Features
The Dark Side of Albert: Einstein and Mileva Marić, his First Wife
By DAVID TOPPER Albert Einstein was the most photographed scientist of the 20th century. The scope of emotions depicted range from the serious to the silly: from looking like a secular saint with hands folded and deep in contemplation of supposedly solemn thoughts, to the image hanging in front of me on the bulletin board over my computer table, showing him sticking out his tongue at the cameraman. Living during the heyday of the development of the film camera, he and the press surely took advantage of it. The positive persona of the genius was formed out of these visual images. This visual disposition was supplemented with endless quotations on not only science and the universe, but also with homilies on life and how to live it, with much of that which you will find quoted, being things he never said. Overall, the general image of him and his personality has him coming out seemingly squeaky-clean.
Nonetheless, those of us who have looked into the man in more detail are aware of episodes of less than saintly behavior by Albert – the famous scientific idol. If, for example, you read any of the half-dozen or so lengthy biographies about him, you will find scattered therein stories of him speaking inappropriately or behaving, one might say, as a jerk. Having read all those books, and others – and even written three books on him myself – I knew this. So when I started reading a recent long biography of his first wife, Mileva Marić, I had no reason to think I’d be shocked, since I had already read a lot about her, including a book of letters to and from her best friend, which also contained a brief biography. But to my surprise, I was staggered in reading over 400 pages of his nasty behavior concentrated around this one woman – a woman whom he fell in love with as a university student, and who was the only mother of his children.
Here is the sad – and probably surprising to most readers – story of Mileva and Albert.
Mileva Marić was born on December 19, 1875, into a Christian Orthodox Serbian family. With a dislocated left hip, she walked with a limp throughout her life. (Her sister, Zorka, had the same congenital condition.) Forced to wear an orthopedic shoe, she was teased and mocked in school. Nonetheless, this very bright girl filled her lonely childhood with her studies (she was especially good at math) and piano lessons. Encouraged by a very loving father, she excelled in school, and was the first girl to attend high school physics courses in the Austro-Hungarian Empire. After graduating in 1896, she applied to the prestigious Zurich Polytechnic, since in Switzerland women were admitted to all classes. She passed the entrance exam and majored in mathematics. It was a small freshman class of about two-dozen students, she being the only woman. That’s where she met, in the even smaller physics course, fellow student, Albert Einstein.
One of the earliest pictures we have of Mileva is dated 1897. In this portrait, I see a very serious, confident, determined woman with large penetrating eyes, a full crop of dark wavy hair and full lips. I would call her plain but attractive. I say this, because I was shocked at several instances when someone, upon first meeting Mileva, is quoted as describing her as “ugly.”
As a fellow student, Albert Einstein was attracted to her, and they quickly became a couple. He probably was the first male to take a romantic interest in her, overlooking her “handicap.” I suspect he was attracted to her gutsy attitude and her smartness. Plus, being Serbian, Mileva exuded an exotic “otherness” to the “German” in Albert. They spent most of their free time together, studying and falling in love. She did well in her courses, initially passing all of them, as Albert did too (of course). That is, until she was pregnant – a fact she tried to hide until she could not. And so she went home to her parents to inform them of this, and eventfully to have the baby.
Her parents were very supportive, which was unusual for the times. A girl was born early in 1902; they named her Lieserl (probably a Yiddish diminutive of Liese, a shortened Elizabeth). Albert stayed in Zurich and never saw his daughter; she was raised by Mileva’s parents, as Mileva returned to Zurich to continue her studies. No one knows what ultimately happened to Lieserl; she has seemingly vanished from all records. She may have died from Scarlet Fever as a child; or, she may have been adopted and grew up. One thing I do know: Mileva never forgot her. I believe that the loss of Lieserl is the major reason for Mileva’s depression and lingering melancholia throughout her life – as will be seen. As a result, she didn’t take care of her grooming and was a bit overweight – as seen in photos of her later in life. This, I suspect, may be a source of her “ugliness.”
Back to Zurich in the late 1890s and her studies: she passed all her courses over the first three years, and in her fourth year she started her thesis, hoping for a diploma and further work toward a PhD. But in 1900 she failed her final exams, while the other male students all passed. In July 1901 she repeated her final exams and flunked them again. I find it hard to believe that this sudden change in her performance was due to the tests being too tough for this woman, in light of all we know of her up to this time. Look at the last date above: she was pregnant with her child. I’m convinced that she just couldn’t concentrate on her studies. Albert passed, graduated, and started looking for a job – as well as working toward his PhD.

