Hello,
Does anyone know if there is a searchable database of German casualties from
World War I.
I know I have German relatives who died while serving their country.

Best regards, Richard D. Oppenheimer Florida USA

Moderator note: This question has been asked and answered many times in this
forum. There is a link to the SIG Archives search page on the List Manager page
at JewishGen. A link to List Manager is in the last line of every list email >from GerSIG
and all other JewishGen lists. http://lyris.jewishgen.org/ListManager

Dear Sorin,
I congratulate you for the work in Sulitsa. >from Dorohoi, many times I
visited this shtetl. Many boys came to Dorohoi for the High School because
in Sulitsa didn't exist. In this way many new families were created with
these people in Dorohoi.

Noua Sulitsa is the same town or other ?

Have a Happy New Year,
Marcel

Hello,
Does anyone know if there is a searchable database of German casualties from
World War I.
I know I have German relatives who died while serving their country.

Best regards, Richard D. Oppenheimer Florida USA

Moderator note: This question has been asked and answered many times in this
forum. There is a link to the SIG Archives search page on the List Manager page
at JewishGen. A link to List Manager is in the last line of every list email >from GerSIG
and all other JewishGen lists. http://lyris.jewishgen.org/ListManager

Dear Sorin,
I congratulate you for the work in Sulitsa. >from Dorohoi, many times I
visited this shtetl. Many boys came to Dorohoi for the High School because
in Sulitsa didn't exist. In this way many new families were created with
these people in Dorohoi.

Noua Sulitsa is the same town or other ?

Have a Happy New Year,
Marcel

The Department of Defense manages a huge library of photographs and other
media that has been declassified. According to Archivist Rick Prelinger as
reported in Boing-Boing- The U.S. Department of Defense has entered into a
contract with T3 Media to get its still and moving image collection
digitized at no cost to the government. In exchange, T3 Media will become
the exclusive public outlet for millions of images and videos for ten years,
and receive a 10-year exclusive license to charge for public access to these
public domain materials. It is expected that it will occur over the next 5
years to have the full declassified library online.

The Defense Imagery Management Operations Center (DIMOC) is the operational
arm of the Defense Visual Information Directorate (DVI), a component of
Defense Media Activity. DIMOC serves as the official Department of Defense
(DoD)Visual Image Records Center for the storage and preservation of
original and irreplaceable motion picture, video, still, audio, and mixed
Visual Imagery records depicting the DoD's heritage and current activities.

The DoD is following the model used by the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA) that provides digitization of select records (e.g.
documents, photographs, etc.) at no-cost to the Government. This no-cost
model permits a contractor to digitize the selected records and receive a
return on their investment during a period of exclusivity in exchange for
providing the National Archives digitized copies.

T3 stated the material will be available for licensing." Costs, procedures
and restrictions are still undecided or undisclosed". At this time it is
unknown if following the 10-year contract with T3 if the DoD will provide
the visual imagery on their website.
To read more about this go to:
http://boingboing.net/2013/12/21/us-department-of-defenses-pu.html and
http://gcn.com/articles/2013/12/12/dod-library.aspx

To read more about the DoD's Defense Imagery website see:
http://www.defenseimagery.mil/products.html Using the search mechanism I
was able to find some visual images >from WWII but not earlier than that
conflict.

Thank you to David Oseas for alerting us to this interesting visual imagery
archive to be made available to the public through T3.

Jan Meisels Allen
Chairperson, IAJGS Public Records Access Monitoring Committee

The Department of Defense manages a huge library of photographs and other
media that has been declassified. According to Archivist Rick Prelinger as
reported in Boing-Boing- The U.S. Department of Defense has entered into a
contract with T3 Media to get its still and moving image collection
digitized at no cost to the government. In exchange, T3 Media will become
the exclusive public outlet for millions of images and videos for ten years,
and receive a 10-year exclusive license to charge for public access to these
public domain materials. It is expected that it will occur over the next 5
years to have the full declassified library online.

