POST 137: MY FATHER’S FIRST COUSIN HEINZ LÖWENSTEIN: DISCOVERING HIS WHEREABOUTS DURING WORLD WAR II

TEXT IN RED ADDED ON JUNE 21, 2023

 

Note: In this very lengthy post, I discuss my father’s first cousin’s whereabouts during World War II, based on newly acquired information. As with other recent posts, I obtained the details from a reader whose uncle, serendipitously, was imprisoned in the same German prison camp in Lamsdorf, Silesia [today: Łambinowice, Poland] as my father’s relative. While researching his uncle, the reader came across the names of Heinz Löwenstein and his alias Henry Goff. Readers will discover than Heinz’s surname is spelled three ways, “Löwenstein,” “Loewenstein,” and “Lowenstein.”

To better understand all the places where my father’s cousin wound up, I’ve explored some of the historical events related to WWII. I’m disinclined to apologize for presenting this detailed background because of its relevance to Heinz’s story so I trust readers will understand and gloss over parts that are of limited interest.

 

Related Post:

POST 16: TRACKING MY GREAT-AUNT HEDWIG LÖWENSTEIN, NÉE BRUCK, & HER FAMILY THROUGH FIVE COUNTRIES

POST 71: A DAY IN THE LIFE OF MY FATHER, DR. OTTO BRUCK–22ND OF AUGUST 1930

POST 105: FEDOR LÖWENSTEIN’S NAZI-CONFISCATED ART: RESTITUTION DENIED

 

I had the pleasure of meeting my father’s charismatic first cousin Heinz Löwenstein (1905-1979) once as a boy while vacationing with my parents in Nice, along France’s Côte d’Azur. (Figure 1) Since my father rarely spoke of his relatives, it would be many years before I would work out the ancestral connection. At the time I met Heinz, he had come to Nice from Haifa, Israel where he was living with his girlfriend to visit my father and his sister, Jeanne “Hansi” Goff née Löwenstein (1902-1986). (Figure 2) In time, I would learn that Heinz and Hansi were my father’s two closest cousins, born around the same time as he was.

 

Figure 1. In Nice, France in 1965, my mother Paulette Brook standing outside a car where Heinz Löwenstein and his girlfriend are seated

 

 

Figure 2. Heinz Löwenstein’s sister, Jeanne “Hansi” Goff née Löwenstein, standing alongside my father, Otto Bruck, in Fayence, France on the 2nd of March 1947

 

On the rare occasions when my father spoke of his family, the stories were always understandably suffused with a huge note of sadness so, in retrospect, I’m not sure I was ever told the unabridged story. Absent a complete telling of actual events, I may have embellished or fabricated some of what I thought I heard. My recollection in the case of Heinz is that he survived World War II by escaping from a Nazi detention camp, or that he had himself intentionally captured for the purpose of helping other detained Jews escape, admittedly heroic and rather vague accounts. With the benefit of hindsight, I realize how implausible these scenarios seem but growing up they were believable. Paradoxically, what I’ve recently learned is not so far removed from what I imagined as a child.

Heinz’s story is a tangled web that I will attempt to unravel and present to readers in a comprehensible manner, though some may be left wanting, as I am. But then I modulate my disappointment by reminding myself I’m reconstructing a story without the benefit of the protagonist’s own words that took place almost 80 years ago. Of course, there will be some things that are unknown and unknowable.

I introduced Heinz Löwenstein to readers way back in Post 16 when I discussed what I knew about his mother, my great-aunt, Hedwig Löwenstein née Bruck (1870-1949), and his two siblings, Fedor Löwenstein (1901-1946) and Jeanne “Hansi” Goff née Löwenstein (1902-1986). (Figure 3) Heinz’s older brother Fedor may sound familiar as he was the subject of Post 105. (Figure 4) That post relates to my ongoing efforts to obtain compensation on behalf of my family from the French Ministry of Culture for paintings confiscated by the Nazis from Fedor in December 1940 at the port of Bordeaux that have languished in a French storeroom for more than 70 years.

 

Figure 3. Heinz Löwenstein’s sister Hansi, his older brother Fedor Löwenstein, and their mother Hedwig Löwenstein née Bruck in Nice, France, possibly in late 1945

 

 

Figure 4. Fedor Löwenstein (left) with his younger brother Heinz

 

Though I met Heinz as a child, as previously mentioned, prior to researching him I knew virtually nothing about his life. A salacious story circulated that his girlfriend was the wife in a couple Heinz lived with in Haifa (Figure 5); everybody was apparently fine with this odd arrangement. The only other thing I vaguely recall is what I’ve already alluded to, namely, that Heinz survived the war by being an “escape artist,” though what exactly this means was never clear.

 

Figure 5. Heinz Löwenstein with his married girlfriend Hanna

 

Fast forward to the beginning of February of this year. Through my blog’s webmail, I received an intriguing email from an English gentleman, Mr. Brian Cooper (Figure 26), who I would later learn lives in Maidstone, County Kent, England, telling me he had come across Heinz Lowenstein (without an umlaugh over the “o”) in connection with his research on prisoners of war. As I’ve already mentioned and will illustrate, Heinz’s tale is a complicated one. Accompanying his email was a very precise timeline of Heinz’s time as a prisoner of war with primary source documents substantiating his findings. As an aside, the detailed level of research Brian has undertaken exemplifies the standard to which I try and hold myself accountable when researching and writing my posts.

 

Figure 26. Mr. Brian Cooper in June 2023

 

As I will explain in more detail below, there are two threads Brian found in Post 16 that convinced him “his” Heinz Lowenstein was the same person as “my” Heinz Löwenstein. First, his Heinz Lowenstein used the alias “Henry Goff,” Goff being his married sister’s surname. Second, he learned that my Heinz Löwenstein had the same date of birth, the 8th of March 1905, as the prisoner of war records indicate for the Heinz Lowenstein he is researching.

I immediately asked Brian why he was interested in Heinz Lowenstein. Though very familiar with this branch of my extended family, I assumed there was an ancestral connection of which I was unaware. Astonishingly, it turns out Brian’s uncle, Harold William Jackson from the 2nd Battalion Northamptonshire Regiment, captured in 1940 in France, was interned in one of the same Stalags as Heinz had been held, namely, Stalag VIIIB/Stalag 344 in Lamsdorf, Silesia [today: Łambinowice, Poland]. (Figure 27) Much more on this below but suffice it to say that unlike Heinz who was at multiple Stalags and work labor camps throughout his captivity, Brian’s uncle seemingly was only a “resident” at Stalag VIIIB until January 1945 when the Nazis began marching the still able-bodied prisoners of war west as the Red Army was approaching. To date, Brian has only been able to trace his uncle’s movements to this point and is hopeful of finding the diary of a fellow inmate who might have recorded what happened to his uncle on the march westward.

 

Figure 27. The German Record card (WO 416/193/291), “Personalkarte,” for Henry William Jackson, Brian’s uncle, showing he was captured in Lille, France on the 25th of May 1940, and interned in Stalag VIIIB in Lamsdorf, Silesia, like Heinz Löwenstein

 

As mentioned above, attached to Brian’s first correspondence was a detailed timeline of Heinz’s movements following his capture during the 1941 Battle of Greece. I’ve summarized much of this in the table found at the tail end of this post and intend the discussion that follows to primarily focus on the events that led to Heinz’s involvement in this conflict and his journeys and escapes following his capture and what they tell us. However, before launching into this, let me very briefly review the little I knew of Heinz’s life prior to being contacted by Brian.

Heinz Kurt Löwenstein was born in the Baltic port city of Danzig, Germany [today: Gdańsk, Poland] on the 8th of March 1905. I don’t know anything about his childhood. I’m next able to track him through his marriage certificate to a divorcee, Rose Nothmann née Bloch, which took place in Danzig on the 22nd of October 1931; Rose was eleven years Heinz’s senior. There is an illegible notation in the upper righthand corner of the marriage certificate indicating Heinz and Rose got divorced, which initially led me to believe they were divorced in Danzig. The only other pre-World War II entry I can find linking Heinz to Danzig are two listings in a 1933 Address Book. One identifies him as the inhaber, owner, of a so-called Reklame-Büro, an advertising office, named after his deceased father, Rudolf Loewenstein (Figure 6); as I discussed in Post 71, Heinz’s father died in a plane crash on the 22nd of August 1930 while on a business trip to then-Czechoslovakia. The second listing identifies Heinz Loewenstein, yet a third different spelling of his surname, as a Propagandist, promoter, for this Reklame-Büro. (Figure 7)

 

Figure 6. Entry in a 1933 Danzig Address Book identifying Heinz as the owner of an advertising agency previously owned by his deceased father Rudolf Loewenstein

 

Figure 7. Another entry in the 1933 Danzig Address Book listing Heinz Loewenstein as the promoter for his advertising agency

 

Based on this scant evidence, I theorize that Heinz, his sister Hansi, and their mother Hedwig departed Danzig sometime after 1933. I know that Heinz’s mother and sister wound up in Nice, France, but am unable to document that Heinz accompanied them. Having met Heinz in Nice sometime during the 1950s, obviously I knew he’d survived World War II. At the time he lived in Haifa, Israel but, as I would discover on my own much later, he had changed his name to “Hanoch Avneri.” Thanks to the intervention of a fourth cousin who lives in Haifa, with great difficulty I obtained a copy of Heinz’s burial certificate from Haifa Hevra Kadisha, a burial society in the State of Israel, showing he died on the 10th of August 1979. (Figure 8)

 

Figure 8. The translated 1979 burial certificate for Hanoch Avneri, as Heinz renamed himself in Israel

 

Until Brian Cooper provided documentary evidence, I had no idea how Heinz had survived WWII. The primary source of information on Heinz Lowenstein’s whereabouts and movements during the war can be found in the UK National Archives.  Specifically, records created or inherited by the War Office’s Armed Forces Services containing “German Record cards of British and Commonwealth Prisoners of War and some Civilian Internees, Second World War,” are pertinent. Three entries related to Heinz Lowenstein, or his alias “Henry Goff,” can be found in catalogue WO 416. The National Archive website provides a summary of these German Record cards, but Brian obtained complete copies of the originals, which form the basis for the detailed synopsis he compiled of Heinz’s wartime activities.

The most informative German Record card in terms of tracking Heinz Loewenstein’s locations during the war is record number WO 416/412/223 (Figures 9a-d), alternately referred to as his Personalkarte, his personnel card. The information contained therein is summarized at the table at the end of this post, but in the following discussion I will highlight the most important details and place them in a broader, historic context.

 

Figure 9a. Page 1 of German War record WO 416/412/223 for Heinz Loewenstein, referred to as his “Personalkarte”

 

Figure 9b. Page 2 of German War record WO 416/412/223 for Heinz Loewenstein, referred to as his “Personalkarte”

 

Figure 9c. Page 3 of German War record WO 416/412/223 for Heinz Loewenstein, referred to as his “Personalkarte”

 

Figure 9d. Page 4 of German War record WO 416/412/223 for Heinz Loewenstein, referred to as his “Personalkarte”

 

Heinz’s Personalkarte, intriguingly including his picture, along with his father’s first name, his mother’s maiden name, his religion, and his date and place of birth, all previously known to me, confirm this was my father’s first cousin. Unknown to me was his service number (i.e., 8576), his service (i.e., Palestinian Army), the regiment or squadron he was a member of (i.e., Corps of Signals), his profession (i.e., electrician), the place he was captured (i.e., Greece), the date of his capture (29th April 1941), his POW number (i.e., 8576), and the camp name and number where he was initially interned (i.e., Stalag XVIIIA which was located in Wolfsberg, Austria).

The name and address of Heinz’s next of kin, Rose Löwenstein, is also given, confirming that Heinz and Rose were likely still married when they emigrated to Palestine and probably got divorced there following Heinz’s return from the war. As an interesting aside, the notation on Heinz and Rose’s marriage certificate that they got divorced, likely in Palestine, somehow made its way back to Danzig to be recorded on their 1931 certificate. In my limited experience, this is not unprecedented. About ten years ago, I was able to track down a second cousin presently living in Germany but born in Spain, by dint of a notation made on his 1946 Barcelona birth certificate stating he had gotten married in Haag, Oberbayern, Germany in 1982.

Based on the new information, I surmise Heinz either moved temporarily from Danzig to Nice, France with his sister and mother or moved directly to Palestine from Danzig. After emigrating to Palestine, he likely soon became a British citizen as others moving there during the 1930s did. Readers will notice the year “1935” lightly penciled in to the right of his nationality, perhaps corresponding to his arrival in Palestine.

Following his move to Palestine, he likely volunteered for the British Army. Two POW lists published, respectively, in September 1944 (Figure 10) and April 1945 (Figure 11) indicate the regiment/unit/squadron Heinz was a member of, “3 L. of C. Sigs.” This refers to the “3 Line of Communication Signals [Royal Corps of Signals, often simply known as Royal Signals].” For readers, like me, unfamiliar with the work of this squadron, this unit is responsible for providing full telecommunications infrastructure for the Army wherever they operate. Signal units are among the first deployed, providing battlefield communications and information systems essential to all operations.

 

Figure 10. A September 1944 POW list referred to as War Office record WO 390/10, listing Heinz Lowenstein as a prisoner in Hungary

 

Figure 11. An April 1945 POW list referred to as War Office record WO 390/20, listing Heinz Lowenstein as a prisoner but simultaneously providing his alias “Henry Goff”; also, his new POW number is shown, No. 156116

 

Heinz’s Personalkarte shows he was captured on the 29th of April 1941. Before discussing where he is likely to have been captured, let me provide readers with a general overview of the Battle of Greece. (Figure 12) The Battle of Greece, also known as the “German invasion of Greece” or “Operation Marita” was the attack of Greece by Italy and Germany during World War II. It began on the 28th of October 1940 with the Italian invasion of Greece via Albania, then a vassal of Italy. Greece, with the help of British air and material support, repelled the initial Italian attack and counterattack in March 1941.

 

Figure 12. Map showing defensive and offensive operations during the 1941 Battle of Greece

 

Realizing that the bulk of Greek troops were massed along the Greek border with Albania and that Italy was in trouble, German troops invaded from Bulgaria on the 6th of April 1941, opening a second front. The Greek Army was quickly outnumbered even with the reinforcement of small numbers of British, Australian, and New Zealand forces. The Greek forces were outflanked by the Germans at the Albanian border, forcing their surrender. British, Australian, and New Zealand forces were overwhelmed and forced to retreat southwards down the Greek peninsula, with the goal of evacuation. For several days, Allied troops were able to delay the German advance, allowing ships to be positioned to evacuate the units defending Greece. Still, by the 27th of April the German Army captured Athens, and reached Greece’s southern shores by the 30th of April. The conquest of Greece was completed a month later with the capture of the island of Crete. An intriguing footnote is that Hitler later blamed the unsuccessful German invasion of the Soviet Union on Mussolini’s failed conquest of Greece.

Knowing that Heinz was taken prisoner on the 29th of April, Brian reasons that he was seized in or near Kalamata on the Peloponnesian peninsula. (see Figure 12) Based on testimony from others, we know that POWs were quickly moved to a prison compound at Corinth (Figure 13) where, if what has been published is correct, some 4,000 prisoners were held in extremely poor conditions. Brian sent me a chapter of a book entitled “Friends Ambulance Unit, 1939-1943: Experiences in Finland, Norway, Sweden, Egypt, Greece and Germany,” by H. Martin Lidbetter. Let me quote a few passages from this book describing the deplorable state of things in the detention camps.

 

Figure 13. A map showing the approximate route POWs would have followed from Kalamata to Corinth following their capture

 

Regarding prison life in the hospital in Kalamata: “The place was a stinking mess, and we cleaned it up. Nobody was getting anything to eat, and two hours after we started, we served biscuit porridge and tea for breakfast, and gave the patients regular meals afterwards. . .The men were in a shocking state, and we cleaned them, dressed their wounds, nursed them.”

On the 13th May we and the patients were moved by train to Corinth, where in almost tropical heat we were marched to an enormous Dulag (Transit Camp) which was to be our home for many weeks. Here the food was terrible, but it was possible to buy extras from the Greeks. For water we had to queue for hours at a well just outside the camp.”

The experiences of the next few months in transit camps brought the biggest tests of endurance in maintaining human relationships that anyone in the Unit had undergone. To retain, when terribly hungry, the customary human decency was difficult indeed. To keep clean and presentable when water was scarce, even for drinking; to carry on with one’s duties calmly and normally, even when faint and weak through lack of food; to divide rations impartially; to resist the temptation to pick scraps of food from the rubbish bins—all these things called for a continual and maintained efforts.”

Regarding the transfer from Corinth to Salonika (Figure 14), tracking the same path Heinz likely followed: “On Saturday, 7th June 1941, after nearly a month in the Corinth camp, we moved to Salonika. We marched from camp soon after 2am bringing up the rear of the last of four contingents each consisting of about 800 men, so that we could help any whose physical health bordered on collapse. We marched 7 ½ miles to the nearest railhead north of the Corinth Canal which was one of the few parts of the railway not wrecked by recent military action and took to cattle trucks. Our particular trucks were designed to transport 34 men each, when not carrying cattle. During one part of our journey there were 52 of us and our kit crammed into one such wagon.”

 

Figure 14. A map showing the approximate path POWs would have followed from Corinth to Salonika

 

The prisoners stopped briefly in Athens before continuing northwards. However, when they reached the tunnel below the Brallos Pass (see Figure 12), north of the town of Gravia, the prisoners had to dismount because the tunnel had been rendered unusable by explosives during the recent retreat by Allied soldiers. Thus began what is referred to as “The March,” the destination of which was the town of Lamia 40 miles north. This involved a long slog uphill, followed by a precipitous downhill walk in unpleasantly hot weather.

When the prisoners eventually arrived at the Dulag in Salonika, they saw what their treatment would involve: “There was a large transit camp holding about 4,000 prisoners. The first days we paraded with thousands of men in the burning sun for hours; many fainted and had to be carried off. Food was no more than a piece of bread or a biscuit, with thin soup and German ersatz tea.”

There was not enough food of any kind, both in the hospital and the barracks in which we lived. The supply of water was irregular and unfit for use without boiling. All we had was some very thin soup with modules of very tough meat—probably horse meat—and hard bread which was almost inedible. . .None of the beds had any mattresses, only the steel under mattresses, so we lay on our clothes to soften them and spent the night swatting the fleas and lice, and bedbugs which crawled up the legs of the beds to bite us or dropped from the ceiling.