On January 6, 1903, they were married in a small civil ceremony. Mileva became a housewife; no more thinking of going any further in her studies. She then became the mother of two boys: Hans Albert (born in 1904) and Eduard (nicknamed Tete; in 1910).
All that promise came to nothing, not even a university degree. If she had not met Albert, who knows what she would have achieved? But that was not the path taken, and since she married what became the most famous scientist of the 20th century – if not the most famous person, as Time Magazine said at the end of the millennium – that’s why there is a plethora of documentation about her life, terribly sad as it was.
Now briefly fast forward a century or so, to around 1987, and the publication of the early love letters between Albert and Mileva, which had only been known by a few, and purposely suppressed. For example, Hans Albert, who had the letters much earlier, had wanted to publish them. But he was thwarted by Helen Dukas and Otto Nathan, who threatened litigation. Dukas was Albert’s lifelong secretary and Nathan was an economist and close friend, who eventually was the executor of Einstein’s will. And so, the letters never surfaced until Dukas and Nathan were both dead.
Even today, writing about these letters is an ideological minefield. Here’s why. The letters date from 1899 to 1903, when a new theory of physics was brewing in Albert’s mind. The result, in the so-called miracle year of 1905, was the publication of five papers that changed physics forever: two on what became his Theory of Relativity; one on a particle theory (much later called a photon) of light, as part of the emerging Quantum Theory; and two supporting the reality of atoms, which were still only hypothetical entities at this time. Knowing this, how much can we read into the love letters when Albert, in talking about his scientific ideas, uses “we” and “our work”? Well, it seems, a lot; for the initial response from primarily feminist quarters was that Mileva should at least be seen as a co-author of the famous papers, since it seemed that they conceived of the theory together. Given, as we will see, Albert’s shabby treatment of her later in life, then all the more sympathy was directed toward Mileva and her plight by history. Indeed, some went so far (you will still find websites saying this) that Albert stole the theory of relativity from Mileva. Nonetheless, after that initial flurry of debate, the consensus has moved away from this viewpoint, so that today the select scholars looking over the Einstein Papers Project in Pasadena, California assert unabashedly that Mileva made no input to Albert’s theory.
Nonetheless, I am one of the few “Einstein scholars” (if I may call myself such), who gives Mileva some credit in the 1905 marvel. She was good at mathematics, she had patience in her life and work, and she was a thorough researcher – all qualities severely lacking in Albert. Let me put it this way: over his life as a physicist, Einstein hired a series of companions (whom he called “calculators”) to do the tedious and complicated mathematics required for his theory, especially as it developed over the later years with the use of tensor calculus in his General Theory of Relativity. All were men; except, famously, his last calculator was the Israeli-American woman, Buria Kaufmann – about whom you will read in the literature as his “first female calculator.” (Incidentally, there is a website giving her credit for Einstein’s later theory, which is complete fiction.) I, however, would assert that Buria was the second woman; for Mileva was Albert’s first “calculator.” She was also his researcher and proofreader. Since she knew the physics, as we know from the letters, she also was his sounding-board – Albert bouncing ideas off of Mileva, as they say.
So, what about Albert speaking of “we” and “our work”? Let me put this into context by quoting from some of the letters in chronological order. In a letter Mileva wrote to Helene Savić (née Kaufler), her closest and longest friend throughout her life (they roomed together in a boarding house in Zurich when they were students), she speaks of a paper “written” by Albert that will be published soon that is “very significant.” She then says that “we” sent it to an important physicist – revealing how much she was involved with Albert’s work. Later in a letter from Albert to Mileva, let me quote from the opening lines to give you a trace of their intimacy: “Thank you very much for your little letter and all the true love that’s in it. I kiss and hug you for it from all my heart, exactly the way you would want it & are entitled to, love.” He then goes into a discussion of other people, followed by his going back to how much they love each other, and ending with this key sentence. “How happy and proud I will be when the two of us together will have brought our work on the relative motion to a victorious conclusion.” I put in italics the famous (or is it infamous?) phrase: our work. But there’s nothing more on this, although a bit later in the letter he goes on to talk about another physics problem he is working on: specific heats. He discusses the physics problem in detail, with equations and his proposed solution, and he ends the topic with this: “Don’t forget to look up to what extent glass obeys the law of Dulong and Petit.” My guess is that it was this sort of task that was part of their work together. The letter ends where it began. “Tender greetings and kisses, my dear little dumpling, from your … Albert.”
