Langbein Hermann. People in Auschwitz
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
eration whether he regretted this, the adolescent replied, ‘‘Well, why should I?
Was there another way of surviving?’’
It mayhave been examples of this kind thatled Hannah Arendt tothis harsh
conclusion: because the ss entangled its victims in its crimes, the inmates
were forced to make ethical decisions that became absolutely questionable
and ambiguous. By way of a rebuttal I shall quote what Margit Teitelbaum
wrote about Maria Nowaczek, her block elder in the hkb: ‘‘With her help we
were able to save the lives of many comrades at selections by substituting for
the number of a selectee that of a moribund or already deceased woman. No-
waczek saved my own life by hiding me during a selection.’’ She added that
Nowaczek shared her food parcels with the inmates, including Jews. Some
people who onlyobserved Nowaczek escorting through her block an ss physi-
cian making selections might believe that she allowed herself to be degraded
into a tool of the murderers. And how many continued to help despite all the
discouragement!
Polish physicians diagnosed tb in the right lung of Bartosz Oziemkowski,
a young Pole. ‘‘They managed to add me to the personnel of the infirmary as a
gatekeeper,’’ wrote Oziemkowski two decades later. ‘‘Every week they secretly
gave me a pneumothorax. One physician guarded the door and another stood
in front of the block, for if Klehr had found out that I was tubercular, hewould
surely have given me a lethal injection.’’
Even if there were only these examples, blanket judgments like Hannah
Arendt’s would have to be rejected. However, many more have become known
and even more have remained unknown, be it because the saved were killed
on another occasion or because they never learned whom theyowed their lives
to. Again and again, I hear from former prisoners words of thanks for nurses
without whose help they would not have been able to leave Auschwitz alive.
Many of the nurses have remained anonymous, and the inmates they saved
remember at most their first names.
n The prisoners who became generally known, however, were those who had
been entrusted with the function of a camp elder in the hkb and always had
to maintain a dangerous balance between the duties expected of such func-
tionaries by the camp administration and the human obligations of someone
who was better off and had some influence. They could not put the trust of
their superiors, the ss men, on the line because if they lost it they forfeited
all chances to help. If, however, they lost the trust of their fellow prisoners,
they were soon isolated, able to rely only on their power and the masters from
whom this power was derived.Thecamp administration expected them to par-
ticipate in its program of extermination, and their fellow prisoners expected
their help in surviving those killings.
214 n the prisoners
The leadership of the hkb was observed closely and extremely critically. In
Auschwitz and afterward, I learned a great deal about the camp elders. I have
never heard or read anything negative about two of them: Orli Reichert-Wald,
the German camp elder in the hkb of the women’s camp, and Wladyslaw
Fejkiel, the last camp elder in the hkb of the main camp.
Orli was a young girl when she was arrested in the spring of 1936 for her
activities in an illegal youth organization, and after serving a prison sentence
shewas taken to the Ravensbrück concentration camp and then transferred to
Auschwitz with the first women’s transport. Many survivors have emphasized
that despite her high position in the camp she never forgot that Nazism was
the common enemy of all prisoners, and that she helped wherever she could.
The most impressive testimonial is an incident described by Jeanne Juda. After
the evacuation of Auschwitz, Juda was transferred together with other women
to Malchow, a labor camp that was part of Ravensbrück. Some time later Orli
also came to that camp. ‘‘The girls were delighted and cheered: ‘Our Orli is
with us again!’’’ If an inmate functionary who had abused his authority en-
countered a former subordinate again in another camp and did not have an
armband as a symbol of power and protection, he received a different recep-
tion. Juda has made this concise judgment: ‘‘I know of no other functionary
who remained as humane as Orli did.’’
Fejkiel has explained why he, like Orli, is judged differently from the other
camp elders: ‘‘Compared to my predecessors, I was in a better situation be-
cause I was able to count on the support of a broad community irrespective
of nationality. The international resistance organization and other groups of
prisoners supported me.’’ It is the great merit of these two camp elders that
they solicited that support and integrated themselves into the organization
in comradely fashion. They were able to withstand all temptations associated
with the ‘‘Führer role’’ that the ss intended them to play.
