Features
Moe Levy reminisces about the late Izzy Asper
By BERNIE BELLAN In March 2023 Moe Levy retired as executive director of the Asper Foundation, after 23 1/2 years in that position.
To that point Levy had been the only person to hold that position. In an April 2014 column about Levy I wrote about how he had come to fill that role. Prior to becoming executive director of the Asper Foundation, Levy had an extensive background in both the public and the private sectors.
After coming to Canada from his native Bombay, with a stop in Israel along the way, Levy entered university here, acquiring both a Bachelors and Masters in Business Administration from the University of Manitoba.
As I noted in my 2014 article, “Levy says that he began to work for the Manitoba government as soon as he graduated from university here. ‘I started off as a consultant, he explained. In two years ‘I created the first business incubator program in Canada,” he said with pride. ‘It was called ‘Enterprise Manitoba.’
“One of the programs that grew out of that particular initiative was something called ‘Business Start”,’which saw young entrepreneurs receive $5,000 grants from the government,’ ” Levy added.
Later, Levy was involved in various other enterprises, including joint ownership (with his brother) of what became two well known restaurants in Winnipeg (although both have since closed): Moskowitz and Moskowitz” (at the corner of Mayfair and Main), then Schmeckers (in St. James).
As I noted, however, Levy and his brother eventually sold the restaurants. “ ‘I couldn’t stand the restaurant business,’ Levy explained.”
In 1993, along with other investors, Moe bought a company known as the Northern Fur Exchange – which is where I first met Moe and his late wife Barbara (who was heavily involved in managing the company), when I went there to do a story about the business.
“But, by 1999, Levy says, he ‘wanted to take the company in a different direction than his partners, so he sold his interest to them and began to take stock of where he wanted to go
from there.
“ ‘I was 51 years old. I saw an ad in the Globe and Mail. It was an ad for a Jewish foundation (in Winnipeg). It didn’t say exactly which foundation. The ad was for an executive director for that foundation.’
“ ‘I threw my name into the hat,’ he said, without knowing that he was applying to be executive director of the Asper Foundation. Levy had met Izzy Asper only once before – in 1997, when Asper was in the process of endowing the Asper Centre for Entrepreneurship at the University of Manitoba. While the two men eventually forged a close relationship, it was as a result of Izzy’s sudden death in 2003 that Moe Levy found himself working hand-in-hand with Izzy’s daughter, Gail.
“While the Hebrew University was the major focus of the Asper family’s involvement in Israel for years, Gail paid tribute to the Asper Foundation’s work in Israel having ‘greatly expanded’ since Moe Levy became executive director of the Foundation,” I wrote in that 2014 article.
This past May 22, Moe Levy was the guest speaker for the Remis Luncheon group. His talk was advertised this way: “Moe will recount many compelling and funny stories of working with Izzy, one of Canada’s leading philanthropists and entrepreneurs. including the initial vision for the Canadian Mureum for Human Rights, the Asper School of Business, and many ground breaking projects in Winnipeg and Israel.”
Before he began his talk I asked Moe whether anything he was about to say would be off the record. He thought about it and replied that if he were going to say anything that he didn’t want recorded, he would let me know. As it was, he only thought of going off the record once – and even though he didn’t say: “This is off the record,” the fact that he even contemplated it led me not to repeat what he had said. (As you read on, you’ll find what it is that I withheld printing.)
Levy began by recalling sitting in Izzy Asper’s “beautiful back yard” one July evening in 2000. “He had just given away $50 million in the last 10 months. I started on September 1, 1999 and, in six months – $10 million to the Jewish Foundation, $10 million to the Winnipeg Foundation, $5 million to St. Boniface (Hospital), $5 million to the Hebrew U…”
“I had just come back from visiting the Museum of Tolerance in Los Angeles. Izzy’s passion for human rights goes back to 1973 when he tabled the first Bill of Rights in the Manitoba Legislature.” (Asper was leader of the Manitoba Liberal Party at the time. I remember interviewing him for a paper I was writing about the Manitoba Liberal Party.)
During the course of that evening, Levy said, Izzy broached the idea of building a human rights museum in Winnipeg. “Later that night, around midnight,” Levy continued, “the phone rang.”