The Defense Imagery Management Operations Center (DIMOC) is the operational
arm of the Defense Visual Information Directorate (DVI), a component of
Defense Media Activity. DIMOC serves as the official Department of Defense
(DoD)Visual Image Records Center for the storage and preservation of
original and irreplaceable motion picture, video, still, audio, and mixed
Visual Imagery records depicting the DoD's heritage and current activities.

The DoD is following the model used by the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA) that provides digitization of select records (e.g.
documents, photographs, etc.) at no-cost to the Government. This no-cost
model permits a contractor to digitize the selected records and receive a
return on their investment during a period of exclusivity in exchange for
providing the National Archives digitized copies.

T3 stated the material will be available for licensing." Costs, procedures
and restrictions are still undecided or undisclosed". At this time it is
unknown if following the 10-year contract with T3 if the DoD will provide
the visual imagery on their website.
To read more about this go to:
http://boingboing.net/2013/12/21/us-department-of-defenses-pu.html and
http://gcn.com/articles/2013/12/12/dod-library.aspx

To read more about the DoD's Defense Imagery website see:
http://www.defenseimagery.mil/products.html Using the search mechanism I
was able to find some visual images >from WWII but not earlier than that
conflict.

Thank you to David Oseas for alerting us to this interesting visual imagery
archive to be made available to the public through T3.

Jan Meisels Allen
Chairperson, IAJGS Public Records Access Monitoring Committee

Ancestry.ca is offering free worldwide access to over 100 million records
through December 29, 2013 11:59 pm ET. To view these records you will need
to register for free with Ancestry.ca with your name and email address. Once
you have registered they will then send you a user name and password to
access the records. If you haven't already, you will be prompted to register
once you start trying to search and view the records. After December 29,
2013, you will only be able to view these records using an Ancestry.ca paid
membership. Go to: ancestry.ca/newyears .

When you go to that page and sign in you will see a prompt on the right
"View all collections included in this search" which will advise you which
of their collections are free access during this time frame. If you search
a collection that is not free, you will be prompted to sign up for a 14-day
trial where you must give them a credit card.

I have no relationship with Ancestry.com and post this information solely
for the information of the reader.

Jan Meisels Allen
Chairperson, IAJGS Public Records Access Monitoring Committee

Ancestry.ca is offering free worldwide access to over 100 million records
through December 29, 2013 11:59 pm ET. To view these records you will need
to register for free with Ancestry.ca with your name and email address. Once
you have registered they will then send you a user name and password to
access the records. If you haven't already, you will be prompted to register
once you start trying to search and view the records. After December 29,
2013, you will only be able to view these records using an Ancestry.ca paid
membership. Go to: ancestry.ca/newyears .

When you go to that page and sign in you will see a prompt on the right
"View all collections included in this search" which will advise you which
of their collections are free access during this time frame. If you search
a collection that is not free, you will be prompted to sign up for a 14-day
trial where you must give them a credit card.

I have no relationship with Ancestry.com and post this information solely
for the information of the reader.

Jan Meisels Allen
Chairperson, IAJGS Public Records Access Monitoring Committee

Hi, all. I came across a couple of odd things about my grandfather and
his family's U.S. naturalization, which I was hoping for some insight on:

Mystery #1

My grandfather (Sam BLUM) arrived at Ellis Island in July 1920, having
left his home in Poland which at the time was part of Russia. I know that
he did--I have the passenger list with that date showing him, his mother,
his brother, and his sister, and it shows that they were on their way to his
father's place in Cleveland at the address where I know that my
great-grandfather resided. It's them.

On his father's (Leiser/Louis BLUM) petition for naturalization in 1911,
my grandfather Sam's and his siblings' names are provided and it's also
written, "Born at Russia, reside at Cleveland, Ohio." Again, this is **nine
years** before they actually arrived. Now, in 1920, six months before they
arrived, my great-grandfather Leiser's Order of Court Admitting Petitioner
is stamp-dated January 15, 1920, and it is actually written in, "By the
Court: Admitted on condition he brings his family to the U.S. in 6 mos."
Whereas it was suggested on the 1911 paperwork that his children were in
Cleveland, it was acknowledged here that they were still in Poland.
(Interestingly, It was always stated that Leiser's wife--my
great-grandmother--was always still in Poland.)

