filmmaker and a Jewish
      producer were trying to create a new myth, namely, that a black unit,
      the 761st Tank Battalion, had actually liberated the Jews at
      Buchenwald. Their intention was to increase black and Jewish mutual
      "understanding" in Brooklyn through a movie to be shown on PBS called
      Liberators. For the benefit of the NYT, which gave serious coverage to
      this far-fetched story, Wiesel conjured up a brand new memory that he
      had never mentioned before: "I will always remember with love a big
      black soldier. He was crying like a child—tears of all the pain in the
      world and all the rage. Everyone who was there that day will forever
      feel a sentiment of gratitude to the American soldiers who liberated
      us."29 He made this statement despite the fact that there were no
      blacks present at the liberation of Buchenwald on April 11, 1945, and
      the black unit in question was over 50 miles away on that date.
      After a gala preview screening of the movie in Harlem, it was
      gradually revealed that the film's thesis was a hoax. Thus, it was
      never released.

      Jeffrey Goldberg, among others, denounced this media fabrication that
      the NYT had so strongly supported.30 Yet, Wiesel repeated this true
      lie in his autobiography: "I will never forget the American soldiers
      and the horror that could be read in their faces. I will especially
      remember one black sergeant, a muscled giant, who wept tears of
      impotent rage and shame, shame for the human species, when he
      saw us. He spewed curses that on his lips became holy words. We tried
      to lift him onto our shoulders to show our gratitude, but we didn't
      have the strength. We were too weak to even applaud him."31 In
      Wiesel's patronizing and essentially racist view of the world, blacks
      are portrayed as physically strong but inarticulate. They can only
      spit out obscenities. Amazingly, even though the story was known to be
      false, he later incorporated it into his lecture routine, as needed.32


      Elie Wiesel, so admired by many U. S. Catholic leaders, is in fact a
      con man who has enriched himself with his tall tales. Although courted
      by various misguided Church representatives, he is actually an
      outspoken enemy of traditional Catholicism, and should play no role
      whatsoever in Catholic life in this country. It is also evident that
      both Wiesel and the NYT are comfortable using true lies to promote the
      Jewish holocaust story and, in turn, Israel. Even worse, it is
      appalling that Wiesel, in his drive to become a multi-millionaire (he
      charges a standard fee of $25,000 per appearance and demands a
      chauffeur-driven car to go with it), and media personality, has so
      heartlessly exploited the suffering and death of his parents and
      sister at the hands of the Nazis. In falsifying his "memories" for
      personal gain, Wiesel has trivialized the personal tragedies of not
      only his closest family members, but also of all those, Jews and
      Gentiles, who died in the camps. The old shame of the JOW was, and is,
      the documented deaths of all too many innocent Jews during the war.
      The new shame of the JOW is the ongoing media exploitation of those
      deaths by people like Wiesel and the editors of the New York Times.

      David O'Connell is a professor of French at Georgia State University
      in Atlanta.


      1. Ari L. Goldman, "For Cardinal, Wiesel Visit Proved a Calm in Storm
      Over Trip," NYT, February 15, 1987, I, 67.

      2. Brian Caulfield, "Holocaust Memorial: Cardinal Asks Forgiveness for
      Christians Who Turned Their Backs on Jews," Catholic New York,
      September 18, 1997, 14-15.

      3. Brian Caulfield, "University Award: Cardinal Honored for Promoting
      Catholic Jewish Relations," Catholic New York, November 13, 1997, 12.
      "Although many Christians were persecuted by the Nazis, the cardinal
      said, only Jews were killed mainly because of their ethnic background.
      He stressed that he is `passionately committed' to making the truth
      about the Holocaust known.'" Of course, this statement is absurd, for
      Nazi ideology was equally scornful of the Catholic Poles, whose
      country was supposed to provide living space for the Germans.
      Furthermore, an archbishop's primary responsibility is to proclaim
      Christ, not to tell the Jewish holocaust story.

      4. "What is a Jew? Harry Cargas Interviews Elie Wiesel," U.S
      Catholic/Jubilee, September 1971, 28.

      5. Jacob Neusner, "American Jews Embrace a Religion of Memory," St.
      Petersburg Times, April 12, 1999. This is why the Anti-Defamation
      League, the American Jewish Committee, the New York Times and other
      media outlets were so one-sided and hateful in their attacks on Mel
      Gibson's Passion. He was not only reiterating the centrality of
      Christ's suffering for the redemption of all mankind, but in doing so
      he was also undermining our country's civil religion. It was no
      accident that various mediarchs repeatedly accused him of "Holocaust
      denial" for reasserting Christ over "Holocaust." It should be noted
      that the capital H in Holocaust underlines the racist assumption that
      other holocausts, whether they refer to the millions of victims in
      Ruanda, Armenia, Cambodia, the Stalinist Ukraine (in which Jewish
      commissars played a major role) or Palestine, are not important.

      6. Limitations of space do not permit a description of how Wiesel,
      with the help of his mentor at the NYT, Abe Rosenthal, created the
      word in 1968 as a cover for the 1967 conquest and occupation of the
      rest of Palestine. Catholic victimhood at the hands of the Nazis, well
      documented at Nuremberg, was declared by Wiesel to be henceforth
      inoperative. Only Jews could be true victims of the Nazi "holocaust."

