What do you think?
Rate this book
Wherever They May Be!
English, French (translation)
344 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1972
16 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
March 17, 2024
THE LIFE STORY AND ACTIVITIES OF A PROMINENT ANTI-NAZI FRENCHWOMAN
Author Beate Klarsfeld wrote in the first chapter of this 1972 book, “Three weeks after I was born, Hitler entered Prague… Late in 1945, we returned to Berlin… In those days, no one ever spoke of Hitler… Berlin resounded with the roar of airplanes bringing us food during the blockade. I asked no questions of others nor of myself, but continued along the path that had been set for me. In 1954 I was confirmed in the Evangelical Lutheran Church, but even then I had no faith. To this day I have remained a total stranger to the problem of religion. At that time, however, Providence was good to us: we moved into a two-room apartment … and I finally had my own room.” (Pg. 3-4)
Her friend (and future husband) Serge “realized how ignorant I was of my own country’s history, [and he] undertook to teach me. That was how I came into contact with the terrifying reality of Nazism. I did not feel at all responsible for it as an individual, but insofar as I was one tiny part of the German nation, I became aware of new obligations. Was I tempted to stop being German?... Not for a minute… It was exciting as well as difficult to be a German after Nazism.” (Pg. 8)
She wrote an article deploring the election of Kurt-Georg Kiesinger (a former Nazi) to the Chancellorship, and was promptly fired from her job. Serge (they were now married) told her, "You’re the first woman in France since the war ended to tell the truth about a Nazi.” … “it was the turning point of our lives. We made up our minds to fight, and our fight would take priority over everything else. It was a decision reached in a moment and with scarcely a word spoken. But it was a total commitment. We would fight not to ease our conscience, but to win. We know that meant total war. Serge’s career, our family life, our material security all would take second place.” (Pg. 22-23)
She recounts how, pretending to be a reporter, she approached Kiesinger (who was sitting at a table): “As I got behind Kiesinger he sensed my presence and half turned around… Shouting ‘Nazi! Nazi!’ at the top of my lungs, I slapped him. I never even saw the expression on his face… Before I was hustled out I had time to hear the buzzing that swept through the hall… All I could do was keep repeating to myself: ‘I did it. I did it. All that work was not for nothing…" Kiesinger’s Berlin deputy… stood before me and [said]… ‘Listen, my dear child, what do you mean by slapping our Chancellor?’ ‘I can’t stand having a former Nazi as Chancellor. I slapped him to let the whole world know there are some Germans who will not be put to shame.” The deputy left, saying, “That woman, who could be very pretty if she were not so sickly looking, is a sexually frustrated female.” But two weeks later, he published a letter of apology, stating, “When I made that remark, I did not know that Frau Klarsfeld is married and has a child, or that her father-in-law perished in Auschwitz.” (Pg. 56-57)
She recalls that in 1971, “two of the five defendants in the Leningrad trials had been sentenced to death. I had marched with thousands of Jews from … [a] synagogue… the left was making an appeal, and I had been asked to speak… The many young people present gave me a long round of applause. That truly touched me, for they were cheering me both for what I had accomplished and for the fact that I am German. The means I had taken to bring our two peoples together had won their approval.” (Pg. 126-127)
She asserts, “It is not up to me to entertain, but to tell the truth as forcefully as I can---brutally, if necessary. Forbidden to stay in the German Democratic Republic, I was soon to be arrested in the Federal Republic.” (Pg. 140)
Of ex-Nazis, she argues, “The rehabilitation of these criminals can only disgrace Germany. It is one step more in the direction of an indulgent attitude toward Nazism in Europe as a whole that would distort all spiritual and moral values. It would result only in an acceptance of Nazi values. German society must be forced into self-examination, however painful that may be.” (Pg. 166)
She asserts, “My fellow citizens in both the West and the East continue to think that if a man does nothing reprehensible now, the faults of the past can be forgotten.” (Pg. 197)
