An Investigation Into Deception Within Nazi Mass Murder Institutions

James Perry

AN INVESTIGATION INTO DECEPTION WITHIN NAZI MASS MURDER INSTITUTIONS

JAMES ALEXANDER GRAHAM PERRY CARTMEL COLLEGE 1

James Perry

DECLARATION

I certify that this dissertation is my own work and that the material presented here has not been used in assessment for any other unit included in my degree scheme.

I certify that the length of this dissertation (excluding footnotes, bibliography and appendices) is ________ words

Signed_____________________

This dissertation is submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of Bachelor of Arts in the University of Lancaster.

2

James Perry

CONTENTS Declaration....................................................................................................................... 2 Illustrations ...................................................................................................................... 4 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 5 Chapter One: Nazi Deception In The ‘Euthanasia’ Centres ............................................... 10 Chapter Two: Concealing Treblinka ................................................................................. 21 Chapter Three: Disguising Theresienstadt ....................................................................... 29 Conclusion...................................................................................................................... 36 Appendices .................................................................................................................... 39 Bibliography ................................................................................................................... 47 Books .......................................................................................................................................... 47 Journals....................................................................................................................................... 48 Websites ..................................................................................................................................... 48 Primary Sources .......................................................................................................................... 49 Newspapers ................................................................................................................................ 50

3

James Perry

ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 1: Unknown, Hartheim Euthanasia Centre, available at: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/images/hartheim1.jpg, accessed: 18th December 2013.

Figure 2: Unknown, Gekrat buses collecting patients for Hartheim Euthanasia Clinic, available at: http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org/euthan/images/Transport%20Bus%20at%20work%20in% 20Hartheim.jpg, accessed: 23rd November 2012.

Figure 3: Unknown, Falsified letter to family members of Flora Tauber, available at: http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org/euthan/images/Falsified%20letter%20sent%20to%20the %20relatives%20of%20Hartheim%20victims%20pretending%20to%20be%20from%20an%20aslyum %20in%20Chelm.jpg, accessed: 20th January 2013.

Figure 4: Peter Laponder, Treblinka, available at: http://www.deathcamps.org/treblinka/pic/bigl1model11.jpg, accessed: 10th January 2012.

Figure 5: Unknown, Treblinka Train Station, available at: http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/pages/holocaust/treblinka-death-camp.htm, accessed: 10th January 2013.

Figure 6: Krokodyl, Jewish money, Jewish ghetto “money� from Concentration Camp in Theresienstadt, available at: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/62/Terezin_money_7561.JPG, accessed: 14th February 2013.

Figure 7: Unknown, Football match in Theresienstadt, available at: http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/59732000/jpg/_59732847_football_composite624.jpg, accessed: 14th February 2013.

4

James Perry

INTRODUCTION The National Socialist German Workers’ Party (hereafter referred to as Nazis) was a political party in Germany that operated from 1920-1945.1 The dictator Adolf Hitler led the party from 1921 until his suicide and the party disbanding in 1945. Under this dictatorship, a program of extermination and elimination took place, in a highly institutionalised format.2 Such resulting policies included Action T4, Operation Reinhard and the ‘Final Solution’, each of which evolved during the course of the war and collectively resulted in the death of millions of victims. The ‘Final Solution’ was the zenith of Nazi intentions whereby an attempt was made to completely eradicate Europe’s Jewish population. 3 Consequently, various mass murder institutions were established in an attempt to fulfil the Nazi mass murder objectives.4 In total, it has been speculated by scholars such as Rudolph Rummel that the Nazis were responsible for the murder of 6 million Jews and another 5 million non-Jewish victims. 5 For the purpose of this dissertation, attention will be given to the places where these individuals were killed, whilst primarily discussing how the Nazis kept their murders recondite.

In the study of Nazi institutionalised mass murder, much is often discussed in relation to the scale, depth and magnitude of the Nazis’ extermination policies.6 However, the ways in which the Nazis attempted to conceal their crimes has not received the scholarly attention of which it deserves.

Accordingly, for this study, my exploratory hypothesis is that the Nazis’ deceptive practices evolved as a direct result of their escalating mass murder program, learning from their various attempts to keep their activities hidden. This study will assist those engaged in scholarly holocaust research; in particular those who analyse the creation and maintenance of mass murder institutions. Specifically, David Engel, The Holocaust: The Third Reich and the Jews (Harlow, Pearson Education Limited, 2000), p.

14.

2 Victoria J. Barnett, Bystanders, Conscience and Complicity During the Holocaust (Connecticut, Greenwood Press, 1999), p. 11.

3 Omer Bartow, Murder in our Midst: The Holocaust, Industrial Killing, and Representation (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1996), pp. 98-99.

4 Terrence Des Pres, The Survivor: An Anatomy of Life in the Death Camps (New York, Oxford University Press, 1976), p. 83.

5 Rudolph J. Rummel, Democide: Nazi Genocide and Mass Murder (New Jersey, Transaction Publishers, 1992), p. 11.

6 David Engel, The Holocaust: The Third Reich and the Jews, p. 1.

1

5

James Perry the findings of this study will provide answers as to how the Nazis were able to commit their institutionalised crimes whilst still enjoying popular support in Germany.

Literature surrounding these sites of mass murder is vast; however, the topic of deception within them is limited. Robert Jay Lifton has investigated deception within Euthanasia Centres in his book The Nazi Doctors,7 and Michael Burleigh’s book Death and Deliverance,8 capably addresses the issue of deception within Action T-4 and the Operation Reinhadt camps. Burleigh’s assessment however, recognising the relationship between the various institutions, ignores the implications and consequences of maintaining deception within the institutions. In regards to Theresienstadt, Naomi Baumslag explores its deception and duplicity in her book Murderous Medicine: Nazi Doctors, Human Experimentation and Typhus, within which Theresienstadt and its operations are analysed in great detail. Despite the professionalism and high quality of her research, Baumslag appears to ignore a number of key components of deception that were utilised in Theresienstadt. Saul Friedlander however, provides an in-depth assessment of Nazi extermination practices in his book The Years of Extermination: Nazi Germany and the Jews 1939-1945. Furthermore, his editing of Gonda Redlich’s diary (The Terezin Diary of Gonda Redlich) has proven to be a valuable asset to anyone seeking to understand how Theresienstadt operated. Consequently, his contributions to this field of study are immense. Yet, whilst Friedlander offers substantial understanding within his book, he focuses primarily upon the systematic methodology of the killings, whilst touching upon various other aspects. Overall, scholarly attempts to address the specific issue of deception in Nazi mass murder institutions is lacking depth, consequently, a deeper, more systematic analysis is needed to identify the forms of deception in the various Nazi killing programmes.

Accordingly, within this dissertation, I will explore, identify and explain what role deception played in Nazi mass murder institutions. To fully test my hypothesis, I will use three institutionalised spaces that can be analysed as case studies to understand in what ways the Nazis employed deception.

7 8

Robert Jay Lifton, The Nazi Doctors (New York, Basic Books, 2000), p. 71.

Michael Burleigh, Death and Deliverance (London, Pan Books, 2002), p. 47.

6

James Perry Included, will be the ‘Euthanasia’ Centres of Germany and Austria, the Treblinka extermination camp, and the Theresienstadt ghetto in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia. Each of these sites served as a Nazi institution that furthered their prejudiced extermination goals. The Euthanasia Centres were a part of ‘Action T-4’, which was the policy of eliminating those who were viewed as ‘draining upon resources’ from German society throughout the duration of the war.9 Treblinka was one of the Operation Reinhard extermination camps for Jews and other enemies of the state.

Operation Reinhard is the physical manifestation of the ‘Final Solution to the Jewish question’, discussed at the Wannsee conference in 1941 and was initially comprised of three specially constructed death camps. Finally, Theresienstadt was a transit ghetto outside of Prague for ‘privileged’ Jews on their way to Auschwitz. These case studies are limited in their ability to represent Nazi mass murder institutions in general, due to the fact that the various camps and institutions whilst following general principles, were each unique as a result of their positioning in typically pre-existing areas. For instance, the ghettos were usually constructed from parts of a city, whilst the Operation Reinhard camps were constructed in completely new spaces. The ‘Euthanasia Centres’ however, were the prototype of Nazi murder institutions. By analysing their key elements, useful information can therefore be gained regarding the development of Nazi deception tactics.

Within this dissertation, specific concepts and terms will be used constructively to elucidate and explain certain topics and examples. Amongst these is the concept of space. The term ‘Space’ is used in reference to either a physical or emotional location that can be identified. Non-spaces, institutionalised spaces and incidental spaces are the various classifications that are used to explain the sites where violence takes place. A non-space or an invisible space as it can be called, indicates a building or location that is deliberately kept concealed, so that in essence, no one but its owners know that it is there – it officially does not exist. An institutionalised space of violence is a location which have its own rules and is typically where violence in some form is more acceptable, for instance; prisons, death camps and ghettos can be classified as institutionalised spaces of violence.

9

Michael Manning, Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide (New Jersey, Paulist Press, 1998), p. 71.

7

James Perry Conversely, an incidental space of violence can be any location, an open field, a building or even a whole settlement.

Another critical concept that will be referred to is that of authorisation, which is the process of granting authority. To authorise is to grant power or authority to act either for oneself or for another. Connected jointly with authorisation is the principle of licence. Those who hold authority are able to grant a “licence”, which in turn, permits someone to act in a certain manner that typically they would be unable to do. In this context, those who manned the various Nazi mass murder institutions were granted the licence, by someone in authority, to use violence against their inmates.

The use of these concepts will enrich the exploration of my hypothesis and will enhance a readers understanding regarding the Nazi deception at their mass murder institutions.

In addition to these concepts, I will repeatedly refer back to the term ‘deception’. Deception is a noun, and means the action of deceiving someone.10 As such, the word deceive is a verb which equates to ‘caus[ing] someone to believe something that is not true, typically in order to gain some personal advantage’. Therefore in essence, the Nazis led others to believe something that is not true. This included the inhabitants of their zone of control, the international community, their victims and at times, even their own troops. I will also be introducing two additional definitions into the concept of deception, ‘False reality’ and ‘Minimal truth’. False reality is the idea that the world around a person or a space is an artificial construction, created to give the appearance of normality.

Ultimately leading people to believe that everything is okay. Minimal truth however, refers to those sites which exist and are visible, figuratively and temporally, but which only tell a minimal portion of the truth, a bystander may see the building, but yet is unable to glance inside its walls to observe its operations. These concepts therefore, will be referred to and will be utilised in analysing institutionalised spaces of violence.

The Free Dictionary, Deception, available at: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/deception, accessed: 20th March 2013.

