Return to Transcripts main page

Amanpour

Interview with Geneva Graduate Institute Professor Emeritus of International History and Politics Xiang Lanxin; Interview with Indian Writer and Journalist and "The New India" Author Rahul Bhatia; Interview with Holocaust Survivor and Clinical Psychologist Edith Eger; Interview with Daughter of Edith Eger and Clinical Psychologist Marianne Engle. Aired 1-2p ET

Aired May 15, 2026 - 13:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[13:00:00]

PAULA NEWTON, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

XIANG LANXIN, PROFESSOR EMERITUS OF INTERNATIONAL HISTORY AND POLITICS, GENEVA GRADUATE INSTITUTE: This U.S. presidency, for me, is the, maybe the

only historic opportunity for China to deal with a United States which considered China as a normal great power competition.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEWTON: Trump's history-making trip to China. We get the view from Beijing with foreign policy expert, Professor Xiang Langxin.

Then --

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RAHUL BHATIA, INDIAN WRITER AND JOURNALIST AND AUTHOR, "THE NEW INDIA": There's a sense that India, or the idea of India, has kind of slipped away

from us.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEWTON: -- Modi extends his political grip after a landmark win. Is the world's largest democracy drifting toward one-party rule? I ask acclaimed

author and journalist Rahul Bhatia.

Also, ahead --

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

EDITH EGER, HOLOCAUST SURVIVOR: Everything can be taken away from a human being except what they're put it their mind. Then that really kept me

going.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEWTON: Remember, the remarkable life of Dr. Edith Eger. A holocaust survivor, psychologist and author who inspired millions with her message of

hope. A look back at her conversation with Walter Isaacson, alongside her daughter, Dr. Marianne Engle.

A warm welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Paula Newton in New York, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.

Two superpower leaders, two days of talks, and an agenda with global consequences. Nearly a decade on from his last trip, this time President

Trump faced a more assertive China against the backdrop of a very different world order. Having returned to office promising to make China pay, Trump

now appears more focused on managing competition than escalating it. Seeking diplomatic wins as he contends with waning approval ratings back at

home.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: This bond of commerce and respect that stretches back 250 years is the foundation for a future that benefits both

of our nations. The American and Chinese people share much in common. We value hard work. We value courage and achievement. We love our families and

we love our countries.

Together we have the chance to draw on these values to create a future of greater prosperity, cooperation and happiness and peace for our children.

We love our children, this region and the world. It's a special world with the two of us united and together.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEWTON: All of this unfolding under the shadow of the war in Iran. Now, in its third month, which has thrown China's global influence into sharper

focus. Over the last 13 years, President Xi has transformed China, tightening control at home while embracing a bolder strategy abroad.

So, how does Beijing view all of this? Just before Trump wrapped his visit, I spoke with Professor Xiang Lanxin. He's Professor Emeritus of

International History and Politics at the Graduate Institute in Geneva. And he joined us from Shanghai.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

NEWTON: Professor Xiang Lanxin, thank you so much. We want to welcome you to the program. Thank you for being here.

XIANG LANXIN, PROFESSOR EMERITUS OF INTERNATIONAL HISTORY AND POLITICS, GENEVA GRADUATE INSTITUTE: Thank you very much for inviting me.

NEWTON: A lot to parse through this summit and what are truly historic events. In the long arc, though, of Chinese engagement with the West, I am

wondering how do you see this moment?

LANXIN: It's very, very important in my view. It's for a very good reason. I think this is maybe the first time Chinese have to deal with a president

who has apparently three faces we have to deal with. That is, he -- President Trump is a revolutionary in terms of internal and external

relations. And then you have a president who is a bully. I'm referring his style of conducting foreign relations. What most likely I think look like a

professional wrestling style.

[13:05:00]

Then I think a deal maker, a real deal maker. China is handling three Donald Trump at the same time, which is quite amazing. It's totally unique

and a very important moment. Yes.

NEWTON: You've made quite an analogy there and a lot to parse in the world of politics. But I don't have to remind you at the moment in time in

history that this summit is occurring. It is a deeply fractured international system.

