Langbein Hermann. People in Auschwitz
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
all its side effects did not simply pass over those who participated in it. I sup-
pose that with few exceptions these events gave pause to all those who had
been ordered to do this monstrous ‘work’ and ‘duty,’ including myself, and
left deep impressions on them.’’
The contradiction between these statements cannot be explained by the
fact that Höß made the one just cited with a view to offering extenuating cir-
cumstances in his forthcoming trial, for he also gave the earlier statement to
his examining magistrate. Rather, in both instances Höß appears to be en-
deavoring to paint a self-portrait that resembles the ideal type of the ss.On
the one hand he sees himself as a man of blind obedience who ‘‘never really
wasted much thought’’ on the substance of the Führer’s orders, and on the
other hand he endeavors to resemble the model of an officer who has to set an
example for his troops, especially in carrying out ‘‘hard’’ orders even if those
procedures give him pause.
This endeavor is also expressed in the following paragraph from his notes:
‘‘During my inspections of the extermination facilities many of those involved
often came up to me and used me as an outlet for their impressions and de-
pressions, to have me reassure them. In theirconfidential conversations I kept
hearing this question: Is it necessary to annihilate hundreds of thousands of
women and children? And I, who deep inside me posed this question to my-
self countless times, had to put them off with the Führer’s orders, had to tell
them that the extermination of the Jews was necessary to rid Germany and
our descendants of our toughest adversaries for all time.’’
Faithfully following Himmler, Höß took refuge in comfortable self-pity as
he continued.
The Führer’s order was unalterable for all of us, and the ss had to obey
it.Yet secret doubts gnawed at everyone, and I could not acknowledge mine
under any circumstances. To compel those involved to persevere emotion-
ally, I had to show that I was firmly convinced of the necessity to carry out
this cruellyhard order. All eyes were on me.What impression did the scenes
I have described make on me and how did I react to them? I was closely
observed in that regard, and my every statement was discussed. I had to
keep myself under strict control to avoid revealing my inner doubts and
depressions in my agitation about something I had just experienced. I had
to appear cold and heartless at procedures that wrenched the heart of any-
one who still had human feelings. I could not even turn around when all
too human emotions welled up in me but had to look on coldly as mothers
went to the gas chambers with their laughing or crying children.
I had to watch everything that went on. Day or night I had to watch the
corpses being carried and burned; for hours on end I had to watch how
304 n the jailers
teeth were broken out and hair was cut off; all those horrible things. I even
had to stand there for hours when bodies were exhumed from the mass
graves and burned—a ghastly process that produced a dreadful smell. Be-
cause the physicians drew my attention to it I even had to look at death
itself through a peephole in the gas chamber. I had to do all this because I
was the one that everyone looked to, because I had to showeverybody that I
not only gave the orders and made the arrangements but also was prepared
to be present everywhere, as I required of those under my command.
A person who might under different circumstances have become a consci-
entious postmaster was enabled by a perverted sense of duty and an equally
perverse self-pity, developed according to Himmler’s prescription, to be the
commandant of an extermination camp. And one has to say that what Höß
said is true: he really was always on the move in Auschwitz, and the camps
occupied him far less than the killing facilities.
n One should not view Höß merely as a highly placed executive agent. In a
Führer state the head of an extermination camp is authorized to make deci-
sions. Höß himself said that Himmler delegated important decisions to his
subordinates. Here is Höß’s account, in bureaucratic language, of the di-
lemma he faced because of conflictingorders.Theinitialsstandforthefollow-
ing: rfss, Reichsführer ss, that is, Himmler; rsha, Reichssicherheitshaupt-
amt (Reich Security Central Office), which was responsible for deportations
to the extermination camps; wvha, Wirtschafts- und Verwaltungshauptamt
(ss Economic and Administrative Central Office). Höß writes:
In accordance with the rfss order of summer 1941, all Jews were to be
exterminated. The rsha raised serious objections when the rfss at Pohl’s
suggestion ordered that those fit for work be exempted. The rsha has
always been in favor of the complete elimination of all Jews and regarded
every thousand newly arrived able-bodied Jews as a danger, fearing that
some circumstances might keep them alive and eventually liberate them.
