Talk:The Man Who Broke into Auschwitz

Proposed rewrite
> The Man Who Broke Into Auschwitz is the title of an autobiographical book by the british Hero of the Holocaust Denis Avey, with Rob Broomby, published in 2011.[1]. Content Avey relates his wartime service and how he came to be held prisoner in E715A, a camp for Allied Prisoners of War adjacent to Monowitz. He describes how he exchanged uniforms with a Jewish inmate of Monowitz in order to enter Monowitz to discover more about conditions there, with a view to reporting these to the authorities after the war. He also relates how he smuggled cigarettes to another Jewish inmate Ernst Lobethal, having obtained these from Lobethal’s sister in England.. He was convinced that Ernst had died by early 1945, because he could not have survived the death marches when the camp was evacuated. He also said that after the war the authorities were not interested in his story and he kept silence for more than half a century. Eventually her did begin to disclose his story and it came to the attention of the BBC. Rob Broomby was able to trace Lobethal’s sister Susanne and her son had a copy of a video recording which her brother before his death had made for the Shoah Foundation in which he describes how Avey smuggled the cigarettes and that these cigarettes saved his life because he was able to exchange them for food and to have new soles put on his boots which enabled him to survive the death march. Criticism The Book is a best-seller and translated into many different languages. However, although Lobethal’s video confirms that Avey smuggled cigarettes to him questions have been raised as to whether Avey managed to smuggle himself into Auschwitz.<

I propose this rewrite of the article. I consider it gives a better overview of the plot structure. It makes it clear as to where the question lies. Sceptic1954 (talk) 11:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Sceptic1954


 * But why still no reference to the controversy or the details of it? The whole 'swapping' account has been doubted by, among others, the head of research at the Auschwitz-Birkenau museum, Piotr Setkiewicz, who has said: "...I don't think this (the swap) happened." . So don't we need to refer to that? Yet you write that he is a "British Hero of the Holocaust". As if that is accepted undisputed fact. And yet he may well not be that, but might be like Charles Coward who wrote an account very similar to this one that has been shown to be fictional and fraudulent. Wikipedia (as I have explained on the Denis Avey page discussion board), should give all info regarding the person and his book without bias or preference. Yet you refer to the book by Coward but have not included this relevant and important info about its inauthenticity? :-o Why is that?
 * Therefore I would prefer including here (aswell as on the author's BLP page) that there exist problematical differences with his earlier accounts and that there exists controversy over this book and it's credibility? Problems have been identified with the details of his concentration camp story and with differences in his account in the book with those of his interviews and talks.
 * Mr. Avey's earlier verbal accounts included details of a person he called 'Stoker', an Australian POW who worked stoking the crematoria in Birkenau which was not included in his book presumably after his co-author researched and discovered it was known that there is no record of the imprisonment of a British or Australian POW who worked with the Jewish Sonderkommando but that there was an Australian, Donald Watt, who had published a book in 1995 claiming to be a stoker at Auschwitz and after it was shown that there is no evidence he had even been in Auschwitz-Birkenau his account was later exposed as fraudulent and discredited.
 * Mr. Avey’s swap story is very similar to another published account in a book titled "The Password Is Courage" which is accepted as fraudulent. That book was written by another former PoW at camp E715, Charles Coward.
 * Mr. Avey said when he entered the Monowitz camp he marched under the "Arbeit Macht Frei" sign yet that sign was at not at Auschwitz III but at Auschwitz I, six miles away.
 * the camp which he says he smuggled himself into differed in the accounts. In the taped account, Avey said he swapped with a prisoner in Auschwitz-Birkenau. In the book account he wrote that he swapped with an inmate of the labour camp, Auschwitz III-Monowitz).
 * the name of the prisoner with whom he exchanged places differed in the accounts. In the book, he wrote that he swapped with a Dutch Jewish inmate called ‘Hans’ and smuggled himself into Auschwitz III. In a 2009 Daily Mail interview and in a talk to Oxford students he said he swapped with prisoner Ernst Lobethal into Auschwitz II, or Birkenau.
 * criticism has been made concerning the length of time after the event allowed to pass before first narrating the swap incident.
 * Mr Avey partly explained the delay by claiming that military authorities after the war were not interested in his account. Yet in 1947 he had declined the invitation to make an affidavit of his time as a POW, when contacted by American prosecutors who were documenting camp conditions for war crimes trials.
 * Yad Vashem, the Holocaust remembrance authority, has said it is "unable to substantiate his account of the prisoner swap" although it states this is not a criticism of it.


