The History Book Club discussion
THE SECOND WORLD WAR
>
WE ARE OPEN -WEEK SIX - MILITARY SERIES: HANNS AND RUDOLF - June 16th - June 22nd - Chapter(s) Ten and Eleven: 10: Hanns, Normandy, France, 1945 and 11: Rudolf, Berlin, Germany, 1943 - (148 - 169) - No Spoilers, Please
Mod
True Jill - that was the facade.
Mod
Discussion Topics:
Two things which I find hard to resolve and wonder if the readers have any opinions on these two questions:
First, why did Hess agree to be the fall guy for the Walter Kadow murder for Bormann (who by the way saved Hess big time in the Morgen investigation and had obviously not forgotten).
Second, do you believe Morgen's story that he was intending to try to slow down the mass murder at Auschwitz - there does not appear to be any evidence at the time while he was writing his corruption reports on Auschwitz that this was actually even mentioned even once. Was this another example of someone trying to revise history after the fact or did you feel that Morgen's post war story was verifiable?
Great discussions. I appreciate all of the books and citations.
Mod
I can believe that the Nazis sent a judge to investigate corruption. You get the impression that many leaders are "by the book" and if you steal at such a level that might affect state funds, you have to be investigated, regardless where the gold came from. To them, it is gold which should go into state coffers...odd, but there it is.
Mod
It seems they sent the wrong judge, though, a reputation for a free-thinker, not the best choice.The mass killing apparatus seemed all bureaucratically siloed or compartmentalized.
Mod
"On March 20, 1944, the day after the German Army had rolled into Hungary, Adolf Eichmann arrived in the capital, Budapest. There he met with the Hungarian leaders and discussed the rapid deportation of the country's 800.000 Jews.
The plan was for the Hungarian government and its police force to round up all of the Jews over the next three months, starting in the countryside and then moving on to the cities. They would then load the prisoners onto trains, sixty-five per car, forty-five cattle cars per train, four trains per day, totaling some 12,000 Jews each day. The trains would travel north three hundred miles through Czechoslovakia, into Poland and on to the camp at Auschwitz."
Discussion Topics:
What are your thoughts on the Hungarian leaders who obviously were in cahoots with Adolf Eichmann regarding the deportation and ultimate genocide of 800,000 of their countrymen?
Does anybody else have any problems with the efficiency of their rail operations discussed on page 163 (cited above)?
I have to say that I can almost feel the fear of these folks sitting in their trains (65 per car) - with forty-five cars filled to capacity on any one of the four trains per day (12,000 Hungarian Jews daily).
Does anybody know what happened to these Hungarian government and police force who rounded up their own citizenry and sent them to their death? For me they are far more culpable than the underaged minor who was a guard. But of course, I would want them all to face solitary confinement for the remainder of their lives behind bars versus capital punishment. I would not kill them - I would make them suffer slowly and humanely for the remainder of their lives - no matter how long those lives might be.
What are your thoughts - pro or con; agree or disagree, feelings when reading these passages and overall outlook on Chapter Eleven?
Mod
The mass killing apparatus seemed all bureaucratically siloed or compartmentalized."
Yes, I was reading about him and he did seem to be a loose cannon for the Nazis - however having said that if he in fact felt strongly about the mass exterminations - I have not seen any evidence that he uttered a peep about it in any of his reports - it was only after the fact - I guess after the war and in terms of the trials that this rationale seemed to be put forth. If anybody has any other source material validating what Morgan stated which can prove otherwise - I would be very interested in seeing that. I did read that he could not be intimidated by the Allied Forces and would not lie in order to save himself any difficulties - no matter what and that is a plus for sure.
Having said that - if he did know and said nothing - then he was in the know about what was going on and an accessory just like anybody else who knew. What the powers that be wanted to do to these accessories is another discussion and whether they should have done anything to them.
Mod
Libby wrote: "Bentley wrote: "Focus on Hanns and Paul - Discussion Topics:What were your feelings about Paul (dabbling in the black market)?
And how did you feel about Hanns' treatment of Ann? Was he danglin..."