There probably was no office that was more interested in seeing a rise in the
death rate of Jews than the Jewish section of the rsha. On the other hand,
Pohl had been ordered by the rfss to have as many inmates as possible
work in arms factories. Hence he regarded it as imperative that the greatest
possible number of inmates be provided, including Jews fit for work taken
from the transports destined forextermination. He also attached the great-
est importance to the preservation of these laborers, though he had little
success in that regard. Thus the rsha and wvha held diametrically op-
posed views. Pohl seemed to be stronger, for the rfss stood behind him,
and, compelled by his promises to the Führer, Himmler demanded ever
The Commandant n 305
more urgently inmates for the armament industry. On the other hand, the
rfss also wanted to have as many Jews as possible destroyed....
The concentration camps were midway between the rsha and the
wvha.Thersha supplied inmates with the ultimate aim of having them
annihilated; it did not care whether this was done immediately through
executions or gas chambers, or somewhat more slowly through epidemics
(caused by the untenable conditions in the camps, which were deliberately
left unaddressed). The wvha, on the other hand, wanted to preserve the
inmates for the arms factories.
ElsewhereHöß wrote as followsabout ssLieutenant General HeinrichMül-
ler, Eichmann’s boss in the rsha: ‘‘My personal interventions with him to put
the brakes on the campaigns (deportations to the extermination camps) so
that bad conditions could be rectified were never successful because he always
hid behind the strict orders of the rfss: ‘‘The campaigns ordered must be
carried out relentlessly!’’ I tried everything in this regard, but in vain, even
though in many matters I got through to him in ways others could never have
done.Today (November 1946) I believe that they did not want to improve con-
ditions in Auschwitz in order to maximize the effect of those campaigns in a
cold way.’’
It is plausible that Höß attempted to get Müller to ease up on the exter-
mination campaigns, and there are documents that confirm his account of
the rsha’s policy. However, while others, such as Dr. Eduard Wirths, the ss
garrison physician, used the conflicting orders to put the brakes on the ma-
chinery of destruction, Höß was only put off by the clash of authorities. He
continued his account as follows:
The selection of Jews fit for work had to be done by ss physicians. On a
number of occasions, however, this was done also by leaders of the protec-
tive custody camp or the Labor Assignment Office without my knowledge
or permission. This always caused friction between ss physicians and the
heads of the Labor Assignment Office. A conflict arose between the views
of the leaders of Auschwitz, and it was always fed by the conflicting in-
terpretation of the rfss’s order by the highest authorities in Berlin. For
reasons of security the rsha (Müller, Eichmann) had the greatest inter-
est in destroying as many Jews as possible. The Reich physician ss,who
gave the ssphysicians guidelines for the selections,was of the opinion that
only fully able-bodied Jews should be selected for work because weaker,
elderly, and only partially able Jews would in a short time become unfit for
work,worsen the alreadyoverstrainedstateof health, causean unnecessary
proliferation of infirmaries that would require additional medical person-
nel and medicines, and would in any case have to be killed eventually. The
306 n the jailers
wvha (Pohl, Maurer) had an interest in preserving the greatest possible
number of workers for the arms industry even if they later became unfit
for work. These conflicting interests were exacerbated by the immeasur-
ably rising demand of the Ministry of Armaments or the Organisation Todt
for inmate labor. The rfss kept making these organizations promises of
numbers of workers that could never be fulfilled. ss Colonel (Standarten-
führer) Maurer now had the difficult task of meeting the constant demands
of these offices in some fashion, and he goaded the heads of the Labor As-
signment Office into preserving as many workers as possible. It was not
possible to obtain a clear decision from the rfss.
The confused situation was exploited by each person in line with his atti-
tude. The ss garrison physician did what he could to put the brakes on the
extermination; despite the urging of his superior, Hermann Maurer, Max Sell,
the head of the Labor Assignment Office, did his best to accelerate the ma-
chineryof destruction; and whentechnicaldifficulties threatened theprogram
of extermination, Höß improvised and staked his whole authority on getting
his subordinates to act in his spirit, whereas Liebehenschel limited himself to
carrying out orders.