In the hospital there were typhoid, malaria, tuberculosis, dysentery, and diphtheria cases, and later the dreaded beriberi, which claimed several victims—this was caused by lack of vitamins in the diet which is contained in Marmite.

It was very hot, and I did not sleep a single night except for a few nights in early October before we left for Germany.”

A Facebook account about the “Battle of Kalamata 1941” estimates that by September 1941, 12,000 POWs had passed through the “Salonika Transit Camp Frontstalag 183,” on their way to the central Europe Stalags They included many nationalities—Scots, English, Australians, New Zealanders, Serbs, Indians, Palestinian Jews, Cypriots, Arabs, and Greeks. Many of the POWs died, and a few daring ones escaped. By 1942, following the transfer of the POWs to the Stalags, the Salonika transit camp had been converted to detaining Greek Jews before they were transported to the Nazi death camps.

From Heinz’s Personalkarte we know he was initially imprisoned in Stalag XVIII in Wolfsberg, Austria after being transported by cattle truck from the Salonika Transit Camp. (Figure 15) In a book written by John Borrie, entitled “Despite Captivity: A Doctor’s Life as Prisoner of War,” a map shows the route by which the author arrived in Stalag VIIIB in Lamsdorf in October 1941 (Figure 16), where Heinz ultimately also wound up. John Borrie appears to have arrived in Lamsdorf via a slightly different route than Heinz, who we know first spent time in Wolfsberg in southern Austria. A different German Record card for Heinz Lowenstein, WO 416/228/460, records his transfer from Stalag XVIIIA in Wolfsberg, Austria to Stalag VIIIB in Lamsdorf on the 8th of July 1941. (Figure 17-18) This corresponds to the earliest date on Heinz’s Personalkarte, German Record card WO 416/412/223, and corresponds to the date he was inoculated against typhoid, perhaps upon his arrival at Stalag VIIIB.

 

Figure 15. A charcoal drawing showing what conditions inside a cattle truck transporting POWs from Salonika to Germany might have looked like (Copyright: © IWM. Original Source: http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/13920)

 

 

Figure 16. A map from John Borrie’s book “Despite Captivity” showing the train route the cattle truck he was transported on took to travel from Salonika to Lamsdorf, Silesia in October 1941

 

 

Figure 17. WO record WO 416/228/460 showing Heinz Lowenstein was transferred from Stalag XVIIIA in Wolfsberg, Austria to Stalag VIIIB in Lamsdorf, Silesia [today: Łambinowice, Poland]

 

Figure 18. A map showing the approximate route Heinz would have traveled between Wolfsberg, Austria and Lamsdorf, Silesia

 

Beginning in September 1941 and continuing through June 1943, Heinz was temporarily transferred from Stalag VIIIB, where he appeared “permanently” based, to seven different work labor camps in the towns of: Görlitz, Germany [today: Zgorzelec, Poland]; Wawrowitz, district Troppau [today: Vávrovice, Opava District, Czech Republic]; Oppahof-Stettin, Kreis Troppau [today: Štítina, Opava District, Czech Republic]; Stramberg, Kreis Neutitschein (Neu Titschein) [today: Štramberk, Nový Jičín District, Czech Republic]; Krappitz, Germany [today: Krapkowice, Poland]; Tarnowitz, Germany [today: Tarnowskie Góry, Poland]; and Oppeln, Germany [today: Opole, Poland]. Two of these places were in the Sudetenland, the part of then-Czechoslovakia annexed by Germany under the terms of the 1938 Munich Agreement.

In the case of three of these transfers to work labor camps, the fixed places to which Heinz was assigned are specified, namely, working at an airfield, working at a paper factory, and working on road construction. His work assignments were interrupted on three occasions by stays at the hospital at Stalag VIIIB. Given the arduous nature of the work, the unsanitary conditions at the Stalags, the lack of food, and the sometimes-brutal treatment at the hand of guards, it’s not surprising POWs were in poor health.

The most interesting thing recorded on Heinz’s Personalkarte is the solitary confinements he was made to endure for neglecting or disturbing work operations and for two escapes. Remarkably, Heinz’s escape from work labor camp designated as “E479” in Tarnowitz is recorded in a book by Cyril Rofe entitled “Against the Wind.” Cyril himself escaped from a work camp that was subordinate to Stalag VIIIB on his third attempt, eventually making his way to Moscow before being repatriated via Murmansk. I quote at length from Cyril Rofe’s description of Heinz’s escape:

The first pair to escape were Joe Powell and Henry Löwenstein. Tall and ginger haired, Löwenstein had been brought up in Danzig and spoke perfect German. They had already been on one working party, which had been no use from their point of view. They had managed to get themselves sent back to the Stalag and then volunteered to come to Tarnowitz. As soon as they arrived, they wanted to be away. They were not fussy about their clothes, and it was easy enough to collect together all they needed. By the end of February they were ready to go. [EDITOR’S NOTE: BASED ON HEINZ’S PERSONALKARTE, WE KNOW HEINZ AND JOE WERE READY TO MAKE THEIR ESCAPE ATTEMPT AT THE END OF JANUARY 1943 RATHER THAN THE END OF FEBRUARY 1943]

On the morning of their escape they wore their civilian clothes under their battledress and overcoats. When groups left camp the men were always counted by the duty clerk, who handed them over to the guards, who also counted them. The guards were then responsible for the men until they handed them back to the duty clerk in the evening. The group to which Powell and Löwenstein belonged were working on the line just outside Beuthen station, about 10 miles from the camp, and travelled there and back by train each day. At the end of the day the Unteroffizier in charge always counted them before they got on the train for the return journey.

Joe Powell and Löwenstein had no difficulty in getting away at Beuthen. [Figure 19] Finding a quiet corner they slipped out of their Army clothes and walked away as civilians. They boarded a tram outside the station and travelled to Gleiwitz, where they caught a train to Danzig. None of the guards noticed their absence during the day. When the train arrived in the evening the men fell in quickly, the Palestinian corporal counted them rapidly and gave the full number as present. Before the guards had a chance to check the count the men broke off and clambered on to the train.

 

Figure 19. A map showing the approximate route Heinz and Joe Powell would have traveled by train between Beuthen [today: Bytom, Poland], where they escaped, and Danzig [today: Gdańsk, Poland], where they were recaptured five days later
 

The Unteroffizier said nothing. Judging by his subsequent behaviour he had his suspicions but was not anxious to confirm them. He was a wily old fellow. When they reached camp he counted the men quickly, gave the same number as he had taken over in the morning and dismissed the men before the duty clerk had completed his check. The men broke off and entered the camp, while the clerk accepted the Unteroffizier’s figure as correct. The Unteroffizier had covered himself against blame.

Every night there was Appell (roll-call) in each of the barracks, the men falling into five ranks to be counted. That night Kaplan came around as usual with the Feldwebel and a guard, whose duty it was to count the men by walking along in front of them, checking that there were five in each file. Kaplan had it all carefully arranged. When he and the two Germans entered the barrack in which Joe and Löwenstein had slept, the men in the front rank were standing close together to prevent the guard from noticing the two empty places at the end of the rear rank. Kaplan talked to the Feldwebel, blocking his view while the guard started his count. As soon as he had passed the first few files, two men in the rear rank ducked low, ran quietly long the back, fell in again at the other end, and were counted a second time. The guard reported the correct number present and the Feldwebel was satisfied.

This was on Monday night. The next morning Kaplan, who arranged all the work lists for each day, marked the two escapees down on the light-duty list, so that they did not have to report for work at Beuthen. Kaplan kept them covered up until the following Friday, on which day I myself was working at Beuthen. During the lunch-hour the Unteroffizier came into the hut and asked for Löwenstein and Joe, the second by the name he had adopted. On being told they were sick he grinned all over his face and went out again. Apparently the Feldwebel had telephoned to ask if they were there.

When we arrived back at camp we heard that during the morning a telephone call had come through to the Feldwebel enquiring whether he had had anybody escape from the camp. On his answering in the negative, he learned that the police in Danzig had picked up two men using those names who claimed to have escaped from Tarnowitz. When the Feldwebel checked up he found the two men were missing and nobody had the slightest idea when they had left or how.

An officer came to investigate. The Feldwebel accused Kaplan of being responsible for this outrage, affirming that it was Kaplan’s duty to work with him, not against him and threatened to get even with him. This was right up Kaplan’s street. Not only did he inform the Feldwebel that he actually had helped the men to escape, but he added that he considered it his duty as a British solider to help anybody else who wished to escape and that he would do so whenever he could. Furthermore, he said, it was the Feldwebel’s job to guard us, not his, and the Feldwebel need expect no more cooperation from him until he apologized! Fortunately the officer agreed that Kaplan had only done his duty and managed to preserve the peace.

Kaplan had told them that Joe and Löwenstein had escaped on Monday, although he did not tell them how, and that he had covered them up ever since. They flatly refused to believe such a thing was possible until Kaplan showed them how he had done it.

There were no repercussions in the camp, except that thereafter the Feldwebel counted us himself at night, and for some days he and Kaplan were not on speaking terms. Kaplan refused to have anything more to do with the worklists. The result was chaotic, and within a week the Feldwebel was back begging to be ‘friends as before.’ This sounds fantastic, but it happened. Only a Kaplan could have brought it off, but knowing Kaplan one did not expect less. He was tall and bulky, and when one saw him ordering the Germans around he looked a veritable Gulliver among pygmies.”

A few observations about Cyril Rofe’s description of Joe Powell and Henry Löwenstein’s escape from Tarnowitz. As Rofe states, the repercussions for Joe and Heinz’s escape from the work labor camp were minimal. Heinz’s Personalkarte shows he spent only seven days in solitary confinement after he was returned to Stalag VIIIB in Lamsdorf. The repercussions could have been much worse if the two prisoners had fallen into the hands of the Gestapo when they were recaptured, particularly in the case of Heinz who was Jewish. The Wehrmacht, the unified armed forces of Nazi Germany, rather than the Gestapo ran the POW system, so in a sense POWs were safer inside the Stalags, particularly in the case of Jewish prisoners.

The Wehrmacht resisted all efforts by the Gestapo to gain access to and control over the POW system until mid-1944 when Hitler appointed Gottlob Berger to head up the POW system, when it fell under Heinrich Himmler’s control. However, in practice nothing changed. The military camp commandants and staff remained in place and continued to manage the camps as originally instructed by the Oberkommando der Wehrmacht (OKW). Berger appears to have had too much on his plate to deal with his new responsibilities in a manner that would have pleased Hitler and Himmler. This said, some POWs did disappear from the Stalags during the war.

One final confirming observation. Rofe, while wrong about the month Joe and Heinz were ready to make their escape, correctly notes that they escaped on a Monday and were recaptured on a Friday. The dates on which Monday and Friday in February 1943 fell match the dates on Heinz’s Personalkarte showing when he was on the lam, February 1st through February 5th.

Following the end of the war, Joe Powell, or “Jack” as he was familiarly known, completed a liberation questionnaire, “General Questionnaire for British/America Ex-Prisoners of War.” Brian was able to obtain a copy of this document, which he shared with me. One question deals with the main camps or hospitals in which he was detained, but the question that most interested me is one in which Jack briefly detailed his escape attempt with Heinz. I quote: “From Beuthen working party in civilian clothing together with a fellow prisoner, a German Jew, Heinz Löwenstein. Captured Danzig by railway police.” (Figure 20a-b) He claims to have been free for three days during this escape, which differs slightly from Rofe’s account.

 

Figure 20a. Page 1 of the “General Questionnaire for British/America Ex-Prisoners of War” completed by Joe Powell

 

 

Figure 20b. Page 2 of the “General Questionnaire for British/America Ex-Prisoners of War” completed by Joe Powell, briefly describing his escape with Heinz Löwenstein from Beuthen, Silesia

 

An administrative entry appearing on Heinz’s Personalkarte dated the 6th of December 1943, states Heinz was transferred from Stalag VIIIB in Lamsdorf to Stalag 344 in Lamsdorf. (see Figure 9b) For some reason, the Nazis redesignated Stalag VIIIB as Stalag 344 but they are the SAME Stalags. I suspect an identical notation was made on the personnel cards of all POWs.

An entry was made on the 13th of August 1943 and then again on the 21st of August, following Heinz’s third escape and recapture, specifically from work labor camp E494 in Oppeln, Germany [today: Opole, Poland], when he was sentenced to six days in the brig. (see Figures 9b-c)

There are two other curious notations, respectively, dated the 15th of September 1943 and the 10th of June 1944 that appear related to another escape attempt. I will discuss these further below. Another administrative entry from April 1944 prohibits POWs from having sexual relationships with German women. (see Figure 9d)

Following Heinz’s release from the brig in August 1943 after his third escape, possibly in September 1943 or slightly later, it is almost certain that Heinz made a successful fourth escape from Stalag VIIIB/Stalag 344 or one of its subordinate work labor camps. The evidence for this comes from War Office record WO 224/95 (Figure 21a-d) which places him at Camp Siklós in Hungary in November 1943. What to make of the two notations mentioned above on Heinz’s Personalkarte from Stalag VIIIB dated the 15th of September 1943 and the 10th of June 1944, when we know positively he was already in Hungary, is a complete mystery.

ASKED FOR A POSSIBLE EXPLANATION, BRIAN COOPER SUGGESTS THE FOLLOWING WITHOUT ANY CONCRETE EVIDENCE THIS IS WHAT TOOK PLACE. ON PAGE 3 OF HEINZ’S “PERSONALKARTE,” FIGURE 9C, UNDER THE CATEGORY “KOMMANDOS,” IF THE GERMANS WERE AWARE THAT HE HAD ESCAPED YET AGAIN, THEY WOULD HAVE ADDED A NOTATION TO THIS EFFECT. BECAUSE THEY DID NOT DO SO BRIAN THINKS THE GERMANS MANAGING STALAG 344 CONTINUED TO BELIEVE THAT HE WAS A POW THERE UNTIL 1945. ACCORDING TO BRIAN, A NOT SO INFREQUENT OCCURRENCE WAS THAT A POW WOULD EXCHANGE IDENTITIES WITH ANOTHER POW TO INCREASE THEIR OPPORTUNITIES FOR ESCAPING UNDETECTED. THE SEPTEMBER 1943 AND JUNE 1944 ENTRIES MAY HAVE BEEN ATTEMPTS BY THE SUBSTITUTE POW TO OBTAIN REPLACEMENT DOG TAGS TO “TEST” WHETHER THE GERMANS HAD BEEN FOOLED BY THE SUBSTITUTION.

 

 

Figure 21a. Page 1 of report written on November 16, 1943 to Camp Siklós (Szigetvár) based on a November 8, 1943 visit, War Office record WO 224/95

 

Figure 21b. Page 2 of report written on November 16, 1943 to Camp Siklós (Szigetvár) based on a November 8, 1943 visit, War Office record WO 224/95

 

Figure 21c. Page 3 of report written on a November 16, 1943 to Camp Siklós (Szigetvár) based on November 8, 1943 visit, War Office record WO 224/95

 

Figure 21d. Page 4 of report written on a November 16, 1943 to Camp Siklós (Szigetvár) based on November 8, 1943 visit, War Office record WO 224/95, listing “Henry Lowenstein” as one of 16 British internees

 

Record WO 224/95 is a Visit Report by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) written on the 16th of November detailing prison conditions at the Camp Siklós Hungarian detention center inspected on the 8th of November 1943. While referred to as Camp Siklós the holding facility had in fact been moved from Siklós to Szigetvár on the 12th of August 1943 due to the poor conditions prevailing at Siklós. Attached to this report is a list of 16 British internees, presumably, all POW escapees, including “Henry Lowenstein.” It’s unclear at what point Heinz was arrested in Hungary but no later than the 8th of November he was in Hungarian hands. Szigetvár, incidentally, was the castle estate of Count Mihaly Andrassy, and incarceration conditions there were excellent.

The ICRC visit to Camp Siklós (Szigetvár) was conducted in its capacity as a Protecting Power which was formalized in the Geneva Convention of 1929. Protecting powers were allowed to inspect prisoners of war camps, interview prisoners in private, communicate freely with prisoners, and supply books for the prison library. The term “Protecting Power” is simply defined. It is a state which has accepted the responsibility of protecting the interests of another state in the territory of a third, with which, for some reason, such as war, the second state does not maintain diplomatic relations. I won’t discuss them but Stalag VIIIB at Lamsdorf was visited on numerous occasions by a Protecting Power.

Now, I will again digress to provide some historical context of Hungary’s situation vis a vis Nazi occupation at the time that Heinz was detained there.

In March 1944, Hungary was invaded and occupied by Nazi Germany. Before the Nazi invasion, there was no state of war between Hungary and the United Kingdom, so any British POW escapees, if caught by the Hungarian authorities, would expect no more than internment by Hungary as a neutral power. There was no concern that British POWs would be returned to German control. Based on the existing War Office records, Heinz escaped from Stalag VIIIB in Lamsdorf and somehow made his way to Hungary before the Nazi occupation, though a few entries previously mentioned on Heinz’s Personalkarte are confusing in terms of the timeline when this occurred.

Now we get to the murkiest part of Heinz’s story. From one moment to the next, he goes from being “Heinz Lowenstein” to being “Henry Goff.” (To remind readers, the surname “Goff” was Heinz’s sister’s married name.) As a Hungarian internee, Heinz is known as “Henry Lowenstein,” but when he falls into German hands a second time following Germany’s occupation of Hungary, he uses the alias “Henry Goff.” Since the Hungarians clearly knew Heinz’s real identity, they may have chosen not to share it with the Germans. Regardless, from this point forward, as far as the Germans are concerned, Heinz is known as “Henry Goff.” This is confirmed by War Office record WO 416/141/191. (Figure 22) This record matches his actual date of birth, but now shows him born in Manchester, England. The Germans, knowing no better, allocate him a new POW number, No. 156116. From Heinz’s standpoint, the change of surname and birth place was presumably an insurance policy because of his faith. Together with his new POW number, he presumably thought that his chances of survival improved.