I’ll leave the topic there, nonetheless aware of the possibility that Mileva did help Albert in even more significant ways, and that hence she’s been slighted by history.
Back to Zurich in 1903. Initially, their life together was harmonious, a reflection of the camaraderie in the love letters, as she kept house and raised her boys. But by around 1909, when Albert was being seen as an important physicist, there clearly was a severe strain on the marriage. For example, in a letter that year to Helene, she says that Albert “lives only for his work” and the family is “unimportant to him.” By 1914, when they moved to Berlin for Albert’s prestigious position at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Physics, their marriage entered a new phase. In fact, Albert had been having relations with a divorced cousin, Elsa Löwenthal, who lived in Berlin. Moreover, Albert made it clear to Mileva that their previous relationship was over. He went so far as to give her a list of demands: that she do the laundry, prepare him three meals a day, and keep his office clean – all without any personal relations. No intimacy in the house, and no being together in public. It was degradingly cruel: Mileva’s role was reduced to being a maid and cook. She tried to accept it, but quickly found that she couldn’t endure the humiliation; and so she took her two boys back to Zurich, where she remained for the rest of her life.
They officially divorced in 1919, and Albert immediately married Elsa – all in the same year that he became the world-famous scientist, because of the solar eclipse experiment that proved that light from a star is bent around the sun, as predicted by his theory. He got the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1921 and transferred the money to a bank in Zurich for the support of their boys, where Mileva had access to the interest in the account.
What happened after all that infatuation seen in the love letters and in their early life together? In retrospect, Mileva surely realized that she had ignored or overlooked what we might call the dark side of Albert. As a student he was overly sarcastic, often mocking and even degrading people whom he saw as inadequate or not too smart. He even teased her in ways that revealed an underlying hostility. When she pointed this out, he would laugh it off – and she’d forgive him. In a letter to Helena in 1900 she writes of Albert’s “wicked words with deeds! What an insolent boy he is, and yet I love him so much!” Telling words. Even after the acrimonious divorce, she still, as will be seen, was under Albert’s spell. I believe that she never got over that initial infatuation when they were students. It became a pattern: she was always trying to get on his good side.
Overall, Albert was very much a 19th century male chauvinist in his attitude and communications with women. Here are some of his words about women that reveal his overt misogyny: they are “passive, insecure, needy, and wanting to be dominated.” I knew that he liked to flirt with women throughout his life. But seeing him do so with other wives, with Mileva present, made it less frivolous and more malicious. In short, he was a cad and a rake, rolled into one.
The turnaround in their relationship seemed to bring out the worst in him. He was petty and vindictive, and especially very cruel towards her. There is no direct evidence of any real physical abuse. However, there was an incident in the spring of 1913 when a friend reported seeing Mileva with a badly swollen face, which was attributed to a “toothache” – and hence she and Albert missed some social events. Possibly the swollen face was a sign of something more malevolent, but we will never know the truth. Nonetheless, pondering this, I wish to quote something Albert wrote in a letter in 1925: “Not only children need a bit of thrashing, but also grownups and especially women.” And I’ll leave it there.
After the divorce, he accused her of poisoning his relationship with the boys – a common trope between divorcing couples. But it got more vicious as her financial situation became grave, and she asked for more money. She made some extra money tutoring students in math and giving piano lessons. But it wasn’t enough. Albert’s letters to her contain nasty personal attacks: saying she is “abnormal,” a “nonentity,” and that her pleading is “rubbish.” I can only imagine how Mileva felt being called this. At the time, she was in severe physical pain with chronic back problems, often forcing her into bed for long periods, even stays in hospital, when she was trying to raise two boys alone. Moreover, all this was exacerbated by problems in her Serbian family. Her sister Zorka was diagnosed as schizophrenic and was in and out of asylums; her only living brother disappeared into Russia after World War I; and her parents had serious financial problems.
Could it get any worse? It could. And it did. Tete became a handful. He was very bright and creative; he had musical talent on the piano, and he wrote promising poems and stories. But he was also prone to falling into depressive episodes, for apparently no reason – anger fits, throwing things, being out of control. I suppose Mileva saw this coming: Tete, like her sister, eventually was diagnosed as schizophrenic.