Despite Himmler’s silence Höß received unmistakable signals. Only three
ss men in Auschwitz received the wartime Distinguished Service Cross with
Swords, a decoration for special bravery in the face of the enemy. The recipi-
ents were Otto Moll, who was in charge of the gas chambers; Josef Klehr, who
administered the largest number of poison injections and later became chief
of the ‘‘disinfectors,’’ who had to insert the poison gas; and Höß himself.
These decorations were an unmistakable indication that Himmler approved
of the three men’s zeal, and at the same time it underscored the fiction that
mass murder in Auschwitz was the equivalent of frontline service.
n When Eichmann recorded the story of his life in Argentina, he talked about
Höß and Himmler:
I learned from Höß that his work, part of which was the extermination
of adversaries, made him suffer as a human being. One time, when we
were sitting in his home (with ss natural wood furniture, clean and simple,
homeyand nice, as Eichmann describedit elsewhere), Höß told me that the
rfss had visited the kz Auschwitz a few days previously and had looked
at everything, including the physical destruction of our adversaries from
gassing to burning. Höß was also present when Himmler told the ss men:
‘‘Theseare battles thatourcominggenerations will nolongerhave tofight.’’
Höß told me that these words assured not only his men but also him that
this intrinsically hard and burdensomework was necessary for his race and
The Commandant n 307
must be done. From this I gathered that Höß was not a bulldog-like, un-
complicated, brutal kz commandant but a man who was used to sitting in
judgment over himself and giving himself an accounting of what he was
doing.
When his Führer Himmler spoke of battles that coming generations would
be spared, Höß was able to feel himself to be an upright warrior as he orga-
nized the stages of the most extensive mass murder. He wrote about ‘‘human
inhibitions’’ that he had to bury deep down inside, of ‘‘human stirrings’’ that
almost seemed like a betrayal of the Führer after conversations with Eich-
mann, and of ‘‘gloomy moods.’’ Eichmann, for his part said that he had to
control himself to keep from fainting and thereby setting a bad example for
others. None of the organizers of the extermination wanted to appear ‘‘weak’’
or ‘‘soft’’ in front of others. One attested to another that his task made him
suffer, but they forced themselves and heroically made the sacrifice that their
Führer demanded of them, and they repeated his statement about ‘‘the de-
struction of ouradversaries,’’ though a simple man like Baretzki asked himself
whether women and children were enemies.
Höß received an impressive reward from Himmler. The inmate Stanislaw
Dubiel, a gardener and handyman in Höß’s villa, has described Himmler’s
visit to the commandant’s house. Himmler spoke ‘‘very cordially with Höß
and his wife, had their children sit on his knees and call him ‘Uncle Heini.’
Such scenes were memorialized through enlarged photographs that hung on
the walls of Höß’s home.’’ Höß apparently did not use this personal relation-
ship to get Himmler to decide the authority conflict between Pohl and Eich-
mann; perhaps hewas proud of being able to decide such an important matter
himself.
When Höß wrote, ‘‘Since the beginning of the mass extermination I was
no longer happy in Auschwitz; I became dissatisfied with myself,’’ this was
one of the lies with which he tried to make himself look better in his own
eyes. In his report about his transfer from Auschwitz, officially because of the
expansion of the camp that made a tripartition necessary, Höß gave himself
away: ‘‘When Auschwitz was divided at Pohl’s suggestion, he gave me a choice
between becoming commandant of Sachsenhausen or head of theDIoffice
(that is, department head in the central administration of all concentration
camps). It was very unusual for Pohl to let a leader choose his assignment,
and he also gave me twenty-four hours to think it over. However, it was only
a benevolent gesture intended to console me for the loss of Auschwitz, as he
saw it.’’ The following statement confirms that Pohl was not mistaken in his
opinion that Höß was in need of consolation: ‘‘At first tearing myself away
was painful, especially because of the difficulties, the shortcomings, the many
308 n the jailers
difficult tasks that had bound me closely to Auschwitz, but then I was glad to
be freed from all that in this way.’’