It was not easy for Fejkiel to decide to accept the armband and the burden
of a camp elder. In January 1944 an influential Pole and I tried to persuade
him to hold that office. I promised him my support and told him that the ss
garrison physician approved of his candidacy for the position that had been
vacant since Dering’srelease from the camp.‘‘I admit that these conversations
surprised and disturbed me,’’ writes Fejkiel. ‘‘I knew that I would be able to
count on the support of a broad community of prisoners, regardless of their
nationality. On the other hand, I was well aware of the tension in the camp and
the infirmary, and because of this the position of camp elder hardly seemed
attractive to me. I knew that someone in that position could do a great deal
of good, especially if the support of numerous inmates could be counted on.
But I also knew that clashes with the camp authorities were unavoidable and
that they might send me to the bunker again. I had every reason to assume
The Inmate Infirmary n 215
that there would then be no road back for me. After weighing all these fac-
tors, I was resolved to resist this appointment.’’ Then, however, the informer
Olpinski, whom he knew all too well, asked to speak with him. ‘‘Olpinski in-
formed me that the commandant’s office had just invited him to take over the
position of camp elder in the infirmary, and he wanted to hear my opinion.’’
Fejkiel congratulated him. ‘‘At the same time I decided not to resist any more
but to accept the appointment. I realized that the Gestapo wanted to tighten
its control over the infirmary with the aid of its best agent, and that could not
be permitted.’’
Fejkiel was the first Pole in a high position who endeavored to moderate
both an extreme Polish nationalism and the anti-Semitism among the staff of
the hkb.
n The first camp elder in the hkb appointed by the camp administration was
a Green who had been transferred from Sachsenhausen together with the first
thirty German inmates in order to fill positions in the newly established camp.
HansBock was presumably fromWestphaliaand is said tohave been convicted
of embezzlement. Emil de Martini, who served as a block elder under Bock,
has said this about him: ‘‘He was not a bad man. He never beat an inmate or
screamed at one. He helped patients to the best of his ability.’’
Tadeusz Kosmider has not forgotten that Bock once saved him from a pun-
ishment by the ss that could easily have cost him his life. When Igor Bistric,
the clerk in the hkb, came down with diarrhea in the summer of 1942, Bock
procured opiates and a special diet for him. This deed can be properly evalu-
ated only if one considers that Bistric was a Jew and that it was unusual and
evendangeroustohelpa Jewat thattime. Fejkielbelievesit is greatly to Block’s
credit that despite the prohibition then in force he put inmate physicians to
work in the hkb, and he characterizes him as follows: ‘‘He was not a bad
person, although a primitive man, rather loyal to the ss. He had certain ‘weak-
nesses’ that strained the situation in the infirmary to a great extent. He was
a morphine addict and an admirer of young fellows whom he gathered round
him and, even worse, entrusted with responsible positions in the infirmary.’’
I can confirm that I never saw Bock give a beating or heard him scream.
Quiet and bent on preserving his authority, he did his job in a rather obscure
fashion. He reminded me of a sly fox who shunted persons whom he sensed
to be dangerous off to Birkenau or a satellite camp and who had good rela-
tions with others who could be useful to him. When he noticed that as the
clerk of the ss garrison physician I had a certain influence on Wirths, Bock
was friendlyand helpful to mewhen this was not difficult for him. I associated
with him whenever this seemed useful to me. Bock’s weaknesses bothered me
insofar as they inhibited him from taking a risk. For example, he did not sup-
216 n the prisoners
port mewhen he noticed that I was gathering material against ss medic Klehr.
Evidently that man, who terrorized the infirmary, knew too much about him,
and Bock shied away from coming in conflict with him.
Eventually Bock was geplatzt (busted), as they said in the camp. The Politi-
cal Department started a big investigation after his addiction and his affairs
with young fellows had been revealed. The young Poles were locked up in the
bunker, and Bock was transferred to Monowitz as a block elder and later to
the satellite camp Lagischa as camp elder in the hkb. In this case, too, the
camp administration did not completely drop a tried and tested German in-
mate functionary. Bock later died of drug poisoning. He may be regarded as
an example of the type of functionary who, while not accepting the inhumane
camp regulations, used his position of power primarily to obtain treats and
palliatives for himself. For a vip in the hkb, it was not difficult to ‘‘organize’’
narcotics, and Bock was not the only one who did so. The general demoral-
ization encouraged many to use drugs. In the end Bock became a prisoner of
his weaknesses, and as a consequence his good will could assert itself only in
a limited way. It is to the credit of Dr. Wirths, the ss garrison physician, that
Bock remained the only top functionary in an hkb who wore a green triangle.