10

8

James Perry This dissertation is organised into three chapters with each chapter reflecting upon a specific case study. The first will discuss the Nazi Euthanasia Centres and will explore the emergence of deception within them. The second chapter concerns the establishment of Treblinka and investigates, amongst other things, how the transfer of personnel from the Euthanasia camps to Operation Reinhard influenced future deceptive strategies. Finally, the third chapter will move on to the creation of Theresienstadt and the development of deception tactics. Theresienstadt is a prime example of how Nazi deception evolved to incorporate every aspect of its existence. As such, analysing the Theresienstadt ghetto enhances understanding regarding Nazi deception as a whole. The breakdown of the dissertation in this manner allows a deeper investigation into the hypothesis and a gives a broader perspective of how widespread Nazi deception pervaded throughout Nazi mass murder institutions. Therefore, the layout of this dissertation has been arranged to permit maximum investigation into the subject whilst maintaining an objective perspective.

9

James Perry

CHAPTER ONE: NAZI DECEPTION IN THE ‘EUTHANASIA’ CENTRES The clandestine activities of the Nazi ‘Euthanasia’ programme were spearheaded by the Gemeinnützige Stiftung für Heil- und Anstaltspflege which was a furtive organisation that translates to Charitable Foundation for Curative and Institutional Care. This reticent establishment was operational between September 1, 1939 and 24 August 1941, under the direction of Reichsleiter (National Leader) Philipp Bouhler of the Kanlei des Fuhrers (head of Hitler’s Chancellery) and Doctor Karl Brandt, the personal physician of Adolf Hitler.11 Headquartered in the Berlin suburb of Tiergarten, the murder of at least 70,0273 patients was orchestrated and co-ordinated. Hitler recognised that there would be widespread opposition to the ‘Euthanasia’ project, specifically from the churches.12 Consequently the need to operate covertly was understood and the critical element of the operations of the ‘Euthanasia’ programme became the implementation and maintenance of deception, which would proceed to permeate throughout every aspect of the organisation.

Every facet of the ‘Euthanasia’ process was in reality an effective artifice engaged in widespread deception. Each of the six known ‘Euthanasia’ clinics, were converted for the purpose of ending the lives of those who, for the Nazis, were viewed as being “unworthy of life”, a term which was coined

by Karl Binding and Alfred Hoche in their 1920 pamphlet regarding the issue of ‘Euthanasia’.13 The commencement of ‘Euthanasia’ is known to have begun in September 1939; however, the official legislation regarding the ‘Euthanasia’ (Euthanasie-Erlaß) was passed in October 1939, and was backdated to September 1, 1939. The decision to pass this law on the very day of the outbreak of war is no coincidence. It was intended to act as both a recondite source of legitimisation for the

Henry Friedlander, Euthanasia and the Final Solution in David Cesarani, The Final Solution (London, Routledge, 1996), p. 52.

12 Saul Friedlander, Nazi Germany and the Jews Vol. 1 (New York, Harper Collins Publishers, Inc, 1998), p.

210.

13 John J. Michalczyk, Medicine, Ethics and the Third Reich (Kansas City, Sheed and Ward, 1994), p. 45. See also: Karl Binding and Alfred Hoche, Die Freigabe Der Vernichtung Lebensunwerten Lebens (Leipzig, Felix Meiner Verlag, 1920).

11

10

James Perry doctors and administrators who were to engage in widespread murder and as an effective smokescreen for their murders. This authorisation would then be used as moral justification for the action that was taking place and for that, which was to come. Additionally, by backdating the order, it could later be argued by the Nazi leaders and perpetrators, that the order was connected to the outbreak of war with Poland and a necessary aspect of the “demands of war”.14 Henry Friedlander argues that this serves as a prime example of Nazi leaders recognising that they would one day need to cover themselves when their deception would fail and they would be held to account.15 The six killing centres referred to as Aktion T-4, were located in Hartheim Castle, Sonnenstein Castle, Hadamar Psychiatric Hospital, Brandenburg Gaol, Grafeneck Castle and Bernburg Mental Institution.16 Each of these killing sites had been recoded from their original purposes and became secretive, minimal truth spaces. Hartheim Castle elucidates the intentional repurposing of killing centres.17 The Renaissance castle located in Alkoven, Austria, was built in 1600 by Jakob Aspan and was eventually donated to the Upper Austrian Charity in 1898.18 (See figure 1) The castle was then turned into an institute for persons with “several disabilities and the mentally handicapped”.19 The conversion of this space for such activities resulted in it becoming a Figure 1

minimal truth space, whereby although it still

physically existed; its new operations were not understood.

Donald L. Niewyk, ‘The Holocaust: Jews, Gypsies, and the Handicapped’, in Samuel Totten and William Parsons, Centuries of Genocide (New York, Routledge, 2009), p. 196.

15 Henry Friedlander, Euthanasia and the Final Solution in David Cesarani, The Final Solution, p. 53.

16 See Appendix 6.

17 See Appendix 7.

18 Hartheim Castle, available at: http://www.schlosshartheim.at/index.asp?peco=&Seite=207&Lg=2&Cy=1&UID, accessed: 20th November 2012.

19 Ibid.

14

11

James Perry These recoded spaces were typically in locations that benefited from geographical seclusion or at least were protected from local inquiry by being based in thinly populated areas.20 This intentional remote positioning afforded the Nazis a degree of protection from inquiry as it made visiting the killing centres difficult to achieve. The Grafeneck killing centre was actually located behind the castle in a number of small buildings, including a wooden barrack, a garage and an old coach house. These were converted to accommodate the necessary killing features for the ‘Euthanasia’ functions. The gas chamber was then “disguised as a shower room”, replete with “showerheads and wooden benches” in an attempt to deceive the incoming patients.21 Each killing centre contained a reception room to welcome the patients and similar to the ‘shower rooms’ was intended to deceive the patients and maintain order as they ushered the patients into the building and prepped for their murder. In the case of Grafeneck a fence was built around the external killing centre, in Hartheim a wooden annex was built on the western side of the castle to hide the arrival of the future victims from any potential onlookers. These physical constructions were an artifice that the Nazis used to maintain the illusion of normality to local citizens. It can be argued that the aesthetic appeal of the buildings was specifically chosen so it might appear to people that these locations were desirable. This tactic of deception by disabling the ability to observe is one that began early on in the process of Nazi mass murder.

Third Reich leadership recognised that the actions that were taking place within these institutions would provoke and inflame tensions amongst the populace, especially as it was Germans with disabilities that were now the targets. Specifically those chosen were those who were unable to assist in the war effort and who would be a strain on resources, which would be needed for the upcoming campaigns. Therefore, care was taken to ensure that the knowledge of these activities was limited to those involved. However, this was difficult due to the scale of the project - including

Robert Jay Lifton, The Nazi Doctors (New York, Basic Books, 2000), p. 71.

Henry Friedlander, The Origins of Nazi Genocide: From Euthanasia to the Final Solution (Chapel Hill, University of North Carolina Press, 1995), p. 90.

20 21

12

James Perry the number of people involved in the venture. 22 On 4th November 1940 a decree was circulated to all State Police Departments by Reinhard Heydrich which ordered that all leaders pass instructions orally and avoid “any written communications; [with a] special emphasis on secrecy”.23 This emphasis on secrecy and the explicit command to communicate orders orally indicates measures they went to in order to keep the operations covert. This deliberate attempt to remain reticent through secrecy is indicative of the Nazis’ attitude and insecurities during the war. Indeed, it is evidence that not only were the Nazis’ trying to cover for themselves if they were ever indicted, but also to limit the possibility of incriminating information being leaked. This employment of secrecy is twinned with the Nazis’ determined attempt to deceive people regarding the true function of the ‘Euthanasia’ centres.

The evolution of Nazi deception is displayed in their presentation and construction of ‘Euthanasia’ centres and the administration that accompanied it. In a letter between Heinrich Himmler and Viktor Brack, the issue of civilian detection was discussed and a plan to resolve opposition was proposed.24 Himmler relays his opinion that the only way forward with the programme was to discontinue the operations in Grafeneck and then deceive the population by “showing motion pictures on the subject of inherited and mental diseases in just that locality”.25 The closure of the centre in December 1940 was directly correlated to public opposition of ‘Euthanasia’ Centres. Henry Friedlander relates one experience that communicates the concerns and anxieties of local citizens.

Else von Löwis of Menar, an “ardent Nazi and a leader of the party’s women’s movement”, on the 25th November 1940, wrote a letter to the wife of the presiding judge of the Nazi party court, Walter Buchs, seeking to convey the popular opposition to the killings and the consequent “tax” upon the

Holocaust Research Project, Introduction to Nazi Euthanasia, available at: http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org/euthan/index.html, accessed: 18th March 2013.

23 Letter from Heydrich to The Chief of the Security Police and SD, 4 th November 1940, available at: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/1723-ps.asp, accessed: 20th November 2012. See Appendix 2.

24 Letter from Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler to SS Oberfuehrer Brack, 19 th December 1940, available at: http://fcit.coedu.usf.edu/holocaust/resource/document/DocEuth.htm, accessed: 21st November 2012.

See Appendix 3.

25 Ibid.

22

13

James Perry loyalty of the population.26 The killings however, did not cease.27 Personnel were transferred to other centres taking with them their experience and employed it in the same macabre work. The SS understood the importance of maintaining a ‘smoke screen’ in front of the operations of the institutions, and could not risk open exposure.28 One of the greatest forms of wile that the ‘Doctors’ within the killing centres exhibited was the individual examination of each patient. Indeed, the appearance of a man in a white doctors’ coat had the power to resolve unease that the patients may have been experiencing. It has also been commented that the doctor would use this opportunity to formulate an idea of what fictitious cause of death would be used when issuing a death certificate. Consequently, the appearance of ‘doctors’ made the handling of patients far easier for the institutions staff and was therefore, just another layer of deception within Action T-4. Following examinations the patients, after being informed by a nurse that they would now take a shower, were led to the gas chamber as a group. The deception by someone who holds authority is a key aspect of Nazi mass murder in ‘Euthanasia’ centres, permitting a smoother process to take place. At this point, the greeting, labelling of items, the ‘examination’ and now the nurses explanation all served to put the patients at ease and to allow the ‘Euthanasia’ process to take place as simply and smoothly as possible.

For the ‘Euthanasia’ program, one of the greatest difficulties lay with the families of the patients, the majority of whom were concerned about their relatives. Kurt Gerstein was one such individual. In 1940 Gerstein was informed that his sister-in-law, Bertha Ebeling, had been killed in the Hadamar ‘Euthanasia’ centre. Saul Friedlander describes the experience of Gerstein’s sister’s murder as being one of the chief catalysts that resulted him in choosing to join the SS. His decision to join the SS has been described as an attempt to infiltrate and discover what was really happening in Hadamar and

Henry Friedlander, The Origins of Nazi Genocide: From Euthanasia to the Final Solution, p.107.

Ibid, p. 108.