And so, much of the world right now is weary. And there's a lot at stake here, especially given the crisis as it stands with Iran. I am wondering,

though, in this context, China has really tried to present itself as the stable superpower. Do you believe it's having success and enduring success

in that foreign policy objective?

LANXIN: Well, I think it has certainly have quite a successful so far achievement in many areas. But I don't think China alone can make that

stability permanent or lasting without the cooperation from the United States. And this U.S. presidency, for me, is the maybe the only historic

opportunity for China to deal with a United States, which considered China as a normal great power competition rather than an ideological rival.

As many previous president, particularly President Biden, would call democracy versus autocracy. But his ideological base is a throw out of

window. Therefore, it's much more important, critical for the two major powers in the world to engage in a serious way. This is what I think is the

benefit of Trump's revolution.

NEWTON: But I am wondering, as you're talking about, this is a singular opportunity with this president in his second term. I mean, he is not going

to be president in a few years. When you look at this epoch in time, do you actually believe China can achieve much, no matter who the next president

of the United States is?

LANXIN: Well, my sense is the MAGA movement will continue. MAGA is a serious political movement. I wouldn't discount what Trump says. He started

what's a common-sense revolution. And he did. He did, especially the way he sees international affairs. That is totally different from the previous

president. I haven't seen that in my lifetime, at least.

So, I think there is a chance. There is a great chance. Yes, he will be the stabilizer of international affairs or international system.

NEWTON: It is truly transactional what we're seeing now on the global stage between these two powers. And in those transactions, Iran and what is

going on at this hour in Iran looms large. I am wondering if you think that the position of the United States, specifically President Trump, that his

position is weakened coming to China at this point in time. And does he need China to weigh in here, or to put another view on the table, does

China need this conflict resolved as well? And for that reason, they must come to some kind of a resolution.

LANXIN: Well, yes, I'm sure he needs China. He hopes China can help. But on the other hand, I think his decision to go to war with Iran apparently

is a misjudgment. So, I believe the whole world knows that. And the Chinese know that as well. But the important thing is China's priority is to deal

with a president who does not base his China policy on ideological thinking.

Therefore, China wouldn't do too much to provoke him. But we all know this is a miscalculation and he needs to find a ladder to climb down. China

would like love to help him if we do to climb down. But so far, I don't believe he has a chance to do so. He seems to stuck there. Europeans are

willing to help him. And the China could not really help him in practical way. Diplomatically, we can, but not really. I don't see any measures to

help him with this Strait of Hormuz until the war ended, officially ended. And so far, we don't see it.

[13:10:00]

NEWTON: But if I'm hearing you correctly --

LANXIN: So, we have to wait and see.

NEWTON: But if I'm hearing you correctly, you're saying that China will see this out for the next few weeks, the next months even, no matter what's

at stake for China in the Strait of Hormuz. There's really, you believe, nothing China will do to step in here to solve this.

LANXIN: Well, my point is that China would love to do something to help, but I doubt China can. Because you see, the situation now is Iranians now

is escalation dominant side. Iran is really in the position to make a decision how the war to be ended. I don't believe Iran is even willing to

listen to China. If China make a straightforward proposal saying open Strait of Hormuz or finish the war, it's not really going to work that way

because Iranians are in a different position now. Now -- yes.

NEWTON: Interesting what you say, that China does not have the leverage, because I know a lot of people assume that it does. I do want to move on to

Taiwan. And obviously -- go ahead. Go ahead.

LANXIN: Yes. No, what I'm trying to say, China had limited leverage. Not sufficient enough to really help end the war. Let's say, compared with the

Ukraine situation, China probably have a little bit more leverage on Putin, you see.

NEWTON: Fascinating that you say that. And I do wonder if during the summit that conflict will come up as well. It's not been spoken of so far.

Taiwan is clearly watching this summit nervously. There are reports that Beijing sees the moment, particularly as we, you and I have been discussing

the fact that the U.K. -- the U.S., pardon me, may be looking for an off- ramp.

