The Truth about Auschwitz: Prosecuting Auschwitz Crimes with the Help of Survivor Testimony
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
German History Vol. 28, No. 3, pp. 343–357
The Truth about Auschwitz: Prosecuting Auschwitz
Crimes with the Help of Survivor Testimony
Julia Wagner
In early 1959, Fritz Bauer, general attorney of the West German state of Hesse, received
incriminating material implicating more than ninety former Auschwitz SS-men. On the
strength of this evidence Bauer applied to the Federal Court of Justice, which granted
Downloaded from gh.oxfordjournals.org at Vienna University Library on September 1, 2010
the district court at Frankfurt (am Main) jurisdiction to prosecute all crimes committed at
the largest Nazi concentration and extermination camp.1 Bauer and his team were now
responsible for investigating crimes which had cost the lives of more than one million
people. During the next four years the prosecution tracked down suspects and collected
evidence about the organized mass murder at Auschwitz with the aim, as Fritz Bauer
explained in an address to the press, of aiding the court to ‘investigate the objective truth’
in the main hearing.2
Based on oral history interviews and autobiographical texts, this article explores how
the Frankfurt investigators approached and dealt with this challenge. As previous
historians of this trial have noted, both the provisions of the legal code and the
sensationalizing agendas of the media acted in particular ways to shape the images of
Auschwitz which circulated in public as a result of the trial.3 However, an examination
of personal narratives relating to the trial shows that there were additional factors in
operation. An analysis of personal narratives provides insights into the self-images,
perspectives and mentalities of the prosecutors working on the case. This article suggests
that exploring these sources is helpful in gaining a better understanding of the context,
character and constraints of these criminal procedures. As the commitment or
indifference of prosecutors could have a huge impact on the progress (or lack of it) of
criminal investigations of alleged Nazi perpetrators, shifting the focus to the prosecutors
poses in a new way the question of how the individuals interacted with their historical
1 Hessisches Hauptstaatsarchiv Wiesbaden (HHStAW), 4 Ks 2/63, Vol. 1a, p. 1, Letter Gnielka to Bauer 15 Jan. 1959,
HHStAW, 4 Ks 2/63, Vol. 1a, p. 15–19. Bundesgerichtshof, Beschluß in der Strafsache gegen die Angehörigen der
Kommandantur des Konzentrationslagers Auschwitz. See also Kerstin Freudiger, Die Juristische Aufarbeitung Von
NS-Verbrechen (Tübingen, 2002), pp. 42–43 and Werner Renz, ‘Der 1. Frankfurter Auschwitz-Prozeß. Zwei
Vorgeschichten’, Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschaft, 7 (2002), pp. 622–31.
2 In contrast to the Anglo-American legal process, according to the penal code of the Federal Republic of Germany
the defendant is not party to but the subject of the hearing. It falls to the prosecution to present both incriminating
and exonerating evidence. ‘Die Hauptverhandlung geht folgendermaßen vor sich . . . ’: Presseerklärung des
Oberstaatsanwalts am Landgericht Frankfurt/Main’, Die Tat (1 Feb. 1964).
3 Most importantly Devin O. Pendas, The Frankfurt Auschwitz Trial, 1963–1965. Genocide, History, and the Limits of
The Law (Cambridge et al., 2006), Rebecca Wittmann, Beyond Justice: The Auschwitz Trial (Cambridge, Mass.,
2005), and idem, ‘The Wheels of Justice Turn Slowly: The Pretrial Investigations of the Frankfurt Auschwitz Trial
1963–65’, in Central European History, 35, 3 (2002), pp. 345–78.
© The Author 2010. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the German History Society.
All rights reserved. doi:10.1093/gerhis/ghq062344 Julia Wagner
context and how they reflected on it. The attitudes and behaviour of the prosecutors also
influenced the testimony of witnesses and their representations in court.4 Their choice
of questions therefore determined which memories were of interest; their attitudes and
behaviour towards the witnesses made an impact on the situation of the interview and
influenced how the narratives of the witnesses were shaped. It is increasingly the case
that evidence given by survivors and perpetrators is used in the context of the investigation
of war and Nazi crimes as source material for the historiography of the Nazi regime and
the Holocaust,5 and this lends particular importance to this issue.
In the late 1950s and early 1960s the strong continuities in personnel in the police and
justice system made prosecuting Nazi crimes extremely difficult. In the case of the
Downloaded from gh.oxfordjournals.org at Vienna University Library on September 1, 2010
Auschwitz investigations, the prosecutors and investigating magistrate encountered a
number of obstacles and interferences which threatened the investigation and its
objectivity. Part 1 of this article looks at the framework of the investigation. Part 2 then
analyses how the investigators obtained and dealt with the testimony of survivor
witnesses. Among the witnesses who testified in Frankfurt were hundreds of Auschwitz
survivors. The particular nature of their evidence often eluded and challenged the
narrow provisions of the legal system. The assistance of survivors’ organizations was
instrumental in tracing hundreds of survivors who testified during the investigation. This
article focuses on the role played in the run-up to the trial by Hermann Langbein, who
represented the Internationales Auschwitz-Komitee (IAK) and later the Österreichische
Lagergemeinschaft. Himself a survivor of Auschwitz, Langbein understood the concerns
both of the investigators and of the survivors of the camp and functioned as an
intermediary between them. However, his activities also highlighted the fundamental
difference between the ‘experiential truth of Auschwitz as a site of pain and loss’ and the
legal concept ‘of Auschwitz as a site of minutely specifiable criminal acts’.6 Part 3
reconstructs the complex interplay between these different perspectives in the main
hearing which took place in Frankfurt between December 1963 and August 1965.