 

 

Figure 22. War Office record WO 416/141/191 for Heinz Löwenstein’s alias, “Henry Goff,” showing he was back in German hands with a new prisoner number and had been transferred from Stalag XVIIA in Kaisersteinbruch, Austria to Stalag XVIIB in Gneixendorf, Austria on the 28th of July 1944

 

Regardless of how Heinz again fell into German hands in Hungary, WO 416/141/191 tells us that he was returned to the Stalags in Austria. Precisely when this occurred is unknown, but by the 28th of July 1944, Henry Goff is transferred from Stalag XVIIA in Kaisersteinbruch, Austria to Stalag XVIIB in Gneixendorf, Austria. (Figure 23)

 

Figure 23. A map showing the approximate route Heinz would have traveled between Stalag XVIIA in Kaisersteinbruch, Austria and Stalag XVIIB in Gneixendorf, Austria

 

The British camp leadership at Stalag XVIIA and/or Stalag XVIIB was aware that Heinz Lowenstein was there but was known as Henry Goff. We know this to be the case from the POW list published by the British War Office in April 1945, record WO 392/20. (see Figure 11) This information was likely transmitted in a coded message to the War Office. According to Brian, some men were trained in anticipation they might be captured and then used to write coded messages that could be embedded in normal correspondence.

Alternatively, Brian thinks the news of Heinz’s name change may have arrived in London via the International Committee of the Red Cross. Possibly this information, along with how Heinz fell into the hands of the Germans a second time, may be found in the archives of the ICRC. Additionally, the archives may also hold information on how British POWs were transported from the “Salonika Transit Camp Frontstalag 183” to the Stalags in Germany in 1941. Search applications to the ICRC are only open a few times a year with the next opportunity to submit a request being on September 22nd. During the next open period, I will apply to obtain any ICRC records related to Heinz Löwenstein and Henry Goff.

On the 8th of April 1945, 4,000 of the POWs at Stalag XVIIB were forced by the Nazis to begin an 18-day 235-mile march to Braunau in Bavaria, Germany. (Figure 24) The remaining 900 men were too ill to make the march so were left behind in the hospital and were liberated by the Red Army on the 9th of May. It’s unknown whether Heinz was well enough to travel, but if he marched to Braunau he would have been liberated by the Americans. If so, he could have been repatriated to Palestine via United Kingdom or via Italy. On the other hand, if he was left behind at Stalag XVIIB he might subsequently have been released to the British 8th Army in Austria, then possibly moved south into Italy for direct repatriation to Palestine.

 

Figure 24. Assuming Heinz had been marched from Stalag XVIIB in Gneixendorf, Austria to Braunau in Bavaria, a map showing the approximate route he might have taken

 

Brian has unsuccessfully tried tracking down Heinz’s military personnel file to obtain answers to open questions. He submitted a Freedom of Information request to the United Kingdom’s Ministry of Defence (MOD) to see if they know where service records for WWII Palestinian recruits are held, whether the records were left in Jerusalem when the British mandate over Palestine ended in 1948 or repatriated to the UK. The MOD claims the only way to determine this would be to examine every service record to establish where each service personnel was recruited. Not a very satisfactory response.

At Brian’s suggestion, I contacted the Israel Defense Force and Defense Establishment Archive (IDF Archive) inquiring about Heinz’s military personnel file, and about my father’s service records from his time in the Pioneer Corps (i.e., my father Otto Bruck was also a member of the English Army though at the opposite end of the Mediterranean theater in Algeria.) The IDF Archives referred me to the Pioneer Veterans Association, who responded in Heinz’s case that his military records “are somewhere in Jerusalem.” The search continues.

I will now bring this lengthy blog post to a close with a short commentary. First, I’m deeply indebted to Brian Cooper for all the new information and primary source documents he brought to my attention regarding my father’s first cousin’s whereabouts during WWII. Frankly, I’m astonished at all the materials related to Heinz he was able to track down. It never occurred to me to check the records of UK’s Ministry of Defence since I had no suspicion that he’d ever been in the English Army. After learning Heinz was once a member of the Royal Corps of Signals, I was rechecking the handful of photos I have and found one of him with his mother and brother taken in Nice, France after the war on the balcony of the apartment where his mother lived. Heinz is wearing a battle dress tunic jacket in which one can barely detect the Royal Signals insignia. (Figures 25a-b)

 

Figure 25a. A post-WWII photo of Heinz with his brother and mother wearing his battle dress tunic jacket with the “Royal Signals” insignia on his right shoulder

 

Figure 25b. The “Royal Signals” insignia

 

Regretfully, I never asked my father questions about his ancestors, which he might have been disinclined to answer given how painful many aspects of his past were. Thus, it comes as a pleasant surprise I’ve been able to fill in some holes in what I know about Heinz Löwenstein. It confirms in a general way my childhood belief that he was an escape artist. Though the consequences as a Jew of escaping so many times could have been dire, in all instances his punishment was light. Knowing this perhaps Heinz viewed it as a game to try and outwit the enemy? While I will never obtain the answer to this and other questions, what I have learned enhances my respect for this courageous man.

 

 

HEINZ LÖWENSTEIN TIMELINE (1905-1979)

DATE EVENT PLACE SOURCES & REMARKS
8th March 1905 Birth Danzig, Germany [today: Gdańsk, Poland] 1905 birth certificate
22nd October 1931 Marriage to Rose Bloch Danzig, Germany [today: Gdańsk, Poland] 1931 marriage certificate
ca. 1935 Moved to Palestine, likely became a British citizen, & volunteered for the British Army (Pioneer Corps) Palestine  
29th April 1941 Taken prisoner at the end of the Battle of Greece likely near Kalamata on the Peloponnesian Peninsula Greece First held as a prisoner in Corinth, then moved to Salonika before eventually being sent to Austria for incarceration (WO 416/412/223)
8th July 1941 Given inoculation against typhoid fever at Stalag XVIIIA (Wolfsberg, Austria) Wolfsberg, Austria WO 416/412/223
28th July 1941 Transferred from Stalag XVIIIA (Wolfsberg) to Stalag VIIIB (Lamsdorf) Wolfsberg, Austria;

and

Lamsdorf, Germany [today: Łambinowice, Poland]

WO 416/228/460

 

5th September 1941 Assigned to work labor camp E230 in Görlitz at the Fliegerhorst (airfield) Görlitz, Germany [today: Zgorzelec, Poland] WO 416/412/223
23rd September 1941 Krankenhaus im Lager (in hospital) Lamsdorf, Germany [today: Łambinowice, Poland] WO 416/412/223
29th October 1941 Assigned to work labor camp E29) in Wawrowitz, Kreis Troppau at the Zuckerfabrik (sugar factory) Wawrowitz, district Troppau [today: Vávrovice, Opava District, Czech Republic] WO 416/412/223
16th December 1941 Assigned to work labor camp E358 in Oppahof-Stettin, Kreis Troppau Oppahof-Stettin, Kreis Troppau [today: Štítina, Opava District, Czech Republic] WO 416/412/223
18th June 1942 Assigned to work labor camp E453 in Stramberg, Kreis Neutitschein (Neu Titschein)

 

 

Stramberg, Kreis Neutitschein (Neu Titschein) [today: Štramberk, Nový Jičín District, Czech Republic] WO 416/412/223
2nd October 1942 Placed in solitary confinement for 5 days for neglecting work and disturbing work operations Lamsdorf, Germany [today: Łambinowice, Poland] WO 416/412/223;

During this punishment Heinz got sick and was hospitalized

6th October 1942 Krankenhaus im Lager (in hospital) Lamsdorf, Germany [today: Łambinowice, Poland] WO 416/412/223
19th November 1942 Assigned to work labor camp E412 in Krappitz, Germany at the Papierfabrikenwerke (paper mill) Krappitz, Germany [today: Krapkowice, Poland] WO 416/412/223
15th January 1943 Assigned to work labor camp E479 in Tarnowitz, Germany Tarnowitz, Germany [today: Tarnowskie Góry, Poland] WO 416/412/223
1st February 1943 to 5th February 1943 Escapes from work labor camp E479 in Tarnowitz, Germany, catches a train in nearby Beuthen, Germany, which he takes to Danzig, Germany Tarnowitz, Germany [today: Tarnowskie Góry, Poland]; and Beuthen, Germany [today: Bytom, Poland]; and Danzig, Germany [today: Gdańsk, Poland] Heinz walks away from the work labor camp in Tarnowitz, walks to nearby Beuthen to catch a train to Danzig, where he is eventually recaptured by Rairway Police and returned to Stalag VIIIB in Lamsdorf (book by Cyril Rofe entitled “Against the Wind”)
8th February 1943 Placed in solitary confinement for 7 days for his escape from work labor camp E479 in Tarnowitz Lamsdorf, Germany [today: Łambinowice, Poland] WO 416/412/223
2nd March 1943 Assigned to work labor camp E456 in Oppeln, Kalkau-Wiessen, Germany at the Landesstrassenbauamt (State Highway Department) Oppeln, Germany [today: Opole, Poland] WO 416/412/223
6th May 1943 Krankenhaus im Lager (in hospital) Lamsdorf, Germany [today: Łambinowice, Poland] WO 416/412/223
9th June 1943 Assigned to work labor camp E494 in Gleiwitz, Germany at the Firma Braukmann Gleiwitz, Germany [Gliwice, Poland] WO 416/412/223
13th July 1943 to 21st July 1943 Escapes from work labor camp E494 in Gleiwitz, Germany Gleiwitz, Germany [Gliwice, Poland] WO 416/412/223
21st July 1943 Recaptured after 8 days on the lam; serves six days of solitary confinement Location unknown WO 416/412/223
13th August 1943 Returned to Stalag VIIIB Lamsdorf, Germany [today: Łambinowice, Poland] WO 416/412/223
15th September 1943 Entry whose meaning is unclear; Heinz may have escaped yet again and been recaptured or escaped for good   WO 416/412/223
16th November 1943 Henry Lowenstein’s name appears on a “List of British Prisoners of War on the Estate of Count Mihaly Andrassy, Szigetvár, Hungary” Szigetvár, Hungary WO 224/95 & WO 392/10
6th December 1943 “Transferred” from Stalag VIIIB to Stalag 344 in Lamsdorf, Germany (In late 1943, Stalag VIIIB was redesignated as Stalag 344) Lamsdorf, Germany [today: Łambinowice, Poland] WO 416/412/223

I surmise this entry is an administrative one made on the Personalkarte of all POWs

28th July 1944 Using an alias “Henry Goff” born on the 8th of March 1905 in Manchester, England, he is transferred from Stalag XVIIA in Kaisersteinbruch, Austria to Stalag XVIIB in Gneixendorf, Austria Kaisersteinbruch, Austria; Gneixendorf, Austria WO 416/141/191 & WO 392/20
Post-WWII Changes his name from Heinz Löwenstein to “Hanoch Avneri” Israel Personal correspondence
10th August 1979 Death Haifa, Israel Burial Certificate from Haveri Kadisha
20th August 1979 Burial Haifa, Israel Burial Certificate from Haveri Kadisha
       
       
       

 

REFERENCES

Borrie, John. Despite Captivity: A Doctor’s Life as Prisoner of War. Whitcoulls, 1975.

Lidbetter, H. Martin. Friends Ambulance Unit, 1939-1943: Experiences in Finland, Norway, Sweden, Egypt, Greece and Germany. 1st ed., Hyperion Books, 1993.

Rofe, Cyril. Against the Wind. 1st ed., Hodder & Stoughton, 1956.

Venetsanakos, Georgia (2015, July 15). Battle of Kalamata 1941. Facebook. https://www.facebook.com/battleofkalamata/posts/seventy-years-ago-the-surviving-pows-are-making-their-way-through-transit-camps-/1600718310191993/

 

 

 

 

POST 136: SABAC EL CHER, BLACK PERSON AT THE PRUSSIAN COURT

 

Note: This post deals with a Black Nubian child who was “gifted” to Peter Albrecht’s great-great-great-grandfather Friedrich Heinrich Albrecht von Preußen (1809-1872) during the latter’s “Oriental Journey” in 1843. Because this post allows me to examine so many different historical and ancestral topics, I thought I would present it to readers.

 

Related Post:

POST 135: PICTORIAL ESSAY OF THE VON PREUßEN CASTLE IN KAMENZ, GERMANY [TODAY: KAMIENIEC ZĄBKOWICKI, POLAND]

 

In anticipation of an upcoming trip my wife and I are planning to Egypt to visit the pyramids and other archaeological remains there, I’ve been reading a 2003 book by Dr. Zahi Hawass, entitled “Secrets from the Sand.” Dr. Zawass is an eminent Egyptian archaeologist, Egyptologist, and former Minister of State for Antiquities Affairs. (Figure 1)

 

Figure 1. Noted Egyptologist Dr. Zahi Hawass signing his book for me during his May-June 2023 USA speaking tour

 

Among the many things I learned in reading this book is that the world-famous bust of Nefertiti which is on display at the Neues Museum in Berlin and which I once saw in person, was discovered in 1912 in Amarna, Egypt by the German-Jewish archaeologist Dr. Ludwig Borchardt. The surname caught my attention because my pediatrician was named Dr. Lilo Borchardt, so naturally I wondered whether they might have been related. I investigated this, discovered there is a remote ancestral connection between the two, and found the interconnection intriguing enough to mention to my friend Peter Albrecht von Preußen, whom I’ve talked about multiple times in recent posts. It was then that Peter told me the more absorbing tale I’m about to relate to readers about a Black Nubian child named “Sabac el Cher” who was “gifted” in 1843 to his great-great-great-grandfather, Friedrich Heinrich Albrecht von Preußen (FHA) (1809-1872) (Figure 2), during a trip the prince took to areas that are part of the Middle East.

 

Figure 2. Friedrich Heinrich Albrecht von Preußen (1809-1872) in 1850 or 1852, Peter Albrecht’s great-great-great-grandfather, to whom Sabac el Cher was “gifted” in 1843

 

While the young child was never a slave, nonetheless, the story harkens back to the colonial era, and what was considered appropriate at the time. Clearly the subject of this post is tangential to my own family history but is engrossing enough for me to share this unusual bit of history with readers.

Given the rather extensive details I’m about to provide, it is worth telling readers at the outset the sources of the information. Beginning on the 4th of July and lasting through the 31st of October 2023, as part of its Black History Month celebration, the “Stiftung Preussische Schlösser & Gärten In Berlin-Brandenburg,” the Foundation of Prussian Palaces and Gardens Berlin-Brandenburg, is drawing attention to the history and achievements of Black people. This includes an exhibition on four Blacks who came to Prussia via the enslavement trade and had a connection to the Prussian Royal family or are depicted in paintings in Prussian palaces. To reiterate, Sabac el Cher is known principally because he appeared in several paintings that were displayed in Prussian palaces but did not arrive through enslavement, though this may be a distinction without a difference. Some of the details provided below are drawn from the Foundation of Prussian Palaces’ blog and exhibit catalog.

There is a brief entry in Wikipedia about August Sabac el Cher with limited details. August’s son, Gustav Albrecht Sabac el-Cher, who became a successful military bandmaster, was the subject of a Stern Plus magazine account and some of the particulars presented below are drawn from this write-up; many of the specifics in the article were drawn from a book by Gorch Pieken and Cornelia Kruse entitled “Preußisches Liebesglück: Eine deutsche Familie aus Afrika,” as well as an interview with one of August Sabac el Cher’s descendants. Additionally, I was able to locate several documents on ancestry.com that fill in a few holes. But, by far the source of most information on August Sabac el Cher and his descendants is drawn from the oral history handed down to Peter Albrecht (Figure 3) from his ancestors that he has graciously shared with me.

 

Figure 3. Peter Albrecht von Preußen

 

With the above as a backdrop, let me tell readers what is known about Sabac el Cher, or August Albrecht Sabac el Cher as he was named by FHA following his arrival in Prussia and subsequent baptism. Sabac el Cher is believed to have been born in 1836 in Kurdufan, today’s Sudan. (Figure 4) His given name is unknown. A high Egyptian official, Vizier Mehmet Ali, “gifted him” to Prince Albrecht of Prussia in February 1843 while the prince was on his “Oriental Journey.” The child was purportedly seven years old at the time. Prince Albrecht named the boy Sabac el Cher, which sounds in Arabic something like “Good morning,” among the few words Prince Albrecht knew. Sabac el Cher accompanied the prince on his journey which took him through areas that are today part of Egypt, Palestine, Israel, Lebanon, and Turkey.

 

Figure 4. Map of Kurdufan in pre-2011 Sudan

 

The history of how Sabac el Cher is believed to have fallen into the hands of Vizier Mehmet Ali is intriguingly indirectly related to Napoleon’s expedition to Egypt and Syria between 1798 and 1801; this campaign was instigated to defend French trade interests and to establish scientific enterprise in the region. As a trivial aside, on the scientific front this is the expedition that led to the discovery of the renowned Rosetta Stone, which we all learned about in grade school.

When the French withdrew from Egypt in 1801, tensions between the Ottoman and the local Mamluk beys (governors) once again increased. At the time, a Muhammad Ali Pasha, born in 1769 in Macedonia, then part of the Ottoman Empire, was stationed there. He had fought bravely in the Battle of Abukir (1799) on behalf of the Ottoman sultan against the Napoleonic invasion of Egypt. Following the French withdrawal and the vacuum left behind, between 1801 and 1805, Muhammad Ali used the Albanian troops at his disposal to take advantage of the conflict between the Mamluk, English, and Ottoman forces to consolidate power. In 1805, at the behest of the Ottomans, he initiated a series of mass executions.  

He then built on the popular anti-Ottoman and Mamluk sentiment and gained the support of the Egyptian elite to force the Ottoman authorities to appoint him governor of Egypt, which was still under their control. Having compelled the sultan in Istanbul to acknowledge his regional authority, Muhammad Ali then proceeded to do away with his local rivals. In 1811, he permanently eliminated the Mamluk threat to his power by inviting them to a celebration at the Cairo Citadel where he had them all assassinated. Muhammad Ali ruled Egypt from 1805 to 1849 and is known as “the Founder of Modern Egypt.”

It appears that in 1821 Muhammad Ali successfully invaded the region of Darfur to wrest control of the area for the Ottoman Empire or to quell local unrest. His occupational forces captured around 20,000 Sudanese soldiers who they marched back to Cairo intending to turn them into slaves for his military; only 3,000 of them survived, the remainder having perished from starvation, thirst, illness, and exhaustion.

Local unrest in the Sudan apparently continued. According to oral accounts, Sabac el Cher was the son of a Bedouin sheik in Nubia (Figure 5), today part of central Sudan, who was killed in battle with Egyptian troops. When Sabac was examined by a royal court doctor upon his arrival in Prussia in 1843, the doctor determined he was about seven years old so “decided” his date of birth was 1836. It is likely his father went to war against the Egyptian occupational forces around this time. Following his father’s death, possibly also his mother’s, the Egyptians took Sabac to Cairo. As the son of a tribal chief, Sabac was likely treated with privilege by the conquering Egyptians, and purportedly enrolled in the royal cadet school in Cairo.