She states, “The [Klaus] Barbie case revived serious arguments in France. The crimes committed by the Nazis and their accomplices in Vichy must not have a time limit, or be forgotten, or just chucked into the cesspool of innumerable murders committed since. The battle against fascism must go on, for those who committed crimes are rising to the surface again.” (Pg. 273)
She observes, “we know that no policeman feels that entering a compound where tens of thousands of anti-Nazis were assassinated will lead to a confrontation with his conscience. That is one of the problems of the German conscience: the absence of reflection and comprehension, on both the individual and institutional level, of the lessons to be learned from the Hitlerian tragedy. There are all too few persons who experience any obligation or responsibility for true justice or for helping the Jewish people.” (Pg. 300-301)
Her activities result in her being sent to prison: “it is true that I will have paid. Six months in prison is wearing. And what a disaster for my family! And how exasperating to be locked up when I am convinced I am acting for the honor of my country, while the criminals I accuse with ample documentation enjoy total impunity. It’s all very well to have good morals, but it doesn’t help to be locked up with a young woman who, jealous of her husband’s love for their little daughter, whom he could ‘eat up,’ served her to him for dinner in the form of meat balls.” (Pg. 302-303)
At her trial, her lawyer, Arie Marinsky, says to the court, “Beate Klarsfeld is not Jewish, Beate Klarsfeld is German. Please note… German, not anti-German. She is merely anti-Nazi. And this… is the true and basic motive underlying her activities. For Beate Klarsfeld and her friends, more than any other national public or individual factor, have shattered the impasse and complacency existing in this country and its legislative body. It is they who have planted the black flag of protest on the soil of Germany; it is they and their activities that focus public opinion on the remnants of a malignant cancer that spread throughout this nation’s lifeblood only one generation ago.” (Pg. 317-318)
She concludes, “In Germany public opinion, except for the extreme right, is changing in my favor. A Liberal deputy nominates me for the Theodor Heuss Prize ‘for having awakened the German conscience.’ I am also nominated by the ‘Christian-Political’ movement for … the legion of honor. Perhaps someday I may even be a prophet in my own country.” (Pg. 321)
This book will be “must reading” for anyone wanting to know more about Beate KIarsfeld.
Author Beate Klarsfeld wrote in the first chapter of this 1972 book, “Three weeks after I was born, Hitler entered Prague… Late in 1945, we returned to Berlin… In those days, no one ever spoke of Hitler… Berlin resounded with the roar of airplanes bringing us food during the blockade. I asked no questions of others nor of myself, but continued along the path that had been set for me. In 1954 I was confirmed in the Evangelical Lutheran Church, but even then I had no faith. To this day I have remained a total stranger to the problem of religion. At that time, however, Providence was good to us: we moved into a two-room apartment … and I finally had my own room.” (Pg. 3-4)
Her friend (and future husband) Serge “realized how ignorant I was of my own country’s history, [and he] undertook to teach me. That was how I came into contact with the terrifying reality of Nazism. I did not feel at all responsible for it as an individual, but insofar as I was one tiny part of the German nation, I became aware of new obligations. Was I tempted to stop being German?... Not for a minute… It was exciting as well as difficult to be a German after Nazism.” (Pg. 8)
She wrote an article deploring the election of Kurt-Georg Kiesinger (a former Nazi) to the Chancellorship, and was promptly fired from her job. Serge (they were now married) told her, "You’re the first woman in France since the war ended to tell the truth about a Nazi.” … “it was the turning point of our lives. We made up our minds to fight, and our fight would take priority over everything else. It was a decision reached in a moment and with scarcely a word spoken. But it was a total commitment. We would fight not to ease our conscience, but to win. We know that meant total war. Serge’s career, our family life, our material security all would take second place.” (Pg. 22-23)