Do you see this as an opportunity for China to demand some concessions from President Trump on Taiwan? And I say this because certainly in opening,

even at the state banquet, President Xi really had quite strident remarks about what the risks are in Taiwan.

LANXIN: Yes, I think on that issue, China is actually quite consistent in that. Because the United States side offered several statements before that

the U.S. side wants stability in the Strait. China knows that. China understands that. Taiwan issue is the only issue that could bring U.S. and

China into a real war. Here we're talking about not just conventional, but even potentially, once U.S. and China are actually in the war, nobody dares

to say that nuclear weapons can be ruled out, no matter what.

So, in that sense, China proposed, I noticed the language the Chinese used this time. They accept the American argument about the importance of

stability in the Strait. But they add one thing this time, which is new for me. It's called the constructive strategic stability -- or no, it's called

constructive stability building. So, that is a suggestion to say we may need to find some new idea for both sides to reassure each other, or

sometimes I believe during Obama administration, at one point, they call it a strategic reassurance. That kind of language of each other, you know,

both sides will be at ease, not leading to a confrontation. So, this is why Chinese keep on emphasizing.

You know, also, in the context of the U.S. had a large quantity of weapons on the table to be sold to Taiwan. So, this is why Xi Jinping is

emphasizing that. Yes.

NEWTON: In this light, do you believe the status quo is acceptable to China right now on Taiwan?

LANXIN: Well, if United States sticks to what the traditionally called strategic ambiguity, which is pretty much abandoned by Biden

administration, if you recall, Biden basically turned this into a strategic clarity, abandoning Nixon-Kissinger period of American strategy.

[13:15:00]

So, if U.S. stick to strategic ambiguity at the same time, which also means double deterrence, right, against China, as well as against Taiwan

independence. That's what strategic ambiguity functions.

You know, when you go to strategic clarity means war, basically. So, this is the point they have to negotiate. They need or the Chinese would hope

Trump administration to come up with some new language to assure Chinese that strategic ambiguity is still there.

NEWTON: Interesting that that will, in fact, present a change in strategy, as far as some American policy analysts might say. I do want to move on to

what the Chinese opinion is of the United States at the moment. We had an American writer in Shanghai, Jacob Dreyer, wrote in The New York Times that

China has stopped looking up to America, that ordinary Chinese now see the United States as a cautionary tale rather than a model. What do you think?

LANXIN: That's exaggeration. I do believe majority of Chinese still look up to the United States. They know the United States, you know, the history

and the advantages. I'm talking about the systemic -- the system. United States is perhaps one of the best to provide the best competitive economic

system, competitive economic system, economic opportunities.

I live in the States for many years as a student. I know most Chinese still quite admire American system culture. Yes, many of them looking at what

Trump is doing. They now increasingly become disappointed. Venezuela, for example, you know, those kind of behavior, grabbing a president out of his

bed. Those kind of behavior is certainly no matter what you say, it's against the U.N. charter, and not to mention Iran War.

So, this kind of behavior apparently upset many Chinese as well. But on the whole, I do not believe the idea of the U.S. in decline, China in the rise,

China would take over. That is a small minority of people who really believe that not the majority.

NEWTON: Professor, thank you so much. We'll have to leave it there. But some fascinating insights. And we thank you.

LANXIN: Thank you very much. Thank you.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

NEWTON: Coming up, Narendra Modi claims a historic victory, marking a major shift in Indian politics. I speak to author and journalist Rahul

Bhatia. That's after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEWTON: Now, from the Americas to Europe to Asia, nationalist movements are on the rise. Few places illustrate that shift more clearly than the

world's largest democracy, India.

Last week, Prime Minister Narendra Modi's party secured a landmark election victory in West Bengal for the first time ever. A state long seen as one of

the last major bastions of opposition politics.

[13:20:00]

It's a result that further strengthens the BJP's grip on power. An extraordinary comeback just two years after losing its parliamentary

majority.