I agree with Libby. I think the whole early part of Hanns and Ann's relationship really suffers without Hanns' input. I would like to get his take on that period of their relationship with more perspective after fifty years.
Jill wrote: "On page 158 is one of the most chilling quotes in the book as far as I'm concerned. When told by Himmler that his command of Auschwitz was "no longer tenable". Rudolf stated "At first I found it pa..."I have the same response. He reminds me serial killers I've heard about who make a shift to where their kills become an art to them. Very cold and sadistic.
Mod
What were your feelings about Paul (dabbling in the black market)?
And how did you feel about Hanns' treatment of Ann? ..."
Yes Brian - maybe she was perfect for him and it took him longer to know that - but at this juncture - she was coming on gang busters.
Mod
Yes horribly true.
Bentley wrote: "Chapter 11 begins and we are introduced to the Bloodhound Judge.Discussion Topics:
It was amazing to me that the judge was investigating two kilos of dental gold sent home by an Auschwitz medic ..."
It appeared to me to be part of this skewed mindset that valued loyalty and chain of command above regard for human life. The idea that there were members of the SS stealing from the communal pot was worthy of investigation and that such atrocities were going on in the name of Germany was not. However it did appear to me that Morgen was surprised by the executions. On the other hand on page 155 he is described as a "pacifist and an independent thinker." How does a pacifist not speak out about 4,000 murders a day?
Mod
Shrewd, astute, a digger and good investigator but was not going to save the Jews - too dangerous for himself. That is my judgement of Morgen but as I said if anybody can find one of his reports prior to the Nuremberg Trials and prior to the Germans losing the war where he made these assertions in one of his reports - by all means I will change my mind about him.
Bentley wrote: "Cary wrote: "Bentley wrote: "Focus on Hanns and Paul - Discussion Topics:What were your feelings about Paul (dabbling in the black market)?
And how did you feel about Hanns' treatment of Ann? W..."
Yes, that is correct. Perhaps Paul's upbringing bore some weight on his decision, but perhaps not. My grandfather told me stories about how everyone in his unit, both in the Pacific and later in Holland, were active in the black market in some way. He himself was, sending home coffee beans, bananas and later chocolate home to my great-grandmother...and had no where near the sort of affluence Paul had enjoyed.
Many Americans and Europeans engaged in such practices as well as a result of rationing or just outright shortages.
The items listed that Paul was obtaining are more just small tokens of convenience and living life with some normalcy in the face of the "uncertainty at every corner" to quote your post earns that benefit of a doubt with me.
Now, had he been dealing in say art, gold, or weapons for financial gain, it would be a different story.
Hmm...I just caught myself imagining a paralleled universe in which Paul does deal in these and finds himself being pursed by his brother.
Mod
I wanted to note an observation that I made at this point in the book. The author does a great job thus far in illustrating a seemingly minor turn on ones path in life can lead to such a drastic impact on ones fate. Rudolph opted to leave the farm behind...had he stayed, would Himmler had found such a protege as Rudolph? In a response I just posted, I just caught myself thinking about a scenario in which Paul's black market dealings included stolen art, gold, and weapons...finding himself on war crimes list to be pursued by his brother. Or, because of Paul's actions, does Hanns maybe not get the call to Brussels?
These are men whose lives could have been a complete opposite of where they now are at this point in the book.
Thinking of these "what ifs" in history is what draws me in.
Mod
And great post and I think you are close to what Thomas Harding started to ponder by the time he finished writing the book.
Mod
The guards had already destroyed any evidence of genocide by blowing up the crematoria, dismantling the gas chambers and scattering the doors in a nearby field, and burning all documents in the administration block. They had then ordered almost the entire population of the camp, many of whom could barely walk, out of Auschwitz, and into the freezing countryside, thereby commencing a forced march away from the approaching Red Army. It was this scent that Rudolf came across, a few miles away from Auschwitz.