She recounts how, pretending to be a reporter, she approached Kiesinger (who was sitting at a table): “As I got behind Kiesinger he sensed my presence and half turned around… Shouting ‘Nazi! Nazi!’ at the top of my lungs, I slapped him. I never even saw the expression on his face… Before I was hustled out I had time to hear the buzzing that swept through the hall… All I could do was keep repeating to myself: ‘I did it. I did it. All that work was not for nothing…" Kiesinger’s Berlin deputy… stood before me and [said]… ‘Listen, my dear child, what do you mean by slapping our Chancellor?’ ‘I can’t stand having a former Nazi as Chancellor. I slapped him to let the whole world know there are some Germans who will not be put to shame.” The deputy left, saying, “That woman, who could be very pretty if she were not so sickly looking, is a sexually frustrated female.” But two weeks later, he published a letter of apology, stating, “When I made that remark, I did not know that Frau Klarsfeld is married and has a child, or that her father-in-law perished in Auschwitz.” (Pg. 56-57)
She recalls that in 1971, “two of the five defendants in the Leningrad trials had been sentenced to death. I had marched with thousands of Jews from … [a] synagogue… the left was making an appeal, and I had been asked to speak… The many young people present gave me a long round of applause. That truly touched me, for they were cheering me both for what I had accomplished and for the fact that I am German. The means I had taken to bring our two peoples together had won their approval.” (Pg. 126-127)
She asserts, “It is not up to me to entertain, but to tell the truth as forcefully as I can---brutally, if necessary. Forbidden to stay in the German Democratic Republic, I was soon to be arrested in the Federal Republic.” (Pg. 140)
Of ex-Nazis, she argues, “The rehabilitation of these criminals can only disgrace Germany. It is one step more in the direction of an indulgent attitude toward Nazism in Europe as a whole that would distort all spiritual and moral values. It would result only in an acceptance of Nazi values. German society must be forced into self-examination, however painful that may be.” (Pg. 166)
She asserts, “My fellow citizens in both the West and the East continue to think that if a man does nothing reprehensible now, the faults of the past can be forgotten.” (Pg. 197)
She states, “The [Klaus] Barbie case revived serious arguments in France. The crimes committed by the Nazis and their accomplices in Vichy must not have a time limit, or be forgotten, or just chucked into the cesspool of innumerable murders committed since. The battle against fascism must go on, for those who committed crimes are rising to the surface again.” (Pg. 273)
She observes, “we know that no policeman feels that entering a compound where tens of thousands of anti-Nazis were assassinated will lead to a confrontation with his conscience. That is one of the problems of the German conscience: the absence of reflection and comprehension, on both the individual and institutional level, of the lessons to be learned from the Hitlerian tragedy. There are all too few persons who experience any obligation or responsibility for true justice or for helping the Jewish people.” (Pg. 300-301)
Her activities result in her being sent to prison: “it is true that I will have paid. Six months in prison is wearing. And what a disaster for my family! And how exasperating to be locked up when I am convinced I am acting for the honor of my country, while the criminals I accuse with ample documentation enjoy total impunity. It’s all very well to have good morals, but it doesn’t help to be locked up with a young woman who, jealous of her husband’s love for their little daughter, whom he could ‘eat up,’ served her to him for dinner in the form of meat balls.” (Pg. 302-303)
At her trial, her lawyer, Arie Marinsky, says to the court, “Beate Klarsfeld is not Jewish, Beate Klarsfeld is German. Please note… German, not anti-German. She is merely anti-Nazi. And this… is the true and basic motive underlying her activities. For Beate Klarsfeld and her friends, more than any other national public or individual factor, have shattered the impasse and complacency existing in this country and its legislative body. It is they who have planted the black flag of protest on the soil of Germany; it is they and their activities that focus public opinion on the remnants of a malignant cancer that spread throughout this nation’s lifeblood only one generation ago.” (Pg. 317-318)
She concludes, “In Germany public opinion, except for the extreme right, is changing in my favor. A Liberal deputy nominates me for the Theodor Heuss Prize ‘for having awakened the German conscience.’ I am also nominated by the ‘Christian-Political’ movement for … the legion of honor. Perhaps someday I may even be a prophet in my own country.” (Pg. 321)
This book will be “must reading” for anyone wanting to know more about Beate KIarsfeld.
Displaying 1 of 1 review