Recently we were treated to a piece of ‘Holocaust’ theatre in the media at the White House Hannukah Party with two so-called ‘Holocaust Survivors’ named Michael Bornstein and Jerry Wartski ‘showing off’ their ‘Holocaust tattoos’ to a photographer.
This photo was then uploaded to Twitter/X by one Marc Rod – who is a senior reporter for ‘Jewish Insider’ – with the following commentary:
‘Two Holocaust survivors, Michael Bornstein and Jerry Wartski, display their number tattoos at the White House Hanukkah party tonight. Photo courtesy of @BurkanJonathan’ (1)
The photo uploaded was as follows: (2)
For the record Bornstein is on the left of the photo, while Wartski is on the right.
Naturally enough I decided to look into both their stories, and I have already addressed Wartski’s narrative and shown that Wartski gets key details in his story wrong when he really shouldn’t (some are possible confusions while others suggest he is making up his story as he is going along) and quite possibly isn’t who he claims to be at all (3) so let us look at Bornstein’s claimed narrative as well.
We read at ‘Jewish Home’ how:
‘Michael is one of the youngest known survivors of the Auschwitz death camp. Photos of Michael at liberation have been spotted on museum walls, book covers and film clips around the world and yet he waited more than seventy years to step forward and share his story publicly.’ (4)
We get further detail from ‘West New York City Studios’ who write concerning their podcast interview with Bornstein that:
‘Michael Bornstein was among the youngest survivors of the Auschwitz concentration camp when it was liberated by the Soviets in January 1945. He was just 4-years-old.
Michael was born in 1940 to very unlucky circumstances: His family was Jewish in Nazi-occupied Poland. Though his family was able to delay their deportation for years, he eventually spent six months in Auschwitz, where he survived by hiding in his mother’s bunk.
Michael eventually immigrated to the United States with his mother, but he stayed silent about his experiences during the war for most of his life. But that changed when he saw a picture of his 4-year-old self in Auschwitz, in those infamous striped pajamas, on a website denying the Holocaust.’ (5)
Now for the record this is the still from the famous video shot by the Red Army upon their occupation of Auschwitz on 27th January 1945 which Bornstein claims he prominently features in (I have circled the individual he claims to be):
However, details about Bornstein’s life during the so-called ‘Holocaust’ are actually quite hard to find and vague with the most detail provided by Middlesex College of Edison, New Jersey who elaborated on his claims a bit in a report on a talk that Bornstein gave there in April 2025.
They write that:
‘Born in a polish ghetto, Bornstein’s childhood was unlike most. His family was forcibly moved from the ghetto to a labor camp, ultimately being sent to Auschwitz. His mother kept him hidden in her bunk, where he laid silently under piles of hay for months. He spoke of his mother’s heartbreak upon learning her other son and husband had been killed in the gas chambers, her perseverance to protect her remaining child at all costs, the fear of uncertainty when the two were separated, and the feeling of immense gratitude when they were finally reunited post-liberation.
Bornstein was one of only 52 children under the age of 8 to survive Auschwitz, the faint tattoo on his left forearm a grim reminder.’ (6)
Now any remotely critical person should immediately be a little non-plussed.
Why?
Well the story is already difficult to credit as true because Bornstein basically claims he was sent to Auschwitz sometime during mid-1944 at the absolute height of the alleged ‘mass gassings’ there as a three-to-four year old boy – which (as even he correctly alludes to) made him a priority target for gassing because he was a ‘useless eater’ and couldn’t contribute to the war effort – but yet he somehow avoided immediate selection for gassing at the newly opened (third) Judenrampe through the famous ‘Gates of Death’ at Auschwitz Birkenau. (7)
Not only that Bornstein’s mother then proceeds to magically ‘keep him hidden under her bunk’ – this is possible albeit extremely unlikely over six months in a very busy place like Auschwitz that was also riddled with heavily incentivized informers working for the camp’s Gestapo office – and ‘under piles of hay’ where he ‘lay silently for months’. This is extremely unlikely given the time frame but also because the hay in the mattresses (which is what I assume Bornstein is referring not literal ‘piles of hay’) was periodically changed – as a sanitation measure – at Auschwitz – which would have revealed his hiding place – and while food was collected from the kitchens and brought back to the huts – (8) which would explains how Bornstein was fed and hydrated over the six months he was allegedly there – there remains the issue of how Bornstein survived in such conditions without washing and toilet facilities – the washing and toilet facilities were outside the blocks assuming that Bornstein was in Auschwitz Birkenau as he implies rather than say Auschwitz I (the Stammlager) or Auschwitz III (Monowitz).