Albert, of course, knew all this, but being in Berlin, he didn’t have to deal with it. He did make occasional visits and took summer trips with the boys (giving Mileva short breaks), all while he was still living in Europe. But when he moved to Princeton, N.J., in 1933, with Hitler in power in Germany and Einstein’s name being high on a hit list, their meetings were over; until 1938, when Hans Albert (now with a wife and two children) moved to the USA. The last meeting between Albert and Tete is recorded in a 1933 photograph that bears a close look. Both are seated in a room, with Tete looking over a large, open portfolio – perhaps reading it. Albert is facing in a different direction (about 90-degrees away), holding a violin and bow, and staring off into space. It may be that Tete is reading to him, but more likely they are inhabiting two different worlds.
In the years during World War II, living in Zurich, Switzerland (a country surrounded by a Nazi-occupied Europe), Mileva was terrified that the Nazis would swoop up this last free space. Moreover, she knew that they were rounding up Jews by the trainloads and moving them to Concentration Camps. She was somewhat safe as an Orthodox Christian, but Tete was “Jewish,” being a child of Einstein. She wrote pleading letters to Albert, asking him to take Tete to the USA. She even contacted the Red Cross, and they agreed that the best bet was to get Albert to sponsor him. “Bring us to safety,” she wrote. But being Mileva – ever still the dutiful wife, even though they had been divorced for two decades – she added (and I assert that she was not being sarcastic in saying this), “[I am] not intending to disturb your peace and freedom.” Petrified that “Tete is in danger because he is your son,” she concluded: “you can’t just leave him in the lurch.”
In fact, Einstein, Dukas, and Nathan were diligently rescuing Jews from Europe by using Einstein’s name to get emigration papers and such. Albert once spoke of this, saying that they were running a little refugee office over his cluttered “lawyer’s desk.” And they did save lives. Relevant here is a 1939 letter from Albert to Helena on this very topic. Helena’s father was Jewish, and she had numerous relatives whose lives were in peril, and so apparently, she was asking Albert for help. He wrote in response. “How gladly would I help! But I am desperately trying to at least get younger people out. Relocation of old people must under present horrible conditions be set aside.” In the end, we know of two aunts of Helena who died in gas chambers. Interestingly, in this same letter, Albert mentions that Hans is now in America, but that Tete is with Mileva in Zurich, saying that Tete is “incurably mentally ill.”
So, what about Tete? And Mileva’s pleading letters? As far as we know, these pleading requests were never answered. Albert, it seems, did leave his son “in the lurch.” My guess is that he just couldn’t fathom the chaos in his life of dealing with someone with such a severe mental illness. Listen to what he later wrote to Hans about Tete after learning of Mileva’s death. “If I had been fully informed [apparently referring here to what he saw as a genetic mental illness in Mileva’s family], he [Tete] would never have come into the world.” I can only imagine how Hans must have felt after reading these appalling words from his father about his beloved brother. Sometimes Albert’s behavior is plainly pathetic. Fortunately, the Nazis never invaded Switzerland.
Much of Mileva’s adult life was centred on Tete, as she watched him descend into the depths of mental illness. Overweight and chain-smoking, he was in and out of mental institutions. For Mileva, he was a full-time job. She, being the caring mother, was obsessed with making sure he would be safe after she died. And she succeeded; for seven years after his mother died, he lived in the renowned Burghölzli psychiatric clinic in Zurich. He was 55 when he died.
I believe Mileva never got over two things: the loss of Lieserl and her infatuation with Albert. We don’t know what happened to Lieserl; but Mileva surely did, and it haunted her all of her life; as seen, she flunked her final chance for a university degree because of it. Lieserl was a source of her constant despondent behaviour and possibly her so-called “ugliness.” In a letter to Helena in 1925 she wrote of “my unfulfilled desire for a daughter”– another telling phrase, since she had a daughter, but was forced to abandon her.
Regarding Albert, no matter how abusive he was, Mileva still was open to forgiveness. She once asked herself this question: “When has a man ever listened to reason, when a woman is involved?” She should have listened to her own words.
Mileva Marić died on August 4, 1948, at the age of 72.
This story of Albert falling in and out of love with Mileva was not the first such episode in his life. It was previewed by and even overlapped with his first sweetheart: Marie Winteler.