"I saw columns of prisoners forging a way with difficulty through the deep snow, without any food. Most of the noncommissioned officers leading these processions of the walking dead no longer knew which way they were supposed to be going...It was easy to follow this trail of human suffering, for every few hundred meters you came upon a prisoner who had collapsed or had been shot...The dead at the roadside were not only prisoners but also refugees, women and children. At the way out of the village I saw a woman sitting on a tree stump, rocking her child and singing. The child had died some time ago, and the woman had lost her mind."
And that is where the chapter ends - Time had run out!
This is just me, and I mean no offense to anyone at all who does but I do not watch current violent movies or TV and I especially do not read horror novels and the end of the chapter is probably the best example of why I do not. Real horror, real violence, real evil just makes me not understand why anyone would want to make it up. In my little illusory world, humans don't want to hurt one another. Reading about the unbearable to think about conditions in the camps at the end of the war, which I had forgotten about makes this all that much more loathsome. And Hedwig still asks, 'How are we going to win the war?' This is mind boggling.
Joseph Conrad knew what he was talking about in 'The Heart of Darkness'.
by
Joseph Conrad
Did I miss something, but I was a little unclear why Hanns was picked for the war crimes investigation team.I assume it was because he was from Germany, spoke the language, and was Jewish.
Mod
Mod
G I agree - I think that is why I read so few books on the Holocaust - I remember seeing the movie Sophie's Choice and not being able to sleep for a week. I also do not watch them for the same reasons as you so aptly described. But here we are and at least the war is about to end.
That is my guess...they needed four interpreters, four investigators, and four assistants, but I imagine we will know about this next week...
Mod
I assume it was because he was from Germany, spoke the language, and was Jewish."
There was a clue given on page 152 as to what qualifications the British were looking for. And on page 121 - he indicated that he had developed that hate. Maybe the British were profiling too as did the Germans for the SS troops. Hanns spoke German so they needed at the very least interpreters (and he was a native speaker which had to be valuable) - he may have in their eyes proved himself and he was Jewish and he was worried about citizenship and his whole family had lost theirs at Germany's hands and he may have lost a family member or two who had not left Germany soon enough so maybe they thought he had the drive, the motivation and the language skills and a rationale for wanting to do the job. And I think there is more on this as the chapters unfold.
Mod
I would like to know if Hanns volunteered for the job and with how much zeal (if he in fact did). He had to know that they were looking for folks especially after what occurred in Belsen. Maybe folks were asked to apply or to express interest.
But as I recall there are more details coming up later in the book - but I am not sure if they include how he came to actually get the job. Did he apply, was there a memo asking for volunteers, was he approached as to his interest in doing the job, was he promised favorable treatment in terms of citizenry in England for his family if he did do the job, was he drafted to do it without any expressed interest on his part. How did the British decide who the 12 men were going to be? Those are questions that I still have.
It is not so easy to be late and have to read 81 comments before you can begin to participate.I thought that Bentley’s questions in mgs 5 were good and I will try to begin by sharing my thought although I may do this over a few posts - I put the content of msg 5 to italics and hope that copies OK - it didn't copy OK so please bear with this
Questions and Topics
Why did the Allied Powers not try to do something to save more of the Jewish population when they had the opportunity before and why did they not do more when all doubt of the Nazi's "executed actions and objectives" were fully revealed? What are your thoughts?
First we really have three allies to consider, US, GB and Russia. The Russians had less opportunity as they were literally fighting on their ground for their lives and I think had no ability to do much against the Nazi actions until their invasion brought them to the camps. The British too were actively fighting for much of the time and had limited ability to move against this until the American joined the struggle. Also even the Alexanders in Berlin had trouble to accept it was really happening. For the Americans I am hard put to understand – we were really threatened by the Japanese but America itself was never attacked (Hawaii was not yet a state) and we never feared for our children and grandmothers as the Russians and Brits did. There was/is certainly anti-Semitism in America but still I think we should have done more when we knew – certainly after D-Day but even before.
Was establishing the War Crimes Commission just "too little and too late"? There was minimal effort directed to establish a comprehensive war crimes policy - which if such a policy existed at that time may have been a deterrent. Do you agree or disagree and why?
It was both too little and too late and not embraced as a priority. If a policy was determined when this group was formed or afterwards I think it would have been too late to change the Nazi operations because they already had inertia.