 

Figure 5. Map of Ancient Egypt with the Nubian Desert shown

 

Sabac el Cher appears to have been “gifted” to FHA during an audience he had with the Vizier Mehmet Ali in 1843 in Khan Yunis, a city in today’s southern Gaza Strip. (Figure 6) How Sabac arrived there is unknown. According to Pieken and Kruse, “It was by no means uncommon in Egypt at that time to give black children to European travelers of rank as a gesture of hospitality.” In those days, slave markets in the Middle East were rather common and it was not unusual for Europeans to purchase domestic servants in these bazaars.

 

Figure 6. Map of Khan Yunis within Palestine

 

Accompanying FHA on his 1843 “Oriental Journey” was a gifted 22-year-old painter named Johannes Rabe (1821-1894) (Johannes Rabe (Maler) – Wikipedia). Several of his works from this trip depict Sabac el Cher, including one of him in Damascus (Figures 7a-b), a second of Sabac el Cher seated atop a camel (Figure 8), and another of him in Khan Yunis. The one in Khan Yunis shows FHA’s tent camp outside the city, and in the foreground can be seen a young Sabac lighting FHA’s very long pipe. (Figure 9)

 

Figure 7a. A Johannes Rabe painting rendered in Damascus showing Sabac el Cher with Friedrich Heinrich Albrecht’s dog

 

 

Figure 7b. Closeup painting of Sabac el Cher in Damascus

 

 

Figure 8. Johannes Rabe painting of Sabac el Cher atop a camel holding FHA’s dog

 

 

Figure 9. Friedrich Heinrich Albrecht’s tent camp outside Kahn Yunis showing Sabac el Cher lighting FHA’s long-stemmed pipe, his “chibouk,” and FHA’s cook pouring him a glass of wine

 

I surmise that FHA picked up the habit of smoking this very long-stemmed Turkish tobacco pipe, known as a “chibouk,” on his trip to the Middle East. The stem of the chibouk generally ranges between 4 and 5 ft., much longer than the Western churchwarden pipes. In a painting Johannes Rabe rendered at the Prinz-Albrecht-Palais in Berlin after FHA’s return to Prussia, a young Sabac can again be seen tending to FHA’s chibouk. (Figure 10)

 

Figure 10. A Johannes Rabe painting from 1844 following Friedrich Heinrich Albrecht’s return to Berlin in his study at the Prinz-Albrecht-Palais showing Sabac el Cher lighting FHA’s “chibouk”

 

Yet another of Johannes Rabe’s paintings show FHA atop a horse with the pyramids of Giza outside Cairo as a backdrop. (Figure 11)

 

Figure 11. Another Johannes Rabe painting showing Friedrich Heinrich Albrecht atop a horse with the pyramids of Giza outside Cairo as a backdrop

 

The first written mention of Sabac el Cher was recorded by Georg Erbkam in his “Diary of my Egyptian Journey, 1842-1843.” Erbkam was an architect and part of a research expedition commissioned by the Prussian King Friedrich Wilhelm IV, who happens to have been FHA’s older brother. On the 7th of April 1843 the two groups met up while traveling in Egypt, and Erbkam noted the following: “Two servants [Mr. Amandus Strömer (Fourier) (see below) and Mr. Deubner (Butler)] and a cook [Mr. Hauptner] of the prince also followed; as well as a little black Nubian boy whom the prince had received as a gift from a governor above.” Rabe’s painting outside Khan Yunis suggests FHA’s entourage consisted of more than three other people besides the prince and Sabac, though most were probably local porters, helpers, camel drivers, and interpreters. (see Figure 9)

I will apologize in advance for what I’m about to discuss, but for serious researchers the ensuing may be mildly interesting. I should preface what I’m about to say by telling readers that I would never have learned about the following if not for Peter Albrecht’s help. Unbeknownst to me the Kingdom of Prussia, the largest of the states that eventually coalesced into Germany in 1871, used to publish an annual guide, “Das Handbuch über den Königlich Preußischen Hof und Staat,” “The Handbook on the Royal Prussian Court and State.”

For most people of plebian origins like me, one might never have cause to look at such a handbook. However, if one happens to be interested in the staff of such-and-such members of the royalty in former times, such as FHA, the guide can be useful. It identifies by name a royal individual’s court marshall, secretary, doctor, stable master, steward, cook, sommelier or wine steward, gardener, butler, nanny, etc. (Figure 12) So, in the case of the 1844 handbook, the name of FHA’s so-called “Hof-Fourier” was given, a man by the name of “[Amandus] Strömer.” (Figure 13) “Hof” means “Royal Court,” while a “Fourier” at the Prussian courts managed the accommodations of houseguests staying at the castle or when the royal traveled would secure overnight quarters and food for the lord. Accompanying FHA on his Oriental Journey we know was his Hof-Fourier [Amandus] Strömer. He is likely one of the figures that Johannes Rabe painted during the Middle Eastern trip, as is possibly his cook “Hauptner” seen serving FHA wine in the painting of the tent camp at Khan Yunis.

 

Figure 12. The page from the 1843 “Handbook on the Royal Prussian Court and State” showing Friedrich Heinrich Albrecht’s employees at the time

 

Figure 13. The page from the 1844 “Handbook on the Royal Prussian Court and State” showing that Friedrich Heinrich Albrecht’s “Hof-Fourier” at the time was a man named “(Amandus) Strömer”

 

August Albrecht Sabac el Cher’s name never appears in the aforementioned “Handbook on the Royal Prussian Court and State” as an employee of FHA because he was supposedly not a member of Prussia’s upper or lower nobility and/or a member of the Prussian military, the only people who could officially be listed in the Handbook. More on this below.

I hasten to emphasize the above is likely to be of limited interest to most genealogists, but one never knows.

Peter surmises that upon FHA’s return to Prussia following his Oriental Journey he likely immediately had Sabac el Cher baptized into the Lutheran Church of which he was a member; this would have been administered by a Mr. Heym, Schlossprediger zu Camenz, Castle Preacher from Kamenz. Among Lutherans, newborns in the 1800s were typically baptized within two weeks after birth; obviously, in the case of Sabac el Cher the first opportunity to do so would have been upon his arrival in Prussia in 1843. It was at this time that Sabac el Cher was given his formal name, “August Albrecht Sabac el Cher.”

This information would normally have been recorded in the so-called Court Books of the Prinz-Albrecht-Palais in Berlin. (Figure 14) The Court Books recorded all births, baptisms, confirmations, weddings, deaths, etc. at the Royal Court, along with the names of the individuals involved; even the deaths of beloved family pets were recorded. Separate service books (Dienstbucher) or accounting ledgers would only have recorded the reason for an expense, such as a baptism. All these books were apparently moved to the von Preußen estate in Schloss Kamenz [Kamieniec Ząbkowicki Palace] in Silesia in the 1930s, then disappeared at the end of World War II when they were either destroyed or removed by the invading Soviet Army.

 

Figure 14. The Prinz-Albrecht-Palais in Berlin in 1927

 

Contrary to Peter Albrecht’s understanding from his family’s oral accounts that Sabac el Cher was baptized soon after his arrival in Prussia in 1843, probably no later than September 1843, a summary page found on MyHeritage drawn from one of two rolls of microfilm (i.e., 70276 or 70277) at the LDS Genealogical Library in Salt Lake City claims he was christened on the 22nd of April 1852. (Figure 15) These films are not available on-line, so August’s baptism date has yet to be confirmed.

 

Figure 15. Summary page from MyHeritage showing August Albrecht Sabac el Cher was purportedly born and baptized on the 22nd of April 1852

 

Thomas Röbke, author of the Stern Plus article about August Sabac el Cher’s son, claims the first mention of “Sabac el chel,” as his name is recorded, in on the 28th of May 1851 in the service books of the Prinz-Albrecht-Palais; he is identified as a “lakai,” a lackey. More on this below. Peter Albrecht is dubious the service books are the source of this temporal information since their existence cannot be confirmed. Moreover, this detailed type of information would have been recorded in Court Books rather than the accounting ledgers.

FHA had three children with his first wife Princess Marianne of the Netherlands, and, according to Peter Albrecht, Sabac el Cher was treated as a full-fledged member of the family in the Prinz-Albrecht-Palais and lived together with his adopted siblings. Following FHA’s divorce from Marianne in 1848, he purchased Schloß Albrechtsberg in Dresden and moved there permanently with August. (Figure 16) August also maintained a residence in Berlin at the Albrecht-Palais, as FHA had to travel there frequently.

 

Figure 16. August Albrecht Sabac el Cher in an undated photo

 

August Sabac el Cher’s medal bar with his seven decorations survives. (Figure 17) I asked an acquaintance, Dr. Tilo Wahl, who helped me enormously when I was researching Dr. Walter Wolfgang Bruck, my eminent ancestor from Breslau [today: Wrocław, Poland], for help in identifying them. Besides being a family physician, Dr. Wahl is a phalerist, a person who studies medals and awards. According to Tilo, the medal bar consists of the following decorations:

 

Figure 17. August Albrecht Sabac el Cher’s medal bar

 

1.) Eisernen Kreuz 2. Klasse 1870 am weißen Band ( https://www.ehrenzeichen-orden.de/deutsche-staaten/eisernes-kreuz-2-klasse-1870-fur-kampfer.html )

2.) Medaille des Roten Adlerordens ( https://www.ehrenzeichen-orden.de/deutsche-staaten/roter-adler-orden-medaille-2-form-1871.html )

3.) Hohenzollern-Denkmünze für Nichtkämpfer ( https://www.ehrenzeichen-orden.de/deutsche-staaten/hohenzollern-denkmunze-fur-nichtkampfer-1848-1849-vergl-oek-17962.html )

4.) Erinnerungskreuz 1866 für Nichtkämpfer ( https://www.ehrenzeichen-orden.de/deutsche-staaten/erinnerungskreuz-fur-nichtkampfer-1866.html )

5.) Kriegsdenkmünze 1870 für Nichtkämpfer ( https://www.ehrenzeichen-orden.de/kaiserreich/kriegsdenkmunze-fur-nichtkampfer-18701871.html )

6.) Kriegsdenkmünze 1864 für Nichtkämpfer ( https://www.ehrenzeichen-orden.de/deutsche-staaten/kriegs-denkmunze-1864-fur-nichtkampfer.html )

7.) Krönungsmedaille 1861 ( https://www.ehrenzeichen-orden.de/deutsche-staaten/kronungsmedaille-am-band-1861.html )

Interested readers can click on the hyperlinks to learn more about August’s decorations. I will briefly recap what Dr. Wahl concluded from the awards August was given. These decorations confirm that August Sabac el Cher took part as a non-combatant and likely as FHA’s attendant in the German Revolutions of 1848-49; the Second Schleswig War of 1864 against Denmark; the 1866 Austro-Prussian War; and the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71. August was also awarded an Iron Cross in 1870, but, unfortunately, his name does not appear on the surviving list of recipients. August was present when Wilhelm I was crowned the King of Prussia in 1861 and was given a medal for this; Wilhelm I incidentally went on to become the first German Emperor when Germany became a country in 1871 and ruled from 1871 until his death in 1888. And, finally, the medal in the second position, the Roten Adlermedaille, was a merit decoration given to lower ranking servants.

Thomas Röbke notes the following about Sabac el Cher: “. . .his alleged ‘exoticism’ also plays an important role and fits into a courtly tradition: ‘As in many places in Europe, it had become fashionable in German princely houses since the 17th century to surround oneself with ‘dark-skinned’ pages or lackeys,’ according to Pieken and Kruse. ‘Precious, colourful and extravagantly dressed,’ they are proudly presented as ‘chamber carrots.’ Incidentally, the courtly pallor, the ideal beauty of the time, is to be particularly emphasized by the contrast.”

Peter Albrecht makes an additional point. Since there was officially no slavery in Prussia, there were very few Blacks there compared to the United States. For this reason, Sabac el Cher would have been an “attraction” in a military tattoo (i.e., a military tattoo is a performance of music or display of armed forces in general), particularly when he marched in his native Egyptian military attire.

Thomas Röbke makes numerous mentions of Sabac el Cher as a “lackey,” which has obvious pejorative connotations. Interestingly, in official documents, such as in his 1867 marriage certificate, August self-identifies as a lackey. Peter Albrecht is convinced that August led a “double life.” To the outside world, he presented himself as nothing more than a low-level servant, while in his private life in the Prussian Court he would have been considered a cherished member of FHA’s family who accompanied FHA as an attendant on his numerous military forays. According to Peter, he would have been protected and enjoyed considerable status at the court and received a salary.

There is evidence to support the fact that FHA officially adopted August as his son which, if true, would have elevated him to the rank of an aristocrat. The proof of this comes from the marriage register church book from the Dreifaltigkeitskirche (Trinity Church) in Berlin where August Albrecht Sabac el Cher married Anna Marie Jung (Figure 18) on the 24th of November 1867. This was a Protestant Church in East Berlin that opened in August 1739 and was destroyed in November 1943. The church books survive and line number 216, column 5 from the book of 1867 states that FHA gave his permission as father of the groom for August to marry (Figures 19a-b); the marriage register confirms that August was then living at Wilhelm Straße 102, which is the address of the Prinz-Albrecht-Palais. Only family members and their guests were allowed to live and stay at the Prinz-Albrecht-Palais.

 

Figure 18. August Albrecht Sabac el Cher’s wife, Anna Marie Jung

 

 

Figure 19a. August Albrecht Sabac el Cher and Anna Marie Jung’s 24th of November 1867 marriage register listing

 

Figure 19b. Closeup of Friedrich Heinrich’s “consent” for August Albrecht Sabac el Cher to get married

 

There would have been implications if in fact FHA formally adopted August as one of his sons. First, as previously mentioned, August would have been elevated in status to the rank of an aristocrat. As an aristocrat, August could then theoretically have been named in the “Handbook on the Royal Prussian Court and State” as an employee of FHA. Because August’s name never appears in the Handbook this may have been FHA’s effort to avoid ruffling the feathers of members of the nobility who would have been “offended” by August’s exalted status.

FHA himself was in a tenuous position because after he and Marianne divorced, he remarried a person of “lower nobility,” and was in a so-called “morganatic marriage.” This is a marriage between people of unequal social rank, which in the context of royalty or other inherited title prevents the principal’s position or privileges being passed to the spouse, or any children born of the marriage. In FHA’s case, this would have been moot since he had three children born of a royal marriage who would presumably have had precedence in terms of inheriting royal privileges. To further confuse readers, technically, as an aristocrat, August’s marriage to Anna would also have been a morganatic marriage since she was not an aristocrat.

August and Anna went on to have three children, Gustav (b. 1868), Elise (b. 1869) (Figure 20), and Gertrud (b. 1875), the last of whom died as a young child in 1880. According to Peter Albrecht, FHA is said to have had great affection for August and his grandchildren. Gustav (Figure 21) enjoyed great success as a military bandmaster and conductor.

 

Figure 20. August and Anna Albrecht Sabac el Cher’s two surviving children, Gustav and Elise, seated in a chair that their grandfather had specially made for them

 

Figure 21. Gustav Sabac el Cher in a parade uniform with his medals

 

August received his naturalization certificate on the 25th of October 1882 (Figures 22a-b), issued by the Royal Prussian Police at the headquarters of the Berlin Police, less than three years before his death on the 21st of September 1885 (Figure 23a-b), supposedly from stomach cancer. This certificate officially made August a Prussian and German citizen at the same time and served as a birth certificate allowing him to receive his military pension.

 

Figure 22a. August Albrecht Sabac el Cher’s naturalization certificate issued on the 25th of October 1882

 

Figure 22b. Closeup of the information on August’s naturalization certificate showing he was born in “Cordofan bei (near) Darfur in Afrika (Africa)”

 

Figure 23a. Cover page of August Albrecht Sabac el Cher’s death certificate showing he died on the 21st of September 1885 in Berlin

 

 

Figure 23b. August Albrecht Sabac el Cher’s death certificate stating he died on the 21st of September 1885 in Berlin

 

REFERENCES

Black History Month – Schwarze Menschen Am Preussischen Hof. 4 July-31 Oct. 2023, Stiftung Preussische Schlösser Und Gärten Berlin-Brandenburg, Berlin-Brandenburg.

Erbkam, Georg Gustav: Tagebuch meiner egyptischen Reise. Teil 3. Ägypten, 1844-1845.

Hawass, Zahi. Secrets from the Sand: My Search for Egypt’s Past. Harry N. Abrams, Inc., Publishers, 2003.

Hawass, Zahi. Zahi Hawass’s Secret Egypt. Laboratoriorosso, 2019.

Pieken, Gorch and Cornelia Kruse. Preußisches Liebesglück: eine deutsche Familie aus Afrika. Propyläen, 2007

Röbke, Thomas. (2022, February 2). From slave to officer to bandmaster: the German history of the Sabac el Cher family. Stern Plus.

 

EXPLANATION FOR REMOVAL OF POST 134

 

Readers may have noticed that Post 134 has been removed from my blog. An astute follower pointed out inconsistencies and inaccuracies in Suse Vogel’s account of her chance encounter with the son of the notorious Nazi architect of the Holocaust, Reinhard Heydrich, who was assassinated in Prague in 1942. Unless Suse Vogel was spoofed for reasons unknown by a vengeful pretender claiming to be Reinhard’s son, which I personally doubt, at its core I think Suse’s improbable run in with Heider Heydrich took place at some point and place in time, just not accurately recalled in all its details. Consequently, I cannot ignore all the mistakes in Suse’s recollection of the event. I should remind readers that Suse’s typed letter is undated providing no frame of reference for when it was written, making it impossible to know whether her imprecise memory of the event was captured shortly after it took place or years later. Thus, in the interest of accuracy, I’ve removed the post.

Among the inconsistencies noted are the following: 

  • Suse Vogel writes that Reinhard was murdered in 1941, when his actual assassination was in 1942.
  • Suse inaccurately refers to Reinhard’s son as “Reinhard.”
  • I have been unable to independently verify that Heider Heydrich ever set out to be a policeman or apprenticed as one in Hamburg. He received his engineering degree from the University of Hamburg and appears to have worked for the now insolvent aircraft manufacturer Fairchild Dornier in Oberpfaffenhofen near Munich, Germany in this capacity.
  • I can find no evidence that Heider ever lived in Wiesbaden as Suse’s letter indicates. I find Heider Heydrich listed in Munich Address Directories from 1960, 1966, and 1968 showing he was an engineer.
  • Heider is known to have been born in 1934, and according to Suse’s account, her encounter with him is purported to have taken place when he was 28, thus in 1962. However, the mention of the serial killer Jürgen Bartsch in 1962 cannot be accurate because Jürgen was not arrested until 1966.