During the trial the judges and the jury were faced with the difficult task of examining
the nature of the witness evidence and deciding on its usability. A similar difficulty arises
when dealing with personal accounts in historical research. The exploration of these
‘ego-documents’ can to some degree offer us an insight into the identity construction of a
person and how they define their selfhood in relation to their context. Coming to terms
with the legacy and the memory of the Holocaust has become an important building-
block of German national identity. This article focuses on the personal narratives of a
group of individuals who, for professional reasons, had no choice but to confront the
criminal legacy of National Socialism at a time when neither the majority of the general
public nor the justice system in West Germany were yet openly engaging with this
problem. Faced with the numerous practical and psychological challenges of mounting a
4 Annette Wieviorka, The Era of the Witness (Ithaca, 2006), p. 82.
5 See for example Christopher Browning, Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland
(New York, 1992); Harald Welzer, Täter: Wie aus ganz normalen Menschen Massenmörder werden (Frankfurt/Main,
2007); Sven Keller, Günzburg und der Fall Josef Mengele. Die Heimatstadt und die Jagd nach dem NS-Verbrecher
(Schriftenreihe der Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte, Munich, 2003); Ulrich Herbert, Best. Biographische Studien
über Radikalismus, Weltanschauung und Vernunft 1903–1989 (2nd edn, Bonn, 1996).
6 Pendas, The Frankfurt Auschwitz Trial, pp. 141–42.The Truth about Auschwitz: Prosecuting Auschwitz Crimes with the Help of Survivor Testimony 345
large-scale investigation into Nazi crimes, the Frankfurt prosecutors constantly had to
negotiate their emotional responses with interpretations of their professional role and
responsibilities. An analysis of their personal narratives allows us to access this emotional
component as well as their level of reflection on the historical context and on the complex
network of relationships—both within and outside their own agency—within which the
investigation took place. Taking personal narratives into account thus allows us to draw
conclusions regarding the scope for decision-making on an individual level, the reasons
for these decisions, and the impact of these decisions on the investigation, on the witnesses
and on the investigators themselves.
The specific character of the sources used for this article can have both highly
Downloaded from gh.oxfordjournals.org at Vienna University Library on September 1, 2010
interesting and problematic effects. For example, the lapse of time between the events
described and the origination of the interview or autobiographical text means that the
author or interviewee has had the chance to reflect upon the events of the Auschwitz
investigation in the light of later experience and knowledge. This gives us interesting
information about the significance this individual accorded to the Auschwitz investigation
for their biography. However, the nature of the sources in question and the conditions
under which they were produced also impose their own limitations which have to be
taken into account when evaluating the usefulness of the material. The aforementioned
time-difference, for example, necessarily elicits questions regarding the accuracy of
memory. Furthermore, the narrative and constructed character of these sources means
that they are a selective and biased representation of the personal experiences of the
author or interviewee. Aspects which are considered unimportant or are at odds with
the dynamic and logic of the narrative or the self-image of the author or interviewee at
the time the personal narrative is created may be downplayed or omitted. The
representation is further distorted by considerations of the audience. The questions of
the interviewer and the current discourse can influence both the structure and the
content of the narrative. This necessitates attentiveness to the context in which they were
produced. Furthermore, an analysis of the language used, the emotional connotations,
the style or the tone can give us important clues when evaluating these sources. Just like
any other historical source, they should be read critically and in conjunction with other
documentation. Yet, despite their noteworthy limitations, these personal narratives are a
fascinating source opening up new leads for research on the Auschwitz investigation and
other trials of Nazi crimes.
Investigating Auschwitz
General Attorney Bauer delegated the investigation to the junior prosecutors Joachim
Kügler and Georg Friedrich Vogel. During the last stages of the investigation they were
joined by a third junior prosecutor, Gerhard Wiese. It is likely that Bauer chose all three
of them over more senior colleagues precisely because of their age, as any significant
personal entanglement in National Socialism was thereby excluded.7 Their supervisors
7 Fritz Bauer Institut, Sammlung Auschwitzprozess (FBI/AP), Interview Joachim Kügler, 5 May 1998. The author wishes
to express her sincere gratitude to Werner Renz of the Fritz Bauer Institute for kindly allowing her to use the inter-
views he conducted with various participants of the first Auschwitz trial, and for his advice and helpful mediation.346 Julia Wagner
and Bauer were involved in the general strategic decisions, but the day-to-day
investigation was led by Vogel and Kügler. The progress of their investigation is
documented by the files of the prosecution. The approximately seventy folders labelled
4Ks 2/63 contain a heterogeneous mix of documents, such as correspondence, minutes
of interviews with witnesses and defendants, archive material, memos and records of
meetings. The material was organized according to the standardized Aktenordnung which
shaped the form, structure and content of the files.8 Nevertheless, the correspondence,
notes and memos not only provide information about the workings of the legal apparatus,
but also occasionally allow glimpses into the mentalities of the investigators. Draft letters
written by the prosecutors, for example, can reveal opinions, reflections or emotions
Downloaded from gh.oxfordjournals.org at Vienna University Library on September 1, 2010
which were edited out in subsequent versions. Yet, this source remains silent about key
aspects of the investigation, especially issues which were considered sensitive or contested
within their own agency. To reconstruct this side of the investigation, this article draws
upon autobiographical texts and interviews with and by two of the three investigators,
the investigating magistrate and Hermann Langbein. As the time interval between the
investigation and the generation of the later source material was considerable, the
memory of the events may have been less precise and the perspective on it altered.
However, they offer three important advantages. First, the authors and interviewees were
able to reflect on the impact of their role in the Auschwitz proceedings for their later lives
and careers. Second, as concerns about professional discretion and their career were no
longer relevant, the authors and interviewees were less reluctant to express personal
opinions and divulge details about internal conflicts or the circumstances of their work.