My grandfather's index card says that he was naturalized at age 10. As
far as I can tell...he and his siblings were naturalized before they even
left their home in Poland to come to the U.S?? Was that even
possible/common?? (It just seems so odd to me that individuals would become
citizens in the U.S. before ever leaving their home country!)

Mystery #2

Now here's another thing. As far as my mom has ever known, her father
(Sam BLUM) was born September 10, 1910. However, on my great-grandfather
Leiser's petition to naturalize where it gives my grandfather's and his
siblings' names, it also states that my grandfather was born *August 5,
1909*. It is recorded that my grandfather was naturalized when he was 10
years old in 1920--evidently in January 1920--and that age only works with
that supposed 1909 birth date vs. when my mom always understood that her
father was born.

I have a theory. If my grandfather's birth date of 9/10/1910--which is
what my mom always knew to be her father?s birthday--is true, then that
means that his father Left Poland for the U.S. within a week or so of my
grandfather's birth. What I'm wondering is, were there prohibitions against
a father leaving his family with such a young child (say, within a year old)
at home, either by Polish/Russian law or by U.S. standards for accepting a
new immigrant, so that he perhaps lied about his child's age, adding 13
months to his age?

David Perle
Washington, DC
United States

Hi, all. I came across a couple of odd things about my grandfather and
his family's U.S. naturalization, which I was hoping for some insight on:

Mystery #1

My grandfather (Sam BLUM) arrived at Ellis Island in July 1920, having
left his home in Poland which at the time was part of Russia. I know that
he did--I have the passenger list with that date showing him, his mother,
his brother, and his sister, and it shows that they were on their way to his
father's place in Cleveland at the address where I know that my
great-grandfather resided. It's them.

On his father's (Leiser/Louis BLUM) petition for naturalization in 1911,
my grandfather Sam's and his siblings' names are provided and it's also
written, "Born at Russia, reside at Cleveland, Ohio." Again, this is **nine
years** before they actually arrived. Now, in 1920, six months before they
arrived, my great-grandfather Leiser's Order of Court Admitting Petitioner
is stamp-dated January 15, 1920, and it is actually written in, "By the
Court: Admitted on condition he brings his family to the U.S. in 6 mos."
Whereas it was suggested on the 1911 paperwork that his children were in
Cleveland, it was acknowledged here that they were still in Poland.
(Interestingly, It was always stated that Leiser's wife--my
great-grandmother--was always still in Poland.)

My grandfather's index card says that he was naturalized at age 10. As
far as I can tell...he and his siblings were naturalized before they even
left their home in Poland to come to the U.S?? Was that even
possible/common?? (It just seems so odd to me that individuals would become
citizens in the U.S. before ever leaving their home country!)

Mystery #2

Now here's another thing. As far as my mom has ever known, her father
(Sam BLUM) was born September 10, 1910. However, on my great-grandfather
Leiser's petition to naturalize where it gives my grandfather's and his
siblings' names, it also states that my grandfather was born *August 5,
1909*. It is recorded that my grandfather was naturalized when he was 10
years old in 1920--evidently in January 1920--and that age only works with
that supposed 1909 birth date vs. when my mom always understood that her
father was born.

I have a theory. If my grandfather's birth date of 9/10/1910--which is
what my mom always knew to be her father?s birthday--is true, then that
means that his father Left Poland for the U.S. within a week or so of my
grandfather's birth. What I'm wondering is, were there prohibitions against
a father leaving his family with such a young child (say, within a year old)
at home, either by Polish/Russian law or by U.S. standards for accepting a
new immigrant, so that he perhaps lied about his child's age, adding 13
months to his age?

David Perle
Washington, DC
United States

On Sat, 21 Dec 2013 Neville Lamdan <nlamdan@netvision.net.il>
asked the Gesher Galicia list, in part:

<<Is there a territorial definition for the overall region in which Jews
called themselves Galitzianers, and/or thought of themselves as
Galitzianers?

<<Put another way, did that notional territory extend beyond the
official borders of the Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria, in the
same way as Jews who called themselves Litvaks lived in a region
that was far wider than Lithuania proper, broadly corresponding with
the historic Duchy of Lithuania?