n Peter Welsch, who was from the same region as Bock, wore the red triangle
of a political prisoner. He was a riveter and fitter who had been arrested as
early as 1933 for planning an act of high treason and had been transferred
to Auschwitz from Sachsenhausen with the second transport of inmate func-
tionaries. He took Bock’s place, and in contrastto him acquired thereputation
of a strict superior. I have mentioned earlier that he was the first inmate who
killed patients at the behest of the ss by injecting them with phenol. Bock,
who did not get along with Welsch, saw to it that the latter was transferred to
Birkenau in March 1942 as camp elder in the newly opened hkb. The French
physician André Lettich met him there and has testified that Welsch person-
ally ‘‘selected hundreds and thousands of our comrades for the gas chamber’’
and that he had a twenty-two-year-old Pole as his assistant.
Alex Rosenstock, who worked in the Birkenau dental clinic, and thus had
a good opportunity to observe events, confirms that Welsch made selections
independently. He believes he remembers the name of his young protégé,
Jakowski,who is said to have raged even more ferociously than his master and
friend. Désiré Haffner, a French physician, writes that metal worker Welsch
boasted of having performed a few dozen amputations. This sort of thing, to
be sure, was almost the norm in the concentration camps. For a long time
the ss had barred inmate physicians from working in the infirmaries. (That
Auschwitz was different in this respect is to the credit of the ss garrison
physician, Dr. Wirths.) The inexperienced attendants were forced to impro-
The Inmate Infirmary n 217
vise. Quite a few of them gained so much self-confidence and adopted the
depreciation of all intellectuals displayed by the ss to such an extent that they
opposed the employment of physicians even after the camp administration
had relaxed its prohibition.
Welsch was locked up in the bunker in February 1943. He probably did
not resume his position in the hkb after his release, though he remained
in Auschwitz until November 1944. Welsch embodied the type of political
prisoner who wore an armband and became a tool of the ss. If his activities
are compared with Bock’s, one is clearly reminded of how inaccurate it is to
make generalizations like ‘‘the Green functionaries were bad and theRed ones
good.’’
Former inmates have even more negative memories of another functionary
in the Birkenau infirmary who also did not have a criminal past. Dr. Zenon
Zenkteller came from Poznan and was a Polish army physician with the rank
of colonel. As an informant of the ss and the leading inmate physician, he
became the most powerful man in the hkb of Birkenau. ‘‘We accepted being
beaten by locksmiths,’’ writes Dr. Lettich with reference to Welsch, ‘‘by bar-
bers or criminals. But that a physician in his fifties gave the most brutal beat-
ings to his youngercolleagues and even sent them to the gas chamber seemed
aparticularly repugnant crime to us.’’ Lettich’s compatriotandcolleague Haff-
ner shows restraint in calling Zenkteller’s brutality toward patients and physi-
cians one of his bitterest disappointments. On one occasion Zenkteller gave
Vilo Jurkovic a ‘‘real slap in the face,’’ even though he was a nurse with an old
number. The reason? ‘‘He didn’t like the way I spoke to him.’’
Judgments about this man are virtually unanimous. ‘‘The Polish inmate
physician Dr. Zenkteller had a remarkable way of making a diagnosis,’’ write
Kraus and Kulka. ‘‘He faced the line of inmates who had reported that they
were sick. Each one had to drop his pants, and if this was not done fast
enough, Dr. Zenkteller helped by slapping faces. If he saw soiled underpants,
he diagnosed the patient as suffering from dysentery, took down his number,
and sent him to Block 7 in the campBIb,wheretheinmategotnothingto
eat.’’ That block was the ‘‘waiting room for death’’ described by Lettich and
Gawalewicz.
Alex Rosenstock calls Zenkteller a sadist who hit people indiscriminately,
and not just when an ssman was around. Adolf Weiß told me thatZenkteller’s
beatings were worse than anycapo’s. Czeslaw Mordowicz observed how Zenk-
teller gave patients who were being admitted a beating and then asked them,
‘‘Are you healthy now?’’ Otto Wolken, a physician, was once beaten so badly
by an ss man that he thought he might have some broken ribs. When he came
to the infirmary, Zenkteller asked him: ‘‘What’s wrong with you?’’ Wolken re-
plied that he thought he had two broken ribs, whereupon Zenkteller barked
218 n the prisoners
at him: ‘‘Get out of here or I’ll break two more for you!’’ According to Wolken,
there was no ss man around whom Zenkteller might have wanted to impress
with his energy.