Third, the autobiographies and interviews provide information about aspects of the
investigation which were not considered strictly relevant to the legal process and therefore
not included in the files. The files of the prosecution show, for example, that in order to
collect facts about the background of the crimes the investigators conducted extensive
research. They perused the historical literature, examined material from archives and
museums, and talked to experts and eye-witnesses. However, this source provides little
information as to how the prosecutors dealt with this information. From oral history
interviews conducted with several of the investigators in the late 1990s it becomes clear
that when starting out the young prosecutors knew very little of what had happened
under Nazi rule at concentration and extermination camps.9 Prosecutor Wiese, who
joined the investigation in the spring of 1963, explained that while he initially reacted
with horror and shock when confronted with the crimes of the suspects, he soon learned
to control these emotions. His language mirrors the process of distancing himself from
the subject by choosing to speak of himself in the third person:
At first one could not comprehend how something like this is possible. Then one read up, also regarding the
structure of the camp and how everything was connected. One did suffer from it, dreamt about it at night—
this I admit with complete honesty. But after a certain time the inner person built up a protection layer.10
8 Jürgen Finger, ‘Zeithistorische Quellenkunde von Strafprozessakten’, in Jürgen Finger, Sven Keller and Andreas
Wirsching, Vom Recht zur Geschichte. Akten aus NS-Prozessen als Quellen der Zeitgeschichte (Göttingen, 2009),
pp. 97–113, esp. 97–98.
9 Gerhard Wiese, ‘Wie haben Sie das denn damals als junger Jurist empfunden?’ in Fritz-Bauer-Institut (ed.), Im
Labyrinth der Schuld: Täter—Opfer—Ankläger (Frankfurt/Main, 2003), pp. 315–31.
10 Wiese, ‘Jurist’, p. 316.The Truth about Auschwitz: Prosecuting Auschwitz Crimes with the Help of Survivor Testimony 347
While coming to terms with the enormity and complexity of the crimes, the prosecutors
also faced a number of problems which were too sensitive to be documented in the
official files. The investigation was unpopular within their agency. They were kept on a
tight leash financially and sometimes the investigation was even sabotaged internally.
According to Kügler the financial means at their disposal were inadequate for an
investigation of this scale and their office was poorly equipped. Whenever the prosecutors
needed to send a fax, they had to ask the local greengrocer to send it. Kügler recalled that
when he travelled to another part of Germany to make arrests he usually stayed over at
the local police station where they only charged 1.50 DM, as he could not afford a hotel
room. In fact, their budget was so tight that they frequently used their own salaries to
Downloaded from gh.oxfordjournals.org at Vienna University Library on September 1, 2010
make ends meet. Once, towards the end of the month, Kügler even spent a night on a
park bench in the Berlin Tiergarten.11
Some colleagues and superiors were downright hostile. In at least one case this had a
specific reason, as the young prosecutors discovered, when they got hold of documents
indicating that one well-respected senior colleague had been present in 1942 at the
infamous Wannsee conference where the destruction of European Jewry was discussed.
A major further impediment was the discovery that the police were not always reliable,
when they found out that a suspect had been warned off by a police officer before an
arrest.12 Nevertheless, the investigation progressed and in August 1961 investigating
magistrate Heinz Düx opened the preliminary inquiry against twenty-four suspects.
While the prosecutors carried on and also started preparing a second trial (the so-called
second Frankfurt Auschwitz trial), Düx reviewed and complemented the files submitted
to him.13 In his memoir, and in an oral history interview, he stated that shortly after he
had taken over the proceedings, he was separately approached by two influential judges
offering ‘advice’ on how to handle the case. However, he concluded that ‘the aim of these
suggestions was not to help’ but rather to deter him from admitting the case for a court
hearing. Attempts to obstruct the investigations continued as urgent letters were withheld
in the Ministry of Justice of the state of Hesse, and requests and financial support denied
because of spurious arguments. After having waited in vain for nine months for
authorization for an official trip to Auschwitz, Düx used his own holiday to go to the site
of the crime where he took photos that were used as evidence in the hearing.14
The challenges of the subject, the difficult circumstances and hostile atmosphere
within their own agency led to a feeling of isolation which was exacerbated by the
enormous workload the prosecutors had to manage. Kügler described how he grew
suspicious about everyone he encountered:
11 FBI/AP, Interview Kügler, 5 May 1998.
12 Wiese, ’Jurist’, p. 328.
13 HHStAW, 4Ks 2/63, Vol. 52, p. 9441. Heinz Düx, Die Beschützer der willigen Vollstrecker. Persönliche Innenansichten
der bundesdeutschen Justiz, ed. Friedrich-Martin Balzer (Bonn, 2004), p. 31; Heinz Düx, ’Der Auschwitz-Prozess. Ein
unerwünschtes Strafverfahren in den Zeiten der Verbrechensleugnung und des kalten Krieges’, in Fritz-Bauer-
Institut, Labyrinth, pp. 267–84, p. 273.
14 Heinz Düx, Beschützer, p. 31; Heinz Düx, ‘Auschwitz-Prozess’, pp. 267–84, p. 273. See also Düx, ‘Auschwitz-
Prozess’, p. 272 and Düx, Beschützer, pp. 38–39.348 Julia Wagner
I sensed that pathological conditions developed inside me because of the strain of the content we were deal-
ing with. I boarded a tram, looked at the passengers and thought: well, who of those was in it too? That then
went a little [too] far. I can put up with a lot, but somewhere I too have a soft spot. And when there is talk
about children . . . Hm, the topic of sending trainloads of children into the gas [chambers], that’s when the
tears well up within me [das große Heulen], for example. Despite that the fact that it really should not make a
difference whether it is an old man or a child. But there are emotions at work which cannot be controlled.
That was simply too much. Later I tried to work like crazy . . . to suppress it.15
This psychological strain was never openly discussed.16 However, as Kügler’s statement
shows, the attempts to conduct this investigation just like any other failed.17
Constructing a Case Based on Survivors’ Testimony
Downloaded from gh.oxfordjournals.org at Vienna University Library on September 1, 2010
In preparing for what was to become known as the first Auschwitz trial, the role of the
prosecution was to investigate the crimes of the suspects and to construct a clear and
consistent case. It needed to be based, to the greatest possible extent, on objective,
unambiguous and verifiable evidence which would later stand examination in court. The
investigation was conducted as an ordinary murder trial within the parameters of the
penal code. The quest for the truth was consequently carried out with a narrowly defined
objective: to determine the personal guilt of the defendants. To construct their case, the
prosecutors and the investigating magistrate had to rely to a very large extent on the
testimony of eye-witnesses, especially of survivors of the concentration camp. For many
aspects of the crimes, there was no other evidence available. However, obtaining and
dealing with survivor testimony proved one of the most challenging features of the
investigation. It was difficult for the prosecution to get in touch with survivor witnesses.