In 1895 he spent a year enrolled in the cantonal school in the town of Aarau, near Zurich. He had taken the rigorous entrance exams for the Polytechnic (which Mileva later passed) and had flunked the non-science and non-math parts. But since he did so well on the science and math parts, it was recommended that he do a year of make-up in Aarau; plus, he was applying at age 16, a year early. He boarded with the family of Jost Winteler, a teacher at the school. Jost and Pauline had three daughters, the prettiest being Marie, two years older than Albert. Albert quickly fell for her, and she for him. She was an accomplished pianist, and so their love interests were supplemented with piano and violin duets. After that year, and after passing the entrance requirement at the Polytechnic, Albert moved to Zurich – where he met Mileva, and then broke off with Marie. In short, he jilted her, as he would later do with Mileva.
Marie, however, thought the relationship was to be forever, and wrote pleading letters when he stopped writing to her. After all, he was still mailing her his dirty laundry to wash and send back. (I am not making this up.) Being deeply hurt, she fell into a depression that (may have) plagued her throughout her life. She became a schoolteacher (whose records show that she missed a lot of classes due to sickness); in 1911 she married a man whose first name was Albert. They had two boys, but divorced in 1927. We also know that she tried to reach the first Albert in the 1940s about emigrating to the USA, but there is no record of his having received her letters. (Albert’s secretary was known to censor his mail.) She died in a mental institution in 1957, two years after Einstein died.
I mention this for two reasons. One, the obvious – this being a preview to the story of Albert’s shabby treatment of Mileva and the parallel terrible consequences. The other reason is the dirty laundry. This, also obviously, needs to be explained.
In 2019 I published an historical novel on Einstein’s life, called A Solitary Smile. In it, Marie is one of the characters, especially near the end and in a dream sequence that has Einstein recalling their time together, where he realizes how he hurt her. In recalling this part of my book, while writing this story of Mileva, and now Marie again – I suddenly realized that I didn’t include the dirty laundry bit. Why? I knew it then, as I do now. So why not mention it? Ruminating on this, I can only surmise that I was subconsciously protecting Albert from more scorn. Why dig up all the dirt (seemingly, literally in this case). How interesting this is. Me, being part of the problem. Protecting Albert’s image.
Well, I caught myself. And here I acknowledge my error – to supplement my saga on the dark side of Albert Einstein.
* * *
Readings: Mileva Marić Einstein: Life with Albert Einstein, by Radmila Milentijević (United World Press, 2010). In Albert’s Shadow: The Life and Letters of Mileva Marić: Einstein’s First Wife, edited by Milan Popović (The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003). A Solitary Smile: A Novel on Einstein, by David R. Topper (Bee Line Press, 2019).
Features
Brain drain affecting Israel could lead to severe economic difficulties
By BERNIE BELLAN (Oct. 27, 2026) As of the time of writing, the future shape of Israel’s Knesset was clear as mud. I always remember one of the most important lessons I learned as a Political Studies student, which is the structure-function relationship of any country’s political system, in which the structure of a country’s system of government determined how stable that country’s government was likely to be.
Are we lucky to be living in a parliamentary democracy – with a first past the post system of government, where it is not that complicated to cobble together a majority government – even if it means sometimes aligning with rival parties to form that majority?
After watching the spiral into authoritarianism now taking place in the U.S. under their fragmented democratic system where an unscrupulous president can appropriate almost unlimited power – unchecked by the toadies on the Supreme Court or members of Congress, I would say we’re so much luckier to be living within a parliamentary system of government.
But, when it comes to total disarray – no one can beat Israel’s system of government, where it is near impossible to put together a stable government unless – following the pattern of so many other formerly democratic countries, an authoritarian leader manages to assert himself and neutralize so many of that country’s democratic institutions – which is what we have seen happening under Netanyahu’s leadership.
I ask all these questions after having read an article on the Times of Israel website back in August, but whose relevance has become only more prominent as a result of Israel’s continual slide into disarray.
We in the West can pretend that Israel, for all its problems, is still a democracy, and that no matter what may be happening there, its citizens still want to live there.
But, after reading the TOI article, which was titled “Emigration of doctors, engineers, other highly educated Israelis hits record high,” one might be forgiven for thinking that Israel’s best and brightest are hurrying to leave their country.
Here are some figures from that story: A “Tel Aviv University report released earlier this week showed a record-setting trend of emigration from Israel continued in 2025, with nearly 50,000 Israelis leaving the country for the third year in a row.”
The article also noted that “High-earning Israelis working in tech and healthcare are emigrating in sharply rising numbers, almost doubling over five years, a new study by the Israel Tax Authority has found.