In 1944 Zenkteller temporarily took the position of camp elder in section
B II f,which served as an infirmary at the time, because the camp elder was ill.
The block physician Alfred Fiderkiewicz reports that Zenkteller beat both dor-
mitory orderlies and patients: ‘‘In an effort to please the ss physician, he bel-
lowed and sent convalescents to the labor camp. When I protested, he threat-
ened me with the ss physician.’’
Many—including Czeslaw Mordowicz, MendelEisenbach, Adolf Weiß, and
Alfred Wetzler—have testified that Zenkteller also selected patients for gas-
sing. To be sure, the selections observed by them were started by ss men and
then completed by Zenkteller. Alex Rosenstock recalls that Zenkteller partici-
pated in deciding who was to die. Dawid Szmulewski confirms that during a
diarrhea epidemic Zenkteller himself selected Dutch Jews with soiled under-
pants fordeath in the gas chamber. Only Franz Kejmar, a formercapo, assured
me that at his request Zenkteller removed some names from a list of selectees.
When I questioned him about this, Kejmar said that ‘‘he did this without any
bribe.’’
Even though Adolf Weiß emphasized that Zenkteller’s every other word
was Saujud (Jewish swine), anti-Semitism cannot have been the only force that
drove this agingarmy physiciantosuch excesses. Many survivorshave testified
that he treated everyone with equal brutality. Rosenstock knows that Zenk-
teller treated capos badly as well and made an exception only with those at the
top of the inmate hierarchy. A statement by Rosenstock points to another fac-
tor that may have occasioned Zenkteller’s conduct: ‘‘Mengele and the other ss
physicians had respect for Zenkteller.’’ Perhaps Zenkteller sought this respect
in order to feel validated even in the garb of a prisoner without rights.
When Bock had been ‘‘busted’’ as a camp elder in March 1943, the ss garri-
son physician chose for the first time an inmate with the red triangle of a
‘‘political’’ for the influential top position in the hkb of the main camp. The
Bavarian Ludwig Wörl had attracted his attention because as a camp elder he
had displayed great energy in establishing the hkb in the newly built labor
camp Monowitz. Wörl, born in 1906, was arrested as a communist on May 6,
1934, and takento Dachau,wherehehad a hard timeuntil hereceived a leader-
ship position in the inmate infirmary. I remember the vigor with which he
always fought for patients and against abuses, as well as his sensitivity and
Bavarian pigheadedness.
His meritorious efforts in the development of the hkb in Monowitz have
elicited general praise. He not only placed his great energy in the service of
the patients entrusted to his care but prevailed on the authorities to employ
The Inmate Infirmary n 219
Jews from the Buchenwald transport as nurses in the Monowitz infirmary.
Astheheadofthehkb in the main camp, Wörl had to deal with difficul-
ties of another kind, and he was not equipped for them in equal measure. It
was not a matter of building a new infirmary but of collaborating in an estab-
lished hkb with experienced, self-confident Polish nurses and physicians,
‘‘Aryans’’ whom the ss regarded as suitable even for top positions, especially
since ss physicians evaluated some of them as qualified medical men. Wörl,
who had been trained as a medic but derived his experience from his years of
work in the Dachau inmate infirmary, felt superior to medical men, and he
reacted angrily when he was contradicted or met with silent refusal. Fejkiel
writes:
There is no doubt that the communist inmates from Dachau did a great
deal to improve conditions in the infirmary. On the other hand, it must be
noted that some of them, especially Wörl, a very honest man, took a num-
ber of careless and sometimes harmful measures. This was caused by the
habits of old nurses with camp experience who thought that on the basis
of their long service they were the equal of the physicians, something that
often gave rise to deplorable incidents. After one of those incidents, the
PoleDr.Rudolf Diem,atrustyof thecamp,hadto leavetheinfirmary.These
admittedly rare clashes with the physicians were grist for the ss camp ad-
ministration’s mill, for they undermined the inmates’ unity and power of
resistance.