His future behavior showed how false all this was. He had his family stay
on in Auschwitz for an extended period after his transfer and used every op-
portunity to visit them. At a later date he could have avoided a (temporary)
transfer to Auschwitz by pointing to his ever growing responsibilities as head
of a department. However, he went there and worked very hard to eliminate
problems of transportation so as to increase the capacity of the machinery of
destruction in Auschwitz toward the end of the war.
The testimony of the secretary of Hermann Krumey, Eichmann’s deputy in
Hungary, does indicate that Höß’s conflicted attitude was not something he
later fashioned for himself. In the Krumey trial at Frankfurt, Frau Ferchow
testified on January 17, 1969, that Höß once asked her in Budapest to write
several telegrams to the rsha for him. On that occasion Höß is supposed to
have told her that he could no longer stand it up there (evidently in Ausch-
witz). Even though such a frank confession to a secretary hardly known to
him does not fit the image of a self-confident ss lieutenant colonel who was
always striving for composure, there is no apparent reason why Frau Ferchow
should have fabricated this statement.
On the other hand, Höß boasted about his deeds. In October 1944, after
his alleged statement in Budapest, Grabner was called before an ss tribunal
to answer for killings concealed from his superiors, and Höß was among the
witnesses. Dr. Werner Hansen, who presided, has given this vivid description
of his behavior: ‘‘Höß attempted to exonerate Grabner. He swept into the
courtroom in a very haughty manner and said: ‘You have no idea of what is
happening. In Auschwitz entire transports are being liquidated.’ I recall that
he stood next to Grabner during a break and made derogatory remarks about
the court.’’
n Even though Höß spent his entire life in a strictly regulated relationship be-
tween orders and obedience and felt good in it, his deeds in Auschwitz cannot
be explained by subjection to authority alone, for not all of Himmler’s orders
were equally sacred to him.
As the commandant he frequently reiterated to his subordinates Himmler’s
strict prohibition on appropriating the property of others. Höß’s own actions
have been described by Stanislaw Dubiel.When the commandant gave a party,
Frau Höß told Dubiel what foods she needed. At a later date Dubiel told a
Polish court how he had to procure these:
In the beginning I took the goods from the inmates’ storeroom, which was
administered by ss Sergeant Schebeck, and carried them in a basket; later
The Commandant n 309
I used a car. From the storeroom I took for Höß’s household sugar, flour,
margarine, cinnamon, semolina, peas, and other products. Frau Höß was
never satisfied and constantly talked to me about what she lacked in her
household. With these foods she not only took care of her own home but
also sent some to her relatives in Germany. I also had to supply the Höß
kitchen with meat from the slaughterhouse and milk. Höß never paid any-
thing for all of the food that came to his household from the storeroom
and the camp slaughterhouse.
Every day Dubiel took five liters of milk from the camp dairy to the Höß
villa. Based on the ration cards for milk, the Höß family was entitled to only
one liter and a quarter per day. In the course of a year Dubiel had to ‘‘organize’’
three bags of sugar weighing eighty-five kilos each. In the villa he saw cases
that had in each 10,000 Yugoslavian cigarettes of the Ibar brand. Frau Höß
used these cigarettes, which were officially intended for the inmate canteen,
to pay for illicit work done by prisoners. She impressed upon Dubiel that no
ss man must ever find out about any of this because Höß had forbidden both
‘‘organizing’’ and illicit work and threatened the most severe punishment.
Marta Fuchs, a seamstressfromBratislava who had been deported forracial
reasons, worked for many months in the Höß villa, along with some assis-
tants. An attic room was fixed up as a workshop. The fabric was evidently
obtained from Canada. Manza, another Jewish woman, worked for Frau Höß
as a hairdresser. She skillfully exploited the latter’s penchant for having pris-
oners work for her and induced Frau Höß to request a woman to do knitting
for her children. Thus another prisoner obtained a good, protected position
and Frau Höß an additional personal slave.
Whentherewas already toomuch talk about theillicit work inthe comman-
dant’s villa, Frau Höß established a tailor’s workshop in the staff building,
which gave the wives of other ss leaders a chance to profit from it as well.
However, even then Marta Fuchs and another seamstress were still ordered
to do smaller jobs in the Höß villa. Two Jehovah’s Witnesses were also em-
ployed there, one as a cook and the other as a maid. The name of one of these
is known: Sophie Stipel from Mannheim.