The prosecutors did not possess records of who had been imprisoned at Auschwitz or
their current details. Their research only came up with the names of a small number of
German witnesses. However, the majority of witnesses lived in Soviet bloc countries such
as Poland and Hungary, or in Israel, countries with which the diplomatic relationship of
the Federal Republic was very problematic at this stage. The assistance of the survivors’
organizations was therefore indispensable throughout the investigation. Of particular
significance was the initiative of Hermann Langbein, who represented the Internationales
15 FBI/AP, Interview Kügler, 5 May 1998. See also Joachim Kügler, ‘Es hat das Leben verändert’, in Fritz-Bauer-Institut,
Labyrinth, p. 314.
16 FBI/AP, Interview Hans Großmann, 16 July 1998.
17 The pressure increased during the main hearing and led to several emotional outbursts, one of which was directed
against defendant Robert Mulka who had sought to deflect responsibility for an act of violence by claiming that he
had ‘acted as a soldier’. All ambitions of objectivity and professional distance were abandoned when Kügler replied
that Mulka had not acted as a soldier but as a member of a uniformed murder commando and accused him of being
a liar. Thanks to a project by the Fritz-Bauer-Institut, extracts of the audio-tape and transcripts are now available in
digital format on CD-Rom: Fritz-Bauer-Institut, Staatliches Museum Auschwitz-Birkenau (ed.), Der Auschwitz-
Prozeß, Tonbandmitschnitte, Protokolle und Dokumente (2nd edn, Berlin, 2007); here, see Das Verfahren,
Hauptverfahren, Day 73 (3 Aug. 1964), Witness Richard Böck, p. 14179 (see also AP106.069).The Truth about Auschwitz: Prosecuting Auschwitz Crimes with the Help of Survivor Testimony 349
Auschwitz-Komitee (IAK) and later the Österreichische Lagergemeinschaft.18 Thousands of
letters from Langbein’s estate, and the files of the prosecutions, document the vast range
of his activities in support of the investigation. Langbein recommended experts, pointed
them towards incriminating evidence, and supplied literature about Auschwitz and
information about the whereabouts of suspects. Crucially, Langbein provided the names
of half of the witnesses who were questioned during the investigations.19 When witnesses
were unable to testify in person because they were too frail or, in the case of witnesses
from Eastern European countries, did not receive authorization to make the journey,
they often composed written statements which they sent to Langbein who passed them
on to the prosecution.20
Downloaded from gh.oxfordjournals.org at Vienna University Library on September 1, 2010
For many survivors, testifying in Frankfurt seemed a daunting prospect. Because of
their experience of Nazi persecution many had little confidence in the West German
system of justice. When witness Raya Kagan travelled to Frankfurt, this was her first
encounter with postwar Germany. She told Langbein that on the aeroplane she had
scrutinized all Germans passengers who were her age and thought ‘What could he have
done?’21 Some even feared for their physical safety, as a letter by key witness Rudolf
Vrba22 to Langbein written before travelling to Frankfurt illustrates:
You can depend on me that in Frankfurt I will present these matters without hysteria and objectively. Please
let me know whether you think that my personal safety is assured or whether I have to take protection meas-
ures, as I do not know to what extent the SS can still be active.23
Vrba’s letter suggests that Langbein had advised his friend to testify in a factual, neutral
and unemotional way. He also told other witnesses to differentiate clearly between what
they had seen and what they knew from hearsay. By passing on to fellow survivors his
knowledge about the requirements of the prosecution, Langbein served as an
intermediary and translator between them. However, he not only had the legal usability
of their evidence in mind but also its impact on future generations. At an early stage,
Langbein understood the historical significance of the Auschwitz proceedings which,
despite the legal constraints, went beyond the punishment of individual perpetrators—
an outlook he shared with Fritz Bauer.24 In his letters Langbein often urged his fellow
survivors to testify by putting forward a moral argument. To his friend E. P., for example,
Langbein explained the importance of documenting the events at Auschwitz, arguing:
18 Österreichisches Staatsarchiv (ÖstA), E1797:101, Langbein to Kügler and Vogel, 31 March 1961. In this letter Langbein
passes on information about files at Auschwitz museum, information he had received from Auschwitz survivors and
their names and addresses as well as the names of other suspects. He also includes photographic material. Many simi-
lar letters by Langbein are included in the same file, e.g. of 2 March 1961, 3 April 1961, 26 April 1961. See also Erika
Weinzierl, ‘Hermann Langbein—Zeitzeuge in Wort und Schrift’, in Claudia Fröhlich and Michael Kohlstruck (eds),
Engagierte Demokraten. Vergangenheitspolitik in kritischer Absicht (Münster, 1999), pp. 224–36, here p. 225.
19 Irmtrud Wojak, Fritz Bauer 1903–1968: Eine Biographie (Munich, 2009), p. 323.
20 Hermann Langbein, ‘Ich habe keine Angst gehabt’, in Fritz-Bauer-Institut, Labyrinth, pp. 285–96, here pp. 292–93.
21 Langbein, ‘Angst’, pp. 291–92.
22 Dagi Knellessen, ‘“Momente der Wahrheit”: Überlebende als Zeugen im Auschwitz-Prozess—Rudolf Vrba und
seine Aussage gegen den Angeklagten Robert Mulka’, in Fritz-Bauer-Institut, Labyrinth, pp. 95–132.
23 ÖStA, Nachlass Langbein, E1797:45, Letter Rudolf Vrba to Langbein, 1 March 1963.