Until or if I can reconcile the historical and temporal errors, I have withdrawn Post 134 from my blog.

POST 135: PICTORIAL ESSAY OF THE VON PREUßEN CASTLE IN KAMENZ, GERMANY [TODAY: KAMIENIEC ZĄBKOWICKI, POLAND]

 

Note: In this post I provide a short historical overview and visual sketch of Schloss Kamenz [Kamieniec Ząbkowicki Palace], the estate in Silesia where my third cousin’s father, Dr. Hans Vogel, worked for the von Preußen family during the Nazi Era. I also briefly touch on geopolitical factors that make it improbable the family will ever be able to reclaim the castle.

 

Related Posts:

POST 132: FATE OF THE BRUCK’S “PRINZ VON PREUßEN” FAMILY HOTEL IN RATIBOR (RACIBÓRZ): GEOPOLITICAL FACTORS

POST 133: “THE BUTCHER OF PRAGUE,” THE STORY BEHIND A UNIQUE PHOTO OF REINHARD HEYDRICH (PART I)

POST 133—THE BUTCHER OF PRAGUE, THE STORY BEHIND A UNIQUE PHOTO OF REINHARD HEYDRICH (PART II)

POST 134: SUSE VOGEL’S CHANCE ENCOUNTER WITH THE “BUTCHER OF PRAGUE’S” SON, HEIDER HEYDRICH

 

The von Preußen and Bruck families are not related in any but an “Adam and Evish” sort of way though both have affiliations with Silesia, now mostly located in Poland. The filament of a familial connection passes through my third cousin Agnes Stieda née Vogel whose father Dr. Hans Vogel (Figure 1) was employed by Friedrich Heinrich von Preußen (1874-1940) (Figure 2) and his second cousin Waldemar von Preußen (1889-1945) (Figure 3) following Friedrich’s death in 1940. While employed by the von Preußen family, Dr. Vogel was tasked with archiving the vast collection of art and historical treasures stored at the castle in Kamenz. (Figure 4) Not only did the family employ Hans, but they also provided a measure of protection for his Jewish wife Suse and mischling half-Jewish daughter Agnes during the Nazi Era. For this reason, to this day the family is held in high esteem by the Stiedas.

 

Figure 1. Dr. Hans Vogel in 1955 with the paintings he retrieved from Vienna, Austria that had been stored there for safekeeping during WWII

 

Figure 2. Friedrich Heinrich Prinz von Preußen (1874-1940) during the 1930’s
Figure 3. Waldemar von Preußen (1889-1945), Friedrich Heinrich Prinz von Preußen’s second cousin

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 4. Schloss Kamenz [Kamieniec Ząbkowicki Palace]

After a series of blog posts dealing with Reinhard Heydrich, one of the evilest characters in a Nazi panoply full of them, I need to step away from this emotionally draining subject to tackle a lighthearted topic. Ergo, this pictorial essay and a brief history on Schloss Kamenz [Kamieniec Ząbkowicki Palace] that Peter Albrecht von Preußen’s ancestors once owned in Kamenz, Germany [today: Kamieniec Ząbkowicki, Poland].

One side comment before I proceed. Peter Albrecht has been exceptionally gracious and helpful in tracking down and sending me an enormous amount of illustrative and research matter, related not only to his von Preußen ancestors but also to my Bruck family. For example, as it relates to my antecedents, Peter uncovered two wills archived in Opole, Poland that I ordered that may possibly be related to my great-great-grandfather, Samuel Bruck (1808-1863), the first-generation owner of the Bruck’s “Prinz von Preußen” Hotel in Ratibor [today: Raciborz, Poland]. Though I’ve had them translated and interpreted by my fourth cousin, they are challenging in the extreme to make sense of because they are handwritten in Fraktur calligraphy and never give a precise date of birth of the testator, a man named Samuel Bruck but likely not my ancestor. That said, Peter has uncovered other materials that are definitively related to “my” Samuel Bruck, and, though somewhat dry, will form the basis of a future blog post as I discuss recent intriguing findings about him.

As I proceed to give readers a pictorial sketch of Schloss Kamenz [Kamieniec Ząbkowicki Palace], let me start by providing an historical overview of the castle. The first owner was Princess Marianne of the Netherlands (1810-1883) (Figure 5) who in 1838 commissioned the most prominent German architect of the time, Karl Friedrich Schinkel, to design the structure. Noted for his neo-Classical and neo-Gothic buildings, most famously found in and around Berlin, Schinkel created a monumental palace in the form of a medieval castle.

 

Figure 5. Princess Marianne of the Netherlands (1810-1883) the first owner of Schloss Kamenz who commissioned its construction in 1838 (Photo courtesy of Peter Albrecht von Preußen through the Koninklijk van Oranje-Nassau)

 

Princess Marianne married Peter Albrecht’s great-great-great-grandfather, Friedrich Heinrich Albrecht (FHA) von Preußen (1809-1872) (Figure 6) in 1830 (Figure 7), but by 1848 the couple were in the process of getting divorced, so construction on the castle was halted until 1853 and not completed until 1872, the year FHA died. The following year their eldest son, Friedrich Wilhelm Nicholas Albrecht (NA) von Preußen (1837-1906) (Figure 8), got married to Princess Marie of Saxe-Altenburg (1854-1898) (Figure 9), so Princess Marianne gifted them the castle.  Upon NA’s death, the castle was inherited by the eldest son, Friedrich Heinrich (FH) von Preußen (1874-1940), the homosexual scion who has been mentioned multiple times in the previous three posts.

 

Figure 6. Friedrich Heinrich Albrecht von Preußen (1809-1872) in 1850 or 1852, Peter Albrecht’s great-great-great-grandfather

 

Figure 7. Lithograph of Princess Marianne of the Netherlands and Friedrich Heinrich Albrecht von Preußen’s 1830 wedding (Photo courtesy of Peter Albrecht von Preußen through the Koninklijk van Oranje-Nassau)

 

Figure 8. Friedrich Wilhelm Nicholas Albrecht von Preußen (1837-1906)

 

Figure 9. Nicholas Albrecht’s wife, Princess Marie of Saxe-Altenburg (1854-1898)

 

 

Aware that he was dying of stomach cancer and having no surviving siblings and no children of his own, FH sold castle Kamenz along with the nearby “castle” in Seitenberg [today: Stronie Śląskie, Poland] (Figure 10), and all its belongings to his second cousin, Waldemar von Preußen (1889-1945), nephew of Germany’s last Emperor, Kaiser Wilhelm II. (Figure 11) Upon FH’s death, Prince Waldemar transferred the cash to FH’s trust to be divided equally in five parts to FH’s nephew, Friedrich Karl Erich Albrecht (EA) von Preußen (1901-1976) (Figure 12), and four nieces, the daughters of FH’s youngest brother, Friedrich Wilhelm (FW) von Preußen (1880-1925). (Figure 13)

 

Figure 10. The former von Preußen castle in Seitenberg [today: Stronie Śląskie, Poland}, located approximately 20 miles north of Schloss Kamenz, that is today the city’s town hall
Figure 11. A rare and unique photograph showing Friedrich Heinrich’s second cousin, Prinz Waldemar von Preußen (second from the right), with family members including his uncle, the last German Emperor, Kaiser Wilhelm II (in the center) (photo courtesy of Peter Albrecht)

 

Figure 12. (v. 2) Peter Albrecht at Christmas 1975 as a toddler with his grandfather, Friedrich Karl Erich Albrecht von Preußen (1901-1976); Erich Albrecht was one of Friedrich Heinrich’s five heirs

 

Figure 13. Friedrich Heinrich’s younger brother, Friedrich Wilhelm (FW) von Preußen (1880-1925), with his wife and four daughters between 1916 and 1920; the four daughters were Friedrich Heinrich’s other four heirs

 

Prince Waldemar fled castle Kamenz as the Red Army was approaching in 1945, dying in Tutzing, Bavaria on May 2nd, six days before the official end of World War II in Europe. Obviously, the castle was abandoned along with all the artworks and belongings. Relocated Poles looted the castle and Russians burned and pillaged it. According to Peter Albrecht, however, Polish citizens report that 14 to 17 railroad cargo trains worth of movables were taken by the Russians and shipped to an unknown destination. The marble used for exterior construction was salvaged to construct the Congress Hall at the Palace of Culture and Science in Warsaw.

Following Prince Waldemar’s death, rights to the castle that he obviously no longer had physical control over passed to his younger brother, Sigismund von Preußen (1896-1978) (Figure 14), then in turn to his son Alfred Friedrich Ernst Heinrich Conrad von Preußen (1924–2013), “Uncle Alfred” (Figure 15) as he is known to Peter Albrecht. Shortly before Prince Alfred’s death in 2013, he transferred all rights to the estate to Peter including the contents of the 14 to 17 railroad cargo trains, should they materialize.

 

Figure 14. Sigismund von Preußen (1896-1978), younger brother of Waldemar von Preußen (1889-1945)
Figure 15. Peter Albrecht’s “Uncle Alfred,” Alfred Friedrich Ernst Heinrich Conrad von Preußen (1924–2013), last heir of Schloss Kamenz

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A brief word on an intriguing aside. Schloss Kamenz or Kamieniec Ząbkowicki Palace, as it is currently known, is situated within Poland. In a minor way, it figured into the negotiations leading to the eventual reunification of Germany in 1989.  The “Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany,” or the “Two Plus Four Agreement,” is the international agreement that allowed for the reunification of Germany in the 1990s. The reference to “Two Plus Four” means that the agreement was negotiated between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Germany Democratic Republic (GDR), along with the Four Powers which had occupied Germany at the end of World War II, namely, France, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States. This treaty replaced the Potsdam Agreement, and involved the Four Powers renouncing all rights they held in Germany, allowing Germany to become fully sovereign the following year.

As I discussed in Post 132, the “provisional border” between Poland and Germany following World War II was known as the Oder-Neisse line. This partition meant that most of Germany’s former eastern provinces, including East Prussia and most of Silesia as well as the eastern parts of Brandenburg and Pomerania, including Danzig, were awarded to Poland and the Soviet Union. (Figure 16) The German populations of these areas either fled, as in the case of Peter Albrecht’s ancestors, or were expelled. The GDR accepted the border in 1950, but the Federal Republic of Germany always demurred considering it as provisional, pending a finalized peace settlement. However, as a condition of the Final Settlement, East and West Germany agreed to the existing border with Poland, with the renunciation and exclusion of any other territorial claims, in other words Germany’s former eastern provinces.

 

Figure 16. Map of the Oder-Neisse Line and Germany’s postwar territorial losses

 

The biggest issue for the Soviet Union at the time the “Two Plus Four Agreement” was being negotiated was Germany’s former territory of East Prussia, which today includes the Kaliningrad Oblast, the westernmost part of Russia. The other indirect issue for the Soviets was Poland which was regarded as a satellite state in the Soviet sphere of influence but was never part of the Soviet Union. Because the Oder-Neisse line was ultimately upheld as the border between the reunified Germany and Poland, any possibility that Peter’s family could make clams on Schloss Kamenz was obviated.

This was true at least until Poland joined the European Union (EU) in 2004. Peter’s family could now potentially make a claim for return of the castle. However, because of the exorbitant cost for the reconstruction of the castle, estimated at well north of $300 million, they have not yet done so. To date, the EU has already provided the city of Kamieniec Ząbkowicki €750,000 (more than $800,000) to restore the mausoleum and €5 million ($5,362,000) to fix the roof and the small copper clad spires atop the four corner towers. If the Polish government were to return the castle, they would do so in “as is” condition and the family would be compelled to reimburse the EU for all the work done to date.

The possibility exists, nonetheless, that Peter could make a claim for any of the castle’s goods secreted in the Soviet Union should they ever resurface.

Much of the information on castle Kamenz presented below is derived from personal communication with Peter. While there are multiple features that are part of the castle or grace the gardens surrounding Schloss Kamenz, I will discuss only two, the boiler house and the mausoleum. As previously mentioned, Nicholas Albrecht received the castle from his mother in 1873 upon his marriage, and in 1883 he started to build a large steam boiler house. (Figure 17) The conversion from coal to steam heat took place at this time, although the castle still had no sanitary installations.

 

Figure 17. The steam boiler house as it looks today; one of the towers of the castle can be seen in the background through the trees

 

Princess Marie of Saxe-Altenburg, married to Nicholas Albrecht, passed away unexpectedly in 1898 at the age of 44. Peter thinks the mausoleum on the grounds of Schloss Kamenz was built soon after her death; the photo of the mausoleum dates to 1899. (Figure 18) By the time the castle was abandoned at the end of World War II (Figures 19), five members of the von Preußen family had been entombed. (Figure 20) These included Princess Marie, Nicholas Albrecht, and their three sons, Friedrich Heinrich (1874-1940), Joachim Albrecht (1876-1939) (Figure 21), and Friedrich Wilhelm (1880-1925).

 

Figure 18. 1899 postcard of the mausoleum on the grounds of Schloss Kamenz

 

Figure 19. Exterior view of the restored mausoleum

 

 

Figure 20. View of the original interior of the mausoleum

 

 

Figure 21. 1920 photo of Peter Albrecht’s great-grandfather, Joachim Albrecht von Preußen (1876-1939)

 

Upon the arrival of relocated Poles to the area of Schloss Kamenz the bodies in the mausoleum were disinterred and defiled, and reportedly hung from trees. (Figure 22) Before they could be set ablaze, however, some virtuous Polish citizen calmed the rioters and reburied the bodies, carefully marking their locations on a map.  Before this concerned citizen died, he gave his map to the President of the local historical society, and in 2017, the City of Kamenz and the Catholic Church of Poland exhumed the graves and held a funeral service at the reconsecrated mausoleum. (Figures 23-24)

 

Figure 22. Post-WWII photo of destroyed mausoleum

 

 

Figure 23. Location of desecrated bodies from the mausoleum relocated in 2017 using ground-penetrating radar

 

Figure 24. Photos of the five members of the von Preussen family reburied in the reconsecrated mausoleum following its restoration

 

According to what Peter reports, the European Union has provided funding for the eventual restoration of Castle Kamenz to its full glory. To date only the mausoleum and part of the main hall of the castle proper have been renovated. (Figures 25-32)

 

Figure 25. Burned out shell of Schloss Kamenz

 

Figure 26. Contemporary aerial view of Schloss Kamenz

 

 

Figure 27. One of the four corner towers of Schloss Kamenz

 

Figure 28. Aerial view of the gutted cloistered courtyard

 

 

Figure 29. Main hall of Schloss Kamenz in former times

 

 

Figure 30. Main stairwell as it looks today

 

Figure 31. Inside a main hall as it looks today

 

 

Figure 32. Peter Albrecht’s great-grandfather Joachim Albrecht (1876-1939) (left) with an unidentified man in one of the castle’s upstairs living rooms

 

In closing, I understand if readers are overwhelmed by the von Preußen family tree. My personal interest is trying to understand how the Bruck’s Hotel in Ratibor [today: Racibórz. Poland] owned by three generations of my family, obtained a “franchise” to use the “Prinz von Preußen” surname. This entails nailing down exactly when the building that eventually became the Bruck’s Hotel was built, whether its construction preceded or coincided with my family’s acquisition of the establishment, and, if it preceded it, when exactly my family purchased it. I’m uncertain whether historic documents survive to answer these questions. And, finally, because of our collaboration, Peter (Figure 33) has now found some not-so-distant ancestors that hail from Ratibor, suggesting our families may have had business dealings long ago. So, while this post may be of limited interest to many readers, I am pursuing it to better understand my family’s deep-seated connection to Ratibor and Silesia.

 

Figure 33. Peter Albrecht as a teenager with his recently deceased father, Horst Albrecht von Preußen (1934-2023)

 

POST 133—”THE BUTCHER OF PRAGUE,” THE STORY BEHIND A UNIQUE PHOTO OF REINHARD HEYDRICH (PART II)

 

Note: In this second part of Post 133, I highlight an extraordinary photograph sent to me by a reader, Peter Albrecht von Preußen, featuring high-level Nazis taken at his family’s von Preußen estate in Silesia in around 1936 or 1937 in Kamenz, Germany [today: Kamieniec Ząbkowicki, Poland]. The picture allows me to explore two issues, namely, support for the National Socialists among the aristocracy and noblemen and the so-called “Gay Nazis myth.” The von Preußens were distinguished members of the royal House of Hohenzollern, the family from which Germany’s last Emperor, Kaiser Wilhelm II, came from.

 

Related Post:

POST 133-THE BUTCHER OF PRAGUE, THE STORY BEHIND A UNIQUE PHOTO OF REINHARD HEYDRICH (PART I)

 

In part I of Post 133, I introduced readers to Mr. Peter Albrecht von Preußen (Figure 1), a German living in the United States who is a descendant of the royal German House of Hohenzollern. Germany’s last Emperor, Kaiser Wilhelm II, who abdicated the throne in 1918 following Germany’s defeat in World War I, hails from this family. In fact Kaiser Wilhelm II is Peter’s second cousin three times removed. (Figure 2)

 

Figure 1. My friend Peter Albrecht von Preußen, a descendant of the royal German House of Hohenzollern

 

Figure 2. A visual showing Peter’s relationship to Germany’s last Emperor, Kaiser Wilhelm II, second cousin three times removed

 

Even more distantly, Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom is Peter’s second cousin five times removed. (Figure 3) As a further bit of trivia, Queen Victoria married her first cousin Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha in 1840, and together they had nine children. Their offspring married into royal and noble families across the European continent, earning Victoria the moniker “the grandmother of Europe” and spreading hemophilia in European royalty. Enough about sovereign relationships.

 

Figure 3. Another visual showing Peter’s relationship to the United Kingdom’s Queen Victoria, second cousin five times removed

 

As I mentioned in part I of this post, Peter first contacted me on the 7th of March, sharing with me a unique group photo taken in 1936 or 1937 (Figure 4) at his family’s castle in Kamenz, Germany [today: Kamieniec Ząbkowicki, Poland]. (Figure 5) What makes this photo so unusual is that it shows the notorious Reinhard Heydrich (Figure 6), principal architect of the Holocaust, known as “The Butcher of Prague” and other frightful epithets, along with other high-ranking Nazis visiting the von Preußen estate in Silesia; seated in the front row of this photos is Peter’s great-great-uncle, Friedrich Heinrich von Preußen (Figure 7), the prince who protected my half-Jewish third cousin Agnes Stieda and her family during World War II.