<<I ask the question with specific reference to Jews who, in the 19th
century, lived somewhat beyond the eastern border of the
Austro-Hungarian province of Galicia, i.e. in western Volhynia and
Podolia, in towns such as Starakonstantinov, Proskurov/Khmelnitsky
and Kamenets-Podolsk (then in the Russian "Pale of Settlement",
today in Ukraine).>>

Suzan Wynn has properly addressed the question of the territorial
limits of the Province of Galicia.

I would like to address more directly the question of Jews living
outside the Province of Galicia who may have considered themselves
to be Galitzianers. This is purely a cultural or ethnic question having
little to do with the specific borders of Galicia other than the fact
that the people in question were generally not living within them.

Jews moved around. A lot. A Jew raised in Galicia could relocate to
Bukowina, Bohemia, Romania, Vienna, Paris, or New York. Such
people could, and sometimes did, identify themselves as Galitzianers.
But there was not a definable national/ethnic territory stretching
beyond the actual borders of Galicia in which Jews automatically
considered themselves to be Galician the way, for example, Poles in
19th century Germany, Austria and Russia were still Poles, based on
a then non-existent political boundary.

Peter Zavon
Penfield, NY

PZAVON@Rochester.rr.com

On Sat, 21 Dec 2013 Neville Lamdan <nlamdan@netvision.net.il>
asked the Gesher Galicia list, in part:

<<Is there a territorial definition for the overall region in which Jews
called themselves Galitzianers, and/or thought of themselves as
Galitzianers?

<<Put another way, did that notional territory extend beyond the
official borders of the Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria, in the
same way as Jews who called themselves Litvaks lived in a region
that was far wider than Lithuania proper, broadly corresponding with
the historic Duchy of Lithuania?

<<I ask the question with specific reference to Jews who, in the 19th
century, lived somewhat beyond the eastern border of the
Austro-Hungarian province of Galicia, i.e. in western Volhynia and
Podolia, in towns such as Starakonstantinov, Proskurov/Khmelnitsky
and Kamenets-Podolsk (then in the Russian "Pale of Settlement",
today in Ukraine).>>

Suzan Wynn has properly addressed the question of the territorial
limits of the Province of Galicia.

I would like to address more directly the question of Jews living
outside the Province of Galicia who may have considered themselves
to be Galitzianers. This is purely a cultural or ethnic question having
little to do with the specific borders of Galicia other than the fact
that the people in question were generally not living within them.

Jews moved around. A lot. A Jew raised in Galicia could relocate to
Bukowina, Bohemia, Romania, Vienna, Paris, or New York. Such
people could, and sometimes did, identify themselves as Galitzianers.
But there was not a definable national/ethnic territory stretching
beyond the actual borders of Galicia in which Jews automatically
considered themselves to be Galician the way, for example, Poles in
19th century Germany, Austria and Russia were still Poles, based on
a then non-existent political boundary.

Peter Zavon
Penfield, NY

PZAVON@Rochester.rr.com

Original Message From: Ira Leviton <iraleviton@yahoo.com>:

I believe that there will almost always be records of deaths on ships
at the next port of call. .......

I say "almost always" because in case of an accident, say somebody jumped
overboard, the investigation and recording of the death may have been done at
the closest port, but if the ship didn't dock there, it's not the next port.
Maritime law gets very complicated.......

that deaths were registered in the country of origin,.....

I am a maritime person even before I am a genealogist. First off I would say
start with the passenger list and the notes at the back of the passenger list.
If someone died en route they would have to be crossed off the list or it
otherwise noted because otherwise the immigration officials are going to be
looking for that person.

The ship in its daily log would have noted any deaths. But unfortunately for
us it is going to be nearly impossible to find a copy of an individual ship's
daily logs. Most of them went with the ship. The ships did not have to file
any types of reports when they arrived in foreign ports or even returned to
their home port.

Ellis Island had a very advanced for its day medical operation but I don't
know if its records were kept and if they extended on to the ships at all.
However if a person died at sea and the ship had to report it the medical
authorities would have been concerned if it was due to any infectious or
communicable disease. The ships had to report to the local authorities if
they had any disease aboard and if so the ship could be turned away or help
in quarantine. So you can see why a ship would want to keep a death quiet
and be able to report there was no disease aboard.