For supporters, it's a sign of Modi's enduring popularity. For critics, it's another step toward a more centralized Hindu nationalist vision of

India. Rahul Bhatia is an award-winning journalist and author of "The New India," an acclaimed account of the country's political transformation. And

he joined us from Mumbai.

Rahul Bhatia, welcome to the program.

RAHUL BHATIA, INDIAN WRITER AND JOURNALIST AND AUTHOR, "THE NEW INDIA": Thank you.

NEWTON: You know, India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi, he's urging Indians to stop buying gold, to work from home, to limit foreign travel. I

mean, I think it's fair to say that even, you know, some in his own country are puzzled by some of these requests. These, of course, are all signs of

how hard the Iran War is hitting India's economy.

But the prime minister also seems to be emboldened. He's asking his populace for these personal sacrifices. I'm wondering, in your opinion, is

this a sign of strength or of weakness?

BHATIA: I don't think it's either, actually. I think it's something that the prime minister does now and then, whenever there is stress to be found

in the system. This happened during a period we call demonetization back in 2016. And I think there was plenty of sacrifice involved then, then during

COVID again. And now, you see it again during the Iran War.

I think what -- at least with the commentary that I've read, there are a few questions about why now, when the Iranian war, or rather the Iran War

began a couple of months ago.

NEWTON: I do want to go to what has also been historic in the last few weeks. And that is the fact that last week, India's governing BJP won

legislative elections in the state of West Bengal. This was truly historic. It was a landslide victory and comes after a steady stream of those

election wins for the BJP. The BJP, Narendra Modi's party, we'll say, has now power in 20 of 28 states. Can you kind of parse this out for us? How

did this happen? And what do you believe to be its significance now?

BHATIA: Well, the first thing I did after the election results came out about 10 days ago was essentially have conversations with the people in

politics, friends in media, and, you know, people who understood Bengal. And the thing that I got back from them was, you know, there was mixed

feedback.

At one level, there were -- people did say that the previous government over there really did not give people what they wanted, that, you know,

there was, I guess, a sense that things could have been a lot better. And so, the BJP sort of came in by a landslide.

NEWTON: In terms of West Bengal, though, the BJP defeated Mamata Banerjee, who had served as West Bengal's chief minister 15 years. She is a fierce

critic and a key opposition voice in the country. Is this indicative now of the fact that Narendra Modi essentially has a clear pathway here, that he

has managed to defeat one of his key opponents and critics?

BHATIA: I think so. The sense that I got when I had these conversations was that people don't really know what to do. I was speaking to an adviser

of one of the big political parties over here in Mumbai, and he said that there's a sense that you've just been bulldozed and you really, really have

no idea how to deal with this juggernaut, which is the BJP.

And it's not just the BJP, because when you sort of contest against the BJP or the BJP shows up at an election, it's not just the party. It's a whole

bunch of forces and agencies that sort of come and work together to make life very difficult for anybody else who is contesting elections.

NEWTON: It's in fact can be a dangerous development in a democracy. Again, oppositions in these kinds of democracies serve a huge role in terms of

looking out for not just minority interest, but obviously as some kind of counter to government policy.

Banerjee herself, though, was citing voter interference in this election. She's refusing to resign, accusing the BJP of, in her words, forcefully

capturing those elections. I go back to what you said about bulldozing. It's not the same thing. Is there any evidence here that in fact she was

cheated out of her rightful win in this election?

[13:25:00]

BHATIA: Well, look, when you look at the people who were taken off these voter rolls, I think I read, you know, I was reading some figures, and I

think in some constituencies, up to about 90 percent of them were Muslim. And so, you see this disproportionate representation of people who would

not necessarily vote for the BJP being struck off the rolls. And that, I think, feeds into this larger fear of something called delimitation in

India, which is, I guess, what Americans know as gerrymandering, which is essentially redrawing lines so that, I guess, your majorities are clearer

and you tend to win more constituencies.

So, yes, there is certainly a feeling among people that I've spoken with and, of course, you know, politically that it's not -- and I have to choose

my words very, very carefully here, it's not -- you're not contesting on an even keel. Let's just put it that way.