24 This was one of the reasons why Langbein also became the ‘chronicler’ of the trial and published a succession of
books and articles about the prosecution of Nazi crimes as well as several autobiographic texts. The most important
one is Hermann Langbein, Der Auschwitz-Prozeß. Eine Dokumentation, vols 1, 2 (Vienna et al., 1965).350 Julia Wagner
[W]e have the task of providing the raw material for future historiography. You know as well as I do: what
happened at Auschwitz is so unbelievable that future generations will have to doubt it, if there aren’t as
many authentic, sober and concrete accounts as possible. That is what we can offer. Don’t you feel an obliga-
tion like I do?25
While Langbein supported the investigation in whichever way he could after it was
taken over by the Frankfurt prosecution, he also lobbied the prosecution on behalf of the
survivors. This involved public criticism of certain decisions and constant demands for
more transparency.26 The prosecutors were happy to accept the assistance the IAK and
other survivors’ organizations offered, but they rejected many of Langbein’s demands
on the grounds that this would undermine the independence of the investigation.27
As Kügler put it:
Downloaded from gh.oxfordjournals.org at Vienna University Library on September 1, 2010
Mr Vogel and I did not let anyone interfere with our work. I respect . . . Mr Langbein, to the extent that he
tried to do his best. But we consistently stonewalled [abgeblockt] attempts at telling us to do this or that.28
The prosecutors were particularly displeased when Langbein discussed the ongoing
investigation with the press or published articles in the IAK’s newsletter. Langbein, on
the other hand, regarded it as his basic duty to keep the community of survivors informed
about the proceedings and to represent their interests. The newsletter was furthermore
an important tool used to publish appeals for witnesses to come forward.29 At the
beginning of the investigation, the conflicts between Langbein and the Frankfurt
investigators were fuelled by concerns voiced by other survivors’ organizations anxious
that the Communist tendencies of the IAK might compromise the trial. In a letter to the
prosecutors, Nehemiah Robinson of the World Jewish Congress (WJC) urged caution:
Personally I am not very enthusiastic about too much activity on the part of the Auschwitz Committee.
In the FRG there is little trust in a Communist (or disguised Communist) organization. A stronger identifica-
tion of the Committee with the investigation could be harmful, even though they probably can provide
useful information.30
Most conflicts between the prosecutors and Langbein were resolved and compromises
achieved, often due to interventions by General Attorney Fritz Bauer or by Henry
Ormond, a Jewish Frankfurt lawyer who on Langbein’s initiative represented several
civil plaintiffs at the hearing.31 Yet the underlying rift between Langbein and the
prosecutors broke open at regular intervals. Their differences were frequently based on a
lack of transparency and misunderstanding of each others’ motives, modus operandi
and constraints. Nevertheless, the cooperation between Langbein and the prosecution
continued and relations improved when Düx opened the preliminary investigation.32
25 ÖStA, Nachlass Langbein, 1797:33, Langbein to Edward Pys, 18 July 1961.
26 See for example HHStAW, 4 Ks 2/63, Handakten, vol. 5, p. 830, Langbein to the prosecution, 14 Dec. 1960.
27 For example HHStAW, 4 Ks 2/63, Handakten, vol. 5. pp. 832–3, prosecution to Langbein, 21 Dec. 1960.
28 FBI/AP, Interview Kügler, 5 May 1998.
29 For example ÖStA, Nachlass Langbein, E 1797:101, Langbein, Information, 9 March 1961.
30 HHStAW, 4 Ks 2/63, Handakten, vol. 2, p. 193, Robinson (WJC) to Wolf, 13 Jan. 1960.
31 Christian Ritz, ‘Die Westdeutsche Nebenklagevertretung in den Frankfurter Auschwitz-Prozessen und im
Verfahrenskomplex Krumey/Hunsche’, Kritische Justiz: Vierteljahresschrift für Recht und Politik 40, 1 (2007),
pp. 51–72.
32 See for example Düx, Beschützer, p. 31.The Truth about Auschwitz: Prosecuting Auschwitz Crimes with the Help of Survivor Testimony 351
Eye-witness testimony is traditionally regarded as ‘weak’ compared with other
evidence, a view which is echoed in the interviews of the Frankfurt investigators.33
However, in this case written SS orders or other documents were scarce and the
prosecution had to rely to a very large extent on eye-witnesses. The Auschwitz survivors
who could be identified with the help of the IAK and other survivors’ organizations and
who agreed to testify were a heterogeneous group with respect to their national, social
and professional backgrounds, age, attitude towards politics and religion and, most
importantly, regarding their individual experiences at Auschwitz. These were
determined, for example, by the varying time periods spent at Auschwitz or one of its
sub-camps, the degree to which they had been personally involved in the camp hierarchy,
Downloaded from gh.oxfordjournals.org at Vienna University Library on September 1, 2010
and their circumstances of survival. The one thing the Auschwitz survivors all had in
common was that they had been the victims or intended victims of the defendants. Their
testimony was problematic because the events in question dated back fifteen or twenty
years or longer, which meant that the memory of many witnesses was no longer fresh,
especially regarding details. There were added complications. While at Auschwitz, some
witnesses could have been impaired in their capacity for observation by their physical
and psychological state. Some of the memories were traumatic and therefore for many
witnesses not easy to describe in words or to put into a coherent statement.34 The
recollections of the witnesses were further affected by the fact that many of them had
tried to suppress their memories of the camp after their release and were now trying to
remember systematically for the first time.35
The interviews with and autobiographical texts by the investigators show that the
prosecutors seem to have had most difficulty when dealing with the emotionality of the
witnesses. Investigating magistrate Düx explained in 1998 that he had tried to be as
factual as possible during the interrogation and hoped that the witnesses would go along
with this. ‘I never liked emotional outbursts and the like’. At times Düx broke off the
interview or instructed the witnesses to calm down.36 Kügler stated that he would have
preferred to conduct the trial solely on the basis of documents if that had been possible.
Yet the prosecutors themselves were deeply moved by certain accounts, in particular
when they concerned crimes against children.37
To meet the requirements of the legal rationale, the lawyers often needed to clarify
specific technical details, for example checking precise dates, getting detailed descriptions
of the surroundings and circumstances, or the names of other people who had been
present. However, many witnesses had trouble in supplying this type of information as it
had been very difficult to remember precise dates in the camp where few inmates had
had access to watches or calendars, and the structure of each day had been very similar.