28 See Appendix 6.

26 27

14

James Perry in the other ‘Euthanasia’ centre.29 His assignment to the SS Fuhrungshauptamt allowed him to be within the operational spheres of the ‘Euthanasia’ clinics, and later the death camps, of which experiences he would later recount in the so-called Gerstein Report.30 Therefore, by attempting to deceive the public regarding the fate of their loved ones, the Nazis had inadvertently thrust Gerstein into becoming an ardent publisher of the Nazis war crimes abroad. He attempted to relay this information to the Swedish diplomat Baron Göran von Otter and Nuncio Cesare Orsenigo, however the information was never successfully transmitted to the Allies. Subsequently, the Nazis attempts to dupe the German population suffered from the speed of their murders. The pace of killings began to erode the credibility of psychiatry institutions within Germany, which ultimately led families to hide their relatives and avoid their forced removal to an institution. Robert Wagemann, who suffered from a hip displacement, described how when he was 5 years old he was summoned for a medical examination at Schlierheim. His mother took him, but then saved his life: “And during the examination my mom was sitting on the outside of the room, and she overheard a conversation that the doctors would do away with me, uh, would ab...would abspritz me, which means that they would give me a needle and put me to sleep. My mom overheard the conversation and, uh, during lunch time, while the, uh, doctors were gone, she, uh, grabbed hold of me, we went down to the Neckar River into the high reeds and there she put my clothes on, and from there on we really went into hiding because now we knew that they really were after us.”31 The decision to flee the clinic no doubt saved Robert Wagemnann’s life. Encounters such as this, twinned with the suspicious rate of deaths amongst patients, eventually eroded the Nazi stratagem

Saul Friedlander, Kurt Gerstein: The Ambiguity of Good (New York, Alfred A. Knopf, 1969), p. 74.

Kurt Gerstein, available at: http://www.gerstein.dk/report.htm, accessed: 22nd November 2012.

31 US Holocaust Memorial Museum, Robert Wagemann, available at: http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/media_oi.php?ModuleId=10005200&MediaId=1208, accessed: 22nd November 2012.

29 30

15

James Perry and resulted in the overt cessation of the ‘Euthanasia’ program with Hitler’s edict on August 24th, 1941.

Gemeinnützige Krankentransport GmbH (commonly referred to as the Gekrat buses, which translates as ‘Charitable Ambulance’) was the instrument whereby patients were collected and delivered to the killing centres or a temporary holding institution.32 Each killing centre accordingly was allocated three buses by Reinhold

Figure 2

Vorberg, who was responsible for the transportation of patients (See figure 2). 33 The buses were hired from the Reich Post Office, to fulfil the logistical and transportation needs. The grey buses had their windows painted to limit people from gazing inside the buses and observing the patients in transit. Nurses and orderlies would travel with the Gekrat buses, and would be a smiling face for the patients, their family and the former institution staff when collecting their new victims. This was all part of the ploy to limit the public’s awareness of the killings and to ensure a smooth process within the centres.

The Nazis understood families of the victims would need a convincing confirmation of their relatives death. This was provided in two ways. Firstly letters were sent to family members, and secondly an urn was returned to the victims loved ones after Figure 3

their death, which was purported to contain their remains (See

figure 3). Three letters would be sent out in total, one which was to alert the family of the transfer of the patient, the second outlined the impossibilty of family visits, and the third was a letter to report Saul Friedlander, Kurt Gerstein: The Ambiguity of Good, p. 94.

Gekrat buses collecting patients for Hartheim Euthanasia Clinic, unknown date and author, available at: http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org/euthan/images/Transport%20Bus%20at%20work%20in%2 0Hartheim.jpg, accessed: 23rd November 2012.

32 33

16

James Perry the death of the patient.34 (See figure 4) This paper trail was spawned via the elaborate administrative network which was established within each of the killing centres. While this method of deception worked for the most part, there were flaws. Checks were later implemented to help limit the number of death certificates being sent out to one geographical area at a time. Too many letters of condolence being sent to one village could raise suspicion that the deaths were planned or coordinated in some way. One method which was developed to overcome this was to use coloured pins and a map to record each patient who had died, this prevented the issue of sending too many death certificates to one area. However, mistakes were made and eventually suspicion was raised.

Bishop von Galen, a Catholic cardinal, proved to be critically important in the dissemination of information regarding the murderous activities of the ‘Euthanasia’ centres. Bishop Clemence von Galen of the Catholic church, gave a particuarly damning sermon on August 3rd 1941, in Saint Lambert’s Church in Münster.35 Within his sermon he stated clearly the actions and illegitimacy of the ‘Euthanasia’ which was taking place around the country and the bystander role that other institutions played in the process.36 His sermon, it has been claimed, was later used by the Allies and Resistance movements to undermine the morale of German soldiers and citizens.37 Other religious and civic leaders, such as Paul Braune attempted to publicise what was taking place, however, the Gestapo were quick to crush any investigative work into what was really happening at the centres. 38 In essence, Bishop von Galen blew a hole so large in the figurative hull of the ‘Euthanasia’ centres that there was no hope of maintaining the project in its current form and the Nazis’ decided to pursue their murderous objectives in other surreptitious ways.

Robert Jay Lifton, p. 71.

“Sermon by the Bishop of Münster, Clemens August Count von Galen, on Sunday, August 3, 1941, in St. Lambert’s Church, Münster, in Beth A. Griech-Polelle, Bishop von Galen: German Catholicism and National Socialism. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002, pp. 189-191. (Translation accredited to Saint Lamberti Church in Münster: speech printed in a pamphlet distributed by the Saint Lamberti Church.)

Available at: http://germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/pdf/eng/English82.pdf, accessed: 26th November 2012.

36 See Appendix 1.

37 Robert Jay Lifton, The Nazi Doctors, p. 94.

38 LeRoy Walters, Paul Braune Confronts the National Socialists’ “Euthanasia” Program, Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Vol. 21, No. 3 (Winter 2007), pp. 454-455.

34 35

17

James Perry In order to decentralise the murders and disorientate those seeking to find their loved ones, the Nazis made use of temporary intern clinics to make the paper trail impossible to navigate. Josef Prodginger relates his experience, where his sister was interred in Salzburg due to mental illness Catherine Macias relates his experience; “Every week a family member would visit her. One week, a brother found her boarding a bus, along with other patients from the facility. He was told by a nurse that the group was going on a holiday day trip. That was the last time she was seen alive. Years later, the family learned the bus went to Hartheim. She was dead before the end of that day”.39 The use of the term ‘holiday trip’ is indicative of an ‘at all costs’ effort to achieve their ends, especially as families quickly ascertained that their relatives were not on holiday. When the ‘Euthanasia’ moved to the Concentration Camps inmates with work disabling ailments were offered the opportunity to be relocated to a ‘recovery home’, as was the case at Mauthausen.40 The prisoners, once verified that they were unable to work, were then taken to the ‘Euthanasia’ centres and were killed within hours of arrival.41 The use of language as a device to deceive is something that was used throughout the ‘Euthanasia’ program by the Nazis.

To confuse and deceive those who might want to find out what happened to their family members, Bouhler and Brandt’s organisation developed an elaborate system of sub-institutions, all intending to disorientate and cloud investigation. For instance, the Niedenhart institution was used as a satellite to Hartheim and was able to house a number of patients. It served as an additional cog in the mechanism of the ‘Euthanasia’ program.42 Decentralisation aided the Nazis in their attempt to maintain elusive and esoteric. The paper trail that was connected to the transfer of patients between

Catherine Marcias, Abstract of Interview with Josef Prodinger, available at: http://www.t4holocaust.com/hartheim/hartheim.html, accessed: 24th November 2012 40 Burleigh, Death and Deliverance (London, Pan Books, 2002), p. 215.

41 Ibid, pp. 215-216.

42 Giles MacDonogh, After the Reich (New York, Perseus Books Group, 2007), p. 81.

39

18

James Perry institutions also seems to have made it particularly difficult to keep track of where patients had been sent. Helene Lebel is an example of this deceptive procedure, as a young professional woman, Helene developed schizophrenia and was finally admitted to a mental institution (Steinhof), eventually she was transferred to Brandenburg where she was murdered. Lebel’s mother however, had been told she had gone to Niedernhart and was later informed that she had died of “acute schizophrenia excitement”. The example of Helene Leben illustrates the method in which Nazis through disinformation and misinformation managed to prevent families from interfering with their plans for the disabled and impaired patients of the German psychiatry circuit.43 Throughout the period of ‘official’ ‘Euthanasia’, urns were returned to the families of patients who had died, containing what was purported to be their remains. The Nazis anticipated that the return of the patients’ remains would grant comfort to the families’ minds and limit their desire to investigate any further. However, whilst this did work for the majority of cases, small indiscretions caused difficulties for the legitimacy of the ‘Euthanasia’ centres and what was occuring there. For instance, hairclips are documented to having been included within the ashes of urns, even for those who were male.44 Additionally, it has been documented that families were occasionally sent two urns for their one child, or in one case doctors gave the cause of death as appendicitis, even when the victim had previously had their appendix removed.45 These small oversights added to the increasing inconsistencies surrounding the six ‘Euthanasia’ centres and is further evidence of the poor implementation of deception over the business of Action T-4.

In summary, the Nazi Euthanasia centres learnt to conceal their institutionalised mass murder from society. However, their deception tactics were flawed and the killings soon become publicised by influential members of society. Following the closure of some Euthanasia centres, a large portion of personnel from Action T-4 were transferred to similar operations and institutions elsewhere.

MacDonogh, After the Reich , p. 84.

Ibid, p. 86.

45 Henry Friedlander, The Origins of Nazi Genocide: From Euthanasia to the Final Solution, p. 106.

43 44

19

James Perry Christian Wirth and Franz Stangl were among those who were sent Eastwards to begin preparing and establishing the new killing centres of Operation Reinhard, taking with them the experiences they had developed in the Euthanasia centres. Therefore, although the Euthanasia centres officially ceased on 24th August 1941, they continued their work in deeper cover throughout the war, and despite the limitations, the transfer of personnel ensured maximum productivity and better concealmeant for the new camps in the East. The Nazis learnt that minimal truth spaces were limited in their abilities to maintain concealment for a prolonged period of time, if they were to be successful in remaining recondite, they would need to become a non-space, invisible to all.

20

James Perry

CHAPTER TWO: CONCEALING TREBLINKA Following their success in the Eastern theatre of war, Nazi leaders envisioned having to deal with millions of Russian Jews who would come under their responsibility after the Soviets were defeated.

Combined with the problem of severe overcrowding in Jewish ghettos, Nazi leaders began to turn their attention towards a “final solution to the Jewish question”.46 Reinhard Heydrich, as head of the Reich Main Security Office, convened a meeting in Wannsee, Berlin, on 20 th January 1942 with other Reich officials to discuss future procedures with regards to Jews. Peter Longerich argues that the meeting was an attempt by Heydrich to implicate all of the major Reich authorities as coaccomplices to murder and to ensure they identified him as the head of the ‘final solution’. 47 Regardless of the motives for the meeting, one thing was firmly established - that the Jews must be ‘evacuated’.48 The use of the word ‘evacuation’ was a euphemism for murder, an emblematic tactic of Nazi leaders. Accordingly, from the Wannsee conference, ‘Operation Reinhard’, as it became known, was born. The Operation resulted in the establishment of purpose-built Nazi death camps.