“It has to be Izzy,” Moe’s wife (the late) Barbara said.
Picking up the phone, Levy observed that Izzy told him, “You know that idea we spoke about tonight? After you left, I went downtown and I found the land that we’re going to build this museum on…It’s the same site on which the museum is located today,” Levy noted.
“But,” Levy added, Izzy also told him: “It’s Tuesday night. By Friday I want you to get the land – to tie up the land.”
“But Izzy,” Levy said he asked Asper, “there are a lot of levels of government to go through.”
“Don’t worry,” Asper replied, “Just tell the guys I sent you and it’ll get done.”
Levy told a story about the first trip he took with Asper. It was on Asper’s private jet; they were flying to Toronto. As you might expect, if you knew anything about Izzy Asper, “the cabin was full of smoke.”
The purpose of the meeting was to meet with “two of the most important Zionist figures” in the history of Israel, Levy said: “Smoky Simon – who created the Israel Air Force; and Harry Horowitz” (who had deep roots in right wing Zionist causes, according to information on the World Zionist Organization website). Simon and Horowitz wanted “to get a million dollars for the Menachem Begin Centre.” (Incidentally Levy also mentioned that Horowitz had once come to Winnipeg at Sid Halpern’s invitation. Sid Halpern is a regular attendee at the Remis Grooup Luncheons and Levy was looking right at him when he made that remark.)
(What I find so contradictory about Izzy Asper, however, was that, as a supposed staunch defender of human rights, his actions belied the notion that he was a champion of human rights. Anyone who admired Menachem Begin, for instance, could hardly have been considered an advocate for human rights – unless by human rights you meant the rights of certain groups, but not others. Oh well, we’re all full of contradictions, aren’t we?)
Levy went on to describe his “life with Izzy as nothing short of amazing, exhilirating, exciting, such as “putting together the jazz series…” Apparently, according to Levy, Asper would go so far as to choose the playlist for any jazz concert performer (sounds like Trump), but “come Monday morning,” Levy said, “I would receive a memo from Izzy saying they did not play the playlist in the order I gave it to them!”
Also, according to Levy, Asper couldn’t just sit back and enjoy the jazz concerts. Instead, he would head up to the top of the Berney Theatre (home to the Asper Jazz Series) and “count the empty seats.”
Again, in addition to complaining about artists not following his playlist instructions, Asper would complain about empty seats in that same Monday morning memo. Since the concert series was invariably sold out in those years, any empty seat signified a subscriber not having shown up.
In that same memo Asper would complain, for instance, that “there were 17 empty seats. Those subscribers could have given their seats to someone else!”
The subject of Holocaust education was also something that was very important to Asper, Levy noted. “Izzy recognized very early on that we needed to reach not the Jewish kids, but the non-Jewish kids, so that over the course of time we’ve sent 14-15,000 kids on trips to Washington” (to visit the Holocaust Museum).
Another memorable incident which had a connection to Asper and in which Levy played a part, albeit a minor one, was “the Concordia riot” of 2002.
“Concordia” (University, in Montreal) ” was a hotbed for antsemitism,” Levy explained.
Along with Rabbi (Joshua) Poupkow, who was from Montreal, Levy and Asper decided (in September 2002) that it would be a good idea “to bring BB Netanyahu to Montreal to speak at Concordia. He (Netanyahu) was in between jobs, after serving as Finance Minister (of Israel), then Prime Minister, he was on the speakers’ circuit. So, we paid him …to come for three lectures: Montreal, Toronto, and Winnipeg.” (Levy wasn’t sure whether the exact amount Netanyahu paid should be published, so I won’t repeat the figure here. Suffice to say, it was a huge amount.)
“We knew that” the pro-Palestinians had as their aim that, “if Netanyahu shows up, he’s never, ever going to speak at Concordia. So this became a major challenge for Izzy. ‘I’m going to bring him here (Montreal) and I’m going to make sure he speaks,’ ” Levy said was what Asper wanted to do.
“Of course, BB always wanted to fly on a private jet, so Izzy – who had other things to do, told me to take his private jet and go pick up BB.”
“So I flew on Izzy’s private jet to pick up BB. I’ll never forget – his wallet was about this thick (and here Levy gestured with his fingers showing how thick Netanyahu’s wallet was) and it was full of thousand dollar bills,” Levy observed.