The witnesses had often never learned the names of the SS-men they encountered,
especially not of higher-ranking individuals. As one witness put it, they had not bothered
33 See for example FBI/AP Interview Gerhard Wiese, 30 March 1998.
34 Gerhard Werle and Thomas Wanders, Auschwitz vor Gericht. Völkermord und bundesdeutsche Strafjustiz (Munich,
1995), pp. 28–29.
35 Rebecca Wittmann, Beyond Justice, p. 152.
36 FBI/AP, Interview Heinz Düx, 10 Dec. 1997.
37 Kügler, ‘Leben’, p. 313.352 Julia Wagner
to introduce themselves.38 Appearing in court could be a frustrating experience for
witnesses, who were baffled by some of the questions as they did not understand the
motivation behind them. Repetitive questions about specific details were interpreted by
some as a sign of distrust.39 In an attempt to verify the evidence, the prosecution devised
strategies to determine whether a witness could be considered reliable or not. For this,
they compared statements about the same incidents and cross-referenced them with
other available evidence. To prevent witnesses’ statements being taken apart in the main
hearing, the prosecutors scrutinized the testimony during the investigation. Those who
presented their experiences coherently and remembered details which could be verified
independently were considered the most trustworthy.40 However, as Düx admitted, ‘any
judge can make a mistake’.41 A number of witnesses whose testimony did not meet the
Downloaded from gh.oxfordjournals.org at Vienna University Library on September 1, 2010
standards and categories of the prosecution were filtered out before the main hearing.
Auschwitz Survivors on the Witness Stand
The court case against twenty-two defendants accused of murder and being an accessory
to murder opened in Frankfurt in 1963. Of the 359 eye-witnesses who testified in court
during the main hearing, more than half were former inmates of the camp.42 A key
source for the role of survivor testimony is the evidence they gave during the investigation
and later in the main hearing. Large parts of the hearing were recorded on tape ‘to assist
the memory of the court’.43 The tape recordings are also a rich source in a different
respect, as they allow us to reconstruct aspects of the behaviour and treatment of the
witnesses in the courtroom.
For some survivors, the presence of their former tormentors in the courtroom could
be upsetting, with reactions ranging from intimidation to open expressions of
resentment.44 A number of witnesses did not recognize former SS men when confronted
with them in court. However, for other witnesses this could also serve as a trigger to
memory.45 The evidence they gave in the witness stand could differ significantly from the
statements made during the investigation. Sometimes witnesses only remembered
certain things after the first questioning and amended or corrected earlier statements.
38 Auschwitz-Prozeß, Das Verfahren, Hauptverfahren, Day 52 (5 June 1964), Witness Hermann Reineck, p. 9925 (see
also AP058.070).
39 One witness, for example, declared that he had signed the protocol of his first questioning out of nervousness even
though it contained significant errors which then had to be corrected through long, repetitive questioning in the
main hearing. Auschwitz-Prozeß, Das Verfahren, Hauptverfahren, Day 110 (12 Nov. 1964), witness Jan Weis,
p. 24445 (AP222.059).
40 FBI/AP, Wiese interview.
41 FBI/AP, Düx interview.
42 Werle and Wanders, Auschwitz, p. 41.
43 See for example, Auschwitz-Prozeß, Das Verfahren, Hauptverfahren, Day 24 (6 March 1964), Judge Hofmeyer at the
beginning of the questioning of witness Hermann Langbein, p. 5337 (AP007.040). See also Werner Renz,
‘Tonbandmittschnitte von NS-Verbrechen als historische Quelle’, in Finger, Keller and Wirsching, Vom Recht zur
Geschichte, pp. 142–53.
44 Wiese, ‘Jurist’, p. 318.
45 See, for example, Auschwitz-Prozeß, Das Verfahren, Hauptverfahren, Day 140 (4 March 1965) witness George
Preston, p. 29954 (AP284.037) and Day 117 (30 Nov. 1964) witness Rudolf Vrba, p. 26399 (AP245.046).The Truth about Auschwitz: Prosecuting Auschwitz Crimes with the Help of Survivor Testimony 353
Yet some witnesses also forgot things after their interview with the prosecutors or the
investigating magistrate, some were unable to relate their experiences coherently or ‘got
caught up in contradictions’.46
Witnesses could be confused by repeated questioning about specific details and by
confrontation with statements made previously, as an exchange between defence counsel
Hans Laternser and Romanian witness Josef Glück during the main hearing exemplifies.
Like Glück, the majority of witnesses did not have German as their mother tongue.
Glück chose to testify in German instead of using the translation service. He described
his deportation from Hungary in 1944 and his arrival by train at the camp in Auschwitz
where he was separated from the other members of his family, including his wife and two
Downloaded from gh.oxfordjournals.org at Vienna University Library on September 1, 2010
children, his mother, his sister and her children, who were all immediately sent to the gas
chamber and killed. Glück claimed to have seen former camp pharmacist Dr Capesius
take part in the ‘selection’ of prisoners. Capesius’ defence counsel Laternser questioned
the witness to clarify the order of events and the exact role the defendant had played.
Defence counsel: How far away did you stand approximately?
Witness: From the ladies?
Counsel: Yes.
Witness: Far.
Counsel: Far?
Witness: Far.
Counsel: Yes. Well, if you will allow me to confront you [vorhalten] with the following?
Witness: Yes, please.
Counsel: Confrontation [Vorhalt] page 10.287, there you stated: ‘After the selection of the men
was over’, so apparently it was different, after all, that first the men were selected and
then the women, differently from what you just stated. Do you remember who was
selected first, men or women? You do not know. So may I confront you again with
something, Mr Witness—you see, it is my duty to do so.
Witness: Yes. Yes, yes. Please.
Counsel: When questioned by the investigating magistrate you stated: ‘first the men’. Then you
said just a short while ago: ‘first the women’. Now I am confronting you with this, now
you are giving your third response: ‘I do not know’. This is why I ask you now, which
answer is the correct one, according to your opinion today?