Sobibor, Belzec and Treblinka were the first such camps and each contained personnel from Action T-4. After being cancelled on 24th August 1941 Action T-4 saw its personnel going into two directions, the vast majority of which were transferred to establish and man Operation Reinhard, whilst a small group continued with ‘Euthanasia’ in deep cover centres. However, the personnel all took with them the experience and skills in deception that they had honed at the ‘Euthanasia’ centres. The lessons they had learnt played a direct impact upon the establishment of the Operation Reinhard camps.

See Memo from Head of Gestapo Hermann Göring to SS General Reinhard Heydrich, 31st July 1941, available at: http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org/holoprelude/Wannsee/wannsee/Goring%20Authorization% 20Letter.jpg, accessed: 9th January 2013.

47 Peter Longerich, The Wannsee Conference in the Development of the “Final Solution”, (London, The Holocaust Educational Trust, 2000), p. 7.

48 See The Minutes from the Wannsee Conference, 20 th January 1942, available at: http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org/holoprelude/Wannsee/wanseeminutes.html, accessed: 9th January 2013.

46

21

James Perry Treblinka II became operational on 23rd July 1942, six months after the Wannsee conference and was arguably the ‘deadliest of the ‘Operation Reinhard’ camps. Located 62 miles northeast of Warsaw and covering 42 acres, Treblinka as with the other ‘Operation Reinhard’ camps, was situated near to an offshoot of the major rail network enabling easy transportation of victims whilst enjoying the benefits of being remote from an urban population. Additionally, the camp was halfway between both Warsaw and Bialystock. The camp itself was in close proximity to Treblinka I, a slave labour camp. Treblinka II was divided into three smaller camps; a reception camp, living camp and death camp. The living camp was home to the 20-30 German SS officers and the Ukrainian Trawniki guards.49 The Jewish Sonderkommandos, who were used as labourers at the death camp, were relegated to living in accommodation next to the gas chambers.

The first director of Treblinka was Dr. Irmfried Eberl, one of the key-founding members of the T-4 program; he was serving as the director of the Brandenburg asylum when the first experimental gassings of disabled patients took place on 4th January 1940.50 Within a month of his appointment Dr. Eberl was relieved of his duties by SS Odilo Globocnik as a result of his mismanagement of the camp. Specifically, hundreds of thousands of bodies were left in open mass graves and the smell of decaying corpses could be smelt from miles away. Globocnik understood the importance of maintaining invisibility to the outside world, and the smell was raising questions and concerns amongst local citizens. As a result, Franz Stangl who had previously worked in the ‘Euthanasia’ centre in Hartheim Castle replaced Eberl. This transfer of personnel from Aktion T4 to ‘Operation Reinhard’ indicates that with a largely redundant role in the T4 program (it would continue in places until the end of the war), the staff and chief perpetrators of the ‘Euthanasia’, would be best suited to remain within the sphere of institutionalised mass murder. Furthermore, the deceptive tactics that they had developed in the ‘Euthanasia’ centres were ones that they could use in their new assignments. The Nazis’ had learnt from their prior mistakes, making the necessary changes Peter Black, ‘Foot Soldiers of the Final Solution: The Trawniki Training Camp and Operation Reinhard’, Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Vol. 25, No. 1 (Spring 2011) p. 2.

50 Steve Hochstadt, Sources of the Holocaust (Basingstoke, Palgrave MacMillan, 2004), 95.

49

22

James Perry accordingly. As a result, many parallels existed between the killing centres and the death camps in regards to their attempts to remain clandestine.

The construction of the death camp revolved around the principles of deception and artifice. All actions were to be kept secret from the outside world and as far as anyone was concerned it did not exist. The recondite information surrounding Treblinka is a result of their success in destroying evidence and limiting the number of witnesses. Treblinka camp construction supervisor was SS Haupsturmführer Richard Thomalla, who had constructed the other two ‘Operation Reinhard’ camps (Belzec and Sobibor). The plans for Treblinka were identical to those of Sobibor and forced labourers from nearby Treblinka I performed the work. The use of forced labours kept costs low, but they also allowed the Nazis to limit the knowledge of the camp from being spread. The recondite

Figure 4

information was further protected through measures imposed to limit the information from being dispersed. Such actions involved the weaving of branches into the barbed wire fences to obstruct the views of any potential passers-by. (See figure 5) Peter Laponder’s model of Treblinka illustrated the manner in which visibility into and out of the camp was limited.51 Gordon Horwitz has argued that Treblinka was chosen in part due to its heavily wooded surroundings, which would, in theory, deter people from coming into its vicinity.

Nevertheless, the wooded surrounding was yet another cozen attempt to remain undetected. 52 The stratagem employed in the construction of the physical camp, was intended to deceive any potential locals who could have stumbled upon the site. However, it matches the subterfuge that was then used to deceive the victims who arrived at Treblinka. The Nazis sought maximum efficiency Peter Laponder, Treblinka, available at: http://www.deathcamps.org/treblinka/pic/bigl1model11.jpg, accessed: 10th January 2012.

52 Gordon J. Horwitz, ‘Places far away, places near: Mauthausen, the camps of the Shoah, and the bystanders’, in Omer Bartov, The Holocaust: origins, Implementations and Aftermath (London, Routledge, 2000), p. 211.

51

23

James Perry in their operations and they understood that Jewish compliance was necessary. It was far easier to quickly lead a sedated group of Jews into the gas chambers, than trying to force a panic stricken crowd along. This is why the Nazis developed the ‘Potemkin village’ method to coerce their victims. In essence

Figure 5

‘Potemkin village’ has come to mean, “any pretentious façade designed to cover up a shabby or undesirable condition”.53 An example can be drawn from the Jews’ arrival in Treblinka. Upon arrival the horrifically overcrowded train cars were unloaded at a small sub-station that serviced only Treblinka II. This small sub-station had been crafted from a barrack and had been decorated to appear like a real train station. (See figure 6) Aleksander Ivanovich Yeger was a Trawniki guard at Treblinka, and in his defence interrogation on 28th February 1948 described some of the Nazi tactics to maintain composure when the Jews arrived: “This barrack was made to look like a railroad terminal. A wooden clock was nailed to the top of this building. A sign reading "station master" was written on the same barrack and arrows pointed to where to go in the waiting room of the railroad station. There were also posters with slogans reading: "Palestine awaits you", "You are going to the Ukraine.”54 Whilst the clock did not work, and no other trains ever arrived, many of the Jews remained optimistic. Signage providing information for the Jews renewed hope for some, consequently reinforcing a willingness to obey Nazi orders. When arriving into Treblinka, a large sign stood out: Henry Conserva, Propaganda: A Question and Answer Approach (Indiana, AuthorHouse, 2009), p. 100.

Excerpt from stenographic report of Interrogation of defendant Aleksander Ivanovich Yeger, dated 2 nd April 1948, available at: http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/camps/aktion.reinhard/treblinka/yeger.002, accessed: 10th January 2013.

53 54

24

James Perry “Jews of Warsaw, for your attention! You are in a transit camp (Durchgangslager) from which you will be sent to a labor camp (Arbeitslager). As a safeguard against epidemics you must immediately hand over your clothing and parcels for disinfection. Gold, silver, foreign currency and jewelery must be placed with the cashier, in exchange for a receipt. These will be returned to you at a later time upon presentation of the receipt. For bodily washing before continuing with the journey all arrivals must attend the bathhouse.”55 Whilst the disembarking of the trains would have been stressful, as males and females were separated, many remained hopeful that they would be put to work and would be kept there for the duration of the war. As a result, people filed into their respective changing areas and surrendered their valuables to the Ukrainian cashiers and collected their receipts. At different times some Jews were told to keep a zloty as a bath fee, which would be collected when they entered the shower room.56 Additionally, for Jews from Western Europe “an orchestra played in the station building to greet the new arrivals” and “a station guard in railway uniform collected tickets and let the passengers through onto a large square”.57 All of these deceptions surrounding the arrival of the Jews were used to ensure the killing operations remained esoteric.

Vasily Grossman, a Russian soldier who participated in the investigation of Treblinka, related the processing of the men and women into Treblinka. He describes the hair cutting that the women went through after they had been stripped naked. Continuing, Grossman states that this actually had a calming effect upon the women, because as a result they became convinced that “they were really going to the bathhouse”.58 However, Grossman does argues that the Germans had not anticipated or implemented the hair shaving as a method of deception, rather it was needed and used as “a raw Louis Bülow, Treblinka: Death Camp, 2012, available at: http://auschwitz.dk/treblinka.htm, accessed: 10th January 2013.

56 David Cymet, History Vs. Apologetics: The Holocaust, The Third Reich, and the Catholic Church (Plymouth, Lexington Books, 2010), p. 277.

57 Vasily Grossman, The Road: Stories, Journalism, and Essays, translated by Robert Chandler, Elizabeth Chandler and Olga Mukovnikova (London, Maclehose Press, 2010), p. 146.

58 Grossman, The Road: Stories, Journalism, and Essays, p. 146.

55

25

James Perry material” for the lining of shoes and bedding.59 Following the ‘processing’ of the Jews, they were directed up the “Road to Heaven” (Himmelstrasse), which went from the reception camp to the killing camp. Grossman argues that as they walked up the “Road to Heaven” towards the gas chamber (which had been labelled “Bath house”), many of the Jews became aware of what was about to happen. The deception had begun to wear off. Significantly, the killing section was sectioned off, even from the inside of the camp. It was therefore an ultra non-space. However, at this point it was almost too late to act. Having been stripped naked, and intimidated by the Nazis shouting and beatings, they were in no position to oppose them. The dehumanising process had limited their ability to fight back. Nevertheless, as in the Euthanasia’ centres, the shower heads and “water” pipes were installed upon the ceiling of the gas chamber to deceive those who were entering them.60 Thus, it could still be argued that right until the end the Nazis’ had sought to maintain an illusion for the Jews to prevent them from resisting.

Whilst the Nazis did their best to deceive the local populations and the Jews they slaughtered, they also tried to maintain covert operations by limiting members of the German armed forces. The ‘Euthanasia’ centres had been thwarted as a result of domestic German opposition. As a result, all those involved in ‘Operation Reinhard’ were obligated to sign an oath of secrecy, within which they swore to keep the things they did or saw secret even after they had finished their military service.

Furthermore, they were strictly forbidden from taking photographs within the camps.61 Additional limitations were imposed upon those involved in the Nazi armed forces. Aircraft were also forbidden from flying over or near any of the death camps, thus preventing them from talking about or discussing what they may have seen. Grossman, a Jew himself, began collecting eyewitness accounts of Treblinka. He goes on to state how if anyone came within a kilometre of the camp, anyone could be shot “without warning”. Continuing, he relates how guards who “had accompanied the Jews were Odilo Globocnik, December 1943, Report on how Death Camps were financed in Steve Hochstadt, Sources of the Holocaust (Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan, 2004), pp. 176-177.

60 Cymet, History Vs. Apologetics: The Holocaust, The Third Reich, and the Catholic Church, p. 263.

61 See Operation Reinhard Secrecy Oath, available at: http://www.holocaust-history.org/operationreinhard/reinhard-oath.shtml, accessed: 10th January 2013. See Appendix 6.