 * This is the same length as the previous article which contained no explicit mention of controversy, just similarities with Coward's Book. The main point of the article should be to inform of the content of the book and I've tried to give a structure outline which everyone can assent to.  Because it's fairly brief hopefully people will read tio the end where they can see that a major element in the book, from which it derives its title, is disputed.  I agree with you that everything is Avey's account and 'said that' 'claimed that' and similar terms are in order through the narrative, but the cigarettes part of the story has been confirmed and we can say he did' rather than 'he claimed that he did' there.


 * Hamlet says 'Brevity is the soul of wit' I very much feel that if you want to be read you need to keep it reasonably brief.  Sceptic1954 (talk) 13:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Sceptic1954


 * I have now edited the article to give the rewritten version which I consider sets out the may plot structure in a neutral tone. I put a brief mention of the controversy attached to the book at the end.


 * You appear not to understand the details of the dispute. E.g. Mr. Avey's cigarette story is NOT confirmed. A Jewish inmate and his sister HAVE confimed a PoW calling himself 'Ginger' made contact and delivered cigarettes. On the talkpage of Denis Avey I referred you to the evidence of this person being the British PoW 'Ginger' Parry, and NOT Mr. Avey. There has been no evidence supplied that Mr. Avey was ever nicknamed 'Ginger' or had ginger coloured hair. Agreed, it IS A FACT that Mr. Avey has claimed to be that 'Ginger'. But that is all that is confirmed by this.
 * Mr. Avey also claimed originally to have tried to contact a PoW called 'Stoker' who he says operated the cremtoria at Auschwitz. This has been shown to have been a 'memory' based on reading a fraudulent book by Mr. Watt. MY  concern is that you have written the article with the viewpoint that Mr. Avey's controversial and contested account is genuine and have merely added that there is some vague and largely unspecified controversy about it. So I still would prefer that the article be written from a more neutral viewpoint. Do you understand yet what i mean by that yet? And still no mention of Auschwitz-Birkenau museum/memorial chief, Mr. Piotr Setkiewicz? --Mystichumwipe (talk) 10:11, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

M I have listened to parts of Avey's interview with Lyn Smith and there is no doubt in my mind that that Avey is 'Ginger'. Those, which is unfortunately most of the world, who do not have access to this, are perfectly justified in wondering whether Avey is 'Ginger', indeed I did before I heard it. I don't think you can find any 'reliable source' where the question is raised. (Whay wiki regards as a reliable source and what I might regard as a reliable source may not always be one and the same.) My rewrite will not be neutral for Wikiwatcher either, he will think it too anti-Avey because I mention the Daily Mail article.

The publishers 'Notes on Sources' addresses the Donald Watt question and there is no dispute that something Avey read comparatively recently had become a memory of the war when he gave his interview to Lyn Smith. I do think that is an important indication of his confused memory. It's more for brevity that I didn't mention it. Maybe there should be an Wiki article for this Donald Watt which we could link to. As Piotr S has rowed back a little in the latest programme I didn't mention him - he is in the Guy Walters Daily Mail article.

