James Perry

1

AN INVESTIGATION INTO DECEPTION WITHIN NAZI MASS MURDER INSTITUTIONS

JAMES ALEXANDER GRAHAM PERRY CARTMEL COLLEGE

James Perry

2

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.

James Perry

3

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

James Perry

4

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.

James Perry

5

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 T-

4, 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,

1 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.

James Perry

6

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 Robert Jay Lifton, The Nazi Doctors (New York, Basic Books, 2000), p. 71. 8 Michael Burleigh, Death and Deliverance (London, Pan Books, 2002), p. 47.

James Perry

7

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.

James Perry

8

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.

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

James Perry

9

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.

James Perry

10

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

11 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).

James Perry

11

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

minimal truth space, whereby although it still

physically existed; its new operations were not understood.

14 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.

Figure 1

James Perry

12

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

20 Robert Jay Lifton, The Nazi Doctors (New York, Basic Books, 2000), p. 71. 21 Henry Friedlander, The Origins of Nazi Genocide: From Euthanasia to the Final Solution (Chapel Hill, University of North Carolina Press, 1995), p. 90.

James Perry

13

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

22 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, 4th 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, 19th December 1940, available at: http://fcit.coedu.usf.edu/holocaust/resource/document/DocEuth.htm, accessed: 21st November 2012. See Appendix 3. 25 Ibid.

James Perry

14

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

26 Henry Friedlander, The Origins of Nazi Genocide: From Euthanasia to the Final Solution, p.107. 27 Ibid, p. 108. 28 See Appendix 6.

James Perry

15

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

29 Saul Friedlander, Kurt Gerstein: The Ambiguity of Good (New York, Alfred A. Knopf, 1969), p. 74. 30 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.

James Perry

16

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

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

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

32 Saul Friedlander, Kurt Gerstein: The Ambiguity of Good, p. 94. 33 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%20Hartheim.jpg, accessed: 23rd November 2012.

Figure 2

Figure 3

James Perry

17

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.

34 Robert Jay Lifton, p. 71. 35 “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.

James Perry

18

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

39 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.

James Perry

19

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.

43 MacDonogh, After the Reich , p. 84. 44 Ibid, p. 86. 45 Henry Friedlander, The Origins of Nazi Genocide: From Euthanasia to the Final Solution, p. 106.

James Perry

20

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.

James Perry

21

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 20th 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 co-

accomplices 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.

46 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, 20th January 1942, available at: http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org/holoprelude/Wannsee/wanseeminutes.html, accessed: 9th January 2013.

James Perry

22

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

49 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.

James Perry

23

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

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

51 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.

Figure 4

James Perry

24

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

‘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:

53 Henry Conserva, Propaganda: A Question and Answer Approach (Indiana, AuthorHouse, 2009), p. 100. 54 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.

Figure 5

James Perry

25

“Jews of Warsaw, for your attention! You are in a transit camp (Durch-

gangslager) 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

55 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.

James Perry

26

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

59 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/operation-reinhard/reinhard-oath.shtml, accessed: 10th January 2013. See Appendix 6.

James Perry

27

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

62 Grossman, The Road: Stories, Journalism, and Essays, p. 55. 63 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/article-2186984/Stories-Treblinka-Last-living-survivors-speak-horrors-haunting-memories-Nazi-death-camp.html, accessed: 10th January 2013.

James Perry

28

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 non-

spaces 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.

65 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, 23rd January 2012, available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16657363, accessed: 10th January 2013.

James Perry

29

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

68 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’, 12th May 1961, p.12

James Perry

30

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 10th 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.

72 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.

James Perry

31

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

77 Berkley, Hitler’s Gift: The Story of Theresienstadt, p. 27. 78 Ibid, p. 41. 79 Ibid, p. 41. 80 Times, ‘Nazi Slaughter At Theresienstadt’, 21st June 1945, p. 3. 81 Berkley, Hitler’s Gift: The Story of Theresienstadt, p. 41.

James Perry

32

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

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

82 Jack Fischel, The Holocaust (Westport, Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc, 1998), p. 71. 83 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.

Figure 6

James Perry

33

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.

88 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, 11th September 1974, available at: http://www.cbc.ca/archives/categories/war-conflict/second-world-war/propaganda-and-the-second-world-war/terezin-a-nazi-hoax.html, accessed: 7th February 2013.

James Perry

34

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

93 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.

Figure 7

James Perry

35

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.

94 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/A67D46B8-2B61-41F6-877D-6FF0E04279F4.pdf, accessed: 14th February 2013, p. 29. See Appendix 4. 97 Naomi Baumslag, Murderous Medicine: Nazi Doctors, Human Experimentation, and Typhus, p. 191.

James Perry

36

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 ‘non-

space’ 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

James Perry

37

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

James Perry

38

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.

James Perry

39

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: http://germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/pdf/eng/English82.pdf, accessed: 26

th November 2012.

James Perry

40

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, 19th December 1940, available at:

http://fcit.coedu.usf.edu/holocaust/resource/document/DocEuth.htm, accessed: 21st November

2012.

James Perry

41

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.

James Perry

42

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

James Perry

43

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.

James Perry

44

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

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

James Perry

45

Appendix 6:Secrecy Oath for Operation Reinhard personnel.

Operation Reinhard Secrecy Oath, available at: http://www.holocaust-history.org/operation-

reinhard/reinhard-oath.shtml, accessed: 10th January 2013.

James Perry

46

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.

James Perry

47

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).

James Perry

48

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.

James Perry

49

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/propaganda-

and-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, 19th 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, 29th 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.

James Perry

50

Operation Reinhard Secrecy Oath, available at: http://www.holocaust-history.org/operation-

reinhard/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’, 12th 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-speak-

horrors-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.