59

26

James Perry not allowed into the camp; they were not even allowed to cross its outer perimeter”, it was the camps’ SS who took over from the standard Wehrmacht guards.62 The SS officials involved in Operation Reinhard were sickeningly effective in their implementation of the ‘Final Solution’ and it can be claimed that they were successful in their attempts to deceive. Many of the Jews believed the things they were told, "… they must undress, go to the bathhouse, receive other clothing and after this they would go to work in Palestine and in the Ukraine”.63 After the war however, many citizens claimed to have no idea what was occurring at the nearby camp. Tis can be disputed though, because after the closure of the camp, locals began to loot the graves searching for items of value. Additionally, local citizens for many miles would have smelt the rotting smell of the mass graves that caused the Nazis to exhume the bodies and instigate cremation, thereby effacing the traces of their actions and of their victims. Finally, the debate on whether members of Germany’s armed forces understood what was going on is difficult to gauge.

Many claim innocence and yet others express bitter remorse for the collective guilt they feel.

Regardless, the example of Treblinka provides significant evidence that the Nazis attempted to keep their industrial murder concealed from all involved, and they tried new and ambitious attempts to accomplish it.

Ultimately, Treblinkas fate was sealed with the widespread Sonderkommano rebellion on 2nd August 1943. Tragically, only 150 Jews survived the rebellion and just 67 are “known to have survived” until the end of the war, whereas, it is estimated that anywhere between 780,863 – 1,200,000 Jews perished in total.64 Realising that their time was limited the Sonderkommandos planned a revolt and

Grossman, The Road: Stories, Journalism, and Essays, p. 55.

Excerpt from stenographic report of Interrogation of defendant Aleksander Ivanovich Yeger, dated 2 nd April 1948, available at: http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/camps/aktion.reinhard/treblinka/yeger.002, accessed: 10th January 2013.

64 Times ‘Death Camps Disguised With Flowers And Notices’, 7th June 1961, p. 11. See also: Matt Roper, ‘I looked for him but God must have been on holiday’: Last living survivors of Treblinka death camp speak of unimaginable horrors, 11th August 2012, available at: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article2186984/Stories-Treblinka-Last-living-survivors-speak-horrors-haunting-memories-Nazi-deathcamp.html, accessed: 10th January 2013.

62 63

27

James Perry attempted to execute it. During the failed rebellion however, the death camp was badly damaged.65 Consequently, after the rebellion the killing of Jews wound down and by 19th October 1943 the death camp was closed for good.66 The Nazis attempted to efface their tracks by removing the rest of the buildings and establishing a small farm over the area where the camp had stood. 67 Trees were planted and a Ukrainian ex-guard was posted in the farm with his family, in an attempt to deter visitors. These attempts to conceal and destroy the evidence of atrocities is evidence again of the surreptitious nature of ‘Operation Reinhard’, by official accounts it did not happen, and Treblinka II did not exist. However, the Nazis furtive attempts were halted primarily by the August rebellion and additionally through the carelessness of some of the guards. Many of the SS officers and Trawnicki guards travelled to nearby towns and allowed prostitutes to return to the camp, during which information was leaked. As a result, today we have evidence regarding Treblinka II and the crimes committed there.

In summary, Treblinka and the other Operation Reinhard camps were each focused on deceiving their victims, local civilians, the international community and even their own armed forces.

Overwhelmingly, the chief way this was achieved was through establishing them as invisible nonspaces where evidence could be concealed. Deception itself abounded in virtually all aspects of the camps functions and appearance. It could be contested once again that Nazi deception was an evolving concept that was used to achieve their policies of mass murder. Evidence demonstrates that the deceptive tactics implemented at Treblinka were the result of existing expertise in the field.

Yet, it also illustrates the innovation that existed amongst the personnel, in their attempt to keep their murderous activities recondite.

Samuel Rajzman, Uprising in Treblinka, in U.S. Congress. House Committee on Foreign Affairs. Punishment of war criminals, 120-125. 79th Cong., 1st sess. Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1945, available at: http://www.holocaust-history.org/operation-reinhard/uprising-in-treblinka.shtml, accessed: 18th March 2013.

66 Simone Schweber and Debbie Findling, Teaching the Holocaust (Los Angeles, Torah Aura Productions, 2007), p. 123.

67 Caroline Sturdy Colls, Treblinka: Revealing the hidden graves of the Holocaust, BBC, 23 rd January 2012, available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16657363, accessed: 10th January 2013.

65

28

James Perry

CHAPTER THREE: DISGUISING THERESIENSTADT The establishment of the Theresienstadt ghetto in November of 1941 was a direct result of the Nazi intentions to clear the Reich interior and the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia of all their Jews.

However, unlike the covert ‘Euthanasia’ centres and the Treblinka extermination camp, Theresienstadt was a public and well-known Nazi institution. Additionally, Theresienstadt was a transit camp and had not been constructed specifically for the intention to murder thousands of Jews, unlike the others. This style of spatial deception can be identified as a false reality. Unlike Treblinka, this was a site known to exist and operate, furthermore, the Nazis permitted the international Red Cross to visit the site and commission a report about it, and it is this openness that marks Theresienstadt as a unique space of deception.

Theresienstadt is a fortress town that was established on “September 22, 1784 by Austrian Emperor Josef II.”68 The town is thirty miles away from Prague and whilst being within the Protectorate, was “less than two miles away” from the German city of Leitmeritz, where a garrison of SS troops were based.69 Heinrich Heydrich and Adolf Eichmann designated the city as a “transit camp” in “a meeting held on October 10 1941 in Hradcany Castle in Prague”.70 During this meeting it was decided that Theresienstadt would serve as a waypoint for German Jews and the Jews of Bohemia and Moravia before their final destination at the Eastern extermination camps. In their meeting it was decided that Theresienstadt was to be a “model ghetto” for the ‘distinguished’ Jews, specifically for the purpose of housing “those Jews whose prominence might occasion anxious enquiries or adverse comment should they suddenly disappear”.71 This also included appeasing the Wehrmacht who felt that the veterans of the German armed forces deserved at the least “a modicum of respect” for their

United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Theresienstadt: Establishment, 2012, http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007506, accessed: 8th February 2013.

69 George E. Berkley, Hitler’s Gift: The Story of Theresienstadt (Boston, Branden Books, 1993), p. 24.

70 Edited by Saul S. Friedman, Translated by Laurence Kutler and Foreward by Nora Levin, The Terezin Diary of Gonda Redlich (Lexington, University Press of Kentucky, 1992), p. vii.

71 Times, ‘Norwegians’ Aid To Jews Praised At Eichamnn Trial’, 12 th May 1961, p.12 68

29

James Perry prior service to the Fatherland.72 In addition, in a later meeting with the Chiefs of the State Police on March 6th 1942, Eichmann later described the role of the camp as allowing the Nazis to “preserve our appearance abroad”.73 Thus, for the Nazis, Theresienstadt was a prime opportunity to act as both a waypoint for the victims of the extermination camps and as a Potemkin village for those sceptical of Nazi intentions and treatment of the Jews.

Following the meeting between Heydrich and Eichmann on October 10 th 1941, Jewish leaders in Prague put forward their proposal for the new ghetto in Theresienstadt. They had “envisioned an elaborate administrative apparatus, including a post office, a telegraph service, and even a “travel bureau”.74 The Nazis, in an attempt to feign granting independence to the Jews, allowed them to “submit lists for a Council of Elders”, eventually Jakob Edelstein was chosen by the Nazis to “head the council”.75 This willingness to grant an element of agency and self-government was a method whereby the Nazis would not only avoid interior strife, but also deceived the Jews into thinking that they would have control over their own fate. The establishment of a Älestenrat (Council of Elders) was a tactic that the Nazis used in other ghettos and places where Jews resided en masse. This scheme sadly assisted the Nazi extermination efforts. By using well-respected Jewish leaders the Nazis received a degree of legitimacy and authority in the eyes of the Jews. They could not imagine their leaders taking them astray or to danger. Sadly, the leaders themselves often had not realised or imagined what it was that the Nazis were planning for them, or sadder still, they realised what was happening and operated with their self-interests at heart.76 This form of deceptive manipulation is indicative of the Nazis attempts to coerce the Jews to congregate and to be counted, making it far easier to round up the Jews then they could ever hope to do through administrative background checks of the entire Protecktorate.

Gotz Aly, ‘Final Solution’ Nazi Population Policy and the Murder of the European Jews (London, Arnold Publishers, 1999), p. 234.

73 Berkley, Hitler’s Gift: The Story of Theresienstadt, p. 59. See also Aly, Final Solution’ Nazi Population Policy and the Murder of the European Jews, p. 265 74 Ibid, p. 25.

75 Saul Friedlander, The Years of Extermination: Nazi Germany and the Jews 1939-1945 (London, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 2007), p. 351.

76 Tadeusz Piotrowski, Poland’s Holocaust (Jefferson, McFarland and Company, Inc, 1998), 69.

72

30

James Perry Under the command of SS Haupsturmfuhrer Siegfried Seidl, Theresienstadt began to receive prisoners before the ghetto had even been fully completed. 77 It can be argued that the Nazis had sought to rush as many Jews to the ghetto as they could before word got back regarding the poor conditions they would experience there. One Theresienstadt resident, Gerty Spies, described her first thoughts upon arriving at Theresienstadt; “Where was the old people’s home, the living quarters about which we had been told? ...Where were the clean houses where each would have his or her own room?”78 Another resident, Ditta Jedlinksy, described how the stench overpowered her and upon arriving at her new quarters she saw a dead body dragged down the stairs and a woman defecating at the top of the stairs.79 In reality, what awaited the Jews was far from what they had expected and envisioned from their homes and places of refuge. The conditions highlight the Nazis contempt for the Jew and their desire to cram as many of them into Theresienstadt as possible. 80 The illusion that they had been operating under was quickly destroyed upon their arrival into Theresienstadt.

Theresienstadt was an instrument that the Nazis used to cozen both Jews and international organisations, such as the Red Cross. As a result, however, attempts were made to limit the flow of information by restricting access to the sites. In spring 1943, Herr Gotsche, a Nazi SS officer who was responsible for Jewish emigration from Hamburg, had attempted to visit Theresienstadt but was forbidden access by fellow SS officers.81 The unwillingness to permit fellow Nazis access to the camp indicates the measures that the leadership went to in an attempt to limit news of the camps from being leaked to the outside world.

Theresienstadt proved to be the ideal location for the Nazi’s deceptive misinformation campaign. In the winter of 1943, around 400 Danish Jews were captured and taken to Theresienstadt. Shortly after their arrival King Christian X of Denmark “requested the Danish Red Cross…demand permission Berkley, Hitler’s Gift: The Story of Theresienstadt, p. 27.

Ibid, p. 41.