This is explained badly (because they are busy trying to reconcile why the Germans would build specific toilet and washing blocks for people they were allegedly exterminating) but reasonably accurately by the Auschwitz Memorial Museum in regard to Birkenau (Auschwitz I had much better arrangements due to it being a former Polish army barracks) as follows:
‘Overall, sector BI was divided into two subsectors, BIa and BIb, with ten sanitary barracks. One sector comprised two barracks with only bathhouses, two barracks with only toilets, and one barrack with bathhouses and toilets. But again, if we consider that during the period the women were transferred to this location, that is, between August and September 1942, there were approximately 16,500 women there in September 1942, and they had two barracks with a little over 100 toilet openings at their disposal. Therefore, attending to physiological needs or washing in the morning was another ordeal for these people because everything had to be done hastily, and there was limited time for these activities.’ (9)
For our purposes – aside from the silly moaning about ‘too few toilets’ and ‘they weren’t given enough time in the shower’ – the point is simple enough: Bornstein – if his narrative is taken at face value – wasn’t using the toilets and washing facilities so a big (and very smelly) pile of urine and faeces would have built up under his mother’s bunk that would have attracted attention.
Thus, we can see that frankly his story doesn’t make a great deal of practice sense.
However, the real reason we know it cannot be true is Bornstein’s claim to have an Auschwitz inmate tattoo and the fact that he claims he is one of the children in the Soviet film of the ‘children of Auschwitz’ from 27th January 1945 because those children have inmate tattoos but also have camp-issued uniforms.
Bornstein – and apparently a bunch of so-called ‘Holocaust Educators’ – inexplicably don’t know what this means: Bornstein was a registered inmate of Auschwitz.
What this means in practical terms is that Bornstein didn’t escape formal camp registration, had to sit down and be tattooed in the summer of 1944 by the Germans – when he was supposed to be a priority target for immediate gassing (so why on earth would you tattoo and issue a valuable clean camp uniform to someone you are about to immediately throw in a gas chamber anyway?) – and thus couldn’t have been running around hiding from the Germans to avoid being gassed as the Germans had just given him a clean camp uniform and a new inmate tattoo (aka they knew Bornstein was in Auschwitz, they knew which block he’d been assigned to and that he was being actively allocated rations of food and drink from the camp kitchens).
Thus, we can see that Bornstein has to be outright lying somewhere or the ‘Holocaust’ never actually happened since his story directly contradicts that narrative.
Whether or not Bornstein is indeed the child in the Soviet footage of 27th January 1945 I cannot rightly say precisely because while he might be the fact that he only seems to have decided he was ‘that child’ in recent years suggests quite the opposite as does the fact that – quite frankly – I don’t think the child in the footage looks similar to Bornstein at all.
Thus, we can see that Michael Bornstein – just like Jerry Wartski – is very likely a ‘Fake Holocaust Survivor’.
References
(1) https://x. com/marcrod97/status/2001152347448250529
(2) Idem.
(3) On this please see my article: https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/fake-holocaust-survivors-jerry-wartski
(4) https://jewishhome.org/honorees/michael-bornstein/
(5) https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/takeaway/segments/surviving-auschwitz-toddler
(6) https://middlesexcollege.edu/2025/04/auschwitz-survivor-returns-to-share-his-story-of-survival-with-middlesex-college/
(7) On this please see my article: https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/the-geography-of-auschwitz-and-origins
(8) https://www.theholocaustexplained.org/the-camps/ss-concentration-camp-system/meals/
(9) https://www.auschwitz.org/en/education/e-learning/podcast/living-and-sanitary-conditions-as-well-as-camp-clothing-at-camp/
Karl’s SubstackRead More
R1
T1