By the time in 1944 - when Roosevelt made a statement to the press - the Nazis had been allowed to carry out their mandate. Could any lives have been saved sooner or at all? Was their anything that FDR should have done differently at any time considering this situation and what he knew and when he knew it? Why do you think he acted in the way that he did? Do you feel that he was in the right or in the wrong? Explain your rationale.
More lives could have been saved sooner. If America had opened its doors wider to the Jews more could have fled. If more had come to America the truth of the oppression would have been more quickly visible or if Jews had come here fast enough and enough of them there might not have been a holocaust.
I think that Roosevelt, and I haven’t read all the volumes mentioned by our participants, had political pressures about workers arriving and, probably at least until 1942 or 1943 questions/doubts about the extent of the Jews position, and was likely or possibly anti-Semitic as so much of America was/is.
And by the end he was a dying sick man.
Some of the questions that came up through the media and the public announcements by August 1944 were the following:
What constituted a "war crime"? – pg. 150 para 3 says that finally war crimes were measured from 1933 – before the war started I think.
How many people could realistically be brought to justice? – I wonder what that would have been if we did not face the Russian communist threat which occupied so much of our thoughts as the war ended
Which specific individuals should be targeted? – those who could have done less in the effort?? – I don’t know and I have read thru message 81 of our group’s discussion
What was to be done with the criminals (once they determined who was a criminal and who was not)? – that would have to follow how one answers the question above
Should they be shot or tried? – One can do both but then the sequence should be changed.
If tried, where should the trial be held? (An Allied capital city or in the country where the crimes were committed?) – Germany was a good place as there was not a local revenge seeking audience and it was OK as it was done by the military so the “venue” had little influence. Why are these military trials OK but some think not so for people from our Iraq war of this century?
And how could Sir Cecil Hurst chairman of the United Nations War Crimes Commission not be able to answer the question whether the person who had ordered the executions be on the list or not? And how could Hurst respond "that the list of war criminals is not a very long one but meager"? – I don’t know – maybe he felt this was a political role not a justice role
How do you feel about the trials that ensued and how they were carried out? Do you feel that there was any way that the folks accused would be able to get a fair trial given the environment and the circumstances? – Define “fair trial” – today’s American courtroom dramas? I think the bigger question was a fair outcome.
Do you feel that "two wrongs do not make a right"? Do you feel that numbers should have been attached to the Nazis who were on trial? Or do you feel that this action was degrading?
Would we be able to place a number pinned to the front of a person's clothing on trial today and get away with it?
Two wrongs do not make a right. Killing someone to be sure they will not harm others again may not then be a wrong.
Numbers were not wrong – they worked their evil in groups all uniformed the same to get some anonymity from scrutiny – let them be identifiable. They were part of an organization – all had uniforms – now all had numbers. Today you could use large nametags unless you wanted to protect relatives and families. I think for a trial today with so many defendants today it could be justified in some circumstances.
Or do you feel that the situation was an example of "an eye for an eye".
Not really – I think we had to face this occurrence in our Judeo-Christian world and come to some sort of conclusion or door shutting even if not all the way.
Do you feel that executing the enemy who were guilty of executing the Jewish people as a religious group and/or other opponents of Hitler made the Allied executers just as guilty in the eyes of God as the Nazis? Should the war criminals not have received the death penalty but remained in solitary confinement for the remainder of their lives? What punishments do you feel should have been enacted? Were the trials just and fair?
In the eyes of which God? Solitary confinement is a not nice punishment. I think that the big justification for execution was that these folks would not be able to do this again. How secure would “life sentences” be if the Russians overcame the prisons they were in? Neo Nazis exist today – think if they might have had “heroes” to try to free they might have done so. Executions were just in eliminating the threat these people posed to societies. (not all death sentences were carried out anyway) I think the trials were fair and just enough given the time and circumstances.
What do you feel was the moral obligation of FDR, Stalin and Churchill - when they first heard the rumors, first knew that waves of immigrants were trying to escape persecution, first knew that the programs were being carried out and at the end of the war? How do you feel about the Nuremberg and Belen and other trials carried out by the Allied Powers.