 

Figure 4. The photograph from 1936 or 1937 taken at the von Preußen in Kamenz, Germany [today: Kamieniec Ząbkowicki, Poland] when several high-level Nazis visited, including the “Butcher of Prague,” Reinhard Heydrich (photo courtesy of Peter Albrecht von Preußen)

 

Figure 5. Aerial photo of the former von Preußen castle in Kamenz, Germany [today: Kamieniec Ząbkowicki, Poland] as it appears from the outside today (photo courtesy of Peter Albrecht von Preußen)
Figure 6. Closeup of Reinhard Heydrich on the day he visited Castle Kamenz

 

Figure 7. Closeup of Prinz Friedrich Heinrich von Preußen when he hosted high-ranking Nazis at his estate in Kamenz, Germany in 1936 or 1937

 

As I explained in part I, Friedrich Heinrich was openly homosexual. Several of the high-ranking Nazis who visited Kamenz on the day the photo was taken were also bisexual or arguably bisexual. More on this below.

Beyond discussing the high-level Nazis who visited Castle Kamenz, the photo allows me to explore two topics of broader interest, namely, the question of support or resistance among the nobles and aristocrats to National Socialism and the issue of gays in the ranks of the National Socialists. As a lead-in, I would note that if I was exploring these subjects as an academic endeavor rather than simply providing context for my ancestral research, I would take a much more rigorous intellectual approach. For my purposes, however, I simply want to provide some basic background.

Before I discuss the senior Nazis photographed at Castle Kamenz, let me first attempt to answer a question I initially asked Peter after he sent me the picture, namely, what occasioned the visit by the Nazis to the von Preußen estate.

Readers will recall that in the first part of Post 133, I discussed the relationship that Prinz Friedrich Heinrich von Preußen had with members of the “Organization Consul” during the 1920s. The Consul was a right-wing organization opposed to the harsh terms imposed on Germany by the Versailles Treaty and dedicated to regime change by violent means. It was formed by members of the disbanded Freikorps group Marine Brigade Ehrhardt and operated in the Weimar Republic between 1920 and 1922, when it was banned. Following the ban, Prince Friedrich Heinrich, also opposed to the “repressive measures” of the Versailles Treaty, allowed its former adherents to conduct live fire exercises at Kamenz. Many supporters of the banned Organization Consul went on to join the National Socialist Party.

While never a member of the Nazi Party, Friedrich Heinrich’s relationship with future Nazi party elite no doubt stems from the friendships he established during the 1920s. Given his sexuality, it makes sense that he would have associated with other gays. Regardless of his sexual and political leanings, however, it seems highly unlikely that Friedrich Heinrich would have been in any position to reject an overture by Reinhard Heydrich to visit Castle Kamenz for a few days. It’s safe to assume that Reinhard Heydrich and his entourage invited themselves to the von Preußen estate.

When Peter Albrecht initially sent me a photo of the gathering at Castle Kamenz, he identified five high-level Nazis by name, specifically, Charles Edward, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha; Pastor Lethar Preller; Reinhard Heydrich; Kurt Daluege; and Gottfried von Bismarck-Schönhausen. Let me say a few words about each.

Figure 8. Charles Edward, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (1884-1954), a high-ranking Nazi who visited Castle Kamenz

Charles Edward, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (1884-1954) (Figure 8) was the last sovereign duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha until 1918 when the Prussian monarchy and Germany’s 22 constituent monarchies were abolished following the German Empire’s defeat in World War I. Apropos of what I mentioned earlier about Queen Victoria, Charles Edward was a male-line grandson of her and Prince Albert. Though he spent his childhood years in the United Kingdom he was sent to Germany in his mid-teens. His support for his adopted country during World War I led to him being viewed with increased hostility in the United Kingdom, where he was eventually stripped of his British titles. After this, he drifted towards far-right politics, and later became involved in the Nazi regime. After World War II, he was fined by a Denazification court and lost ownership of land in what later became East Germany.

Figure 9. Pastor Lethar Preller at the time he visited Castle Kamenz

Pastor Lethar Preller. (Figure 9) His history is unknown though he is believed to have been a member of the Nazi Party and/or SS.

 

 

 

 

Figure 10. The “Butcher of Prague,” Reinhard Heydrich

Reinhard Heydrich (1904-1942) (Figure 10) was talked about in part I of Post 133, so I refer readers to my earlier discussion for more details. I will only add the following quote from Wikipedia about Heydrich’s assassination because it explains why Kurt Daluege, another visitor at Castle Kamenz in 1936 or 1937, succeeded Heydrich as the Deputy/Acting Protector of Bohemia and Moravia: “Heydrich was mortally wounded in Prague on 27 May 1942 as a result of Operation Anthropoid. He was ambushed by a team of Czech and Slovak soldiers who had been sent by the Czechoslovak government-in-exile to kill the Reich-Protector; the team was trained by the British Special Operations Executive. Heydrich died from his injuries a week later. Nazi intelligence falsely linked the Czech and Slovak soldiers and resistance partisans to the villages of Lidice and Ležáky. Both villages were razed; the men and boys aged 14 and above were shot and most of the women and children were deported and murdered in Nazi concentration camps.”

 

Figure 11. Kurt Daluege

Kurt Daluege (1897-1946) (Figure 11) was chief of the national uniformed Ordnungspolizei (Order Police) of Nazi Germany. Following Reinhard Heydrich’s assassination in 1942, he served as Deputy Protector for the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia. Daluege directed the German measures of retribution for Heydrich’s assassination, including the Lidice massacre. Wikipedia notes other war crimes of which Daluege was guilty: “During the war in 1941, he attended a mass shooting of 4,435 Jews by Police Battalion 307 near Brest-Litowsk and a mass shooting of Jews in Minsk. Furthermore, in October 1941 Daluege signed deportation orders for Jews from Germany, Austria and the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, to Riga and Minsk. On 7 July 1942, he attended a conference led by Himmler which discussed the ‘enlargement’ of Operation Reinhard, the secretive Nazi plan to mass-murder Polish Jews in the General Government district of occupied Poland, and other matters involving SS and police policies in the east.” After the end of World War II, he was extradited to Czechoslovakia, tried, convicted, and executed in 1946.

Figure 12. Gottfried Graf von Bismarck-Schönhausen, a high-level Nazi who visited Castle Kamenz

Gottfried Graf von Bismarck-Schönhausen (1901-1949) (Figure 12) was a grandson of the 19th century Chancellor Otto von Bismarck, well-known to readers. He was a member of the Nazi Party and in 1933 he was elected to the Reichstag as a Nazi member. In 1935 he became chairman of the regional council (Regierungspräsident) for Stettin [today: Szczecin, Poland], and later also for Potsdam. By 1942, presumably disillusioned by the course of the war and Germany’s worsening prospects, he reached out to other members of the German aristocracy who were working against the Nazi regime with the aim of beginning negotiations with the Allies; some of these aristocrats were involved in the 20th of July 1944 Plot to assassinate Hitler. Despite being aware of these plans and having connections to the plotters, after the failed attempt, von Bismarck merely lost his position in the Reichstag and was expelled from the SS but was not tortured. His powerful connections and name recognition saved him, though he was nonetheless incarcerated in the Sachsenhausen concentration camp until the camp was liberated by the Red Army in April 1945. In September 1949 Bismarck and his wife were killed in a car accident near Bremen in the American Occupation Zone.

The presence of the aristocrats and Nazi Party members including Charles Edward, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha and Gottfried von Bismarck-Schönhausen at Prinz Friedrich Heinrich von Preußen’s Silesian estate in 1936 or 1937 attests to an ongoing relationship between former members of the monarchy and the National Socialists.

In layman’s terms, below I will attempt to succinctly explain what may initially have attracted noblemen and monarchists to National Socialism and some events that took place during the 1930s when Hitler consolidated power often at the expense of the aristocrats. To understand the extent of their resistance to the Nazi regime in this period, I asked my fourth cousin, Dr. Frank Thomas Koch (Figure 13), for some background on this question, so some of the following discussion is a synopsis of what he explained.

 

Figure 13. My fourth cousin, Dr. Frank Thomas Koch, who helped explain noble resistance to and acquiescence with the Nazis

 

The National Socialists were adherents of the so-called Völkisch movement, a German ethno-nationalist movement active from the late 19th century through to the Nazi era and beyond. The principal belief of ethno-nationalists is that nations are defined based on a shared heritage, such as common language, common faith, and a common ethnic ancestry. Individuals who don’t share this common heritage are deemed to be second-class citizens. Völkisch nationalists generally considered Jews to be from a different Volk (“race” or “folk”) than Germans and deemed them to be inferior. This was the central tenet which led to the Holocaust. Many noblemen also adhered to Völkisch nationalism, thus drew common cause with the National Socialists in this regard. Other aristocrats and monarchists, however, kept a critical distance from National Socialism, viewing Hitler as an “upstart” and the Sturmabteilung (SA, literally “Storm Detachment” or Stormtroopers) as “uneducated thugs.”

Very quickly after his ascension to power in 1933, Hitler eliminated critics within his administration from the noble classes and the Wehrmacht, the German Army. During the so-called Röhm Putsch in 1934, Hitler had Ernst Röhm, leader of the SA, who had been an early ally but whom he saw as a growing threat, executed by the SS during the “Night of the Long Knives.” In the Blomberg-Fritsch affair of 1938, Hitler succeeded, in the context of partly contrived stories, in deposing Werner von Fritsch, Commander-in-Chief of the Army, and Werner von Blomberg, Minister of War, who had dared to object to his aggressive foreign policy. Then, during the September Conspiracy in 1938, the so-called “Valkyrie Conspiracy,” Hitler faced the first attempt by Germans to bring down his regime; headed by the Chief of the German General Staff at the time, Franz Halder, it was supported by many senior army generals. Halder lost his nerve and the coup attempt was ultimately undermined because of the Munich Agreement when France and Great Britain accepted Hitler’s word that signing away the Sudetenland was Hitler’s “last” territorial ambition, and they called the agreement “Peace in our Time.”

The attitude of the Hohenzollerns was one of opportunism. By nurturing the hope that the monarchy would be restored, the Nazis hoped to enlist the support of Germany’s last Emperor, Kaiser Wilhelm II. (Figure 14) Support for the Nazis among the Hohenzollerns and the constituent monarchies was a mixed bag, so to speak. So, for example in the case of Kaiser Wilhelm II’s eldest son, Crown Prince Wilhelm, who had initially promoted the rise of the Nazis later promised in July 1941 to make himself available to the resistance, only to reverse course again shortly thereafter. More clearly aligned against the Nazis, by contrast, was the House of Wittelsbach from Bavaria, notably Crown Prince Rupprecht.

 

Figure 14. Germany’s last Emperor, Kaiser Wilhelm II, in Doorn, Netherlands in May 1926

 

As World War II ground on and Germany’s fortunes changed and their atrocities came to light, an increasing number of initially enthusiastic and moderately supportive grandees distanced themselves from National Socialism and became opponents of the regime. Aristocrats often played a leading role within resistance circles, and military officers from noble families also played a central role in a series of specific attempts to assassinate Hitler. This was particularly in evidence during the 20th of July Plot.

One curious side note. Peter Albrecht shared with me a series of news articles he discovered related to a purported “purge of princes” by Hitler in 1939, including from his royal House of Hohenzollern. The story was printed in London’s “Daily Herald” (Figures 15a-b); New York’s “Daily News” (Figures 16a-b); and the “Cleveland Plain Dealer” (Figure 17) on the 14th of November 1939. As it turns out, several weeks prior, Peter’s great-grandfather, Joachim Albrecht von Preußen (b. 27 September 1876-d. 24 October 1939) (Figure 18) had passed away of natural causes. Since Joachim Albrecht had been friends with the head of Germany’s Foreign Office, the story was shared with correspondents in London. While no foul play was ever suspected, the foreign press, intentionally or unintentionally, mischaracterized Joachim’s death as part of a “monarchist putsch” by Hitler, possibly for propaganda purposes. Regardless, contrary to what western papers reported at the time, there was no monarchist purge in 1939.

 

Figure 15a. Cover page of November 14, 1939, issue of London’s “Daily Herald” with article about “purge of princes”

 

Figure 15b. Inset from November 14, 1939, issue of London’s “Daily Herald” article about “purge of princes” mentioning the death of Peter Albrecht’s great-grandfather, Joachim Albrecht von Preußen, on the 14th of October 1939

 

Figure 16a. Cover page of November 14, 1939, issue of New York’s “Daily News” article naming Germany’s ex-Kaiser in a bomb plot to kill Hitler
Figure 16b. Inside page of November 14, 1939, issue of New York’s “Daily News” article naming Germany’s ex-Kaiser in a bomb plot to kill Hitler

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 17. Cover page of November 14, 1939, issue of the “Cleveland Plains Dealer” article discussing purported anti-monarchist purge by the Gestapo

 

Figure 18. 1920 photo of Peter Albrecht’s great-grandfather, Joachim Albrecht von Preußen, whose death on the 24th of October 1939 was the presumed cause of the rumors that Hitler began executing members of the royal families

 

The above is all I will say about aristocratic support for and opposition to National Socialism. Next, I want to move on to a discussion of the question of homosexuality within the ranks of the Nazi Party.

There is a widespread and pervasive myth claiming that homosexuals were prevalent and prominent as a group within the Nazi Party, a falsity referred to as the “Gay Nazis myth.” As the German cultural historian Andreas Pretzel has written in his article “Schwule Nazis (Homosexual Nazis),” “The legend of the homosexual Nazi has been used for decades after the Nazi era to deny or marginalize the extent and intensity of homosexual persecution, as well as to deny the memory of, discredit or prevent the memory of persecuted homosexual men.”

The impression that homosexuality was ubiquitous in Nazi organizations was created by antifascist leftists, including the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) and the Communist Party of Germany (KPD). The clause in the German Criminal Code that criminalized homosexuality was adopted in 1871 and was referred to as Paragraph 175. While both the SPD and the KPD were supporters of repealing this provision, both parties opportunistically used accusations of homosexuality against opponents. For example, in what is referred to as the Röhm affair of 1931 and 1932, anti-Nazis including the SPD, publicly disclosed Ernst Röhm’s homosexuality in an apparent bid to delay the Nazi seizure of power when supporters of the democratic Weimar Republic justifiably sensed their time was running out.

According to a footnote in the Wikipedia entry on “Gay Nazis myth,” there are three events which firmly established the stereotype that homosexuality was a characteristic of the Nazi system: (1) the just mentioned Röhm scandal of 1931 and 1932; (2) the Reichstag fire in 1933 when the parliament building was destroyed and a clique of homosexual stormtroopers was blamed; and (3) the previously discussed Night of the Long Knives or the Röhm Putsch in 1934 when a large number of leaders of the SA, many allegedly gay chieftains promoted by Röhm, were liquidated for political reasons. While leftists have largely been blamed for spreading the idea that homosexuals were prominent in the Nazi Party, it benefited Hitler to exaggerate the extent of homosexuality within the SA to justify his 1934 purge. Thus, it can be argued that the avowedly homophobic Nazis themselves contributed to the notion that gays were widespread in their ranks.

According to Andreas Pretzel, “What role homosexuality actually played in the Nazi movement, however, is largely unanswered, because important sources, such as those on the murdered homosexual SA leaders, are missing, because they were destroyed after the murder campaigns of the summer of 1934. Therefore, there have been various attempts to explain the significance of homosexuality for the Nazi movement through gender-historical perspectives and to find explanations as to why the avowedly homophobic Nazi movement attracted homosexuals, tolerated them for a while and even allowed some to rise to leadership and executive positions.” What is clear though is that while some gay men joined the Nazi Party, there is no evidence they were overrepresented.

In closing, let me return to the high-level Nazis that visited Castle Kamenz and Friedrich Heinrich von Preußen in 1936 or 1937. Friedrich Heinrich is clearly known to have been gay. His Wikipedia entry confirms this, as does a 1959 article in Der Spiegel magazine entitled “Die Insel der Wachteln” speaking of the time Friedrich spent on Italy’s Isle of Capri where gays often congregated. By contrast, the Wikipedia entries for the other attendees make no mention of their sexuality, and in fact state all were married with children. This is not surprising given that the Nazi movement was admittedly homophobic; it’s likely gays would have stayed “in the closet” and been married to mask their sexual proclivities.

According to Peter Albrecht, however, both Karl Daluege and Gottfried Graf Bismarck-Schönhausen were bisexual, and Reinhard Heydrich was also arguably bisexual. The source of this information is one of Peter’s friends, Warren Allen Smith, who wrote a book entitled “Who’s Who in Hell: A Handbook and International Directory for Humanists, Freethinkers, Naturalist, Rationalists and Non-theists”; while researching this book Mr. Smith came across information confirming these Nazis’ sexuality. Fundamentally, however, the war crimes these individuals committed is not a reflection of their sexuality, merely evidence they were inherently evil.

 

REFERENCES

Anti-monarchist purge by Gestapo rumored. (1939, November 14). Cleveland Plain Dealer.

“Die Insel der Wachteln” (1959 May 5). Der Spiegel, (19/1959).

“Gay Nazis myth.” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_Nazis_myth

Name ex-Kaiser in bomb plot: Report royalist, army purge. (1939, November 14). Daily News.

New purge of princes. (1939, November 14). Daily Herald.

Pretzel, Andreas (2014). Schwule Nazis: Narrative und Desiderate. In Michael Schwartz (Ed.) Homosexuelle im Nationalsozialismus (pp. 69-76). Berlin: De Gruyter Oldenbourg.

Smith, Warren Allen. Who’s Who in Hell: A Handbook and International Directory for Humanists, Freethinkers, Naturalist, Rationalists and Non-theists. Barricade Books, 2000.

 

 

POST 133: “THE BUTCHER OF PRAGUE,” THE STORY BEHIND A UNIQUE PHOTO OF REINHARD HEYDRICH (PART I)

 

Note: In Part I of this two-part post, I talk about a homosexual member of the royal House of Hohenzollern, Friedrich Heinrich Prinz von Preußen, whom I first introduced to readers in Post 64. I was recently contacted by his great-grand-nephew who sent me a historically significant group photo showing his relative in the presence of several high-ranking Nazis including Reinhard Heydrich, the principal architect of the Holocaust. Part I of this post lays the groundwork for a discussion on the story behind the photo.