79 Ibid, p. 41.

80 Times, ‘Nazi Slaughter At Theresienstadt’, 21 st June 1945, p. 3.

81 Berkley, Hitler’s Gift: The Story of Theresienstadt, p. 41.

77 78

31

James Perry to visit the camp”. Upon realising the propaganda opportunity before them, the Nazis granted permission for an inspection of prisoners and camp conditions to take place in June 1944.82 Before the visit, however, the Nazis transformed the city into a “Paradise Camp”, in an attempt to beguile and dupe those who would be visiting and inspecting it.

The Red Cross visit on June 23 1944 is one of the defining examples of Nazi subterfuge. In preparation for the visit the camp underwent what has been described as the ‘Embellishment’, which was in reality a furtive attempt to keep Theresienstadts real purpose and conditions abstruse.83 A critical problem that Theresienstadt suffered from was overcrowding, Gustavo Corni calculated that “the average living space for each individual was decidedly less than two square metres per person…the living density was higher than in all other main Polish ghettos”.84 As a result of the cramped conditions and as part of the ‘embellishment’, between May Figure 6

16th and May 18th 1944, the SS deported 7,503 Jews east to

Auschwitz.85 This new available space thereby enabled the Nazis to prepare the ghetto for the upcoming Red Cross visit. Within this reclaimed space, the Nazis opened second-hand clothing shops, pharmacy, a bank (with its own currency – see figure 7) and a café, all for the Jews to use.86 This reallocation of space was a means whereby the Nazis created the illusion that the ghetto truly was a “Retirement Settlement” for its Jewish residents.87

Jack Fischel, The Holocaust (Westport, Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc, 1998), p. 71.

Norbert Troller, Theresienstadt: Hitler’s Gift to the Jews (Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina Press, 1991), p. Xxiv.

84 Gustavo Corni, Hitler’s Ghetto (London, Arnold Publishers, 2002), pp. 120-121.

85 United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, ‘Theresienstadt: Red Cross Visit’ in Holocaust Encyclopedia, available at: http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007463, accessed: 14th February 2013.

86 Naomi Baumslag, Murderous Medicine: Nazi Doctors, Human Experimentation, and Typhus (Westport, Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc, 2005), p. 188.

87 United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, ‘Theresienstadt: “Retirement Settlement” for German and Austrian Jews’ in Holocaust Encyclopedia, available at: http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007466, accessed: 14th February 2013.

82 83

32

James Perry To relax the hostile surroundings, the barbed wire upon the city walls was temporarily removed.88 In addition to assist the mollifying of the ominous perimeter, the Jews were given permission to remove the Star of David from their clothing and were temporarily allowed to pass by an SS officer without saluting. 89 This stratagem to placate the emotional atmosphere was an attempt to artificially simulate a false sense of security and permanence within the ghetto and its inhabitant’s daily life. The ‘beautification’ of the ghetto was the principle method through which the Nazis attempted to deceive the true purpose of Theresienstadt. The planting of flowers, installation of playground equipment for children, and the repainting of the buildings in Theresienstadt, were all intended to create the illusion that it was a well-cared for institution, and to depict the Nazis as mindful guardians.90 Indeed, the frontage of the buildings in Theresienstadt gave the appearance of a well cared for and secure environment. However, the Nazis went further and invested significant time and resources to pass the inspection. The children’s living areas were refurbished with new beds brought in and each room being redecorated. In addition, washroom facilities were installed and updated throughout the camp whilst three tier bunk beds were removed in fear that it might cause the inspectors to doubt the standard of the ghetto. 91 Michael Jacot, the author of ‘The Last Butterfly’ described in an interview how the Nazis went so far as to build a high wall across part of the camp to limit access and transparency into parts of the camp where the majority of Jews had been confined. He went on to claim that the Theresienstadt that the inspectors saw was in essence “a giant Hollywood film set”.92 Consequently, after the necessary adjustments were made around the camp to deceive its true nature and characteristics, the Nazis began holding rehearsals for the impending International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) inspection.

Edited by Saul S. Friedman, Translated by Laurence Kutler and Foreward by Nora Levin, The Terezin Diary of Gonda Redlich, p. 146.

89 Zdenek Lederer, Ghetto Theresienstadt (Winsconsin, Edward Goldston & Sons, Ltd, 1953), pp. 97 and 143.

90 Ibid, p. 179.

91 Ibid, p. 110.

92 Adrienne Clarkson, Paul Soles and Michael Jacot, Terezin: a Nazi Hoax, CBC, 11 th September 1974, available at: http://www.cbc.ca/archives/categories/war-conflict/second-world-war/propaganda-andthe-second-world-war/terezin-a-nazi-hoax.html, accessed: 7th February 2013.

88

33

James Perry After two days of rehearsals and preparations on 23rd June 1944, three Red Cross inspectors arrived at Theresienstadt. The three representatives were Dr. Maurice Rossell, a Swiss representative of the ICRC, Frants Hvass, from the Danish Foreign Ministry and Juel Henningsen who was serving as plenipotentiary of the Danish Red Cross.93 The eight-hour inspection was meticulously planned prior to arrival, and everyone knew his or her role. Nurses floated around the inmates, checking on everyone with big smiles on their faces. All inmates were required to wear their best clothes and were pre-assigned locations to be at for the day. Fear of punishment led all to comply. Seeking to impress their international guests, the Nazis had made full use of the talented individuals within Theresienstadt, concerts were held twice in the day and they had even forced French mime, Antoine Moreau, to perform for the children to keep them entertained. Alongside cultural events and entertainment, the Nazis were keen to show that they were helping the Jews to develop their skills and maintain their intellect. Lectures were held throughout the day teaching German and inmates were seen with books; however, unbeknownst to the inspectors, the books they carried were either blank books or German books that they were given to hold as props. On the tour, the inspectors were taken to a library for the inmates (in reality the SS officers library), a series of gardens divided into allotments (truthfully it was the SS officers flower garden) and they even walked along gazing into shop windows filled with items (many of which were faked or brought from nearby Prague). During the day, the visiting officials happened to walk in on a friendly game of football with a large crowd of onlookers. (See figure 7) After walking around the camp, the inspectors and their accompanying SS

Figure 7

Matěj Stránský, Embellishment and the Visit of the International Committee of the Red Cross to Terezin, 19th July 2011, available at: http://www.holocaust.cz/en/history/events/zkraslovani, accessed: 14th February 2013.

93

34

James Perry officials stopped for lunch. During their lunch time, they and all of the other Jewish inmates were served by uniformed waitresses and for once in the whole of their stay in Theresienstadt, the prisoners were permitted to remain eating until they were full.94 Following the inspection of Theresienstadt, Maurice Rossel issued a report praising Theresienstadt for its “independent Jewish administration, ample supply of food, and good living conditions”. 95 Despite the fact that the accompanying Jewish leader of Theresienstadt had one black eye, Rossel issued no negative comments regarding the camp. After the war Rossel describes his impression of Theresienstadt as “a fake atmosphere”.96 However, Rossel confessed, “he was more interested in preserving his own status than in seeing Theresienstadt was thoroughly preserved”.97 The parade of the Red Cross through Theresienstadt on June 23rd 1944 was a heraldic success for the Germans, whilst Jews around the world lamented the event. Shortly after the Red Cross visit, Kurt Gerron was forced by SS commander Hans Günther to create a film mirroring what the Red Cross Inspectors had seen. The film Theresienstadt. Ein Dokumentarfilm aus dem jüdischen Siedlungsgebiet (which in English translated to; Theresienstadt: A Documentary Film from the Jewish Settlement Area) was intended to authenticate the conditions of the inhabitants and to counter the various rumours surrounding the fate of Europe’s Jews. In consequence, the visit and the subsequent propaganda films were Nazi attempts to maintain credibility in the face of international pressure. Theresienstadt was promoted simply as a paradisiacal fallacy within which Jews and the international community could be deceived. The Theresienstadt that the Red Cross and the world were led to know never truly existed. It was in all accounts Nazi deception at its extreme.

Edited by Saul S. Friedman, Translated by Laurence Kutler and Foreward by Nora Levin, The Terezin Diary of Gonda Redlich, p. 146.

95 Naomi Baumslag, Murderous Medicine: Nazi Doctors, Human Experimentation, and Typhus, pp. 188-189.

96 United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Transcript of the Shoah interview with Maurice Rossel, available at: http://resources.ushmm.org/intermedia/film_video/spielberg_archive/transcript/RG60_5019/A67D46B 8-2B61-41F6-877D-6FF0E04279F4.pdf, accessed: 14th February 2013, p. 29. See Appendix 4.

97 Naomi Baumslag, Murderous Medicine: Nazi Doctors, Human Experimentation, and Typhus, p. 191.

94

35

James Perry

CONCLUSION The recondite activities of the Nazis maintained their elusive status as a result of their enhanced surreptitious tactics. My initial thesis question explored the development of Nazi deceptive tactics as a result of their evolving mass murder program, specifically by learning from their mistakes.

Throughout this research process it has emerged that the concept of deception within Nazi mass murder institutions has evolved as a result of their spurious attempts to keep their activities concealed. The Nazi regime became proficient at creating invisible spaces, where extreme violence became the norm. They then went to great lengths to either conceal them or deceive onlookers.

Whilst varying in degrees, the ‘Euthanasia’ centres, Treblinka and Theresienstadt were each geared towards the removal of those viewed as Unerwünscht (Undesireable) from within the expanding Third Reich. Each of these case studies enabled different aspects of Nazi deception to be understood and recognized, specifically by identifying the concepts of ‘false reality’, ‘minimal truth’ and ‘nonspace’ within their respective spatial locations. It has emerged that the Nazis preferred to establish non-spaces, such as Treblinka, because they would rather not spend time or resources trying to deny the reality or operations of their institutions. As a result of this, the Nazis employed deceptive language, propaganda and confusing organisational structures as a method of keeping killing sites concealed and their activities recondite.

Deception in Nazi murder institutions had clearly developed as they undertook their operations, crucial evidence is contained within the relationship between the ‘Euthanasia’ centres and Treblinka.

As part of the Operation Reinhard, Treblinka was the next stage in the development of Nazi mass murder. The lessons learnt from the ‘Euthanasia’ centres were implemented in the construction and operation of Treblinka. Christian Wirth and Franz Stangl were among those who were literally transferred from the ‘Euthanasia’ centres into Operation Reinhard, taking with them the knowledge and expertise they had gained regarding deceptive mass murder. So as personnel were moved between mass murder sites, knowledge too was transferred in an attempt to assist other operations 36

James Perry in their attempt to remain hidden. This level of complicity between organisations is indicative of a general attitude of wanting to keep their actions and involvement as limited as possible, furthermore it highlights the fact that the same issues were faced by the various institutions, and resolution was found through sharing of ideas.

Despite this, Theresienstadt illustrates alternative principles of deception. As a fabricated ‘false reality’, Theresienstadt temporarily welcomed visits and took the opportunity to publicise it, however, before and following the visit by the Red Cross, a perimeter was established around the walls preventing outsiders from coming to close – a tactic used in other sites, such as Treblinka.