I think I addressed these questions before.
Was the major issue - the war - and winning the war and did they put the "human casualty numbers" of the Jewish people in the same column as those who lost their lives in battle? Was that the right thing to do and do you agree or disagree - explain your rationale.
Yes the major issue was winning the war. The Jews or other prisoners in camps that died or civilians killed or maimed by bombs did not belong in the same column as those who lost their lives in battle. There were military and civilian leaders who put those who lost their lives in battle in harm’s way (at least for the allies starting by 1942 to include the Americans) and therefore the amount of support and risk and planning was an obligation that necessitates that this be a different column. Yes it was the right thing to do and it made the military/civilian leaders more responsible for their people in battle than they were for the people in the camps and that was certainly correct in my view.
Do you agree with the actions and the decisions of the three Allied leaders as it pertained to how they handled the knowledge of Hitler's Final Solution plans and the execution of the program?
No. I think more could have been done to reduce the killings sooner. I think that bombing of the railroads (especially in 1944 when the Nazis were accelerating their efforts because they might lose) would have slowed them down – and to march the Jews, as some mentioned, would have called for lots of manpower that wasn’t necessary for train transport and by then manpower was really short. Bombing the camps too would have halted the progress of the killing. Making the information really public might have been good – but I am not sure.
There is a lot to talk about in these chapters - but let us begin and try to place yourself in the positions of these men and the countries that they represented - before - during - and after the World War. And also what would you have liked for the leaders to have done if you were a prisoner in one of those camps and would that have been possible?
Send a Navy Seal team to rescue me – not to offend my son the Marine. I think that it would have been very difficult for a prisoner to have had a realistic & sound approach as to what to do specifically.
Mod
Regarding your first segment - America suffered many casualties while they thought they were in discussions with the Japanese at the time of the attack on Pearl Harbor. I don't think it mattered if Hawaii was a state or not. I can understand why the USA declared war on Japan. They were attacked - their planes, their ships, their men.
Agreed - more should have been done - even if it meant FDR allowing more Jewish immigrants to escape Nazi Germany and come to America before it was too late.
I particularly liked this paragraph of yours aside from the last few words about America being anti-Semitic at various points in its history including the present day:
Vince said: More lives could have been saved sooner. If America had opened its doors wider to the Jews more could have fled. If more had come to America the truth of the oppression would have been more quickly visible or if Jews had come here fast enough and enough of them there might not have been a holocaust.
I think that Roosevelt, and I haven’t read all the volumes mentioned by our participants, had political pressures about workers arriving and, probably at least until 1942 or 1943 questions/doubts about the extent of the Jews position, and was likely or possibly anti-Semitic as so much of America was/is.
Agreed - about the War Crimes Commission and their timing but do not agree about the anti-Semitic statement about present day America. In what ways do you believe that this is the case? There are various hate crimes against so many different groups - you have to wonder if any one group is being singled out any more than another.
Agreed - it would have been difficult to get a fair outcome - which is what was meant by "fair trial".
I guess you do not think that the numbers were degrading - I guess if you run a marathon or race for instance - they do pin a number to your jersey - so maybe this could be interpreted as being acceptable so that folks could be accurately identified. But still.
So you think that the Nuremburg Trials were a way to shut the door on these events and actions by the Nazis. Interesting. I guess we can disagree on capital punishment (smile).
And you feel that the leaders had to put their men and their safety first. And that the casualties of the camps were yet another casualty of the war itself at the hands of the Nazis. Many would agree with you Vince - but you have to admit this was a tough choice given what so many suffered.
Yes - you raised some valid points of more being able to be done sooner - regarding the railroads, immigration, etc.
Love the line (smile) - "Send a Navy Seal team to rescue me – not to offend my son the Marine."
so to make some brief comments on Bentley's remarksthat the battle fighters would be in a different column does not make them less valuable but the ability to influence their safety and the responsibility for the dangers they were exposed to were the direct responsibility of their generals and government leaders - thus a different column.