Related Posts:

POST 46:  WARTIME MEMORIES OF MY HALF-JEWISH COUSIN, AGNES STIEDA NÉE VOGEL

POST 48: DR. ERNST NEISSER’S FINAL DAYS IN 1942 IN THE WORDS OF HIS DAUGHTER

POST 64: MY COUSIN AGNES STIEDA’S FATHER, ART HISTORIAN DR. HANS VOGEL

POST 86: MEMORIES OF MY COUSIN SUSE VOGEL NEE NEISSER’S WARTIME YEARS

POST 131: AN “EXEMPLARY” RESTITUTION WITH CURT GLASER’S HEIRS INVOLVING AN EDVARD MUNCH PAINTING

 

It is hard to know how to begin a story where the protagonist, Reinhard Heydrich, was one of the darkest figures in the Nazi regime. Often referred to as “The Butcher of Prague,” he had other equally disquieting nicknames, “The Hangman,” “The Blond Beast,” “Himmler’s Evil Genius,” and the “Young Evil God of Death.” Even Adolf Hitler described him as “the man with the iron heart.”

Heydrich (Figure 1) was the founding head of the Sicherheitsdienst (Security Service, SD), an intelligence organization charged with seeking out and neutralizing resistance to the Nazi Party via arrests, deportations, and murders. He helped organize Kristallnacht, a series of coordinated attacks against Jews throughout Nazi Germany and parts of Austria on the 9th-10th of November 1938, and was also chief of the Reich Security Main Office (German: Reichssicherheitshauptamt, RSHA), including the Gestapo, Kripo, and the SD. Reinhard Heydrich, however, is perhaps best known for chairing the January 1942 Wannsee Conference, the summit which formalized the plans for the “Final Solution to the Jewish question,” that’s to say, the deportation and genocide of all Jews in German-occupied Europe. Simply put, Heydrich was the principal architect of the Holocaust.

 

Figure 1. Interpretive panel at the National Socialist Documentation Center in Munich, Germany about Reinhard Heydrich

 

Readers might justifiably theorize that members of my extended family were victims of the genocidal policies formulated by this sinister character, and they would be correct. It seems almost obscene to speak the names of my revered ancestors in the same breath as I utter the name of this horrifyingly wicked individual. Yet, given the tenuous and divisive times we are currently living through, I think it’s important to talk about despicable people from the past to provide context for equally vile individuals running around today who espouse similarly annihilative intentions. Such people and policies should not be permitted to spawn in darkness and anonymity.

I can best begin this post by reintroducing readers to Agnes Stieda née Vogel (b. 1927) (Figure 2), my cherished 95-year-old third cousin from Victoria, Canada. Regular followers know that she and her parents have been the subject of several earlier posts, and I refer readers to those publications. Agnes’ parents were Dr. Hans Vogel (1897-1973) and Susanne Vogel née Neisser (1899-1984). (Figure 3) The Nazis used the pejorative term “mischling” to denote persons of mixed “Aryan” and non-Aryan ancestry, such as Agnes, who was half-Jewish. The Nazis applied a lot of pressure on their Aryan population to divorce their Jewish spouses, but in the case of Dr. Vogel he refused their exhortations.

 

Figure 2. Painting of Agnes Stieda née Vogel, my third cousin

 

Figure 3. Undated photo of Dr. Hans Vogel and his wife Susanne Vogel née Neisser, Agnes Stieda’s parents

 

Suse Vogel was a prolific writer. (Figure 4) Memories of her father, Dr. Ernst Neisser, and his final days were the subject of Post 48, while her 1944-1945 wartime diary was the basis for Post 86. Rather than summarize her recollections, I refer subscribers to my previous posts.

 

Figure 4. Susanne Vogel née Neisser (1899-1984)

 

Here, I want to talk about an individual who I first mentioned to readers in Post 64, Friedrich Heinrich Prinz von Preußen. Quoting what I wrote earlier:

From 1925 until 1932, Dr. Vogel worked as an art historian. He was a volunteer at the Kunstgewerbemuseum in Leipzig; established an art and local history museum in Zeulenroda in the state of Thuringia; was an assistant at the Städtisches Museum in Moritzburg; and was a lecturer for art history and a librarian at the Staatliche Kunstakademie in Kassel; after the Kunstakademie closed in 1932, he worked as a “wissenschaftlicher Hilfsarbeiter,” an unpaid scientific assistant, at the Gemäldegalerie and Landesmuseum in Kassel. In 1934, Dr. Vogel’s continued employment at the museum in Kassel was no longer possible because of his so-called ‘mixed marriage’ to Agnes’s Jewish or ‘non-Aryan’ mother, Susanne Vogel née Neisser. Between 1934 and 1935, while trying in vain to emigrate, he managed to secure a grant to inventory the building content and art collection of the Hohenzollern in Sigmaringen in southwestern Germany. This work caught the attention of Friedrich Heinrich Prinz von Preußen, who was a Prussian officer and member of the House of Hohenzollern and led to a project in 1936 cataloging the Prince’s library and copperplate collection; by 1937 though Dr. Vogel was relegated to a clerical position in the property of the Prince.”

As I further discussed in Post 64, Agnes has fond memories of Friedrich Heinrich Prinz von Preußen (1874-1940) (Figure 5) because he and his relatives protected her family and provided employment for her father during World War II. Friedrich Heinrich studied law at Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn, and upon graduation joined the military. (Figure 6) However, in early 1907 he was relieved from the military because of his homosexuality. He was excluded from the Prussian army for this reason, but at the beginning of WWI he was once again allowed to become a soldier, but only at the rank of Gefreiter, basically a Private First Class, with no opportunity for promotion.

 

Figure 5. Friedrich Heinrich Prinz von Preußen (1874-1940) in the 1930’s when Dr. Hans Vogel worked for him on his estate in Kamenz, Prussia [today: Kamieniec Ząbkowicki, Poland]
Figure 6. Friedrich Heinrich Prinz von Preußen, member of the House of Hohenzollern, as a young man in his regimental uniform

 

In late 1906, Friedrich Heinrich was nominated by Kaiser Wilhelm II as Lord Master of the Order of St. John or the Johanniter Order (German: Johanniterorden) as the successor to his late father, Prinz Albrecht von Preußen (1837-1906) (Figure 7), who’d died earlier that year; the Johanniter Order is the religious order of the House of Hohenzollern, the dynasty to which Friedrich Heinrich belonged. The poorly kept secret of Friedrich’s homosexuality, however, caused him to ask the Kaiser to withdraw his nomination, which he did. His secret eventually became public, so upon the advice of contemporaries, he left Berlin, eventually withdrawing to his estates in Kamenz [today: Kamieniec Ząbkowicki, Poland] (Figure 8) and Seitenberg [today: Stronie Śląskie, Poland] (Figure 9) in Lower Silesia where Dr. Vogel would later work for him.

 

Figure 7. Friedrich Heinrich Prinz von Preußen’s father, Prinz Albrecht von Preußen (1837-1906) (photo courtesy of Peter Albrecht)

 

Figure 8. The von Preußen castle in Kamenz [today: Kamieniec Ząbkowicki, Poland] (photo courtesy of Peter Albrecht) (photo courtesy of Peter Albrecht)
Figure 9. The von Preußen “Königliche Prinzliche Schloß (Royal Princely Castle)” in Seitenberg [today: Stronie Śląskie, Poland] (photo courtesy of Peter Albrecht)

Until recently, the above was the extent of my knowledge of Friedrich Heinrich’s life. However, as has been happening with increasing frequency of late, I’ve learned more about multiple people I’ve written about over the years, including Prince Friedrich. On the 7th of March, through my blog’s Webmail, I received a fascinating email from a German gentleman living in the United States named Peter Albrecht von Preußen (Figure 10); astonishingly, he explained that Friedrich Heinrich was his “second great uncle” (i.e., great-great-uncle).

 

Figure 10. Peter Albrecht von Preußen whose great-great-uncle was Friedrich Heinrich Prinz von Preußen

 

Peter stumbled upon Post 64, and obviously interested in the subject, sent me a unique group photo showing Friedrich Heinrich and a handful of high-ranking Nazis, including Reinhard Heydrich, taken in 1936 or 1937 at Prince Friedrich’s estate in Silesia. I will get into a prolonged discussion about this exceptional image in Part II of this post but in Part I, I will discuss some other things Peter mentioned in his various emails that eventually provided the context for the cataloguing work that Dr. Hans Vogel was doing for the von Preußen family at their estates in Silesia.

There are multiple levels on which the current story intersects with topics I have previously discussed, so splitting the current post into two installments makes sense.

As a brief aside, soon after being contacted by Peter Albrecht, I asked him whether any of his relatives had lived in Ratibor, erroneously assuming that the Bruck’s “Prinz von Preußen” Hotel had previously been owned by a member of his House of Hohenzollern. Peter explained that it was not uncommon for the use of the family name, e.g., von Preußen, Prinz von Preußen, Prinz Albrecht Hotel, etc. to be licensed to business owners for a small annual fee. This is an early example of a franchise.

The Weimar Republic, officially named the German Reich, was the historical interval of Germany from the 9th of November 1918 to the 23rd of March 1933, during which Germany was a constitutional federal republic for the first time in its history. At the time, Friedrich Heinrich Prinz von Preußen owed back taxes to the German Reich. To pay them, in 1926 he agreed to rent the government the Prinz-Albrecht-Palais in Berlin, the palace the family once owned in the present-day Kreuzberg district of the city that was destroyed during World War II. This was a Rococo city palace in the historic Friedrichstadt suburb of Berlin built between 1737 and 1739 and acquired by the royal House of Hohenzollern in 1772. (Figures 11-12)

 

Figure 11. The Prinz-Albrecht-Palais in Berlin owned by the royal House of Hohenzollern between 1772 and its destruction during WWII (photo courtesy of Peter Albrecht)

 

Figure 12. A family heirloom, a plate with the painted image of the Prinz-Albrecht-Palais in Berlin (photo courtesy of Peter Albrecht)

 

With Hitler’s take over of power in 1933, the arrangement that Prince Friedrich had with the Weimar Republic was annulled and Friedrich Heinrich once again took possession of the Prinz-Albrecht-Palais that year. One of Prince Friedrich’s younger brothers and Peter Albrecht von Preußen’s great-grandfather, Joachim Albrecht von Preußen (1876-1939), moved into the palace as the sole occupant. However, in 1934 the German government, now the National Socialists, again sued Prince Friedrich for the back taxes that he still owed. Friedrich Heinrich, however, had contacts with certain homosexual members of the SS, the Schutzstaffel, the Nazi organization most responsible for the genocidal murder of the estimated 5.5 to 6 million Jews and millions of other victims during the Holocaust. Accordingly, he was able to cut a deal with Reinhard Heydrich to again lease the Palais to the government, and the Nazis’ lawsuit ended. Peter’s great-grandfather moved into an apartment that Peter’s grandfather, Friedrich Karl Erich Albrecht von Preußen (1901-1976), Erich Albrecht for short (Figure 13), rented for him on the same block where he operated his car rental business.

 

Figure 13. Peter Albrecht’s grandfather, Friedrich Karl Erich Albrecht von Preußen, Erich Albrecht for short, behind Friedrich Heinrich (photo courtesy of Peter Albrecht)

 

Some further explanation regarding Friedrich Heinrich’s association with the gay community is useful. It is not my intention to reveal salacious details to readers about Prince Friedrich’s homosexual lifestyle, but rather to provide some relevant context which happens to be engrossing. Within the family, Friedrich Heinrich’s nickname was “Uncle Freddy.” He was known in Berlin’s gay community as “Straps Harry,” with “Straps” referring in German to garter belt stockings; as a cross-dresser he had an obsession for wearing these with French high heels.

Following the death of Friedrich Heinrich’s father, Friedrich Wilhelm Nikolaus Albrecht (1837-1906) (Figure 14), Friedrich Heinrich would throw lavish parties at the Prinz-Albert-Palais. Even though these events took place in the throes of the Victorian age which placed severe restrictions on the liberty of certain groups and occurred at a time when homosexuality was outlawed, because Friedrich Heinrich was a member of the House of Hohenzollern, there was nothing the Berlin police could do. Because of his ability and willingness to openly flaunt public norms and engage in what was tantamount to illegal activity, according to Peter Albrecht, Prince Friedrich was a “legend for gay rights,” even within the American gay community and even to this day. (Figure 15)

 

Figure 14. Friedrich Heinrich’s father, Friedrich Wilhelm Nikolaus Albrecht (1837-1906) (photo courtesy of Peter Albrecht)

 

Figure 15. Drag Queen “Chris” from the “2009 LBGT Christmas in July” fundraiser in New York, one of Friedrich Heinrich von Preußen’s biggest fans and admirers (photo courtesy of Peter Albrecht)

 

In the early through mid-1920s, Friedrich Heinrich allowed members of the so-called “Organization Consul” to use his estate in Kamenz for live fire and hand grenade exercises. (Figure 16) Wikipedia describes this organization as “. . . an ultra-nationalist and anti-Semitic terrorist organization that operated in the Weimar Republic from 1920 to 1922. It was formed by members of the disbanded Freikorps group Marine Brigade Ehrhardt and was responsible for political assassinations that had the ultimate goal of destroying the Republic and replacing it with a right-wing dictatorship.” While the group was technically banned by the Weimar Republic in 1922, live fire exercises apparently were not disallowed by the government until around 1926 so continued at Kamenz until then. It was around this time, that many members of the Consul joined the SS/SA and the Nazi Party. Friedrich Heinrich’s connections to the Nazi Party, specifically to its gay members, stem to this period.

 

Figure 16. An excerpt from an article on the “Organization Consul” from “The Journal of Modern History” mentioning “Prince Frederick Henry” (i.e., Friedrich Heinrich von Preußen) and live fire exercises (photo courtesy of Peter Albrecht)

 

Knowing that Friedrich Heinrich had protected Dr. Hans Vogel’s Jewish family, I wondered about Prince Friedrich’s support of an organization that Wikipedia characterizes as “anti-Semitic.” I asked Peter Albrecht about this, and he explained that between roughly 1948 and 1953, the U.S. Government started a full-blown investigation into the history of the Organization Consul. According to Peter, the study “revealed a staunch anti-armistice [i.e., Versailles Treaty] sentiment but wrote or documented very little about anti-Semitic motives within the organization.” It appears the assassinations were targeted at politicians who had signed or helped negotiate the Versailles Treaty, rather than at any members of the Jewish community. Peter stressed there’s no knowledge that Friedrich Heinrich was anti-Semitic, rather the opposite. However, what is clear is that he was a stalwart supporter of any group which opposed the Versailles Treaty.

One other thing is worth mentioning. The Organization Consul consisted of 5,000 or more members, and, likely, those of its members who were committed anti-Semites later joined the various Nazi organizations and were involved in the implementation of the “Final Solution.”

Let me resume the story. There is a relevant entry in Wikipedia under the history of the Prinz-Albrecht-Palais about the period after the palace was leased by the Nazis:

The last chapter in the Palais’ history began after the Nazi Machtergreifung in 1933. In May, the headquarters of the newly established Gestapo secret police moved into a neighbouring building around the corner on Prinz-Albrecht-Strasse. When in 1934 the Sicherheitsdienst intelligence agency of the Reichsführer SS Heinrich Himmler took control over the Gestapo, Sicherheitsdienst chief Reinhard Heydrich moved from Munich to the Berlin Prinz-Albrecht-Palais. In 1935 also the neighbouring buildings at 101 Wilhelmstrasse and 103/104 Wilhelmstrasse were taken over and integrated into the large complex, which in 1939 became the main administrative seat of the SS-Reichssicherheitshauptamt (RSHA).

As a related aside, in a previous post, Post 131, I discussed the apartment where Curt and Elsa Glaser lived, displayed their extensive art collection, and held their regular art salons. It was located on Prinz-Albrecht-Strasse in the same building later confiscated by the Gestapo for use as their headquarters and was one reason the Glasers were evicted from their residence.

After the Nazis leased the Prinz-Albrecht-Palais from Peter’s ancestors, it required the entire household of the Palais to be moved to the family estate in Kamenz. Peter Albrecht’s grandfather (see Figure 13), the most practical member of the family according to Peter, orchestrated the move. It was accomplished between October and December 1934, and involved the use of an armed 10-ton truck to move the valuable items during multiple trips, and several railroad box cars to move the rest of the belongings; on the receiving end, Friedrich Heinrich’s employees from his forestry operations unloaded the box cars. By the beginning of 1935, the complete inventory of two large castles, which had accumulated since approximately 1830, were stored in the basement in Kamenz.

Clearly, Friedrich Heinrich needed someone like Dr. Hans Vogel to assist in inventorying the valuable items and art work after Prince Friedrich’s bookkeepers had tallied the household items and furniture. This was a time-consuming operation since more than 50 tons of artwork needed to be catalogued. Suse Vogel, Dr. Vogel’s wife, indicates her husband stayed in the castle in Seitenberg, but Peter thinks this would have been impractical because the 20-miles between Kamenz and Seitenberg was connected by a cobblestone road that would have taken an hour of travel each way. There would have been ample accommodation for Dr. Vogel in Kamenz since Prince Friedrich had converted 50 of the 100 or so rooms in the castle to apartments with full baths, telephones, radio, electricity, and steam heat.

The circumstances of Dr. Vogel’s living arrangements and ongoing relationship with the von Preußen family are clarified in Suse Vogel’s diary. Friedrich Heinrich had an estate building in Seitenberg [today: Stronie Śląskie, Poland] which was his office and served as the headquarters of his brewery, vineyard, and forestry/agricultural operations. The prince’s primary residence was the castle in Kamenz [today: Kamieniec Ząbkowicki, Poland]. (For reference, Kamenz is approximately 373 miles northeast of Munich, Germany. (Figure 17))

 

Figure 17. Map showing the distance from Kamenz [Kamieniec Ząbkowicki, Poland] to Munich, Germany
 

Dr. Vogel had an apartment in the Castle Kamenz until the death of Friedrich Heinrich in November 1940 of prostate cancer. Upon Friedrich Heinrich’s death, his second cousin Prinz Waldemar von Preußen (1889-1945) purchased both Kamenz and Seitenberg from the community of heirs, consisting of Friedrich’s nephew and four nieces, along with 90 percent of the collections. (Figures 18-19) As a matter of interest, Prinz Waldemar was the nephew of the last German Kaiser, Wilhelm II.  (Figure 20) In any case, Prince Waldemar relocated Dr. Hans Vogel to the Seitenberg estate following the death of his second cousin while Hans continued to catalog the von Preußen collection.