“The research by the Israel Tax Authority’s Planning and Economics Division, which examined incomes of Israeli emigrants over the past decade, found the rate at which affluent Israelis left the country increased sharply in 2023 and 2024 to record highs, and was almost double what it was until 2019.”
Although I posited that Israel’s political instability is a major reason for the exodus so so many high-income earners, the authors of the study say that it is not altogether clear what is behind the departure of so many talented Israelis: “The authors of the study stated that it was difficult to determine whether this shift in the makeup of emigrants stemmed from major changes that occurred in society and the labor market following the COVID-19 pandemic, or whether it was a reaction to the political upheaval over the judicial overhaul and security events that started with the October 7 onslaught and war in Gaza that have been shaking Israel since 2023.”
One might well ask whether a significant number of other Israelis would also leave the country, were they in an economic position to do so? After all, for many years, here in Manitoba we saw a large influx of Israelis, almost entirely coming from the middle class, who were drawn to come here by a combination of factors, including the GrowWinnipeg initiative – which made it attractive for young Israeli families to look to Winnipeg as a potential landing point, also the Provincial Nominee Program, which offered immigrants opportunities to find employment in areas where Manitoba was short of particular types of workers.
But, what of those high income Israelis to which the TOI article refers? Anecdotally, we have read and heard accounts of highly educated Israelis moving here (and Myron Love has often profiled some of those individuals), but if 150,000 Israelis have left the country, one wonders where they have all gone?
Here are the favourite destinations for Israelis looking to move somewhere else (in order): the U.S. Canada, United Kingdom, Cyprus, Portugal, Spain, Greece, Malta, Germany, Australia, and New Zealand.
Many of those countries have tightened their immigration rules, however, as the backlash in Western countries against immigrants from poorer countries has also led to an overall decrease in the number of immigrants allowed in from other Western countries, including Israel.
Still, for individuals with particular talents – or with very high incomes, finding a country to which they can move does not present the same problems as it would for people of lesser means.
Let me end this with this cautionary note from the TOI article: “For a country where the top 20% of income earners are paying 92% of all income tax revenue, the change in the mix of Israelis leaving the country represents a significant strategic risk to state revenues and growth in the economy.”
And, with so many countries now seeing Israel as a pariah state, with all the attendant economic consequences that portends, it is hard to be optimistic about Israel’s future.
Features
Coincidence or not: Two books launched the same night – by my brother and by my niece
By GERRY POSNER Recently, on October 8, to be exact, an odd timing coincidence occurred in my family that struck me as highly unlikely. Two books were launched on the very same night in Toronto, at two separate locations. What was unusual for me was that one book was by my brother, Michael Posner and the other book was written by my niece, Elana Shira Segal. The topics, unsurprisingly, were not connected to each other. But you could not have planned that timing any worse than it turned out to be.

Michael Posner’s book, This Jewish Moment, an oral history of the Diaspora after October 7, 2023 had various people giving their opinions on a set of questions Michael posed to them as he interviewed them following the October 7, 2023 massacre. The interviews were conducted by Zoom. Each person interviewed was aware of the fact that the interview was recorded and that the interview might be used in a book. Each person’s name and age is given along with a brief description of who that person is. Some of the interviews were with people well known in Manitoba circles.The oral history technique is not new to Michael as he used it in the Leonard Cohen trilogies he created not that long ago and before that in his book on Mordecai Richler.
Michael interviewed over one hundred Jews in Canada and the United States. The thrust of the book was to explore how the events of October 7 affected the interviewees, how it changed (or didn’t change) their interpersonal relationships; altered, if at all, their spiritual lives; their trust in Jewish institutions and indeed, their perceptions about their own safety. It includes their thoughts about what lies ahead and even the idea of leaving North America. Without giving too much away, I can say that the opinions canvassed in the book do reflect a definite shift for many of the interviewees from their previous thoughts on these topics. If you read Michael’s book, you will not come away singing cheery songs. For many people, the future is bleak.
At the book launch held at the Beth Tikvah Synagogue in Toronto in front of about sixty people, there were several former Winnipeggers in attendance, including: Paul Shuckett, Bernie and Sheila Rubenstein, Aubrey Caplan and Philipa Glazerman, the former Susan Silverman, Gary Diamond, my son Ari Posner, and even a current resident of Winnipeg, Dolly Cohen, who came to visit her cousin Philipa.