NEWTON: Yes, interesting that you have to choose your words carefully, and I know you want to be precise in what you're saying, but, of course, it's

fraught on the ground in India. I do want to talk about your book, "The New India." You wrote it a few years ago, and it explores, of course, India's

shift toward Hindu nationalism and rising authoritarianism, obviously something that comes to the fore almost daily in Indian politics now.

How much do you believe that this religious nationalism played a part in the election? And I go specifically to your experiences about whether or

not Muslim voters were disadvantaged or somehow excluded, because I have also read, and correct me if I'm wrong, that some Muslim voters, in fact,

did vote for the BJP.

BHATIA: Yes. This is something that comes up every now and then. I think when I was working on my book, and I was speaking to -- I focused a lot on,

I guess, the Muslim lived experience in India. One of the things that I heard over and over again was that way back in 2014, just before Prime

Minister Modi sort of won the -- became prime minister, there were Muslim families that voted for him. They were struck by his promises, and the idea

that India would sort of march forward, there would be development, the kind of development they hadn't been, they hadn't seen in many years. And

so, yes, people did vote for him.

There was also this feeling that, look, things can -- you know, there are systems -- there are checks and balances, and things will never be as bad

as people fear. And so, you know, you count on these notional checks and balances and say that they will protect you, and you ignore a lot of other

things. And so, I feel like when I was talking to people about the way their families voted and what they think right now, the sense that I got

was there is, at some point, regret at what they did.

Now, this has happened in Bengal, too. But at the same time, look, there is polarization. You just, you know, every single day brings new instances of

somebody threatening somebody along religious lines. Just this afternoon, I think yesterday, I was seeing a video of some party member saying that he

would not do a single thing for Muslim voters because they did not vote for him. So, you see things like this. And you should have heard the cheers.

The cheers were incredible. When I say incredible, I mean unbelievable. And so, you see a lot of this happening. And it really is a familiar sight

right now. Every election, something like this does happen.

NEWTON: It's a familiar sight. And I think, as you noted in your book, that you would hear, because it's not obviously just polarization. No, it

is bigotry. And you discussed in your book the fact that you were shocked at some things that even from friends you would hear that you could never

picture them saying a decade ago. Do you see that, unfortunately, as a persistence in Indian society, that it will actually separate along those

very nationalistic and religious lines?

BHATIA: I can't speak to that. But I can speak to polarization and bigotry and about how it lies under the surface pretty much everywhere in places

that you just wouldn't expect. It should not surprise me even now. But every time I encounter it from people I don't expect it to come from, it

comes as a surprise. It comes from friends. It comes from family.

[13:30:00]

And there's something hidden, something deep that the BJP and the RSS, which is the parent body of the BJP, which is 100 years old, there's

something in these messages that resonates with people. And I must admit, I don't know what exactly it is. There is a certain amount of grievance.

There is a certain amount of that feeling that you haven't got your due, that your country belongs to you, and that your faith is under threat. And

there is this constant othering that you see, you know, it almost feels like, at times, Muslims and other minorities are immigrants in this

country. You know, that's what it feels like. And so, much of the rhetoric you hear around debates around immigration, they echo with some of the

things you hear in India when people talk about Muslims and other minorities.

Now, what will this lead to? I'm not sure. I have heard from a few people that there's only so much that people can take. I've heard from Muslims.

I've heard from Hindus. I've -- it's -- I want to say that, at some level, people are still -- they have that faith in the constitution. A person that

I followed around for 18 months, whose house was burnt down, he keeps talking to me throughout the time we were together, and as recently as last

week, two years after the book came out, we were chatting. And he said to me that it's the constitution that he derives his strength from.

And so, you know that there are -- while there is talk of people having had it, and what that implies is, you know, taking extreme steps, extreme

measures, there are tons of people out there who still want to give this a fair chance. And I think it's -- you know, there's just peace on their

mind, a peace that is -- yes, sorry.