At that time Höß repeatedly issued orders to employ as many inmates as
possible in arms factories and to subject all other positions to a rigorous ex-
amination, so that every worker who was not absolutely essential could be
placed at the disposal of the arms industry.
The peculiar relationship that developed between Höß and Erich Grönke
is especially revealing. Grönke, who had a criminal record of thefts, rape, and
unnatural acts and had been sent to the concentration camps as a so-called
career criminal, was among the first thirty German inmates who had been
310 n the jailers
sent to Auschwitz from Sachsenhausen. He became a capo in a leather fac-
tory. There he had many opportunities to get his hands on leather goods and
later, when all leather items taken from the deportees at the ramp were sent to
that factory, on valuables hidden in them as well. Höß managed to get Grönke
released in 1941 and appointed head of the leather factory. He was given a
chance to take an exam in Bielitz and become a master shoemaker.
Grönke, who was charged with murdering inmates, gave the following tes-
timony about his relationship with Höß before the examining magistrate in
Frankfurt: ‘‘I frequently went to Höß’s villa, sometimes twice a day. Höß al-
ways had special requests, and this is what I had todo forhim:care forthesad-
dlery of his horses and the family shoes, and obtain things that were needed
every day. The leather factory housed not only the shoemaker’s workshop but
also the smithy, the locksmith’s shop, thewheelwright’s workshop, and even-
tuallyalso the tailor’sshop.Höß wanted somethingfromall theseworkshops,
and he used me as an intermediary.’’ Grönke added that he often gave Frau
Höß a ride in a carriage. Stanislaw Dubiel remembers that Grönke drove up to
the Höß villa every day and brought not only clothes and shoes for the entire
family but also fashion accessories and fabrics.
Eventually Höß and this careercriminal became such good friends that the
commandant went hunting with him and used the familiar du in their conver-
sations. ss camp leader Hofmann recalls that one of Höß’s sons would not
go to sleep until Grönke had said ‘‘good night’’ to him.
Grönkewas Höß’s main supplier, but not the only one.The former ss tech-
nical sergeant Robert Sierek testified that he got into trouble because he had
been too friendly to inmates. ‘‘There were no serious consequences for me; I
only got a warning from commandant Höß. The main reason that Höß took
no action against me was that he was dependent on my help and support, for
I always had to get something for him, mainly fabrics. I was able to obtain
such things because I often traveled as a buyer for the camp administration.’’
WhentheHößfamilyfinally leftAuschwitz,the ssgarrison physicianwrote
to his family on November 26, 1944: ‘‘With reference to Höß’s house and
garden, he (commandant Baer) told me that it was a disgrace—and irrespon-
sible—how everything was fitted out there. He said the move was accom-
plished with two railway carriages and a huge number of wooden boxes! Un-
pleasant...’’
n What everyone knew could not remain hidden from Eichmann, and yet he
said that ‘‘Höß was modesty personified.’’ Eichmann’s idealization is, if any-
thing, even more mendacious in this statement: ‘‘Höß was a model family
man.’’ Yet Eichmann must have known that one reason for Höß’s transfer was
the affair he had with a female inmate named Eleonore Hodys. Here is a state-
The Commandant n 311
ment made by the ss judge Morgen, who headed the investigating committee
that had uncovered the situation: ‘‘I am certain that Höß’s transfer to Berlin
had something to do with the proceedings started by me. Evidently this was
done so Pohl could get jurisdiction and protect Höß.’’
Dr. Morgen confirms that Pohl was informed of Hodys’s testimony about
the relationship and Höß’s attempt, after it had been revealed, to have her
starve to death in a stand-up cell of the bunker. Pohl trivialized these facts
and promoted Höß. Stanislaw Dubiel hints at the reason for this when he says
that there was a very cordial atmosphere when Pohl visited Höß, that there
always was a big reception in his honor, and that Höß gave Pohl presents.