Speaking personally I am definitely not in the business of attacking Avey personally. I'd much rather have a go at the BBC for running it when it couldn't be substantiated. I think that sensational stories like this cloud proper understanding of the Holocaust, and their second programme acknowledges this possibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sceptic1954 (talk • contribs) 10:48, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Mysticumswipe I think this article needs to be treated as a BLP. In line with what you have said I have made a separate 'criticisms' section. As we are talking specifically about books here I thought this a good place to mention the similarities with Charles Coward. If you agree with my plot summary please say so, I tried to get away from the 'heroic' tone of the earlier version and be more analytic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sceptic1954 (talk • contribs) 10:27, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Mystichumswipe: Having looked at several editions of this book - it's been through about 8 I think, the words are not on all of them. So I've added clarification to what is in Daily Mail. So it's not sourced but I know it to be accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sceptic1954 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikiwatcherplease note the current ratings for this article. The ratings for Denis Avey were equivalent before I last amended that article.Sceptic1954 (talk) 08:57, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Impugning the Imperial War Museum and a hero with opinions
The article has essentially been revised to imply that Denis Avey, the book's author, is a complete fraud. Therefore, the article also implies that the British government and the expert historians at the Imperial War Museum have been duped into awarding a British soldier one of its highest honors. It accomplishes this implication in various places with non-neutral statements such as the following:


 * The book is described as "an assumed autobiographical book";
 * He "became a recipient of a British Hero of the Holocaust award, based solely on what he described in it";
 * "The book has become a subject of considerable controversy."

However, none of the above are supported. First, an author's autobiography can not be redefined as an "assumed autobiography." Second, he received his award after extensive interviews with expert historians at the war museum along with the Prime Minister, and not " based solely on what he described in it," as the lead now states.

Nor is it the subject of "considerable controversy," or realistically any controversy, as only a single writer, Guy Walters, has published an article questioning the truth of Avey's account for the Daily Mail, a popular British tabloid. The article in the Daily Mail includes the opinions of Piotr Setkiewicz, past prisoners, etc. who say they cannot confirm or deny Avey accomplished that what he described, with Setkiewicz simply pointing out that breaking into or out of Auschwitz "would have been extremely risky," an obvious fact. Similar personal opinions claim that it would be hard to do and therefore was improbable. The implication of fraud by Avey is further supported by synthesizing details from the life of another author, Charles Coward, whose similar story was also questioned by doubters, although never proven to be false.

Per guidelines, such contentious material improperly sourced or supported, which effectively attacks someone's reputation, should be removed. --Light show (talk) 00:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * If you happen to have a wp:conflict of interest, please state it upfront, as advised in our policy/guidelines. The Ynetnews article informs us that the publishing house has been fiercely defending the story since the controversy broke out, which is not without the motive, but that does not mean that we can still manipulate what has already been said by others. For once, you have falsely claimed in your summary (quote): restored correct source which was in fact the same daily paper, the Daily Mail, a popular British tabloid (as you say) which published both articles, the one you chose to name as "correct" and the article by Guy Walters which you disapprove of. Please do not lie, that a single writer questioned the truth of Avey's account. The same paper that informed the public about the award in April 2011, also published the article about the growing controversy. The Ynetnews article however (one article I included to bring some light into this matter), clearly stated that the story cannot be confirmed. Period. In the end, Setkiewicz was correct in his prediction about what was going to happen next. Poeticbent talk 01:50, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree with . Per BLP is you want to state that this is an "Assumed" biography,  you need to have reliable sources to back it up, the same thing with "based soley on what he described in it ".  That this book is controversial is backed up with reliable sources, best I can tell.     your post looks rather incivil,  you may want to re-word that KoshVorlon   R.I.P Leonard Nimoy  "Live Long and Prosper"   15:56, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I appreciate you desire to help, but how on earth is my comment uncivil? The writing is on the wall. The source article in Daily Mail has quoted the World Jewish Congress as saying: "We are deeply concerned about the charge that a significant part of Mr Avey’s story — i.e. that he supposedly smuggled himself into the Auschwitz-Buna concentration camp — is exaggerated if not completely fabricated," said the organisation ... "We didn’t find anyone to confirm it," said Irena Steinfeldt, a spokeswoman for Yad Vashem. "We went through several testimonies of Jewish inmates, and none of them mentioned that it happened. There was nothing to substantiate it." Poeticbent talk 16:42, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * You've said nothing new. If anything, you've supported all the complaints noted above. The strongest statement that you could find came from Yaeger's essay, where she simply affirms that the WJC is "deeply concerned about the the charge . . ." Of course they're concerned, when some UK tabloid blasts a story by some college history major (at the time) calling Avey's story a fake. They even called it a "News" story, slightly better than these. But that's what tabloids like the Daily Mail must do to sell ads. --Light show (talk) 17:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