NEWTON: Well, how much does Narendra Modi himself, though, in the figure that he's become an Indian politics, he is likely to run again in a few

years, how much does he really have become such a bold leader that has come to exemplify Indian politics itself? How much is he a factor here in all of

this?

BHATIA: I think people take their lead from the person on top. And I think there's a sense that, there's a sense that India or the idea of India has

kind of slipped away from us -- or the original idea of India has slipped away from us a little bit.

But here's the thing, you know, I think leaders can be influential, they can be persuasive. But ironically, as I was looking at the right-wing, you

know, ground movement, and looking at how effective they were, and the things that they did to come to power and stay there effectively all these

years, it actually gives me great encouragement, because I think somewhere, the things that people want, what they want this country to be secular,

peaceful, a place where everybody prospers, that is -- it exists, it is a widespread feeling.

And so, I know that, you know, from time to time, I do this as well, I tend to sort of focus my energies on the prime minister. But behind him is this

enormous groundswell, that thinks of India one way, that wants it to be a certain way. And directly in opposition is another groundswell of people,

just this quiet majority. And they are a majority, who really do want a different kind of country. And that is extremely encouraging.

NEWTON: Yes, and I hear you in terms that you believe it will ultimately be redemptive. And I'm sure most people in India feel that way, as well, as

this democracy continues to mature. Whenever I look at politics, I think it's a good idea to actually look at the culture as well.

I was fascinated by this new Indian film, " Dhurandhar 2." It is a sequel to "Dhurandhar." Recently, it became the highest-grossing and most popular

-- one of the most popular films, anyway, in Bollywood in India of all time. It is almost four hours long. And it has generated a lot of

controversy. And that's because of its nationalist rhetoric and its depiction of Pakistan, specifically.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(MUSIC PLAYING)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[13:35:00]

NEWTON: And, Rahul, forgive me for the unorthodox question, but Prime Minister Modi himself has been forced to weigh in here. He defended the

film against critics who've labeled it as propaganda. What does this film tell us, and its success, about where India might be politically right now?

BHATIA: Despite myself, I watched the film. And it took me a few months, but I got there. And it was enjoyable. And I think that's what makes it so

insidious. It has a bunch of messages, which are nationalistic. But there is, at its heart, this formula, which is it's not so much with trauma, and

then there is inevitable redemption, there's a lot of bloody revenge along the way, a lot of violence along the way.

And I think it's that old formula that's been kind of scaled up to the national level. What does it tell you? I think there's no doubting that it

is propaganda. It so clearly fits in with a series of other films that have been made that misrepresent what actually happened, that dramatize what

happened. But they plead to this idea of a country that will have its way in the end, that is competent, that works in the shadows, and has these

capabilities of stealth, and can embed itself deeply within enemy networks and strike at a moment's notice.

So, I think this idea fits in with this extremely sort of martial understanding that a lot of people, especially on the right, who've come

through these networks and schooling systems and little camps, not little, but huge number of camps that exist across India, that -- you know, where

they eventually become sort of foot soldiers and they enter various arms of the government and other such places.

What it does is it fits in with this idea of India being a martial nation, that it has military might, that it is capable of responding. And what

happens then is, even if people don't watch this four-hour movie, there are clips of it that do the rounds. You will find foot soldiers sharing clips,

talking about it. They will use bits of it to sort of dramatize the, and I say this in inverted commas, the cruelty of minorities in India, the

otherness of their ways. So, all of it sort of adds up and feeds into the same beast that we're all dealing with right now.

NEWTON: Yes, indeed, a very provocative film. For some people, it's just been entertainment. But as you said, it has come to mean other things in

India and beyond. Rahul Bhatia, we will leave it there. I want to thank you for being on the program.

BHATIA: Thank you so much.

NEWTON: Coming up after the break, the Holocaust survivor who turned unspeakable loss into a lifetime of helping others. We look back at Dr.

Edith Eger's conversation with Walter Isaacson. That's after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:40:00]

NEWTON: Now, earlier this week, we marked the death of Dr. Edith Eger, who survived the horrors of the Holocaust and spent the decades following

helping others heal as a renowned clinical psychologist and bestselling author.