Nuremburg made it possible to close the door enough to move forward with reconciliation and rebuilding. Otherwise this would have festered for a long long time and the allies wanted to get on with using Germany as an outpost against the Russians.
Most of the American casualties at Pearl Harbor were, I think, military personnel. Not like American soil.
Bentley wrote: "Focus on Hanns and Paul - Discussion Topics:What were your feelings about Paul (dabbling in the black market)?
And how did you feel about Hanns' treatment of Ann? Was he dangling her, was he co..."
I was going to write a lot but I think that what Hanns was about with Ann was OK (do we know yet if he eventually married her?) - it was wartime - his nationality was unsure (here he could probably have benefited) - he seemed though to have no fears of succeeding if he survived.
Also regarding Paul's black market activity I would say it was not military contraband and so unless he stole the stuff it was generally OK too - unless he knowing bought it from thieves.
That is the end of my concern on either of these matters for now.
Some interesting things - pg 149 para 4 Roosevelt refers to Nazis. do I notice a leaning towards calling the dirty dogs Nazis rather than Germans? I will keep watching.Some of the emotions are interesting - pg 154 para 1 Hanns is reminded that he isn't in control of his life - well more so than when he had to get out of Germany - he enlisted - think of how many people had their life control options taken by the Nazis and then the war.
pg 159 para 3 Morgen thought he might be able to put the Kommandant on trial - I am thinking what Germany was he living in? - I agree with previous remarks that he phrases his war time thoughts to improve his image for the second half of the 20th century.
pg 159 para 5 - RH says he is responsible for many things including prisoner executions - he doesn't use the word extermination yet I think.
Mod
that the battle fighters would be in a different column does not make them less valuable but the ability to influence their safety and the respo..."
True about Pearl Harbor - but it was a vicious attack and Japan needed to be stopped. This was quite a brazen act as well.
Most folks seem to be giving Paul a little slack on the Black Market items so you are not alone - yet I do think it shows a certain risky behavior on the part of Paul.
I think FDR was trying to steer his remarks to be more about the Nazis than the German people.
Yes, I agree with you totally about Morgen.
Executions is a strange term - what were they being executed for - what crime did they commit? Rudolf's memoir was quite illuminating but also self serving and an alternate history from the one he lived.
Great comments Vince. You really think about what you read.
I agree, Bentley, that execution was a ridiculous way to describe what they were doing. The Nazis, of course, liked to call it "racial cleansing", a term that turns my stomach. Genocide, pure and simple.
Mod
Mod
The point of this post is that he was given a tour of his grandfather's villa at Auschwitz that the family and even his father had grown up in and it was quite spacious by standards of that day and even now in disarray you can tell that the garden and land around the villa must have been beautifully maintained (most likely by the prisoners). Ranier has some of the family photos with him and he tries to match them up with the background of the villa - it is a very interesting segment and you can see how very close they actually were to the camp itself. There was frosted opaque glass on some of the windows facing the camp - I imagine so that the children or others would not be able to view inside. That of course is just an hypothesis.
More in the glossary.
Hi there.Let me jump in here. Rainer returned to Auschwitz for this documentary Hitler's Children a year after his first visit, which was with me and his mother. My visit with Rainer is of couse featured in the book.
- Thomas
Mod
I thought some of the photos were the ones that you have in the book or remarkably similar ones.
From some of the windows - it appeared that they were remarkably close to the camp itself - was the closeness due to the cameras or the camera angle or was it as close as on the other side of the garden wall.
Update:
Also, you mention Rainer's mother - in the documentary - Ranier talks about his father and that he too suffered from "delusions of grandeur" and as a young boy growing up that he was admonished if he showed emotion or cried.
What was the reaction of Ranier's mother to the visit - in the documentary - it appeared that he was seeing some of this for the first time but that was not the case based upon your post.
Answers for group readers:
a) Rainer Hoess visits the Auschwitz villa where his father lived. He is the grandson of Rudolf Hess (Hoess).
b) The villa according to two articles which I have added to the glossary indicate the villa itself was no more than 150 to 200 meters (yards) away.