There are a host of sources other than the Daily Mail questioning Avey's claim: the Sunday Times and Frankfurter Allgemein for example. I'm not aware that anyone has impugned the integrity of the Imperial War Museum, one of their researchers Lyn Smith was doggedly defending Avey when a lot of people were questioning his testimony. that's about it. Sceptic1954 (talk) 12:17, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The possible irony is that had his wartime story been written as a novel, as implied, he might have achieved even greater fame, akin to other British fantasy writers, like Tolkien, Rowling, or Lewis Carroll. Anyone who took over 60 years to write the story, maybe called Denis's Adventures in . . ., might be held in higher esteem today for his wild imagination, instead of simply describing his recollections. --Light show (talk) 19:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Lightshow. As a British citizen I don't think that British Hero of the Holocaust is one of our countries highest honours. It was created by former Prime Minister Gordon Brown in 2012. I don't know the procedure for being granted the award, I do know that it was for obtaining cigarettes for Lobethal and not for anything else. I doubt that the Imperial War Museum were involved, more likely the Holocaust Education Trust were because they called for a search for more potential living recipients of the award in 2009. I can accept your objections about the Daily Mail not being 100 per cent reliable and the questions have been raised most extensively there but there are other sources which might be considered more reliable such as the Sunday Times, the Frankfuerter Allgemein. I think it reasonable to say the book is a source of considerable controversy but the use of 'purported' is confusing because it could mean that it's not by Avey or that Avey says things which are not true. As nobody contests 90 per cent of the book I don't think it should be classed as fiction, even if the title is taken from the contested 10 per cent. Quite clearly Avey received the award before thу book came out, receiving the award is described in the book. I don't think you have any COI at all, any more than do most of the readers who give it 5 star reviews on Amazon. It's absurd to say that just because you like the book you have a financial interest in it. People shouldn't be allowed to get away with saying such things on Amazon. BTW one reason I don't believe it is because I have listened to tapes of some of Avey's interviews and find them contradictory. Sceptic1954 (talk) 08:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * purport, verb, pəˈpɔːt/, 1.appear to be or do something, especially falsely."she is not the person she purports to be"

synonyms:	claim, lay claim, profess, pretend; I don't consider that Avey entered Monowitz but IMO its completely wrong to use this word in the article (unless quoting). It is worse to use it in a sentence which mentions the award of an honour because any accusations of 'purporting' made against Avey have not been in connection with the actions for which he received the honour. Sceptic1954 (talk) 09:16, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

The lead strikes me as stressing a bit too much the doubters but at least the lead sentence is okay as of now. I am however considering mentioning this on the BLP notice board. The tone has to be conservative.Sceptic1954 (talk) 09:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

'Purported' and 'Award'
It is only as purported autobiography if it is not by the subject. Robinson Crusoe might be called a purported autobiography. The veracity of any autobiography might be questioned, here nobody questions most of the book only that part which gives rise to the title. There is enough in the lead about his claims being questioned without needing to add a confusing adjective in the first sentence, but if you wish to find a way to highlight this further there is a better way than this. I personally think there is enough in the lead and Avey is a living person.

He received the award before the book came out and before it was even written. The book was commissioned on the back of the award, not the award given on the basis of the book.