Now, back in 2024, Edith and her daughter, Marianne Engel, joined Walter Isaacson to look back on her remarkable life, and here is their

conversation.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

WALTER ISAACSON, CO-HOST, AMANPOUR AND CO.: Dr. Edith Eger and Dr. Marianne Engel, welcome to the show.

MARIANNE ENGEL, DAUGHTER OF EDITH EGER AND CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGIST: Thank you so much. We're delighted to be here.

ISAACSON: A lot of people now, especially younger people, think of the Holocaust as way back, way back in history. They don't remember anything

about it. But Dr. Edie, as you call yourself, you were there.

EDITH EGER, HOLOCAUST SURVIVOR: Yes.

ISAACSON: I want you to tell us about the story so we never forget. Tell us about Auschwitz and tell us about, maybe start with the cattle car going

to Auschwitz.

EGER: The cattle car was very crowded. And my mother was sitting in a bench. My father was sitting on the floor with the girlies. I begged my

father to shave so he would look younger. But he didn't listen to me at all.

And when we arrived, I was met with a sign, arbeit macht frei, work makes you free. And my father was very encouraging that we're just going to work

a little while and then we go home. And of course, that did not happen.

But my mom told me, and I like to quote her today, that everything can be taken away from a human being, except what they put in their mind, and that

really kept me going, that this is temporary, and I'm going to make it no matter what. And so, I did a lot of praying, and I think that was useful

for me to look at life from inside out.

ISAACSON: On the very first day you were at the death camp of Auschwitz, your parents are killed. And there's something very poignant that happened,

which is they come to you. And you're with your sister, and they point to your mother and say, is that your mother or your sister? Tell me what

happened then.

ENGEL: Mom, you were in line. And then, and you and your sister were together with your mother in between you.

EGER: Yes.

ENGEL: And you saw this man in the white suit.

EGER: Yes. The man in the white suit was Dr. Mengele. And he pointed with that, they call it the finger game today, that you go either to the left or

you go to the right. And unfortunately, I said, it's my mother.

And so, pointed to the left and my sister and I to the right. And I followed my mom and he grabbed me. I never forget those eyes, and said,

you're going to see your mother very soon. She's just going to take a shower.

ISAACSON: And they were doing that because they were killing the older people. And by having referred to the woman as your mother, they realized

she was older. Did that make you feel guilt over the years or survival remorse?

EGER: Tremendous guilt. What I could do, what I should do. But of course, you cannot change the past. It did happen. And I remember my sister yelling

at me when I asked the guard, when will I see my mother, and the guard said, she's burning there, pointing at the chimney. And so, that's how I

entered Auschwitz. And it was the middle of May, 1944.

ISAACSON: In your beautiful book, "The Choice," you talk about dancing for Dr. Josef Mengele. Tell me about what happens when he comes in and when you

see him. Tell me the story about dancing for Dr. Josef Mengele.

[13:45:00]

EGER: He welcomed us very warmly and wanted to know who is talented because he would like to be entertained. And so, the friends that I knew,

because I danced for the community where I live. And so, just threw me in front of him and very friendly, he said, dance for me, dance for me. And I

began to really say to myself, you better be good.

And I did a split right away that minute. I did a very good a very good one. And I can throw my feet up from the front and from the back as well. I

was -- I wish I could have a picture for you, maybe somewhere they were filming this.

ISAACSON: You danced to Tchaikovsky. And then he gave you bits of bread. Tell me about that.

EGER: I was frightened to death. I was so anxious to please, so I would not be sent to the gas chamber. It was a very challenging and difficult

unprepared event.

ISAACSON: What did you do in the camp, you and your sister, to keep yourself alive, to keep going?

EGER: We had to undress the people who were lying dead or not. And we were asked to cut the teeth of everyone. It was very scary because we didn't

know what's going to happen in the next minute. We did not know whether we're going to end up in a gas chamber ourselves.