Höß, who in captivity wrote frankly about his participation in the mass
killings, avoided any subject that could have led to his affair with Hodys. All
he said to Gilbert, the psychiatrist, was this: ‘‘Even when I was carrying out
the task of extermination, I led a normal family life and so on.’’ To questions
prompted by the telltale ‘‘and so on,’’ he replied only that his sexual relations
with his wife were normal in Auschwitz, ‘‘but after my wife found out what
I was doing we seldom desired sexual intercourse.’’ Höß added that sex had
never played a big role in his life and he had never felt the urge to start or
continue an affair. Höß was not specifically questioned about his affair with
Hodys; evidently the examiner did not know about it.
Höß heedlessly disregarded the orders not to appropriate the property of
inmates or start affairs with female prisoners, but he took the order to keep
the extermination secret quite seriously.This is from his testimony in Nurem-
berg: ‘‘In late 1942 remarks by the then Gauleiter (nsdap regional leader) of
Upper Silesia drew my wife’s attention to what was going on in my camp. She
later asked me whether this was the truth, and I admitted that it was. This
was my only breach of the promise I had given to the rfss (about keeping the
mass destruction secret); I never spoke to anyone else about it.’’
Höß was feared by the ss as well. Thus the former ss technical sergeant
Hans Schillhorn testified as follows: ‘‘Höß proceeded rigorously against the
inmates as well as the ss.’’
This is what the ss judge Konrad Morgen thought of Höß: ‘‘I do not main-
tain that Höß was basically a bad person. In my opinion he was a typical
Kommisknopf [a man with the mentality of a little clerk]. The conditions in the
klAuschwitz and elsewhere demoralized him, too. No human being can bear
beingan unlimited masterover lifeand deathwho can turn a person into ashes
from one minute to the next.’’
When Eichmann described his life and work in Argentina, he called Höß a
lovable comrade and friend: ‘‘Höß was the personification of punctuality and
accuracy. He was his own registrar as far as his meticulous bureaucratic ac-
312 n the jailers
tivities were concerned. In the end his horizon may have been too narrow to
handle the enormous kz area of Auschwitz.’’
n After Höß had been arrested on March 11, 1946, in Schleswig-Holstein,
where he had lived as a farm worker under an assumed name, and his tes-
timony about Auschwitz had agitated the public, he was examined by psy-
chiatrists. This is what the Polish professor Stanislaw Batawia wrote in his
assessment:
Rudolf Höß is neither an abnormal person of the ‘‘moral insanity’’ type
or an unfeeling psychopath nor a person who displays any criminal incli-
nations or sadistic tendencies. He is a man of average intelligence...an
extremely reserved, autistic, and undoubtedly sensitive person (with the
peculiar sensitivityof the schizothymic type), though he does not reveal his
emotionalreactions....Heisamanwhosince his early youth has been
used to taking his duties seriously and performing them with great consci-
entiousness and zeal. He is also an individual of the type that one usually
calls a strong man with a willpower not encountered every day.
On the basis of his earlier investigations in Nuremberg, the American psy-
chiatrist G. M. Gilbert came to the conclusion that Höß impressed one as
being mentally normal ‘‘but with a schizoid apathy and the kind of extreme
lack of empathy that is found in real schizophrenics.’’ When Prince Schaum-
burg-Lippe, who is not a trained psychologist, encountered Höß in the Nu-
remberg prison, he asked who that flower-picking village schoolteacher type
was.
Gilbert wanted to fathom what went on inside Höß when he was carrying
out the orders to murder given him by Himmler in private:
I asked him if he had ever considered whether the Jews he was murdering
were guilty or deserved such a fate in any way. He again tried to explain to
me patiently that such questions were unrealistic, because he had lived in
an entirelydifferent world. ‘‘Don’t you understand that we ss men were not
supposed to think about such things? It never occurred to us to do so. And
besides, it had become, so to speak, a self-evident truth that the Jews were
to blame for everything.’’ I pressed him to explain why that had become
self-evident. ‘‘Well, we never heard anything different. It could be read in
newspapers like Der Stürmer, and we heard it everywhere. Even in our mili-
tary and ideological training it was taken for granted that we had to protect
GermanyfromtheJews....Onlyafterthecollapse, when I heard what
everyone was saying, did I realize that perhaps it was not quite true after
The Commandant n 313