Hartheim and the other ‘Euthanasia’ centres were semi-invisible spaces, or minimal truth installations, being partly known and yet partly concealed. They were the Nazi prototype killing spaces and were a cross between a civilian and military operation, mimicking other legitimate medical institutions. The presence of doctors, nurses and orderlies provided the illusion that these were places where people would be healed, not killed. Treblinka however, sought to completely conceal their actions through its physical construction and appearance. Additionally, Treblinka relied upon a deceptive welcoming process, whereby Jews were led to believe that they were headed for better things. Future research might investigate the way Treblinka established multiple levels of deception within the camp itself or how the deceptive tactics were physically implemented.

In conclusion, the Nazi deception tactics developed over a period of time, they used their mistakes and applied the lessons learnt in ways that benefited and protected them in future occasions. It was understood that making the spaces of violent invisible was the only way which secrecy could be maintained, consequently, non-disclosure oaths were issued to limit and control the spread of information amongst staff and personnel. Nazi institutionalised mass murder developed and expanded as a result of its enthusiastic technocratic leaders, and the industrial efficiency they were able to develop in the process of killing. Similarly, it was these types of traits that were shared by the ‘Euthanasia’ centres and Treblinka, with both revolving around the principles of efficiency and

37

James Perry minimal detection. Evidence proves that they were reliant upon remaining recondite, and I would argue that alongside maximum killing efficiency, deception and the act of remaining furtive were the chief objectives of the institutions and their staff. Therefore, my hypothesis has proven correct, the level of dissimulation and deception used by the Nazis came from their shared experiences at previous mass murder institutions, consequently enabling the killing sites to remain undetected for so long.

38

James Perry

APPENDICES Appendix 1: Excerpt from Bishop von Galen’s Sermon (August 3, 1941) “I am reliably informed that in hospitals and homes in the province of Westphalia lists are being prepared of inmates who are classified as “unproductive members of the national community” and are to be removed from these establishments and shortly thereafter killed. The first party of patients left the mental hospital at Marienthal, near Münster, in the course of this week. German men and women! Article 211 of the German Penal Code is still in force, in these terms: “Whoever kills a man of deliberate intent is guilty of murder and punishable with death.” No doubt in order to protect those who kill with intent these poor men and women, members of our families, from this punishment laid down by law, the patients who have been selected for killing are removed from their home area to some distant place. Some illness or other is then given as the cause of death. Since the body is immediately cremated, the relatives and the criminal police are unable to establish whether the patient had in face been ill or what the cause of death actually was. I have been assured, however, that in the Ministry of the Interior and the office of the Chief Medical Officer, Dr. Conti, no secret is made of the fact that a large number of mentally ill persons in Germany have already been killed with intent and that this will continue. 2 Article 139 of the Penal Code provides that “anyone who has knowledge of an intention to commit a crime against the life of any person … and fails to inform the authorities or the person whose life is threatened in due time … commits a punishable offence.” When I learned of the intention to remove patients from Marienthal I reported the matter on 28th July to the State Prosecutor of Münster Provincial Court and to the Münster chief of police by registered letter, in the following terms: “According to the information I have received it is planned in the course of this week (the date has been mentioned as 31st July) to move a large number of inmates of the provincial hospital at Marienthal, classified as “unproductive members of the national community,” to the mental hospital at Eichberg, where, as is generally believed to have happened in the case of patients removed from other establishments, they are to be killed with intent. Since such action is not only contrary to the divine and the natural moral law but under article 211 of the German Penal Code ranks as murder and attracts the death penalty, I hereby report the matter in accordance with my obligation under article 139 of the Penal Code and request that steps should at once be taken to protect the patients concerned by proceedings against the authorities planning their removal and murder, and that I may be informed of the action taken.”

I have received no information of any action by the State Prosecutor or the police. I had already written on 26th July to the Westphalian provincial authorities, who are responsible for the running of the mental hospital and for the patients entrusted to them for care and for cure, protesting in the strongest terms. It had no effect.

And I am now told that 800 patients have already been removed from the hospital at Warstein. We must expect, therefore, that the poor defenceless patients are, sooner or later, going to be killed.”

“Sermon by the Bishop of Münster, Clemens August Count von Galen, on Sunday, August 3, 1941, in St. Lambert’s Church, Münster, in Beth A. Griech-Polelle, Bishop von Galen: German Catholicism and National Socialism. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002, pp. 189-191. (Translation accredited to Saint Lamberti Church in Münster: speech printed in a pamphlet distributed by the Saint Lamberti Church.) Available at: th http://germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/pdf/eng/English82.pdf, accessed: 26 November 2012.

39

James Perry

Appendix 2: Letter from Reichsfuehrer-SS Himmler to SS-Oberfuehrer Brack, 19 December 1940.

Trials of War Criminals Before the Nuernberg Military Tribunals - Washington, U.S Govt. Print. Off., 1949-1953, Vol. I, p. 856.

Dear Brack, I hear there is great excitement on the Alb because of the Grafeneck Institution.

The population recognizes the gray automobiles of the SS and think they know what is going on at the constantly smoking crematory. What happens there is a secret and yet is no longer one. Thus the worst feeling has arisen there, and in my opinion there remains only one thing, to discontinue the use of the institution in this place and in any event disseminate information in a clever and sensible manner by showing motion pictures on the subject of inherited and mental diseases in just that locality.

May I ask for a report as to how the difficult problem is solved?

Letter from Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler to SS Oberfuehrer Brack, 19 th December 1940, available at: http://fcit.coedu.usf.edu/holocaust/resource/document/DocEuth.htm, accessed: 21st November 2012.

40

James Perry Appendix 3: Berlin SW 11 4 November 1940 The Chief of the Security Police and SD IB 1 NR 763/40-151 To All State Police Departments By way of information to the Inspectors of the Security Police and SD Subject: Presentation to State Police upon request of Party Offices Reference: Decree of 29 March 1940 IA 1 NR 102/40-176

In supplement to my decree of 29 March 1940 I order that presentation requests by Reichsleiters be granted in so far as important interests of the State Police do not interfere.

Signed: HEYDRICH Protective Custody Protective custody must be viewed as the strongest measure in order to impressively instruct the Volksgenossen, who maliciously neglect their duties toward the community or endanger the security of the State, that they have to conform themselves to the universal interests and to adapt themselves to State discipline. Therefore it should only serve as a means of combatting real enemies of the Reich, but should never be used for the clarification or punishment of different or insignificant offenses.

An excessive use of protective custody, as well as its infliction without previous indisputable clarification of the state of affairs and the question of guilt, is neither justified with regard to the future of the one involved nor with respect to the reduction of its moral effect.

Therefore it must be expected that protective custody is only to be employed in really pressing and substantial cases.

I request that the county leaders be instructed orally to avoid any written communications; special emphasis on secrecy.

Protective Custody (Regulations) Through the circular of the 25 January 1938, the Reich Minister of the Interior has issued new regulations regarding the introduction of protective custody. In the following, I announce the wording of this decree for confidential information.

Letter from Heydrich to The Chief of the Security Police and SD, 4th November 1940, available at: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/1723-ps.asp, accessed: 20th November 2012.

41

James Perry Appendix 4: Transcript of the Shoah Interview with Maurice Rossel by Claude Lanzmann.

RO 7 La: Well, Now, Dr. Rossel, let’s talk about Theresienstadt.

Ro: Theresienstadt.

La: Yes. Ro: That is a great problem. This is a very great problem. Theresienstadt was an organized visit. It was organized by the Germans. This was a... the first visit, it was also [unclear word] as it was mad with...

La: It was, excuse me? The first visit...

Ro: It was the first visit that was made there.

La: OK. Ro: I made it with... accompanied by employees of the consulate who were Danes or Dutch, I don’t quite remember.

La: Danes?

Ro: Danes.

La: Danes.

Ro: And.... I had never seen these two gentlemen. We visited Theresienstadt. I repeat this, now, as you said, this visit was authorized and guided.

La: Yes, because it had been requested, repeatedly by the Red Cross.

Ro: Repeatedly, to see for once, a camp, and particularly Theresienstadt. Theresienstadt, in the view of many... of the world, was...

Ro: We said that Theresienstadt was a visit that had been organized, and which had been organized by the Germans, under the repeated pressure of foreigners, particularly of the C.I.C.R., but also by neutral countries. I have made this organized visit.

Ro: This visit... I was... ordered to go and see what they would show me. I made a report which I don’t deny and which I maintain to be absolutely valid. As I was sent there, I was the eyes, I had to see, and I had, if you want, to try to see beyond, if there was something beyond to see. It is said that Theresienstadt was a Potemkin camp, you understand, which was... a well arranged camp, and for the visit of the Tsarina. It was perhaps even worse than that, it was an obviously arranged visit.

La: It was on June 23, 1944.

Ro: 44, thanks for saying it. I would not have been able to give you that date. It was an arranged visit.

This was something that one could consider as a piece of theater but: one thing has to be made very clear. You asked me what the impression was, what was the atmosphere in Berlin, “what was the 42

James Perry atmosphere when you went to Auschwitz?” Well, here you had the impression of a fake atmosphere. First of all, because the visit was ordered, because it was expected; as always in the middle of a war, when something is expected, there is a set-up, but, for me which bothered me right away, was also the attitude of the Jewish actors. It was a Potemkin camp, a trick camp and... I must excuse myself being frank, because it is now.....

La: It has to be.

Ro: At that age, if one does not say what one feels....

La: Absolutely.

Ro: This was a camp that was reserved for the privileged ones. It is awful to say that, because, my God...and then I cannot accuse anyone, I cannot, I don’t want to, you understand, bless people who suffered horribly. But, unfortunately, there were “prominents” and this camp gave the impression that very wealthy Jews had been put there, or.... those who were important in their small towns, whom you just could not make disappear to brusquely. There were a number of notables there which .... which was totally abnormal, compared with the... the other camps, even those for prisoners. I don’t know who many doctors were there, there were notables at every street corner and... the attitude of these people was very curious too, because... for a man whose job it is, for months, to visit prisoner camps, is used to see a certain type that winks at him, who attracts his attention on a certain matter, it is obvious, you understand? Well, there, nothing, nothing. A docility, a passivity… Which appeared to me.... created even worse malaise. If, today, I have to go deep into my thinking, it was that this camp was not only for a visit... certainly ... prepared by the SS, on which it was possible to make a report stating: “I have seen this, I have seen that, I have photographed such a thing.” By the way, I could photograph anything I wanted. Thus I brought back many photos... at times, it is said, a photo says more than then a thousand words. Well, I took many pictures, but the climate was staged by that impression of these Jews who considered even themselves, you understand, to be “prominent people” like, it is the word which was very much en vogue at that time, like privileged people and who had no desire to risk to be deported because they had permitted themselves an illusion or a remark, or passing a piece of paper or a report, which would have been easy, sir, because we were not spied upon, nor filmed, there were none of the means available that are today to follow someone. But there, passing through small passages which one does when going through a city, when going into a room, if, you understand, someone had wanted to put something into a pocket, be it of the two other men or myself, it would have been extremely easy.