But staying alive was the goal, what to do? We had a lot of humor, kind of sarcasm that we used cynicism or that just to be sure that this is

temporary and we are going to make it. Hope. Hope was never, ever given up.

And I tell you, today I have three children, five grandchildren, and seven great-grandsons. And that's my revenge to Hitler.

ISAACSON: In May of 1945, the Allies come in to liberate the people of the camp. I think it was an African American soldier who helped save you, and

you were underneath a pile of corpses.

EGER: Well, I felt someone's hand. And I looked up, and I saw tears in his eyes. And yes, I looked up. It was a man of color. I wish I could see him

now. He must be in his late 90s for sure.

ISAACSON: Marianne, you discovered on your own --

ENGEL: Yes.

ISAACSON: -- about your mother's history in the death camps. Tell me how you discovered it, what you felt, and then what you said to her.

ENGEL: So, when I was about 12, at that point I was reading, you know, grown up books. I started to look behind some of the books, in the book --

in one of the bookcases. And I found this big book. And I took it out, curious, and it had the most disgusting, horrible pictures I'd ever seen.

And they were so frightening.

[13:50:00]

And I didn't know anything about my mother having been to Auschwitz, but I knew that my mother had a sad -- a deep sadness in her. And there was

something in her eyes that was always just a little sad. She was the warmest. All my friends loved her. She was a warm, wonderful mother, but I

could just see that.

And when I saw these pictures, I mean, it was horrific. I went straight to my father and said, Daddy, what is this book? And was mom there? And he sat

me down, and he said, this was Auschwitz, and yes, your mother was there.

And I, of course, was amazed, in a way, kind of not as surprised as you might think, but also shocked. And then my mother found out that my father

had told me, and she was furious.

ISAACSON: Wait, wait, wait. Why were you furious, Dr. Edie?

EGER: Because I kept it a secret, because I wanted to assimilate, and I didn't want anybody to label me a certain way or feel sorry for me that I

was in Auschwitz. I don't know. I've been lying and pretended an image of me that really wasn't my true self.

ISAACSON: Dr. Edie, why did you want to write a book so badly?

EGER: I was very heavily relying on the story being told how good people do such terrible, very, very bad things. I think that was my duty to my

parents so they didn't want to die in vain.

ISAACSON: Why do you call them good people?

EGER: Because I don't think we're born with sin, and I think we're born, and we learn to hate, we learn the Auschwitz mentality.

ISAACSON: How did your lessons of surviving Auschwitz, surviving the death of your mother, surviving all this, give you lessons that we can learn

today?

EGER: It's your attitude is the key word. It's the way you look at everything as an opportunity. And Auschwitz was a classroom and an

opportunity for an opportunity for me to develop the skills that I can now use to guide other people.

I like the idea of guide. I like that much more than being a therapist. It's not an illness. It's a feeling that helps you to recognize that no

matter what, you're not a victim. It's not your identity.

ISAACSON: Marianne, how has your mother's story impacted your family, your kids? And why is it important to them after so many years?

ENGLE: My goodness, I'm making me teary just asking that question. For me, I think that my mother being so honest about herself and her own history

and talking to the children about it, and the fact that she was able to write these books and to tell and all the great grandchildren can ask her

whatever they want as well as our children too, of course, I think has made the hugest difference in their lives and their understanding of the way the

world can be such a horrible place to people, but also such a loving place, because she is so loving.

So, she has had this openness with them always. I think it's critical to how they see the world. And for all of the people who are watching this, I

know that many of you have parents or maybe you are parents who won't tell your children your story. Please do it. The difference it's made in our

family is great.

ISAACSON: Dr. Edith Eger, Dr. Marianne Engel, thank you both so much for joining us.

EGER: Thank you.

ENGEL: Thank you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[13:55:00]

NEWTON: And that's our program for now. If you ever miss our show, you can find the latest episode shortly after it airs on our podcast. And remember,

you can always catch us online, on our websites, and all-over social media. Thanks for watching, and goodbye from New York.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:00:00]

END