Michael’s book, published by Sutherland Press, is in hardcover and ebook. It can be purchased at Indigo, and through Amazon.

Elana’s book is in an entirely different genre than her Uncle Michael’s book. Even the Darkness Has Stars is the title of her book -also her very first book. It is a work of fiction based on her career as a social worker and therapist for over 30 years in Toronto. The book explores the life of a teenage girl dealing not only with the usual teenage angst, but other issues as well. It is a book that will resonate with teenagers, and indeed parents of teenagers. It is a story of resilience and is an honest reflection of the very real problems facing many teens and ways to address their problems. I would suggest that the themes in the book are very relevant to teenagers today, especially girls. I think it is also fair to say that many parents of teenage children will identify with the difficulties faced by the chief protagonist in the book. Even counsellors and trained therapists will recognize the issues raised in this book. Schools and libraries would benefit from the book.
At her book launch, Elana outdrew her Uncle Michael as she had over one hundred people there. The conflict of the two books presented several of us in the family with an issue as to which event to attend. While my son Ari came to his uncle’s launch, his wife Tamar Kagan went to Ari’s first cousin Elana’s debut book launch. Even my wife and I split our allegiances.
Elana’s book can be ordered through Amazon or Barnes and Noble in the USA.


Now, if the oddity of the two books in the family being released at the same time was not enough, in November, another family member has a book coming out. This book is by my nephew Sam Posner’s wife, Erin Rothstein. Her book, called Watch Me is a guide to unlocking creative power. Erin is a visual artist, whose original paintings and limited edition prints have made her a name in the world of art already. She has a large following due to the success of her art. Her book deals with the ways to find your inner creativity and the ideas that spring to life when a person unlocks that creativity and gives him or herself permission to think bigger. If the book lives up to the art Erin creates, she will have a best seller. Erin’s book will be launched in four cities: Toronto, Montreal, New York and Los Angeles. It will be available at Indigo, Barnes and Noble, and through Amazon in hardcover, paperback, e-book and audiobook.
To the readers of this article, get out there and support the Posner family.
Features
The late Dr. Maurice Shnider had a fascinating life – from serving in WWII to meeting famous celebrities who passed through Winnipeg

By MARTIN ZEILIG I first visited Dr. Maurice Shnider at his home in Winnipeg’s River Heights neighbourhood to talk about war.
His house reflected the life of a successful physician. It was spacious and comfortable without being ostentatious. Family photographs occupied shelves and tables. Sunlight spilled into the kitchen where we sat drinking coffee.
By then he was an elderly man, friendly, thoughtful, and possessed of that rare quality found in some people who have lived through extraordinary times. He never seemed impressed by his own experiences.
He had been born in Sheho, Saskatchewan, in 1923 and grew up in Inglis, Manitoba.
Then came the war.
As a young man he served with the Royal Canadian Air Force before being seconded to the Royal Air Force. Flying aboard Catalina flying boats in the Bay of Bengal, he participated in missions searching for downed Allied aircrew and earned the Distinguished Flying Cross.
Those were the stories I had come to hear and later wrote about for the Jewish Post & News.
Stories of long flights over open water.
Stories of rescue.
Stories of courage.
Yet as the interview continued, another chapter of his life emerged.
After the war he returned to Canada, attended medical school at the University of Manitoba, and eventually built a successful family practice in Winnipeg. His patients often became his friends. He took pride in caring for generations of families and became known as a gifted and dedicated physician.
For a period of years, he also served as the physician responsible for checking vaccination records and health documentation for international travellers passing through Winnipeg International Airport.
It was then that his eyes brightened.
The war stories were important.
The airport stories were fun.
“You’d be surprised who came through Winnipeg,” he said.
The coffee was fresh. Outside, a warm prairie breeze shifted the trees beyond the kitchen window.
Then he smiled.

“Even the Beatles.”
The name immediately caught my attention.
“The Beatles?”
He laughed.
“The whole city went crazy.”
It was August 18, 1964.
The Beatles were on their way to begin their first major North American tour and Winnipeg was merely a refuelling stop. They weren’t playing a concert. They weren’t staying overnight.
They were simply passing through.
Yet somehow word spread.
Radio stations reported it. Teenagers rushed to the airport. Parents drove excited daughters across the city. Traffic clogged nearby roads. The terminal filled with screaming fans hoping to catch a glimpse of the four young Englishmen who seemed to have conquered the world overnight.