United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Transcript of the Shoah interview with Maurice Rossel, available at: http://resources.ushmm.org/intermedia/film_video/spielberg_archive/transcript/RG60_5019/A67D 46B8-2B61-41F6-877D-6FF0E04279F4.pdf, accessed: 14th February 2013, p. 28-29.

43

James Perry Appendix 5:Physicians and ‘Euthanasia’ Centres of Action T-4

Table 5.1 from Henry Friedlander, The Origins of Nazi Genocide, p. 90

44

James Perry Appendix 6:Secrecy Oath for Operation Reinhard personnel.

Operation Reinhard Secrecy Oath, available at: http://www.holocaust-history.org/operationth reinhard/reinhard-oath.shtml, accessed: 10 January 2013.

45

James Perry Appendix 7: Blueprint of Hartheim Castle/Euthanasia Centre.

Blueprint of Hartheim Castle/Euthanasia Centre, available at: http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org/euthan/euthangal2/Blueprint%20of%20the%20Hartheim %20Castle.html, accessed: 19th March 2013.

46

James Perry

BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Aly, Gotz, ‘Final Solution’ Nazi Population Policy and the Murder of the European Jews (London, Arnold Publishers, 1999).

Barnett, Victoria J., Bystanders, Conscience and Complicity During the Holocaust (Connecticut, Greenwood Press, 1999).

Bartow, Omer, Murder in our Midst: The Holocaust, Industrial Killing, and Representation (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1996).

Baumslag, Naomi, Murderous Medicine: Nazi Doctors, Human Experimentation, and Typhus (Westport, Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc, 2005).

Berkley, George E., Hitler’s Gift: The Story of Theresienstadt (Boston, Branden Books, 1993).

Binding, Karl and Alfred Hoche, Die Freigabe Der Vernichtung Lebensunwerten Lebens (Leipzig, Felix Meiner Verlag, 1920).

Burleigh, Michael, Death and Deliverance (London, Pan Books, 2002).

Conserva, Henry, Propaganda: A Question and Answer Approach (Indiana, AuthorHouse, 2009).

Cymet, David, History Vs. Apologetics: The Holocaust, the Third Reich, and the Catholic Church (Plymouth, Lexington Books, 2010).

Des Pres, Terrence, The Survivor: An Anatomy of Life in the Death Camps (New York, Oxford University Press, 1976).

Epstein, Eric Joseph, and Rosen, Philip, Dictionary of the Holocaust: Biography, Geography, and Terminology (Westport, Greenwood Press, 1997).

Engel, David, The Holocaust: The Third Reich and the Jews (Harlow, Pearson Education Limited, 2000).

Fischel, Jack, The Holocaust (Westport, Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc, 1998).

Friedlander, Henry, ‘Euthanasia and the Final Solution’, in David Cesarani, The Final Solution (London, Routledge, 1996).

Friedlander, Henry, The Origins of Nazi Genocide: From Euthanasia to the Final Solution (Chapel Hill, University of North Carolina Press, 1995).

Friedlander, Saul, Kurt Gerstein: The Ambiguity of Good (New York, Alfred A. Knopf, 1969).

Friedlander, Saul, Nazi Germany and the Jews Vol. 1 (New York, Harper Collins Publishers, Inc, 1998).

Friedlander, Saul, The Years of Extermination: Nazi Germany and the Jews 1939-1945 (London, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 2007).

47

James Perry Grossman, Vasily, The Road: Stories, Journalism, and Essays, translated by Robert Chandler, Elizabeth Chandler and Olga Mukovnikova (London, Maclehose Press, 2010).

Hochstadt, Steve, Sources of the Holocaust (Basingstoke, Palgrave MacMillan, 2004).

Horwitz, Gordon J., ‘Places far away, places near: Mauthausen, the camps of the Shoah, and the bystanders’, in Omer Bartov, The Holocaust: Origins, Implementations and Aftermath (London, Routledge, 2000).

Lederer, Zdenek, Ghetto Theresienstadt (Winsconsin, Edward Goldston & Sons, Ltd, 1953).

Lifton, Robert Jay, The Nazi Doctors (New York, Basic Books, 2000).

Longerich, Peter, The Wannsee Conference in the Development of the “Final Solution” (London, The Holocaust Educational Trust, 2000).

MacDonogh, Giles, After the Reich (New York, Perseus Books Group, 2007).

Manning, Michae,l Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide (New Jersey, Paulist Press, 1998).

Michalczyk, John J., Medicine, Ethics and the Third Reich (Kansas City, Sheed and Ward, 1994).

Niewyk, Donald L., ‘The Holocaust: Jews, Gypsies, and the Handicapped’, in Samuel Totten and William Parsons, Centuries of Genocide (New York, Routledge, 2009).

Piotrowski, Tadeusz, Poland’s Holocaust (Jefferson, McFarland and Company, Inc, 1998).

Rummel, Rudolph J., Democide: Nazi Genocide and Mass Murder (New Jersey, Transaction Publishers, 1992).

Schweber, Simone and Debbie Findling, Teaching the Holocaust (Los Angeles, Torah Aura Productions, 2007).

Troller, Norbert, Theresienstadt: Hitler’s Gift to the Jews (Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina Press, 1991).

Journals Black, Peter, ‘Foot Soldiers of the Final Solution: The Trawniki Training Camp and Operation Reinhard,’ Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Vol. 25, No. 1 (Spring 2011) pp. 1-99.

Walters, LeRoy, ‘Paul Braune Confronts the National Socialists’ “Euthanasia” Program,’ Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Vol. 21, No. 3 (Winter 2007), pp. 454-455.

Websites Bülow, Louis, Treblinka: Death Camp, 2012, available at: http://auschwitz.dk/treblinka.htm, accessed: 10th January 2013.

Stránský, Matěj, Embellishment and the Visit of the International Committee of the Red Cross to Terezin, 19th July 2011, available at: http://www.holocaust.cz/en/history/events/zkraslovani, accessed: 14th February 2013.

48

James Perry Hartheim Castle, available at: http://www.schlosshartheim.at/index.asp?peco=&Seite=207&Lg=2&Cy=1&UID, accessed: 20th November 2012.

Holocaust Research Project, Introduction to Nazi Euthanasia, available at: http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org/euthan/index.html, accessed: 18th March 2013.

The Free Dictionary, Deception, available at: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/deception, accessed: 20th March 2013.

United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Theresienstadt: Establishment, 2012, http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007506, accessed: 8th February 2013.

United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, ‘Theresienstadt: Red Cross Visit’ in Holocaust Encyclopedia, available at: http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007463, accessed: 14th February 2013.

United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, ‘Theresienstadt: “Retirement Settlement” for German and Austrian Jews’ in Holocaust Encyclopedia, available at: http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007466, accessed: 14th February 2013.

Primary Sources Clarkson, Adrienne, Paul Soles and Michael Jacot, Terezin: a Nazi Hoax, CBC, 11th September 1974, available at: http://www.cbc.ca/archives/categories/war-conflict/second-world-war/propagandaand-the-second-world-war/terezin-a-nazi-hoax.html, accessed: 7th February 2013.

Friedman, Saul S., editor, Translated by Laurence Kutler and Foreward by Nora Levin, The Terezin Diary of Gonda Redlich (Lexington, University Press of Kentucky, 1992) Marcias, Catherine, Abstract of Interview with Josef Prodinger, available at: http://www.t4holocaust.com/hartheim/hartheim.html, accessed: 24th November 2012.

Excerpt from stenographic report of Interrogation of defendant Aleksander Ivanovich Yeger, dated 2nd April 1948, available at: http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/camps/aktion.reinhard/treblinka/yeger.002, accessed: 10th January 2013.

Kurt Gerstein, available at: http://www.gerstein.dk/report.htm, accessed: 22nd November 2012.

Letter from Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler to SS Oberfuehrer Brack, 19 th December 1940, available at: http://fcit.coedu.usf.edu/holocaust/resource/document/DocEuth.htm, accessed: 21st November 2012.

Letter from Heydrich to The Chief of the Security Police and SD, 29 th March 1940, available at: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/1723-ps.asp, accessed: 20th November 2012.

Odilo Globocnik, December 1943, Report on how Death Camps were financed in Steve Hochstadt, Sources of the Holocaust (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004), pp. 176-177.

49

James Perry Operation Reinhard Secrecy Oath, available at: http://www.holocaust-history.org/operationreinhard/reinhard-oath.shtml, accessed: 10th January 2013.

Samuel Rajzman, Uprising in Treblinka, in U.S. Congress. House Committee on Foreign Affairs. Punishment of war criminals, 120-125. 79th Cong., 1st sess. Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1945, available at: http://www.holocaust-history.org/operation-reinhard/uprising-in-treblinka.shtml, accessed: 18th March 2013.

See Memo from Head of Gestapo Hermann Göring to SS General Reinhard Heydrich, 31st July 1941, available at: http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org/holoprelude/Wannsee/wannsee/Goring%20Authorizatio n%20Letter.jpg, accessed: 9th January 2013.

See The Minutes from the Wannsee Conference, 20th January 1942, available at: http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org/holoprelude/Wannsee/wanseeminutes.html, accessed: 9th January 2013 “Sermon by the Bishop of Münster, Clemens August Count von Galen, on Sunday, August 3, 1941, in St. Lambert’s Church, Münster, in Beth A. Griech-Polelle, Bishop von Galen: German Catholicism and National Socialism. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002, pp. 189-191. (Translation accredited to Saint Lamberti Church in Münster: speech printed in a pamphlet distributed by the Saint Lamberti Church.) Available at: http://germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/pdf/eng/English82.pdf, accessed: 26th November 2012.

United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Transcript of the Shoah interview with Maurice Rossel, available at: http://resources.ushmm.org/intermedia/film_video/spielberg_archive/transcript/RG60_5019/A67D 46B8-2B61-41F6-877D-6FF0E04279F4.pdf, accessed: 14th February 2013.

US Holocaust Memorial Museum, Robert Wagemann, available at: http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/media_oi.php?ModuleId=10005200&MediaId=1208, accessed: 22nd November 2012.

Newspapers Times ‘Death Camps Disguised With Flowers And Notices’, 7th June 1961, p. 11, The Times Digital Archive.

Times, ‘Norwegians’ Aid To Jews Praised At Eichamnn Trial’, 12 th May 1961, p.12, The Times Digital Archive.

Times, ‘Nazi Slaughter At Theresienstadt’, 21st June 1945, p. 3, The Times Digital Archive.

Matt Roper, ‘I looked for him but God must have been on holiday’: Last living survivors of Treblinka death camp speak of unimaginable horrors’, Daily Mail, 11th August 2012, available at: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2186984/Stories-Treblinka-Last-living-survivors-speakhorrors-haunting-memories-Nazi-death-camp.html, accessed: 10th January 2013.

Caroline Sturdy Colls, ‘Treblinka: Revealing the hidden graves of the Holocaust’, BBC, 23rd January 2012, available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16657363, accessed: 10th January 2013.

50