I would not venture to guess if a ship 100 plus years ago would do an at
sea burial or take the body on to the next port of call. Regardless the
investigation, if there were one, would only be at the next port of call
or maybe at the port of embarkation. If someone died or jumped or fell, a
ship would not be radioing on to the nearest port or any such thing to
prompt an investigation or paper work at "nearest port."

Remember until well into the 20th century the ships had no means of
communications and then it was the wireless at first not radios or
telephones as we think of it today. The ships at sea were self government
entities with little or no international supervision. The captains would
not want to do anything to delay or extend the voyage so other than a quick
search to try and recover the person or body they would go on their way.

The ships would have felt only slightly more responsibility to a crew
member who died at sea versus an immigrant they were transporting. So
they might have been more likely to report back to their home country
the death of a crew member.

Paperwork however would have been the ship's enemy and a time consuming
task the crew would have preferred to skip. So filing lots of papers and
reports would have been avoided as much as possible.

Finally remember that a lot of the ships that sailed to New York for
example did not dock in New York. A lot of the piers were in New Jersey.
That said I have never seen a death report in New Jersey for a person who
reportedly died at sea on a ship that later docked in New Jersey.

Allan Jordan

Original Message From: Ira Leviton <iraleviton@yahoo.com>:

I believe that there will almost always be records of deaths on ships
at the next port of call. .......

I say "almost always" because in case of an accident, say somebody jumped
overboard, the investigation and recording of the death may have been done at
the closest port, but if the ship didn't dock there, it's not the next port.
Maritime law gets very complicated.......

that deaths were registered in the country of origin,.....

I am a maritime person even before I am a genealogist. First off I would say
start with the passenger list and the notes at the back of the passenger list.
If someone died en route they would have to be crossed off the list or it
otherwise noted because otherwise the immigration officials are going to be
looking for that person.

The ship in its daily log would have noted any deaths. But unfortunately for
us it is going to be nearly impossible to find a copy of an individual ship's
daily logs. Most of them went with the ship. The ships did not have to file
any types of reports when they arrived in foreign ports or even returned to
their home port.

Ellis Island had a very advanced for its day medical operation but I don't
know if its records were kept and if they extended on to the ships at all.
However if a person died at sea and the ship had to report it the medical
authorities would have been concerned if it was due to any infectious or
communicable disease. The ships had to report to the local authorities if
they had any disease aboard and if so the ship could be turned away or help
in quarantine. So you can see why a ship would want to keep a death quiet
and be able to report there was no disease aboard.

I would not venture to guess if a ship 100 plus years ago would do an at
sea burial or take the body on to the next port of call. Regardless the
investigation, if there were one, would only be at the next port of call
or maybe at the port of embarkation. If someone died or jumped or fell, a
ship would not be radioing on to the nearest port or any such thing to
prompt an investigation or paper work at "nearest port."

Remember until well into the 20th century the ships had no means of
communications and then it was the wireless at first not radios or
telephones as we think of it today. The ships at sea were self government
entities with little or no international supervision. The captains would
not want to do anything to delay or extend the voyage so other than a quick
search to try and recover the person or body they would go on their way.

The ships would have felt only slightly more responsibility to a crew
member who died at sea versus an immigrant they were transporting. So
they might have been more likely to report back to their home country
the death of a crew member.

Paperwork however would have been the ship's enemy and a time consuming
task the crew would have preferred to skip. So filing lots of papers and
reports would have been avoided as much as possible.

Finally remember that a lot of the ships that sailed to New York for
example did not dock in New York. A lot of the piers were in New Jersey.
That said I have never seen a death report in New Jersey for a person who
reportedly died at sea on a ship that later docked in New Jersey.

Allan Jordan

from my own family history:

My father's cousin arrived in US >from Poland on July 28 1914. WWI began
that day. He left wife and infant daughter in Poland. He served in the US
Army, a quicker way to citizenship in those days. After the War his wife
and child came over, I have a copy of her passport application where she
states she is a US citizen as a result of her husband's naturalization.