Maurice happened to be the airport doctor assigned to examine the passengers’ health records.
What should have been a routine day suddenly became anything but.
Almost fifty years later, what remained vivid in his memory was not the famous faces but the sound.
The noise.
The shrieking.
The excitement.
For a brief moment Winnipeg became the centre of the universe for thousands of young Canadians.
Then the aircraft door opened.
John, Paul, George, and Ringo appeared.
They waved.
The crowd erupted.
A few photographs were taken.
A few words were exchanged.
And then, scarcely more than twenty minutes after they had arrived, they were gone.
Winnipeg returned to being Winnipeg.
Maurice chuckled at the memory.
“John Lennon was cheeky.”
I asked what he meant.
He considered the question.
“Always had a smart answer.”
He smiled again.
“Not rude. Just cheeky.”
The passage of decades had done nothing to diminish his amusement.
For a few moments we sat quietly.
Then another memory surfaced.

“Steve McQueen was one of the nicest.”
That surprised me.
Maurice encountered the actor in the airport restaurant.
McQueen was seated alone.
No entourage.
No photographers.
No one making a fuss.
Just a man eating lunch between flights.
Maurice rarely approached famous people.
But there was a reason that day.
One of his children was facing serious medical challenges and was a devoted Steve McQueen fan. Movies offered an escape from hospitals, treatments, and uncertainty.
So Maurice walked over to the actor’s table.
He introduced himself and explained the situation.
McQueen listened carefully.
Then he asked for the family’s address.
That was all.
No promises. No performance. No grand gesture.
Simply an address.
Several weeks later a package arrived at the Shnider home.
Inside was an autographed Steve McQueen poster.
Maurice’s expression softened as he recalled it.
The poster itself wasn’t what mattered.
What mattered was seeing the joy it brought.
Even years later, that was the part of the story he remembered most clearly.
“He was a very humble man,” Maurice said.
“Very soft-spoken.”
The kitchen fell silent.
For a moment the famous actor disappeared entirely from the story.
What remained was a father’s gratitude.
Then Maurice laughed again.

“Vanessa Redgrave.”
Another unexpected visitor.
She was travelling through Winnipeg on her way to Los Angeles when it was discovered that she lacked the proper vaccination documentation required for international travel.
In those days such requirements were taken seriously.
The problem needed solving.
So Maurice solved it.
He drove her downtown to his office.
One of the world’s most celebrated actresses riding through Winnipeg in a doctor’s car.
No limousine.
No security detail.
No red carpet.
Just traffic lights, city streets, and ordinary conversation.
There he administered the required vaccination and drove her back to the airport in time for her flight.
He told the story as though it were perfectly routine.
Perhaps for him it was.
I remember thinking that this was what made his stories so wonderful.
To everyone else they sounded extraordinary.
To Maurice they were simply things that had happened during a long and interesting life.
As our conversation drew to a close, he looked down into his coffee cup and reflected on the famous people who had crossed his path.
The Beatles.
Steve McQueen.
Vanessa Redgrave.
Different personalities.
Different kinds of fame.
Yet in the end they all became the same thing.
Travellers.
People worried about schedules.
People missing paperwork.
People trying to catch flights.
People trying to get somewhere.
The old airport had been a great equalizer. For a few moments, between arrival and departure, fame gave way to ordinary life.
And Maurice Shnider occupied a unique place in that world.
He wasn’t a celebrity.
He wasn’t an observer standing outside the story.
He was part of it.
A prairie boy who became a decorated wartime airman, flew rescue missions over distant seas, returned home to study medicine, built a respected family practice in Winnipeg, and devoted his life to helping others.
Some of the people he met happened to be famous.
Most were not.
To Maurice, it made little difference.
He especially enjoyed the company of pilots, storytellers, musicians, and adventurers. He remained fascinated by the Second World War, by history, and above all by people. Fame interested him far less than character.
He remembered the famous ones not because they were celebrities, but because, for a few brief moments, they revealed themselves to be something far more interesting.
Simply human.
When Dr. Maurice Shnider died in 2013 at the age of ninety, Winnipeg lost not only a distinguished physician and decorated veteran, but also a man who never lost his curiosity about the world or his affection for the people who passed through it.
Some departures are quickly forgotten.
Others leave a lasting mark.
That was how I remember him.
And that is how he deserves to be remembered.