Here is an excerpt from one of these articles (the 150 meters one):
The commandant lived in a luxurious mansion at Auschwitz with his wife and five children - among them Hans-Rudolf, the father of Rainer. Only 150 meters (yards) away the crematories' chimneys were blowing out the ashes of the dead day and night.
Source: The Telegraph - August 30, 2013 (article in glossary)
Group Readers: The glossary contains much more information and the articles/links
Link to Glossary: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Mod
However, It was noted that Auschwitz was first not designed to be for Jewish prisoners - but for all of Poland's political prisoners. Auschwitz itself and the area around the camps were of great interest to the Germans because of the supply of natural resources - water, coal and lime. Within 20 miles of Auschwitz lay a network of mines with access to some of the richest coal seams in Europe. These resources were of great interest to IG Farben - the giant German industrial conglomerate, They'd been experimenting for years in how to make synthetic rubber and fuel, essential raw materials for the German war effort. Water, lime and coal were the most important ingredients they needed. Now they found that Auschwitz was just the right place to site their new factory in the East. The Nazis envisioned a new city with only ethnic Germans - with all other property owners deported.
Höss (Hoess/Hess) who had worked in concentration camps since 1934 knew that his task was to create a place that would strike terror into the Poles. But the gas chambers for which Auschwitz was to become infamous were not yet conceived.
Höss (Hoess/Hess) even adopted the cynical motto of Dachau concentration camp in Germany—Arbeit Macht Frei—"Work makes you free"—and emblazoned it on the new gates of Auschwitz. The Polish prisoners now arriving at the new camp were subject to appalling treatment from the SS. Over half the 23,000 Poles first sent to Auschwitz were dead within twenty months.
But this documentary presents the beginnings of Hess's world.
Go to the glossary for more information:
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Bentley wrote: "Another documentary that I watched tonight on Netflix is Auschwitz: The Nazis and the 'Final Solution. More about this is on the glossary thread. However, It was noted that Auschwitz was first ..."
Thanks Bentley. I'll have to check those documentaries out.
Mod
Be sure to Brian - they are informative and you are welcome. I also provide the link to the glossary where I add additional information.
Bentley wrote: "The chapter ends with a pitiful paragraph about the forced march. Please comment on the forced march and Rudolf's account.The guards had already destroyed any evidence of genocide by blowing up ..."
The part of these last moments of this chapter that most stuck out to me the last of Rudolph's statements at the top of page 169; camp conditions had reached such a dreadful state that Rudolph and the others charged with these acts became shaken when seeing how far things had gone.
I have a question on if Rudolph saw any errors in ways, but I will ask it later in case it reveals something that is coming up in the book.
Mod
Good question but hard to tell if anybody would have gotten a reliable answer.
Cary, I agree.......the statement on cannibalism made my blood run cold.I was taken by the fact that when Rudolf saw Hedwig, she asked "how are we going to win the war" (pg. 169). It amazes me that she (and so many others) could even imagine that there was any chance for victory......Berlin was being bombed day and night and the enemy that the Germans most feared (the Russians) were practically at the gates of Berlin. Many books have been written about the attitude of the Germans as their country was going up in flames but it still makes one shake their head in disbelief.
Mod
Actually in the Auschwitz documentary that I recommended on Netflix (posted in Glossary) - the Germans looked down on the Russians and thought they were peasants or brutes. It must have been a tough pill for them to swallow having them practically at the gates of Berlin. Ike should have gone into Berlin and that would have avoided a host of problems later - but having said that - it must have galled the Germans to have the Russians come in - especially in terms of how they felt about them as a race.