“Anyway, by this time, the press is full of stories – about how students are going to stop him from speaking,” Levy said. “So we land – and Netanyahu has one security guy with him and, I’m not kidding, he was about this high (gesturing to show that he was very short). But he had a lot of guns on him. I don’t know how many.”
“There are about 20 police cars waiting for us and they wouldn’t let the security guy off the airplane with the guns, so we sat while” diplomats negotiated how many guns the guard might be allowed to take with him and, in the end, “he was allowed to take one gun with him.”
As one might have expected, there was a huge crowd of demonstrators surrounding the hotel where Netanyahu was staying (the Ritz-Carlton).
Netanyahu though, was determined to speak at Concordia. However, his “security guy got on the phone with the Mossad in Israel and they said there was no frigging way they were going to let him speak. So his security guy told him he’s not going anywhere.
“But BB, all of a sudden, decides he wants a haircut. Someone tells him there’s an Arab barber in the basement. He was asked whether he was okay with that?”
He answered, “absolutely.”
Levy described the ensuing scene: There’s BB sitting in a chair, with this “Arab guy giving him a haircut,” while BB’s security guy has his hand resting over his jacket where his gun is – ready to spring into action if needed.
The upshot was that BB “was not allowed to speak.” A riot did take place at the Sir George Williams campus of Concordia University. Levy noted that there were two documentaries made about the riot, (one by the National Film Board, titled “Dicordia,” and the other by filmmaker Martin Himel, titled “Confrontation at Concordia.”)
Another story Levy told was about a meeting held between Asper and then-Prime Minister Jean Chretien to discuss federal funding for the Human Rights Museum. (Levy says the meeting was held at the Prime Minister’s residence in Ottawa, but every other source that I was able to check referred to a meeting at Izzy Asper’s Palm Beach residence, in 2001. Perhaps there were two meetings.)
In either event, Levy said that, as the only other person in the room during that meeting, he was fascinated with the notion that the most powerful man in Canada at the time, Jean Chretien – according to Maclean’s Magazine, was meeting with the second most powerful man, Izzy Asper, again – according to Maclean’s Magazine,
As Levy described it, “there’s these two guys, arguing over how much money” the federal goverment would be willing to commit to the building of the human rights museum. “There was something explicit going on between these two guys. I thought: ‘You two guys use that kind of language with each other?’ “
Asper always liked to dream, Levy noted. For example, where the skating rink now sits on the Asper Campus, “he wanted to build a 500 seat concert hall,” Levy said.
He told another story about a trip Izzy and Gail Asper took one day in 1999 to Steinbach, where they were supposed to meet with Chuck Loewen of Loewen Windows. The purpose was to hit up Loewen for a contribution to the Canadian Museum for Human Rights, which was still only a dream that Izzy wanted to bring to fruition at that point. Although one of Canada’s most successful businessmen by then – perhaps actually the most successful at that time, Izzy was not above doing the grunt work that was indispensable to raising enough money for the museum project – so that eventually the idea was that with enough privately donated money, it would leverage the federal government into contributing to the project as well.
Levy said that, while sitting in his oiffice, he got a call from Gail, who said, “Moe, we’re at Marion and Lagimodiere. How do we get to Steinbach?” It turned out they were in the wrong lane, but eventually, after much explaining which way to go, Izzy and Gail did make it to Steinbach, Levy observed.
Levy recalled the say he heard the news that Izzy had suffered a massive heart attack – and had died. “It was October 7, 2003, and we were on our way to Vancouver to launch an international architectural competition” for the design of the new museum.
Izzy Asper’s funeral was one of the largest ever held in Winnipeg. It attracted former prime ministers, the then-Prime Minister (Chretien), and a host of dignitaries from all walks of life. The day that Izzy died, Levy added, he was supposed to have received an honourary Indigenous title from Manitoba Grand Chief Phil Fontaine, which, translated into English, Levy explained, was “He who walks among the stars.”
Levy said: “What can I say about Izzy except that he was charismatic, a raconteur, bon vivant, had a great sense of humour, was an entertainer…he lived a hundred lives.”