As for laws regarding emigrating and leaving children- All you have to
do us see a few ship passenger lists and see the number of mother's with
small children coming to meet her husband/their father who preceded them
to the US. It was the rule rather than the exception.

Birthdays- The Gregorian calendar was never adopted in the Russian
Empire. It changed in Russia after the Revolution. The Jews lived under the
Hebrew calendar. It is another case of the rule rather than the exception
that dates in US civil records, recorded after the fact as they were, were
often best guesses.

I'm not sure this applies in your case, but one reason for a younger age
on an immigration document is- fares for children under a certain age
were lower.

David Rosen
Boston, MA

On 12/25/2013 1:56 AM, David W. Perle wrote:

Hi, all. I came across a couple of odd things about my grandfather and
his family's U.S. naturalization, which I was hoping for some insight on:

Mystery #1

My grandfather (Sam BLUM) arrived at Ellis Island in July 1920, having
left his home in Poland which at the time was part of Russia. I know that
he did--I have the passenger list with that date showing him, his mother,
his brother, and his sister, and it shows that they were on their way to his
father's place in Cleveland at the address where I know that my
great-grandfather resided. It's them.

On his father's (Leiser/Louis BLUM) petition for naturalization in 1911,
my grandfather Sam's and his siblings' names are provided and it's also
written, "Born at Russia, reside at Cleveland, Ohio." Again, this is **nine
years** before they actually arrived. Now, in 1920, six months before they
arrived, my great-grandfather Leiser's Order of Court Admitting Petitioner
is stamp-dated January 15, 1920, and it is actually written in, "By the
Court: Admitted on condition he brings his family to the U.S. in 6 mos."
Whereas it was suggested on the 1911 paperwork that his children were in
Cleveland, it was acknowledged here that they were still in Poland.
(Interestingly, It was always stated that Leiser's wife--my
great-grandmother--was always still in Poland.)

My grandfather's index card says that he was naturalized at age 10. As
far as I can tell...he and his siblings were naturalized before they even
left their home in Poland to come to the U.S?? Was that even
possible/common?? (It just seems so odd to me that individuals would become
citizens in the U.S. before ever leaving their home country!)

Mystery #2

Now here's another thing. As far as my mom has ever known, her father
(Sam BLUM) was born September 10, 1910. However, on my great-grandfather
Leiser's petition to naturalize where it gives my grandfather's and his
siblings' names, it also states that my grandfather was born *August 5,
1909*. It is recorded that my grandfather was naturalized when he was 10
years old in 1920--evidently in January 1920--and that age only works with
that supposed 1909 birth date vs. when my mom always understood that her
father was born.

I have a theory. If my grandfather's birth date of 9/10/1910--which is
what my mom always knew to be her father?s birthday--is true, then that
means that his father Left Poland for the U.S. within a week or so of my
grandfather's birth. What I'm wondering is, were there prohibitions against
a father leaving his family with such a young child (say, within a year old)
at home, either by Polish/Russian law or by U.S. standards for accepting a
new immigrant, so that he perhaps lied about his child's age, adding 13
months to his age?

from my own family history:

My father's cousin arrived in US >from Poland on July 28 1914. WWI began
that day. He left wife and infant daughter in Poland. He served in the US
Army, a quicker way to citizenship in those days. After the War his wife
and child came over, I have a copy of her passport application where she
states she is a US citizen as a result of her husband's naturalization.

As for laws regarding emigrating and leaving children- All you have to
do us see a few ship passenger lists and see the number of mother's with
small children coming to meet her husband/their father who preceded them
to the US. It was the rule rather than the exception.

Birthdays- The Gregorian calendar was never adopted in the Russian
Empire. It changed in Russia after the Revolution. The Jews lived under the
Hebrew calendar. It is another case of the rule rather than the exception
that dates in US civil records, recorded after the fact as they were, were
often best guesses.

I'm not sure this applies in your case, but one reason for a younger age
on an immigration document is- fares for children under a certain age
were lower.