I have to agree with Fejkiel to the extent that Wörl did not have enough
knowledge of human nature to differentiate among the Poles on the infir-
mary staff. He did see through the bad elements, those who had been able
to get ahead under Bock, and loathed the anti-Semites who occupied influ-
ential positions, but he disregarded those Polish nurses and physicians who
were well-intentioned. With his support they would have been better able to
combat all grievances than he was. After all, as Poles they would have had
a better chance to succeed with their compatriots than any German inmate
functionary, who was distrusted simply because of his nationality. Unfortu-
nately, Wörl did not take the advice of the resistance movement in the camp.
He did have contact with it but was not ready to involve himself in it, as Fejkiel
did at a later date.
As regards the differences between Wörl and Diem, I cannot agree with
Fejkiel. No matter how courageously Diem may have helped many compa-
triots, the influence that he exerted as an anti-Semite led to harmful results,
given his key position as a physician in the Outpatient Department. In my
view,Wörl cannot be blamed for removing Diem from his important position;
I think the opposite. To be sure, I cannot approve of the method employed by
220 n the prisoners
Wörl; he cast suspicions on Diem, and the Political Department locked him
up in the bunker.
At a later date Dr. Wirths called Commandant Liebehenschel’s attention
to Wörl, and he was appointed the first Red camp elder for the entire main
camp. He did many positive things in this position as well, and no one has
denied that he was a man of goodwill. His courageous interventions on behalf
of the Jews, the pariahs of the camp, are altogether praiseworthy. The reason
for his failure in this position after a short time is that he was not able to cope
with the dilemma faced by every top functionary. He did not want to become
a tool of the camp administration, and he never became one, but he did not
seek and find a way of gaining the confidence of responsible fellow prisoners
who had the experience and influence to help him. Thus he was soon isolated
and no match for the intrigues of malevolent people. The camp administra-
tion shunted him off to a satellite camp, and as camp elder in Günthergrube
he made an important contribution to the normalization of conditions in that
labor camp.
Wörl embodied the type of German prisoner that could be found in all
camps. Before being arrested he had lived in modest circumstances, and after
the liberation he resumed that lifestyle. In the camp he was given far greater
power than he had ever had. The ss had made him a ‘‘Führer,’’ and he did not
have the strength to resist all the temptations offered by the Führer principle
to those who were lifted out of the mass. Because he resolutely refused to de-
scendtothelevelofatoolofthess,hewasnotabletoretainitsfavor.Inhis
dealings with fellow prisoners, however, he asserted his authority as soon as
he felt inadequatelyappreciated by them,not because they were ill intentioned
but because they did not share his opinion on some question.
n Wladyslaw Dering, a Polish surgeon, received the armband of a camp elder
in the hkb as Wörl’s successor. When Wörl was locked in the bunker by the
Political Department in late 1943, the ss garrison physician was not able to
solicit my advice on candidates for this key function, as he had done before
Wörl and Fejkiel were appointed, for I had been taken to the bunker together
with Wörl. He had heard good things about Dering from the ss camp physi-
cianswhom hehad trainedin general surgeryand who appreciatedhis medical
ability and his self-confidence.When Wirths appointed Dering camp elder, he
brokewith a taboo that barred physicians from being heads of infirmaries and
according to Kogon was in force in all other concentration camps until the
very end.
Dering,who was born in 1903 and arrived in Auschwitz in mid-August 1940
on the first transport from Warsaw, originally had a good reputation. He used
his position as the physician in charge of the surgical section and his contacts
The Inmate Infirmary n 221
with ss physicians to help many of his compatriots. However, he forfeited his
good reputation when he participated in the sterilization experiments of Pro-
fessor Clauberg and Horst Schumann. In order to determine the success of
these experiments, the ovaries or testicles of the victims were removed after
the surgery. Since neither Clauberg nor Schumann wanted to go to the oper-
ating room every day and Schumann was not even qualified to perform such
operations, they looked for an inmate surgeon whom they could rely on, for
afteraprocedure a surgeon’s work can be checked onlyto a verylimited extent.
They came upon Dering, who had been recommended to them as a proven
specialist.
At that time Dering’s position was such that he could have refused to par-
ticipate without putting his life or his job at risk. This is confirmed by Dr.