Later in his talk, Levy added this about Izzy Asper: “He was the kind of guy who made you think you could accomplish anything. He made you sit there – and imagine and, before you knew it, you were doing things well beyond what you thought was your own capacity.”
In describing the effort that went into fundraising for the museum, Levy noted that “When you think about it, 75% of the money privately raised came from this little city (Winnipeg) – $115 million.” That fact was pivotal in then-Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s coming forward with a major contribution from the federal government: $100 million plus $21.7 million annually for operating costs.
Turning to Izzy Asper’s “passion for Israel,” Levy described Izzy’s support for the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, saying that Izzy was determined to undertake the human rights museum project without sacrificing any of his commitment to the State of Israel.
Levy noted that “in a month the Hebrew University is going to celebrate its hundredth anniversary. Who was there (at its founding)? Einstein, Freud, Buber – the greatest minds that ever lived,” he suggested.
Features
Will Former Soviet States Join the Abraham Accords?
By HENRY SREBRNIK President Donald Trump’s administration has been discussing with Azerbaijan the possibility of bringing that nation and some Central Asian allies into the Abraham Accords. During his first term in office, four Muslim-majority countries agreed to normalize diplomatic relations with Israel. It is now closer to fruition.
The Abraham Accords, signed in 2020, were a historic step and are considered a breakthrough in Israel’s relations with Arab states. On the surface, these agreements with Bahrain, Morocco, Sudan, and the United Arab Emirates, heralded not only diplomatic engagement but also the normalization of ties in every field, including technology, economy, tourism, security, and agriculture.
While the original Accords were centered on diplomatic ties, Azerbaijan and every country in Central Asia already has relations with Israel, meaning that an expansion of the Accords to include them would largely be symbolic, focusing on strengthening ties in areas like trade and military cooperation.
Although the Abraham Accords were initially agreements over Israeli-Arab normalization, the pacts have since transcended Arab borders into a high-profile forum that can incorporate Muslim countries committed to shared values of tolerance, peace, and prosperity.
Wedged between Russia to the north and Iran to the south, Azerbaijan occupies a critical link in trade flows between Central Asia and the West. The Caucasus and Central Asia are also rich in natural resources, including oil and gas, prompting various major powers to compete for influence in the region.
Azerbaijan normalized relations and trade with the Jewish state in the early 1990s, shortly after gaining independence from the Soviet Union. Since then, ties have quietly flourished under the stewardship first of Heydar Aliyev and subsequently that of his son, Ilham.
Last year, trade between the two countries reached nearly one billion dollars, mainly in the energy and defence sectors. Azerbaijan has become Israel’s critical energy partner, supplying more than 60 per cent of its gasoline needs. It has also become Israel’s second-largest defence customer, accounting for nearly a tenth of all Israeli defence exports between 2018 and 2022.
Russia, Azerbaijan’s Soviet-era political master, is currently preoccupied with its war in Ukraine, leaving it with little ability to interfere in the South Caucasus. Meanwhile, Iran, Azerbaijan’s southern neighbor and ideological challenger, is now at its weakest political point in decades, with minimal influence in the country’s internal affairs through religious appeal or sectarian outreach, as it has tried to do in previous years.
Kazakhstan also enjoys strong ties with Israel, and Astana benefits from advanced Israeli agriculture, medical, water, and security technology. The Abraham Accords provide an opportunity to further deepen security and economic cooperation and could help the country reduce its economic dependence on Russia and China at a time when such dependence is proving to be a liability.
Trump’s special envoy for peace missions, Steve Witkoff, traveled to Azerbaijan’s capital, Baku, in March to meet with Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev. As part of the discussions, Azerbaijani officials contacted officials in Central Asian nations, including in nearby Kazakhstan, to gauge their interest in a broader Abraham Accords expansion. For Azerbaijan, the Accords could provide a path to expanded security cooperation against Iranian threats and, if pursued in coordination with Kazakhstan, progress towards its goal of becoming a bridge to Central Asia
Joseph Epstein of the Turan Research Center at the New York-based Yorktown Institute, a non-partisan program dedicated to exploring modern-day developments in the Turkic and Persian worlds, argues that bringing Azerbaijan into the Abraham Accords would signal to Muslim majority states in Central Asia that open cooperation with Israel is both possible and worthwhile. It would also squeeze Tehran which sees a secular Shia state aligned with Israel and Turkey as a strategic problem.