Witness: All three, please.
Counsel: All three?
Witness: Look, please.
Counsel: All right.
Witness: I do not know which. It can have been possible that it seemed to me like that at that
point. But I know that I saw my wife far away.47
For Glück the significance of this moment lay in the separation from his wife and
family whom he saw for the last time at this moment. When pressured in court he made
contradictory statements regarding the order of events which potentially could lead to
the categorization of his entire testimony as unreliable. A small number of attorneys
went beyond the scope of their duties by attempting to discredit certain witnesses or
46 FBI/AP, Interview Gerhard Wiese, 30 March 1998.
47 Auschwitz-Prozeß, Das Verfahren, Hauptverhandlung, Day 79 (20 Aug. 1964), witness Glück, p. 15184,
(AP118.004).354 Julia Wagner
groups of witnesses for other reasons. They insinuated that witnesses, especially those
from the GDR and countries in Eastern Europe, had conspired and coordinated their
testimony, or accused some witnesses of having unlawfully enriched themselves by
exaggerating expense claims. Such an accusation was rejected by the presiding judge in
the verdict but often led to heated arguments in the courtroom.48
The circumstances in which the witnesses testified in court shaped the content and the
form of their testimony significantly. The witness statements were not open narratives
but were given in response to specific questions posed by the investigators, and later on
during the hearing also by the judges, the joint plaintiffs, the defence counsels and
sometimes by the defendants. This means that themes and structure were to a large
Downloaded from gh.oxfordjournals.org at Vienna University Library on September 1, 2010
extent not determined by the witnesses themselves. The questions were geared towards
their usability in legal argumentation and therefore extremely selective.49 While the
court generally allowed the witnesses to take their time and to tell their story to a large
extent in their own way, a concession which was met with criticism by some defence
counsels,50 some witnesses were interrupted or guided towards the points which were
of particular significance for the court, as we have seen in the case of Josef Glück.
The reasons for this procedure were not transparent to the witnesses. Yet, despite the
regimentation of their narratives, the witnesses’ narratives often eluded the needs of the
court.
Conclusion
When presiding Judge Hans Hofmeyer concluded the trial after twenty months, he stated
that the court had ‘striven to explore the truth’.51 The effort made by the court to
reconstruct the crimes which had been committed at Auschwitz had indeed been
considerable. The court had heard experts and questioned hundreds of witnesses and
considered archival evidence. Members of the court had even travelled to Poland to
survey the site. In terms of evidence the court investigation had almost exclusively relied
on the testimony of former inmates of the concentration camp. Hofmeyer emphasized
that a majority of these witnesses had made an honest effort ‘to tell the absolute truth’;
however there had been many potential sources of error which could have had an impact
on the validity of their statements. He stressed the danger of the possible confusion of
the defendants with other perpetrators, or the projection of their crimes onto them, and
of filling gaps in memory with facts witnesses had learned or read elsewhere. Therefore
48 For example exchange between defense lawyer Hans Laternser and representative of the GDR civil plaintiffs Friedrich
Karl Kaul, Auschwitz-Prozeß, Day 96 (2 Oct. 1964), p. 20142 (AP174028).
49 Rebecca Wittmann, ‘Telling the Story: Survivor Testimony and the Narration of the Holocaust’, GHI Bulletin, 32
(2003), pp. 93–101, here p. 96.
50 In his memoir, attorney Laternser accused the court of having let the ‘foreign’ witnesses elaborate at length about
matters which had nothing to do with the accusations while the ‘German’ witnesses (by which he meant SS wit-
nesses) were treated more strictly. Hans Laternser, Die andere Seite im Auschwitz-Prozeß, 1963/65: Reden eines
Verteidigers (Stuttgart, 1966), p. 34–36.
51 Auschwitz-Prozeß, Das Verfahren, Hauptverfahren, Mündliche Urteilsbegründung des Vorsitzenden Richters, Day
182 (19 Aug. 1965), Urteilsbegründung.The Truth about Auschwitz: Prosecuting Auschwitz Crimes with the Help of Survivor Testimony 355
the court had examined the reliability of survivor testimony carefully. ‘Where there was
the smallest doubt, or confusion could not be excluded in all certainty, the court has not
utilized the statements’. Fewer than half of all statements of survivor witnesses were
therefore referenced as reliable or partially reliable in the verdict, among them those of
Langbein and Kagan. Of Vrba, Hofmeyer said that he had ‘left an excellent and
intelligent impression . . . He made his statement dispassionately, calmly and free of
feelings of hatred or vengeance.’52 Other testimonies, including that of Romanian
witness Glück, were not considered ‘credible enough’ because of a lack of consistency or
because the witness seemed too emotionally involved, and were therefore discarded in
their entirety.53 ‘In the courtroom, truth is established through the testimony of witnesses
Downloaded from gh.oxfordjournals.org at Vienna University Library on September 1, 2010
about what they have seen. The accumulation of evidence leads to a verdict in which it is
decided whether something did or did not happen.’54 Whatever else lay in the grey zone
between the words ‘guilty’ and ‘not guilty’ was formally without relevance and beyond
the scope of the legal effort. However, the real impact of the hearing went far beyond the
punishment or acquittal of the twenty-two defendants. Far more important was that a
German court had investigated and acknowledged the crimes which had happened at
Auschwitz ‘in all clarity’.55
On the individual level, testifying in Frankfurt could also have a far-reaching impact,
as the later reflections of those involved show. Langbein, who had worked for years to
make this trial happen and who had been a key witness in the hearing, noticed a shift in
perspective in his own attitude. When former SS paramedic Josef Klehr was arrested in
Braunschweig early on in the investigation, Langbein was approached to help with
identification. After this encounter Langbein had been unable to sleep. In his dreams he
was haunted by the image of Klehr, ‘not the old Klehr in chains but the much younger
man with the leather gloves.’56 Observing Klehr’s behaviour during the hearing and
seeing him receive a life-sentence meant that Langbein was able to see the former
paramedic in different light. Klehr was no longer seen as the ‘omnipotent terror of the
prison infirmary but as an aged, extremely crude criminal who defended himself
ineptly.’57 For some of the young prosecutors, the experience of bringing Auschwitz
crimes to trial was an important turning point in their lives and careers. While Kügler
described it as ‘life-changing’, he decided not to continue working in the same department
‘because it was simply too much and too much of a strain.’ Later Kügler resigned and
practised as a lawyer.58 Wiese and Düx on the other hand played important roles in
further Nazi crime trials.59
52 Auschwitz-Prozeß, Day 182(19 Aug. 1965) p, 36666 (AP375.015) Urteil im Hauptverfahren, p. 37307, (p. 595 a-59,
439). Source: Justiz und NS-Verbrechen. Sammlung deutscher Strafurteile wegen nationalsozialistischer
Tötungsverbrechen 1945–1966. Bearbeitet von Adelheid L. Rüter-Ehlermann, H.H. Furchs, C.F. Rüter, vol. 21
(Amsterdam, 1979), pp. 381–837.