Samuel Steinberg, who testified on February 5, 1945, that Dering told him
he had once given an inmate an injection on orders from Dr. Entress with-
out knowing what was in it. The inmate died after a few seconds. ‘‘When he
saw that the inmate was dead,’’ writes Steinberg, ‘‘he was frightened and said
that he would never give injections again.’’ This refusal, which had no con-
sequences for Dering, must have been voiced in 1941 because subsequently
everyone in the hkb knew what poison the ss used for injections. Two years
later Dering’s positionwasfarmore secure thanithadbeen in theearlyperiod,
and therefore a refusal entailed less risk than before. Dering, however, did
not refuse, for he was an anti-Semite and the experiments were being made
on Jewish women and men. Before this time Dering’s attitude had had little
practical effect because seriously ill Jews reached the operating table only in
exceptional cases; they were injected or gassed. Clauberg skillfully promoted
Dering’s compliance by promising that he would fight for his release.
Eventually Dering participated in the human experiments with all his
strength; in fact, he set (and boasted about) speed records in his operations
and went so faras to use unsterilized instruments. His arrogantly anti-Semitic
attitude toward the victims has been attested to by survivors. When an inmate
whose testicles were to be removed protested against this procedure, Dering
lit into him: ‘‘Stop yapping like a dog; you’ve got to die anyway.’’
At first I had a tolerable relationship with Dering, but it was abruptly de-
stroyed. One day he laughingly showed me a tobacco pouch in the corridor
of the block that housed the surgical section and asked me whether I noticed
anything special about it. I didn’t. ‘‘Take a close look. It has no seam. Have
you ever seen such a pouch without a seam?’’ Dering proudly told me how he
had obtained this rare object. He had had the scrotum of a victim of the ster-
ilization experiments stuffed and tanned. That day marked the rupture of any
friendship between us, though I had to guard against telling him my opinion
frankly; Dering was too powerful, and the suspicion of being a friend of the
222 n the prisoners
Jews was too dangerous. I was not the only person to whom Dering showed
his pouch at that time.
Dering’s further career developed in logical fashion. Since he knew that
the Political Department had the last word when it came to releases from the
camp, he gave it information. On May 16, 1945, when his memories were still
fresh, Dr. Erwin Valentin testified that Dering as camp elder abruptly pre-
sented a Jewish physician named Zelnner and a nurse to the camp physician;
whereupon the two had to get into a Sanka (Sanitätskraftwagen, or ambulance),
and the clerks were ordered to write theirdeath certificate.Valentin added that
Dering did not like those two men. ‘‘Aryans’’ were also victims of Dering’s
whims; Kazimierz Czelny remembers that on one occasion Dering kicked his
father, a compatriot and colleague of Dering’s. Dr.Tadeusz Paczula has given
this cautious and apt characterization of his compatriot: ‘‘Dering had an aver-
sion to Jews, was full of himself, and loved boasting about his successes.’’
In January 1944 Dering reached his goal: he was released and signed a con-
tract to work in Clauberg’s clinic at Königshütte. ‘‘I saw him leave the camp
with two big suitcases,’’ writes Dr. Alina Brewda.
Dering’s further fate is not without a certain tragic quality. In Warsaw
friends from Auschwitz warned him against a Jewish committee that was in-
vestigating war criminals and also looking for him. His friends helped him
leave the country in the summer of 1945. At first he hid out in British colo-
nies in Africa, where he was so successful as a physician that he received a
high decoration. When his wife learned about his actions in Auschwitz, she
divorced him. Years later Dering, emboldened by the recognition of his work
in Africa, dared to move to London, and he remarried there. All went well and
no one inquired about his past, but then Leon Uris’s book Exodus appeared; in
it there was a brief statement about Dering’s participation in the sterilization
experiments. His second wife read this, but Dering denied that he had been
involved in the human experiments in Auschwitz. She made her husband sue
Uris for libel. Uris was prepared to provide documentary proof of his state-
ment, and in spring 1964 a London court investigated Dering’s activities in a
lengthy and widely noticed trial. Among the witnesses were fourteen persons
who had been operated on by Dering as part of the sterilization experiments.
Dering was morally condemned. Because the number of operations cited by
Uriswas considerablylargerthan could be documented, the physicianreceived
compensation for the insult to his honor, but the jury found a halfpenny suf-
ficient. Dering died shortly afterward, a broken man.
n Deringwas not the only person with whom thecourts had to concern them-
selves after the liberation because of anti-Semitic acts in the camp.
The Pole Stefan Budziaszek was much younger than Dering; he was still a
The Inmate Infirmary n 223