“When President Donald Trump shared a clip of Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev’s speech at the Shusha Global Media Forum on Truth Social, it wasn’t just a friendly gesture,” Epstein explained. “It signaled that Azerbaijan’s partnership with Israel and the United States is now firmly on his radar.”
At a time when the United States was trying to get the Abraham Accords back on track, all of this was certainly encouraging. But a sticking point remained: Azerbaijan’s conflict with its neighbor Armenia. The Trump administration considered a peace deal between the two Caucasus nations as a precondition to join the Abraham Accords. The breakthrough came on Aug. 8, when Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev and Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan signed a joint letter officially indicating their willingness to end their conflict.
The pact also gives the U.S. exclusive rights to develop a transit route through a mountainous stretch of Armenian territory between Azerbaijan known as the Zangezur corridor. It will connect Azerbaijan proper with its Nakhchivan region, which borders Baku’s ally Turkey via Armenian territory. The new transit corridor will allow unimpeded connectivity between the two countries while respecting Armenia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and its people. The securing of that route also marks a significant setback for Russia and Iran in the South Caucasus. Restrictions were also lifted on defence co-operation between Azerbaijan and the United States.
Trump framed the agreement as a “peace deal,” writing on Truth Social that “Many Leaders have tried to end the War, with no success, until now.” This is another feather in a potential Trump Nobel Peace Prize cap.
Henry Srebrnik is a professor of political science at the University of Prince Edward Island.
Features
Roman Polanski’s take on the Dreyfus Affair is perfect for 2025. That’s the problem
By Talya ZaxAugust 8, 2025
(Ed. note: An Officer and a Spy is not yet available for streaming in Canada. It is available for streaming on Prime Video in the U.S.)
This story was originally published in the Forward. Click here to get the Forward’s free email newsletters delivered to your inbox.
In the opening scene of Roman Polanski’s An Officer and a Spy, a retelling of the infamous Dreyfus Affair — in which Alfred Dreyfus, a French Jewish officer, was falsely accused of treason at the turn of the 20th century — Dreyfus, played by Louis Garrel, is paraded past a silent crowd of his peers to suffer a punishment known as degradation.
That is historically accurate. In 1895, after his conviction, Dreyfus underwent the public humiliation of having the adornments of his rank ripped off his person, and his sword broken, all while he vainly protested his innocence.
But for anyone familiar with Polanski’s own history — or the history of this film, which was released in Europe in 2019, but is only now getting its U.S. theatrical premiere — the double meaning is clear.
Because Polanski, who in 1977 pleaded guilty to “unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor,” is one of the legions of Hollywood men to face public disgrace over sexual misbehavior. (He fled to Europe after learning that a judge planned to issue him a harsher sentence than was agreed in his plea deal.) When An Officer and a Spy first came out, Polanski said that his attraction to the Dreyfus story was in part attached to his own case: “I can see the same determination to deny the facts and condemn me for things I have not done,” he said.
What a difference six years makes. In 2019, only two years after the #MeToo movement rocketed to public prominence, Polanski’s film couldn’t secure distribution in the United States. In 2023, the next movie he made, a poorly reviewed comedy called The Palace, suffered the same fate.
But in 2025, the backlash against #MeToo has reached an apogee, and allegations of rampant antisemitism have come to define much of American political life. Now, An Officer and a Spy‘s long-delayed American premiere — a two-week run at Manhattan’s Film Forum, beginning on Friday — suggests that Polanski’s barely-veiled “J’accuse” against his detractors may be newly relevant.
A scapegoat in search of a savior
Dreyfus is not the hero of An Officer and a Spy. Instead, he’s a foil for the rest of the action: a convenient martyr, whom Garrel bestows with a kind of drippy intensity. No one, including the film’s real subject — Georges Picquart, the antisemitic army official who trained Dreyfus and reluctantly comes to campaign against his conviction — has much attention to spare for him.
Even Polanski seems bored by Dreyfus’ suffering; when his camera visits the desert island to which Dreyfus is banished, it’s more fascinated by the desolate landscape than the lonely Jew wasting away within it. And as Picquart, played by Jean Dujardin, pieces together the conspiracy that framed his formal pupil, he doesn’t appear to feel any real compulsion to reconsider his general distaste for the man himself.