David Rosen
Boston, MA

On 12/25/2013 1:56 AM, David W. Perle wrote:

Hi, all. I came across a couple of odd things about my grandfather and
his family's U.S. naturalization, which I was hoping for some insight on:

Mystery #1

My grandfather (Sam BLUM) arrived at Ellis Island in July 1920, having
left his home in Poland which at the time was part of Russia. I know that
he did--I have the passenger list with that date showing him, his mother,
his brother, and his sister, and it shows that they were on their way to his
father's place in Cleveland at the address where I know that my
great-grandfather resided. It's them.

On his father's (Leiser/Louis BLUM) petition for naturalization in 1911,
my grandfather Sam's and his siblings' names are provided and it's also
written, "Born at Russia, reside at Cleveland, Ohio." Again, this is **nine
years** before they actually arrived. Now, in 1920, six months before they
arrived, my great-grandfather Leiser's Order of Court Admitting Petitioner
is stamp-dated January 15, 1920, and it is actually written in, "By the
Court: Admitted on condition he brings his family to the U.S. in 6 mos."
Whereas it was suggested on the 1911 paperwork that his children were in
Cleveland, it was acknowledged here that they were still in Poland.
(Interestingly, It was always stated that Leiser's wife--my
great-grandmother--was always still in Poland.)

My grandfather's index card says that he was naturalized at age 10. As
far as I can tell...he and his siblings were naturalized before they even
left their home in Poland to come to the U.S?? Was that even
possible/common?? (It just seems so odd to me that individuals would become
citizens in the U.S. before ever leaving their home country!)

Mystery #2

Now here's another thing. As far as my mom has ever known, her father
(Sam BLUM) was born September 10, 1910. However, on my great-grandfather
Leiser's petition to naturalize where it gives my grandfather's and his
siblings' names, it also states that my grandfather was born *August 5,
1909*. It is recorded that my grandfather was naturalized when he was 10
years old in 1920--evidently in January 1920--and that age only works with
that supposed 1909 birth date vs. when my mom always understood that her
father was born.

I have a theory. If my grandfather's birth date of 9/10/1910--which is
what my mom always knew to be her father?s birthday--is true, then that
means that his father Left Poland for the U.S. within a week or so of my
grandfather's birth. What I'm wondering is, were there prohibitions against
a father leaving his family with such a young child (say, within a year old)
at home, either by Polish/Russian law or by U.S. standards for accepting a
new immigrant, so that he perhaps lied about his child's age, adding 13
months to his age?

The latest issue of Landsmen [Vol. 23, Nos. 1-2] was mailed out at the
end of November. In addition to our usual networking features (Family
Finder ads, “Lucky Hits,” etc.) it has the following:

(1) Special Section on ‘Augustow District’ consisting of:

. A broad view of this area, drawing on over two decades of research by
Suwalk-Lomza SIG. The main towns are Augustow, Holynka, Lipsk, Raczki,
Sopockinie, Sztabin, and Szczebra. Several Appendices have information
on many Augustow District Jews extracted >from Landsmen data tables,
including: miscellaneous Czarist surveillance files; external and
internal passports; and portions of Resident Books [>from Suwalki
Gubernia Central Government fonds in the Vilnius Archives]; and a re-cap
of civil marriages in Paris (1850's-1902) relevant to emigrants >from
this area.

. Augustow District passengers >from Hamburg to New York (Indirect Lists)
in 1855-1873.

. Jews in Augustow Catholic 1825 death records (filmed by the FHL but
newly discovered by us).

. Augustow District Jews in Lomza Birth, Death & Marriage Records. Full
details - extracted >from all FHL (Mormon-filmed) records in Lomza which
have data on Augustow District Jews. Provides data as well on many
families >from the town of Lomza and some villages in its vicinity.

(2) Suwalki “PSA” Marriage Records: 1887-1892. Not filmed by the
Mormons, these records were obtained at the Polish State Archives in
Suwalki (a Suwalk-Lomza SIG Foreign Research Project). Reflecting the
cosmopolitan character of the town of Suwalki in this period, these
records have data on families >from numerous localities throughout the
Suwalk-Lomza area and some bordering towns. Includes maiden surnames of
the newlyweds’ mothers, names of former spouses of widows and widowers,
late-reported births of children, related witnesses and other details.