53 Der Auschwitzprozess, Urteil im Hauptverfahren, Hilfsbeweisanträge, 38062, p. 595 a-278, 658.
54 Wittmann, Beyond Justice, p. 157.
55 Werle and Wanders, Auschwitz, p. 29.
56 Langbein, ‘Angst’, pp. 289–90.
57 Hermann Langbein, People in Auschwitz (trans. Harry Zohn, Chapel Hill and London, 2004), pp. 5–6.
58 Kügler, ‘Leben’, p. 313–34.
59 Düx, ‘Strafverfahren’, p. 278–83.356 Julia Wagner
This article has examined two distinct sets of personal narratives produced at different
times and under highly different conditions, and has related them to each other. In both
cases the sources reported on events which had happened decades earlier. Both the
survivor testimony and the personal narratives of individual prosecutors were therefore
shaped by current considerations and filtered through the norms and requirements
current at the time they were produced. Yet, they reflect entirely different sets of
experiences which converged in the course of the Auschwitz investigations in the early
1960s. The circumstances of production are also very dissimilar, but both types of sources
add to our knowledge about the investigation. The survivors who testified in Frankfurt in
the 1960s reported on the crimes they had witnessed at Auschwitz more than a decade
Downloaded from gh.oxfordjournals.org at Vienna University Library on September 1, 2010
and a half previously. In many cases these events had cost the lives of family members and
friends, and had disrupted their own lives and subjected them to violence and terror. These
experiences had often left them traumatized and many had not confronted their memories
of Auschwitz or sought to reconstruct them in a systematic way prior to giving evidence in
Frankfurt. For some survivors this was an occasion to ‘bear witness’ which they embraced,
while others preferred to abstain or needed convincing. It is important to consider the
influence of the setting on survivor testimony, including that of the prosecutors or the
investigating magistrate who interviewed the witnesses and decided who would appear in
court. The evidence given by survivors was, as we have seen, problematic in many ways for
the prosecutors during the investigation and later also for the judges and the jury. While
the historian may have other questions in mind than deciding about the guilt of the
defendants, he or she is confronted with many of the same issues Hofmeyer mentioned in
his verdict. However, bearing in mind its limitations, the testimony given by survivors is
nevertheless a rich source not only for the crimes which happened at Auschwitz but in
particular for illuminating the process of how they were investigated and prosecuted.
To understand the activities of the justice personnel, their perspectives, their mentality
and the conditions of their work more fully, this article also drew upon the personal
narratives of the investigators. Despite the specific limitation of sources of this nature,
such personal narratives can give an idea of the difficult circumstances in which
investigations of Nazi trials took place in the 1950s and 1960s and how those conducting
them coped. They show both the strain which was placed on the investigators working
under Fritz Bauer and their extraordinary commitment. Attempts to sabotage the
investigation and their personal dedication led the investigators constantly to assert the
necessity of remaining completely independent and of restricting the influence of others.
This desire for objectivity and independence stood in conflict with the dependence on
information which only survivors and survivor organizations could provide. These
antagonistic forces thus shaped the dynamics of the ambivalent relationship between the
prosecution and organizations such as those represented by Hermann Langbein. The
dynamics of the dealings with Langbein also highlight how differing concepts of truth and
justice, which were reflected in the different sets of experiences and perspectives, clashed
both during the investigation and in the courtroom.
Abstract
Based on oral history interviews and autobiographical texts, this article explores how the prosecution at
the district court in Frankfurt am Main investigated crimes which had been committed in the largest NaziThe Truth about Auschwitz: Prosecuting Auschwitz Crimes with the Help of Survivor Testimony 357
concentration and extermination camp. In constructing their case the investigators relied to a large extent
on the testimony of survivor witnesses. Previous historians of the first Auschwitz trial have noted that both
the provisions of the legal code and the sensationalizing agendas of the media acted to shape the images of
Auschwitz which circulated in public as a result of the trial. An examination of personal narratives relating to
the trial shows that there were additional factors in operation. They provide insights into the self-images,
perspectives and mentalities of the prosecutors working on the case. Ultimately they help us to gain a better
understanding of the context, character and constraints of these criminal procedures. As the commitment
or indifference of prosecutors could have a huge impact on the progress of criminal investigations, shifting
the focus to the prosecutors poses in a new way the question of how the individuals interacted with their
historical context and how they reflected on it. The attitudes and behaviour of the prosecutors also influ-
enced the testimony of witnesses and their representations in court. The choice of questions by the prosecu-
tors therefore determined which memories were of interest; their attitudes and behaviour towards the
Downloaded from gh.oxfordjournals.org at Vienna University Library on September 1, 2010
witnesses made an impact on the situation of the interview and influenced how the narratives of the
witnesses were shaped.
Keywords: Auschwitz, Auschwitz trial, Nazi crimes, justice, Holocaust survivors, testimony,
ego-documents
University College, London
julia.s.wagner@web.deYou can also read