Instead, he’s driven by his commitment to the ideals that have informed his career in the French army, chief among them orderliness and an adherence to proper procedure. To the extent that Picquart is radicalized by his adventures as a political outcast — a natural consequence of his insistence on airing the truth — it’s by becoming skeptical of the official structures in which he once put faith, not skeptical of his own inclination toward bigotry.
In other words, this is the story of a crusader so committed to justice that he sees his personal feelings as unimportant. If Polanski thinks of himself as Dreyfus — polarizing and perhaps unlikable, but the victim of a moral panic nonetheless — he is, in an Officer and a Spy, putting out a call for some powerful party to serve as his Picquart. Which brave soul, the film wonders, will take a similar stand against the social furor that made Polanski a cultural outcast — albeit one who won multiple César Awards, the French equivalent to the Oscars, for this film — not because they like him, but because they can see that what he’s suffered is wrong?
That framing is a bold choice. The men who have attempted post-#MeToo comebacks have generally done so from a stance of bashful victimhood. When Kevin Spacey, whom more than 30 men have accused of sexual assault or inappropriate behavior, received an award at a gala hosted during this year’s Cannes Film Festival, he portrayed himself as a wrongly outcast golden boy now receiving his just rewards. “I feel surrounded by so much affection and love,” he said.
Polanski is doing something different. He’s not suggesting that he’s too nice and gentle to be responsible for all the things of which he’s been accused. Instead, he’s arguing that no matter how much his viewers might hate his guts, they should turn a gimlet eye upon the processes that led to his banishment from Hollywood, the U.S., and even many institutions of European cinema. (A French woman accused Polanski of rape shortly before An Officer and a Spy‘s French release; amid an outcry over French accolades for the film, Polanski didn’t attend that year’s César Awards, and when he was announced as Best Director, several attendees walked out in protest.)
The allegory of antisemitism
After Dreyfus is carted away to exile, in An Officer and a Spy, Picquart, who watched his degradation, is summoned by a superior who asks how the crowd reacted. The feeling, Picquart says, was that of a body that had rid itself of a pestilence.
Polanski is examining how the establishment reacts to what it perceives as the will of the public — how its self-protective mechanisms lead it to be in a constant race to anticipate the people’s prejudices, and fulfill them.
In his vision, the parties complicit in framing Dreyfus appear to be driven not by personal antisemitism so much as the sense that, because Jews have come to be widely held in suspicion by France’s citizenry, acting against Jews is a sure way to maintain their own hold on power. The generals who eventually perjure themselves in an attempt to prevent Picquart’s success know that if they admit that Dreyfus was innocent, the public won’t see them as noble and brave. They’ll see them, instead, as having joined with nefarious forces for personal gain.
Polanski, in making An Officer and a Spy, accurately anticipated a cultural turn that would see all kinds of people beginning to perceive themselves as “the Jews” in situations of societal discord: victims of a witch hunt, based on an ambient cultural sense that someone should be held accountable for all the things that are wrong in all our lives, while authorities tacitly encourage the scapegoating.
It happened during the COVID-19 pandemic, as some who were resistant to public health measures began comparing themselves to Jews in Nazi Germany. It’s happening now, as some Republicans have tried to turn Jews into avatars for conservatives, with the argument being that both groups have been persecuted by promoters of “wokeness.”
There is a natural parallel, as well, in the story of #MeToo. In the movement’s heyday, the locus of power in the sexual realm seemed to have shifted. The time in which successful men could basically do as they pleased was over. A new power structure had been adopted; adherents of the old one began to see themselves as victims of a shadowy new elite.
What happens when people begin to see a real historical conspiracy as an analogy for every development they dislike? Do they find a harmless outlet for their grievances, or do they simply risk becoming more suspicious, and more conspiratorial? In a U.S. where the president owns a social media outlet called Truth, any number of people going to see An Officer and a Spy might see something of their own plight in that of Dreyfus. And any number of them might idolize Picquart as a vigilante uncovering deep governmental rot.