Those of our members not yet renewed for the 2013-2014 membership year
(corresponding with the two double issues in Vol. 23 of Landsmen) may
view our website on JewishGen to confirm that our annual membership dues
remain the same as always.

www.jewishgen.org/SuwalkLomza

Click on the Membership button after reaching our Home Page on the above
link.

Interested non-members should view other components of our website
(still in process of updating) concerning our geographic focus area.
Those new to genealogy who are uncertain about whether their research
needs can be met by our activities should especially view the ‘Research
Guidance’ component. The Suwalk-Lomza SIG Chairman, Marlene Silverman
(together with others on our Production and Technical Assistants team)
provides a great deal of guidance, at no cost.

Suwalk-Lomza SIG gratefully acknowledges the hosting of its website by
JewishGen.

Allen Avner
Champaign, Illinois USA
For the Suwalk-Lomza SIG

The latest issue of Landsmen [Vol. 23, Nos. 1-2] was mailed out at the
end of November. In addition to our usual networking features (Family
Finder ads, “Lucky Hits,” etc.) it has the following:

(1) Special Section on ‘Augustow District’ consisting of:

. A broad view of this area, drawing on over two decades of research by
Suwalk-Lomza SIG. The main towns are Augustow, Holynka, Lipsk, Raczki,
Sopockinie, Sztabin, and Szczebra. Several Appendices have information
on many Augustow District Jews extracted >from Landsmen data tables,
including: miscellaneous Czarist surveillance files; external and
internal passports; and portions of Resident Books [>from Suwalki
Gubernia Central Government fonds in the Vilnius Archives]; and a re-cap
of civil marriages in Paris (1850's-1902) relevant to emigrants >from
this area.

. Augustow District passengers >from Hamburg to New York (Indirect Lists)
in 1855-1873.

. Jews in Augustow Catholic 1825 death records (filmed by the FHL but
newly discovered by us).

. Augustow District Jews in Lomza Birth, Death & Marriage Records. Full
details - extracted >from all FHL (Mormon-filmed) records in Lomza which
have data on Augustow District Jews. Provides data as well on many
families >from the town of Lomza and some villages in its vicinity.

(2) Suwalki “PSA” Marriage Records: 1887-1892. Not filmed by the
Mormons, these records were obtained at the Polish State Archives in
Suwalki (a Suwalk-Lomza SIG Foreign Research Project). Reflecting the
cosmopolitan character of the town of Suwalki in this period, these
records have data on families >from numerous localities throughout the
Suwalk-Lomza area and some bordering towns. Includes maiden surnames of
the newlyweds’ mothers, names of former spouses of widows and widowers,
late-reported births of children, related witnesses and other details.

Those of our members not yet renewed for the 2013-2014 membership year
(corresponding with the two double issues in Vol. 23 of Landsmen) may
view our website on JewishGen to confirm that our annual membership dues
remain the same as always.

www.jewishgen.org/SuwalkLomza

Click on the Membership button after reaching our Home Page on the above
link.

Interested non-members should view other components of our website
(still in process of updating) concerning our geographic focus area.
Those new to genealogy who are uncertain about whether their research
needs can be met by our activities should especially view the ‘Research
Guidance’ component. The Suwalk-Lomza SIG Chairman, Marlene Silverman
(together with others on our Production and Technical Assistants team)
provides a great deal of guidance, at no cost.

Suwalk-Lomza SIG gratefully acknowledges the hosting of its website by
JewishGen.

Allen Avner
Champaign, Illinois USA
For the Suwalk-Lomza SIG

I've posted a post card (found in relative's possessions) in Yiddish for
which I need a loose translation. It is on ViewMate at the following address

http://www.jewishgen.org/viewmate/viewmateview.asp?key=VM30454
Please respond via the form provided in the ViewMate application.

Thank you very much.
Donna Eschen
California

I've posted a post card (found in relative's possessions) in Yiddish for
which I need a loose translation. It is on ViewMate at the following address

http://www.jewishgen.org/viewmate/viewmateview.asp?key=VM30454
Please respond via the form provided in the ViewMate application.

Thank you very much.
Donna Eschen
California