If you are going to refer to some policy please quote directly. 93.80.114.149 (talk) 13:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC) These edits by Sceptic1954, sorry I am unable to log in at this time.Sceptic1954 (talk) 13:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Edit war
I would like to encourage editors with possible interest in improving the online sales of this book, based on our Wikipedia article, to please reveal your identity, and refrain from any further revisions to this entry with the aim of silencing dissent and independent critical thought. Thank you, Poeticbent talk 19:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Can you please specify who you mean? I reverted you twice today because you had suggested without evidence that I might have a COI. Please report that to an administrator if you think it out of order. Now I have invited you to discuss matters if you wish to revert back to your edit, please go ahead instead of making baseless and in fact absurd insinuations that I might have a COI. I think I am doing a good job on ensuring neutrality on these pages if I get attacked from both sides but if you actually looked at my edits or talk I don't see how you could begin to think I have a COI. I have plenty of emails in which I take the publishers to task for absurdities, especially their claim about the NZ soldier reported in Auschwitz in someone else's memoir. BTW is the book still in print, or has it had a second edition? I thought it was just being quietly forgotten, except by James Long.

Sceptic1954 (talk) 19:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I gave User:Sceptic1954 a chance to honourably get out of this mess. The guy has been massaging the article since 25 September 2012, removing valid criticism and so – obviously – he is not going to stop now. However, the book in question contains glaring signs of an Auschwitz (hero story) hoax as already noted by Holocaust scholars as well as some less diplomatic literary critics in Great Britain. Of course, there's no proof of a conflict of interest in tendentious editing alone, even if that editing amounts to actually lying in edit summaries and attacking other Wikipedians in talk? – I'd say, if you're not on a payroll of the publishing house which is trying to cash in on the hot commodity, please stop goading uninvolved editors. You did NOT revert me twice today. You reverted TWO editors, me being one of them. Poeticbent talk 23:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC) I stand corrected about the number of editors I reverted. I think however Lightshow would support my claim that I do not display signs of COI. Assuming him to be the earlier Wikiwatcher I amended the article on Denis Avey in the face of his objections to include all the questions about the veracity of Avey's claims. If you actually go back through all my records I was once blocked indefinitely because I argued too much that Holocaust Denial shouldn't be labelled anti-Semitic. It's not particularly relevant or valid for me to state my views on the veracity or otherwise of Avey's claim to have entered Monowitz, I would think however that they can be deduced and are completely the opposite of what you think. All I can think is that I am doing a reasonable job of defending NPOV and conservative tone on Avey-related pages if I get flak from both sides.Sceptic1954 (talk) 23:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC) actually if you really want my views on this here they are. Avey had been making his claim to have smuggled himself into Auschwitz/Monowitz for some years but it had never been taken seriously enough to get onto the main BBC channel. When the British Hero of the Holocaust Award was announced there was an appeal to locate any further potential living recipients. At this point Rob Broomby quite brilliantly confirmed that Avey had obtained cigarettes for Lobethal. It was for this that Avey received his award. At this point someone in the BBC made the decision to give main channel exposure to his claim to have entered Monowitz and in the back of this Avey got a book contract. I think this came to be recognised within the BBC as a bad decision, but the subsequent TV programme they out out about it is as near as we are likely to get to a retraction. Yes there is a culture within the BBC which means that some people at lower levels, especially on their website, turn out sensational holocaust stories. There is also is also a similar Pavlovian programming to portray Russia in a bad light and I have several times found articles amended after I I submit complaints. The top people, the likes of John Simpson, are above this. However whilst I agree with Guy Walters that publishers cash in on incredible holocaust stories and might think there is too much in the media about Aushcwitz as compared to other atrocities I do not doubt that the Nazis were party to murdering millions of Jews. Sceptic1954 (talk) 00:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC) So what found mean by 'an Auschwitz hoax'? As you clearly believe Treblinka was an extermination camp? You might actually find that we are in complete agreement.Sceptic1954 (talk) 00:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

The thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding this issue. Poeticbent talk 05:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)