They may or may not be right. After all, there’s much injustice in the world, today as at the turn of the century. But I fear that while An Officer and a Spy might be trying to investigate the kind of conspiratorial mindset that gave rise to the Dreyfus Affair, what it’s really doing is reinforcing it.
Talya Zax is the Forward’s opinion editor. Contact her at zax@forward.com or on Twitter, @TalyaZax.
This story was originally published on the Forward.
Features
Gritty tale of two Holocaust survivors’ rescue by American soldiers
The Boys in the Light by Nina Willner
Reviewed by JULIE KIRSH, Former Sun Media News Research Director
In 1945, my father dug a hole on the grounds of Buchenwald concentration camp. He pulled a dead inmate’s body over him as a cover. The SS guards in the camp were rounding up Jews. He knew that he would not survive a forced march. He heard American soldiers’ voices but was too weak to call out. Having contacted typhus from the dead body, he was dying. On April 11, 1945, a black American soldier carried my 70 pound father like a babe in arms to the medic station where he received an instant blood transfusion which probably saved his life.
The author of The Boys in the Light, Nina Willner, tells the true story of her father, Eddie, German born, and his best friend, Mike. Both boys were teenagers who survived Auschwitz, Blechhammer and Langenstein labour camps. Eddie’s father, a decorated soldier in the German army in World War I, kept the boys under his wing. The discipline that he learned in the German army was imparted to the boys until his death in the camps.
In a riveting chapter, the boys make a run for it. Eddie is shot in the arm, a German Shepherd bites Mike in the leg but, nevertheless, the boys escape and allow the River Eine in Germany to carry them away from their captors.
The Boys in the Light includes stories of other boys. Young American soldiers, mostly in their twenties, had been fighting the war as part of Company D. Their unit, led by the extraordinary, twenty-three year old Lieutenant Elmer, was cemented by faith and a need to survive, not unlike the young Jewish Holocaust survivors.
As the two emaciated boys encountered the American soldiers, the author tells us “that was the moment Eddie and Mike walked from the darkness into the light.”
Although the US forces were under strict orders to bypass all refugees they encountered, Lieutenant Elmer, a staunch Christian and an inspiring leader, took the teenagers under his unit’s wing.
Pepsi, the kitchen cook, was entrusted with bringing these boys back to life. Food, compassion and Company D’s willingness to incorporate the boys into their brotherhood, saved Eddie and Mike. The boys’ presence provided an understanding to the American soldiers of what they were fighting for and against.
In this compelling book, the reader learns about the Hitler’s rise to power, the hatred directed against European Jewry, and the young American soldiers who sacrificed their lives far from home.
The last days of the war in the spring of 1945 find Eddie and Mike in the company of this very special unit. Although the US army’s mandate at the time was not to provide aid to refugees encountered on the road, Lieutenant Elmer broke every rule in the book by providing sanctuary to the two emaciated boys.
After the war, the soldiers of Company D did not abandon their wartime fidelity to each other. Even after fifty years, the veterans continued to celebrate their renewal of life with annual reunions. In trying to track down the soldiers, the author’s parents only had their nicknames, which made the search elusive.
Finally, Eddie’s wife located Lieutenant Elmer and told him that Eddie had been recounting the story of his liberation by Company D to his family for his entire life.
In September 2002, Eddie hosted a reunion at his home in Falls Church, Virginia. Mike had died of cancer in 1985. Both “boys” had found new lives as proud Americans.
“Dashing soldiers became stooped grandfathers,” but the men of Company D had not forgotten the two teenagers who stood in front of US tanks with hope in their eyes.
When Lieutenant Elmer arrived at the reunion, the veteran soldiers stood at attention. A grandson of one of the veterans asked Eddie about the tattoo on his arm. Eddie’s grown children moved through the room and thanked the old soldiers for “saving our father.”
The reunion of the Holocaust survivor and the soldiers who rescued him was a triumph of faith and friendship.
Eddie’s grandson, named Michael after his best friend, visited his Uncle Pepsi many times and was treated to his very fine cooking. In 2016, Pepsi passed away, preceded by his close friends in Company D.
The book’s message comes through loud and clear. Some memories should never be forgotten. Over time the memories become a cautionary tale. We must never forget.
The Boys in the Light by Nina Willner
Published by Penguin Random House, 2025