I made a list of everybody the Germans did not like and wanted to exterminate (AND SADLY DID):
1. German prisoners - alleged criminals who were repeat offenders
2. Political Opponents
3. Priest, Bishops, Archbishops - anybody Catholic or of a religious persuasion who opposed the Nazis
4. Polish political prisoners
5. Dwarfs
6. The mentally handicapped and challenged
7. The gypsies
8. Jehovah Witnesses
9. Jewish people - 30% of European Jews were killed in the Holocaust
10. 150,000 non Jewish Poles (some may have been classified as 4)
11. Soviet prisoners of war in Auschwitz
12. 10,000-15,000 members of other nationalities (Soviet civilians, Czechs, Yugoslavs, French, Germans, and Austrians) - unknown reasons - Auschwitz
13. Ukranians - 3 million killed
14. Poles in general - 2.5 million killed
15. Deaf people
16, Physically disabled
17. Homosexual and Transsexual people
18. Communists
19. Social Democrats
20. Socialists
21. Other Religious Dissidents
22. Serbs, Czechs, Sorbs
23. Soviet Slavs
24, Africans
25. Asians
26. Black prisoners of war
27. Freemasons
28. Esperantists
29. Enemy nationals - Thousands of people (mostly diplomats) belonging to certain nationalities associated with the Allies (e.g. China and Mexico), as well as Spanish Civil War refugees in occupied France, were also interned or executed. After Italy capitulated in 1943, many Italian nationals, including partisans and Italian soldiers disarmed by the Germans, were sent to concentration camps.
30. Emigres - Some of the Germans and Austrians who had lived abroad for a significant proportion of their lives were also deemed to have too much exposure to foreign ideas, many were put into concentration camps. These prisoners were called "Emigrants" and marked with a blue triangle.
31. Olympic Champions
Here is a partial list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_...
Note: Japan signed the Tripartite Pact on September 27, 1940, with Germany and Italy and was therefore part of the Axis Pact; no Japanese people were known to be deliberately imprisoned or killed. South Africans and white Europeans of non-Jewish ancestry from other continents were exempt, as were many Latin Americans of "evident" Germanic or "Aryan" ancestries, but not mestizos.
Exceptions were drawn for Croats and Slovaks due to military alliances with Germany.
Other source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaus...
The Russians were seeking revenge for the atrocities committed by the Nazis during their unsuccessful invasion and the Germans were aware that they were now going to face the same treatment. They were right. I agree that Ike should have pushed forward ahead of the Russians but that's for another book.Your list of "undesirables" to be exterminated is not to be believed. Can you imagine if the Germans had won the war?......the European population would have dropped drastically. And Olympic Champions???????......what is that about? Pay-back for the Berlin Olympic games and those events won by other than German athletes?
Wow, Bentley! I think the list of those that were desirable is probably shorter. I can only imagine the attitudes toward Germany then. I've seen US propaganda/ephemera from WWII that was very anti-German. I'm sure that everyone was scared of them, likely feeling that they fell in one of those categories or could easily be in a category that could be added to the list.
Mod
They became a pariah.
Regarding the Jewish people - here is a stat:
Hitler had decided to exterminate the European Jews. In all, more than 30% of the Jews in Europe were murdered in the Holocaust. The world's Jewish population was reduced by a third, from roughly 16.6 million in 1939 to about 11 million in 1946.[5] Even sixty years later, there are still fewer Jews in the world today than there were prior to 1940
See stats:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/j...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaus...
The History Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
Heart of Darkness (other topics)The Holocaust in American Life (other topics)
The Abandonment of the Jews: America and the Holocaust 1941-1945 (other topics)
The Bombing of Auschwitz: Should the Allies Have Attempted It? (other topics)
FDR and the Jews (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Joseph Conrad (other topics)David S. Wyman (other topics)
Peter Novick (other topics)
Michael J. Neufeld (other topics)
David S. Wyman (other topics)
More...
What were your feelings about Paul (dabbling in the black market)?
And how did you feel about Hanns' treatment of Ann? Was he dangling..."
You make some good points Cary - but a lot of folks got by without resorting to actually dealing in the Black Market. But your feeling is that the harsh times and lack of supplies may have been a factor - so some like yourself would give him the benefit of the doubt since he was trying to give these things to his family. But you do not think that it was Paul's sense of entitlement that might have been a factor in his becoming involved in these activities - because his family was accustomed to having a lot more than they had while in England which by the way I no doubt feel must have been terribly difficult for them - doubly difficult because they did not even have citizen status and were Germans living in England at the time. Uncertainty at every corner.