      7. Bob Woodard, Plan of Attack, (New York, Simon & Schuster, 2004),
      320-1. Woodward recounts Wiesel's visit to the White House in late
      February 2003, when Bush was still allegedly wavering in his decision
      to attack Iraq. After hearing Wiesel tell him that Israel's security
      was at stake, Bush made the decision easily. Americans must fight to
      protect Israel. Did Bush know at the time that Wiesel is on the CIA
      payroll, as he boasts in his autobiography? Wiesel, of course, had
      previously been a leading supporter of Clinton's bombing of Yugoslavia
      in 1998.

      8. Pierre Vidal-Naquet, Zero [monthly magazine], avril 1987, 57. "Par
      exemple, vous avez le rabbin Kahane, cet extrémiste juif, qui est
      moins dangereux qu'un homme comme Elie Wiesel qui raconte N'IMPORTE
      QUOI. . . Il suffit de lire certaine description de La Nuit pour
      savoir que certaines de ses descriptions ne sont pas exactes et qu'il
      finit par se transformer en marchand de Shoah. .
      Eh bien, lui aussi, porte un tort, un tort immense, à la vérité

      9. Vivian Gornick, "The Rhetoric of Witness: All Rivers Run To the
      Sea: Memoirs by Elie Wiesel," The Nation, December 25, 1995.

      10. Christopher Hitchens, "Wiesel Words," The Nation, February 19, 2001.

      11. Anon. "Wiesel Slams Pope's Comments," News24.com, November 17, 2003.

      12. Eva Fleischner, "Mauriac's Preface to Night: Thirty Years Later,'
      America, November 19, 1988, 411, 419.

      13. Clyda Haberman, "An Unoffical but Very Public Bearer of Pain,
      Peace and Human Dignity," NYT, March 5, 1997, C1.

      14. Isreal Shenker, "The Concerns of Elie Wiesel: Yesterday and
      Today," NYT, February 10, 1970, 48. "The two became close friends, and
      Mr. Wiesel plans to publish a volume of their dialogue—which have had
      strongly polemical moments, notably on the subject if Israel."

      15. Naomi Seidman, "The Rage That Elie Wiesel Edited Out of Night,"
      Jewish Social Studies, December, 1996.

      16. Jonathan Heller, War and Conflict: Selected Images from the
      National Archives, (Washington, D.C., National Archives and Records
      Administration, 1990), 253.

      17. Cargas, Conversations with Elie Wiesel, 88.

      18. Harold Denny, "The World Must Not Forget," NYT, May 6, 1945, 42.

      19. After Wiesel received the prize, several Jewish writers denounced
      him for shamelessly lobbying for it. See, for example: Jacob Weisberg,
      "Pop Goes Elie Wiesel," New Republic, November 10, 1986, pp.12-3.

      20. See: Samuel G. Freedman, "Bearing Witness: The Life and Work of
      Elie Wiesel," NYT, October 23, 1983. The picture appeared on p. 34.

      21. Henry Kamm, "No Mention of Jews at Buchenwald," NYT, March 25,
      1989, 8.

      22. Elie Wiesel, "Le Jour où Buchenwald a été libéré," Paris-Match,
      #28126, du 10 au 16 avril 2003, 116.

      23. John Tagliabue, "Elie Wiesel Back in Germany After 41 Years," NYT,
      January 23, 1986, A4.

      24. Martin Suskind, "A Voice from Bonn: History Cannot be Shrugged
      Off," NYT, November 2, 1986, IV, 2. The article points out that the
      Nobel Committee "chose precisely Elie Wiesel for the award" because
      they wanted to send a message to the Kohl government in Germany, which
      had not demonstrated sufficient guilt in 1985 in commemorating the
      fortieth anniversary of the end of World War II.

      25. "A Survivor's Prize," NYT, January 4, 1987, XIII, 3.

      26. "Wiesel and Walesa Visit Auschwitz," NYT, January 18, 1988, I, 3.

      27. Legends of Our Time, (1968), viii.

      28 "Am Tag nach der Befreiung wurde das Bild aus dem Kinderblock von
      Buchenwald von einem amerikanischen Soldaten aufgenommen. Darauf sind
      alte Männer zu sehen. Doch diese alten Gesichter sind die Gesichter
      von Menschen, die in Warheit wie ich um die um die fünfzehn oder
      sechzehn Jahre alt waren." Elie Wiesel [aufgezeichnet von Werner A.
      Perger] "1945 und Heute: Holocaust," Die Zeit, April 21, 1995, 16.

      29. Henry Kamm, "No Mention of Jews at Buchenwald," NYT, Mar 25, 1989, 8.

      30. Jeffrey Goldberg, "The Exaggerators," New Republic, February 8,
      1993, 13-14.

      31. All Rivers Run to the Sea, 97.

      32. Anon. "Maya Angelou and Elie Wiesel on Love, Hate and Humanity,"
      Massachusetts, Spring 1995, 4.



      To subscribe to this group, send an email to:

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.