 

Figure 18. Friedrich Heinrich’s youngest brother, Friedrich Wilhelm von Preußen (1880-1925) at his marriage to Princess Agatha of Hohenlohe-Schillingsfürst (photo courtesy of Peter Albrecht)

 

Figure 19. Friedrich Wilhelm and Princess Agatha with their four daughters, four of Friedrich Heinrich’s heirs (photo courtesy of Peter Albrecht)

 

Figure 20. A rare and unique photograph showing Friedrich Heinrich’s second cousin, Prinz Waldemar von Preußen (standing on the right), with family members including his uncle, the last German Kaiser Wilhelm II (in the center) (photo courtesy of Peter Albrecht)

 

Suse Vogel provides a precise date in her diary when the von Preußen family and the German community evacuated Kamenz and the surrounding towns, the 11th of April 1945. This corresponds with the same week that the Soviet Red Army overran Breslau [today: Wrocław, Poland] and was closing in on Kamenz. The Vogel family fled to Berlin, while Prince Waldemar and his kin left for Bavaria; the Prince died there in 1945 of a blood disease.

The castle was looted and set ablaze by the arriving Soviet troops and then, what remained, was looted by the newly transferred Polish inhabitants. (Figure 21) Ultimately, the Polish government removed the remaining marble from the castle, and as with the Bruck’s “Prinz von Preußen” Hotel, transferred it to Warsaw to be used for the reconstruction of buildings there. In the case of the marble stripped from the castle in Kamenz, it was used to construct the Congress Hall at the Palace of Culture and Science in Warsaw. (Figure 22)

 

Figure 21. A modern-day picture showing the inside of the still unrestored Kamenz Castle (photo courtesy of Peter Albrecht)

 

Figure 22. The Palace of Culture and Science in Warsaw which was partially reconstructed using marble stripped from the von Preußen castle in Kamenz

 

The von Preußen mausoleum at Castle Kamenz was desecrated by the newly arriving Poles with the burials disinterred. (Figures 23a-b) Fortunately, an honorable Polish citizen ended things before they got too out of hand and reburied the remains in the forest near the castle, carefully noting their location on a map. Before this concerned citizen died, he gave his map to the President of the local historical society, and in 2017, the City of Kamenz and the Catholic Church of Poland exhumed the graves and held a funeral service at the reconsecrated mausoleum. The European Union has provided funding for the rebuilding of the castle which is being overseen by the City of Kamenz.

 

Figure 23a. The von Preußen family mausoleum before the war (photo courtesy of Peter Albrecht)

 

 

Figure 23b. The von Preußen family mausoleum following its destruction; the mausoleum was restored in 2017 (photo courtesy of Peter Albrecht)

 

This concludes Part I of this post. Part II will involve a discussion of the group photograph sent to me by Peter Albrecht showing his great-great-uncle Friedrich Heinrich von Preußen and the high-ranking Nazis who visited the Castle Kamenz in 1936 or 1937.

 

REFERENCES

“Organization Consul.” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organisation_Consul

“Prinz-Albrecht-Palais.” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prinz-Albrecht-Palais#History

Stern, Howard (Mar. 1963). “The Organisation Consul.” The Journal of Modern History 35(1), pp. 20-32.

 

POST 132: FATE OF THE BRUCK’S “PRINZ VON PREUßEN“ FAMILY HOTEL IN RATIBOR (RACIBÓRZ): GEOPOLITICAL FACTORS

 

Note: In this post, I discuss the fate of the hotel my family owned for three generations in Ratibor [today: Racibórz, Poland]. Largely intact following the cessation of hostilities after WWII, it appears to have been demolished for a combination of reasons, including geopolitical ones and the Soviet Union’s desire to remove historical traces of German connections to Silesia.

 

Related Posts:

POST 11: RATIBOR & BRUCK’S “PRINZ VON PREUßEN” HOTEL

POST 11, POSTSCRIPT: RATIBOR & BRUCK’S “PRINZ VON PREUßEN” HOTEL

POST 11, POSTSCRIPT 2: RATIBOR & BRUCK’S “PRINZ VON PREUßEN” HOTEL

Regular readers know I periodically revisit topics or people I’ve talked about to amplify new findings. Since the process of learning rarely follows a linear path, one is often left to reevaluate previous findings or conclusions considering more recently uncovered evidence.

The family establishment in Ratibor [today: Racibórz, Poland], the Bruck’s “Prinz Von Preußen” Hotel, was owned for what I estimate are roughly three generations, from the early 1850s to around the mid-1920s. (Figures 1-2) A historic police file found at the “State Archives in Katowice Branch in Racibórz” indicates the business was sold in around 1926, and subsequently went through a series of owners. (Figure 3)

 

Figure 1. The Bruck’s “Prinz Von Preußen” Hotel formerly located at the corner of Oderstraße and Bollwerkstraße

 

Figure 2. The former entrance to the Bruck’s “Prinz Von Preußen” Hotel

 

Figure 3. The cover of the historic police file on the Bruck’s “Prinz Von Preußen” Hotel found at the “State Archives in Katowice Branch in Racibórz”

 

I thought I had previously laid to rest the issue of why the building does not stand today. It would be reasonable to assume the structure was destroyed during World War II, by Allied bombing of the city prior to its capture or in the waning days of the war when the Soviets encircled and seized the city. However, a post-WWII photo given to me by a curator at the Muzeum w Raciborzu proves the structure was largely intact possibly apart from the roof; the photo, while of high resolution, is taken at too great a distance to ascertain how badly the roof was damaged. (Figure 4)

 

Figure 4. Post-World War II photo taken from Racibórz’s Market Square looking east towards the largely intact Bruck’s “Prinz Von Preußen” Hotel

 

Realizing the Bruck’s “Prinz Von Preußen” Hotel, which oddly retained its name throughout its existence despite its Jewish origins, outlasted the cataclysmic events of WWII, I sought another explanation for why it might not have survived. This was provided, so I thought, by Mr. Paul Newerla (Figure 5), my friend from Racibórz, a retired lawyer who now researches and writes extensively about the history of Silesia and Ratibor. Paul sent me a copy of a letter he found in the Racibórz Archives dated the 27th of March 1950 from the so-called Racibórz Municipal Board to the Municipal National Council in Racibórz (Figure 6); in essence, the letter states that damaged buildings in the town had been evaluated for their “historic character” and found lacking, so that parts of or all a structure could be dismantled to provide 5,000,000 bricks needed for the reconstruction of Warsaw.

 

Figure 5. Racibórz historian, Paul Newerla, and me in 2018 standing by the statue of John of Nepomuk currently located in middle of a parking lot

 

Figure 6. Letter dated the 27th of March 1950 retrieved from the State Archives in Racibórz by Paul Newerla establishing a quota of 5,000,000 bricks to be provided by the city for the post-WWII reconstruction of Warsaw

 

Indicative of the method used to clear burned and destroyed houses and buildings in Racibórz, Paul found another letter dated the 12th of January 1948 sent from the Konservator of the Voivodeship, essentially the province, to the Technical Department of Racibórz’s Municipal Department. (Figure 7) The province was reminding the Municipal Board that the use of explosives to clear these damaged structures in the vicinity of historic edifices such as the Church of the Blessed Virgin Mary in Racibórz was prohibited. It is safe to assume that explosives were similarly used to take down the Bruck’s Hotel.

 

Figure 7. Letter dated the 12th of January 1948 from the Province’s Konservator to Racibórz’s Municipal Board telling them that the use of explosives to tear down damaged buildings near historic structures is prohibited

 

Why the city of Racibórz would have agreed to or recommended the dismantling of perfectly functional structures like the former family hotel probably requiring only minor reconstruction at a time when housing was likely in short supply seems to defy logic. Paul jumped to my assistance to explain broader geopolitical factors that apparently dictated why the former family establishment was torn down. I will attempt to explain this to readers.

The address for the Bruck’s “Prinz Von Preußen” Hotel was Oderstraße 16 (Figure 8); the hotel was located on an east-west street that terminated along the west bank of the Oder River [Polish: Odra]. (Figure 9) The historic walled city of Ratibor lay along the west side of the Oder River, as does much of the current central part of Racibórz. The location of the hotel along the west side of the Oder River is significant, as I will demonstrate. Spoiler alert. The destruction of the Bruck’s Hotel may be partially related to the anticipated location of the German-Polish frontier following the end of WWII.

 

Figure 8. View towards the west up Oderstraße with the Bruck’s “Prinz Von Preußen” Hotel on the right side

 

Figure 9. 1903 view of the Oderbrücke, the bridge crossing the Oder River, looking towards the east

 

The subject of Poland’s western frontier was brought up by the Soviet leader Joseph Stalin as early as late 1943 at the Tehrān Conference; this was a meeting between U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, and Soviet Premier Joseph Stalin held in Tehrān between November 28–December 1, 1943. The chief discussion centered on the opening of a “second front” in western Europe. Stalin agreed to an eastern offensive to coincide with the forthcoming Western Front. On the Polish question, the western Allies and the Soviet Union were at sharp odds. While the Americans were not interested in discussing any border changes during the Tehrān Conference, Roosevelt agreed in principle that Poland’s western border should be extended west to the Oder River.

At the Yalta Conference, during the second of the Big Three conferences between Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin held in February 1945, American and British officials agreed on the basics of Poland’s future borders. In the east, the British agreed to the Curzon line, the proposed demarcation line between the Second Polish Republic and the Soviet Union, two new states emerging after World War I; this line was first proposed in 1919. The British acknowledged that the Americans might push for Lwów, current-day Lviv in western Ukraine, to be included in post-war Poland. It was generally agreed that Poland should receive part of East Prussia, Danzig, the eastern part of Pomerania, and Upper Silesia; for reference Ratibor, present-day Racibórz, was in Upper Silesia.

In terms of this blog post, the following observation in Wikipedia is relevant: “With respect to Poland’s western frontiers, Stalin noted that the Polish Prime Minister in exile, Stanisław Mikołajczyk, had been pleased when Stalin had told him Poland would be granted Stettin/Szczecin and the German territories east of the Western Neisse [River]. Yalta was the first time the Soviets openly declared support for a German-Polish frontier on the Western as opposed to the Eastern Neisse. Churchill objected to the Western Neisse frontier, saying ‘it would be a pity to stuff the Polish goose so full of German food that it got indigestion.’ He added that many Germans would be shocked if such large numbers of Germans were driven out of these areas, to which Stalin responded that ‘many Germans’ had ‘already fled before the Red Army.’” The question of Poland’s western border was ultimately left to be decided at the Potsdam Conference.

Let me digress briefly to give readers a sense of geography regarding the whereabouts of the Western and Eastern Neisse Rivers in relationship to the location of Racibórz. The Neisse River, in Polish Nysa, is two rivers in present-day southwestern Poland. The better-known Nysa Łużycka, or Lusatian Neisse, is the more westerly and longer of the two rivers running 157 miles or 252 km; the Nysa Kłodzka, or Glatzer Leisse or Neisse of the city of Kłodzko (Glatz), is the shorter is 113 miles or 182 km and lies entirely within Poland. Both rivers rise in the Sudeten Mountains, flow northward, and empty into the Oder River. (Figure 10) Near the village of Ratzdorf, the Lusatian Neisse discharges into the Oder River.

 

Figure 10. Map showing the Western and Eastern Neisse Rivers, the Oder River, and the Bober River; Racibórz is located approximately midway between Opole (Oppeln) and Ostrava (Ostrau)

 

Görlitz, located on the more westerly Lusatian Neisse River, is the easternmost town in Germany (easternmost village is Zentendorf), and lies opposite the Polish town of Zgorzelec. Görlitz is slightly less than 200 miles west-northwest of Racibórz (Figure 11), while Kłodzko along the Eastern Neisse is only about 90 miles to the west-northwest of Racibórz. (Figure 12)

 

Figure 11. Map showing the distance between Racibórz, Poland, located on the Oder River, and Görlitz, Germany, located on the Western Neisse River (Nysa Łużycka or Lusatian Neisse)

 

Figure 12. Map showing the distance between Racibórz, Poland, located on the Oder River, and Kłodzko, located on the Eastern Neisse River (Nysa Kłodzka)

 

As readers can easily discern for themselves, the Soviet proposal to establish Poland’s western frontier along either the Western Neisse or Eastern Neisse would have resulted and did ultimately result in considerably more land being included within Poland. However, at the time of the Yalta Conference, the precise location of Poland’s western border was still an open question. The western Allies accepted in general that the Oder River into which both the eastern and western Neisse rivers emptied would be the western border of Poland in that area. Still in doubt at the time was whether the border would follow the eastern or western Neisse. The western Allies sought to place the border on the eastern Neisse closer to Breslau [today: Wrocław, Poland]. Suggestions of a border on the Bóbr River (Bober) were also supposedly rejected by the Soviets.

At the latitude at which Racibórz is located, the eastern and western Neisse are situated much further to the west of the Oder River. In none of the materials I’ve read have I seen any mention that the Allies were seriously considering establishing the border between Germany and Poland along the Oder at this latitude; as mentioned above, the discussion always revolved around establishing the western frontier along the Neisse rivers or conceivably along the Bober River. (see Figure 10) While this may be true, as far as the local authorities in Racibórz may have been concerned, there may have been sufficient uncertainty as to where the final frontier would be established. Thus, to hedge their bets, the Communist authorities may have decided to dismantle the Bruck’s Hotel and salvage the bricks fearing it would remain on the German side of the border.

A recent citation sent to me by Paul Newerla sheds additional light on how the Bruck’s Hotel was destroyed. On page 69 of a book entitled in Polish “Od Joannitow Do Ratownikow–Czyli Dzieje Strazakow Ziemi Raciborskiej,” translated roughly as “From the Joanites to the rescuers or the history of firefighters of the Racibórz Land,” there is an eyewitness account by a former firefighter who worked for the fire brigade in Racibórz. (Figures 13a-c)

 

Figure 13a. Cover of the book “From the Joanites to the rescuers or the history of firefighters of the Racibórz Land,” with an eyewitness account by a former firefighter who worked for the fire brigade in Racibórz

 

Figure 13b. Polish account on page 69 by Racibórz firefighter of what happened to the Bruck’s Hotel when it caught fire after WWII

 

Figure 13c. Polish and German accounts by Racibórz firefighter of what happened to the Bruck’s Hotel when it caught fire after WWII

 

Below is the translation of what he wrote: 

One day (it was 1945, without further date) the fire brigade was alerted and ordered to the fire of the Hotel Bruck on the corner of Oderstraße and Bollwerkstraße (now Reymonta-Straße). The hotel was in unusually good condition after the war. When the firefighters appeared with their firefighting trailer in front of the burning hotel, they met Russian soldiers equipped with weapons. They refused to have the hotel deleted [sic]. The Polish administration was also powerless. So the beautiful hotel burned.

It would appear, based on this account, that perhaps an evening of drunken debauchery by occupying Russian soldiers “accidentally” led to the Bruck’s Hotel being set on fire and to the establishment’s ultimate destruction; clearly, the soldiers had no interest in seeing the fire extinguished when the firefighters showed up. Depending on the intensity of the fire, it’s likely the bricks would still have been usable and likely salvaged.

Time and again through history, we have seen foreign invaders attempting to destroy traces of earlier history and culture in places they occupy, to rewrite the past, so to speak. The Nazis sought to eradicate Jewish culture. Currently, we are witnessing in the Ukraine Russians plundering museums in places like Kherson and Mariupol, because, above all, according to Putin’s propaganda, “Ukraine as a country doesn’t exist, it’s part of Russia—so they can grab anything they want.” Thus, like today, it’s probable the orders to wipe out evidence of earlier cultures in Racibórz following WWII were coming from someone high in the Kremlin, likely Stalin himself. Later, during the Communist Era, the headstones in the former Jewish Cemetery in Ratibor were removed and sold off because again, after all, Jews were never considered a part of the cultural fabric of the city.

In closing, let me make a few observations about the frontier between Germany and Poland, and the territorial losses that both suffered because of WWII. The Potsdam Agreement between the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union concluded on the 2nd of August 1945, in anticipation of a final peace treaty, placed the German territories east of the Oder-Neisse line under Polish administration. All Germans remaining in the old and new Poland, it was decided, should be expelled. The Oder-Neisse line marked the border between the former East Germany and Poland from 1950 to 1990. The then-two Communist governments agreed to the border in 1950, while then-West Germany, after a period of refusal, conceded with reservations in 1970. Notwithstanding West Germany’s misgivings about this frontier, with the reunification of Germany, they eventually agreed to it when the German-Polish Border Treaty was signed on the 14th of November 1990.

Ultimately, Poland for its loss to the Soviet Union of 72,000 sq. miles (187,000 sq. km.) of lands east of the Curzon line was compensated with 43,000 sq. miles (112,000 sq. km.) of former German territory. The final borders resulted in Germany’s loss to Poland of most of Silesia, half of Pomerania, the eastern portion of Brandenburg, a small part of Saxony, and part of East Prussia.  The northern part of East Prussia, including Königsberg [today: Kaliningrad, Russia], was annexed by the Soviet Union, while Memelland became part of the Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic, today Lithuania. (Figure 14)

 

Figure 14. Map of the Oder-Neisse Line and Germany’s postwar territorial losses

 

Thus, while we may wish to believe frontiers and borders are immutable, as we’ve seen in just the past nine years since Russia annexed the Crimean Peninsula, they are ever-changing and much more fluid than we would expect.

 

REFERENCES

Dafoe, Taylor. “Before Retreating from Kherson, Russian Troops Emptied One of Ukraine’s Top Museum of Nearly 15,000 Objects.” Artnet News, 14 Nov. 2022, https://news.artnet.com/art-world/russian-troops-loot-kherson-museum-2209777

Geanous, Jacob. “Russian art curators have reportedly helped loot dozens of Ukraine museums.” New York Post, 4 Feb. 2023, https://flipboard.com/article/russian-art-curators-have-reportedly-helped-loot-dozens-of-ukraine-museums/f-1f12bf14a5%2Fnypost.com

Grutchot, Katarzyna (ed.) “Od Joannitow Do Ratownikow—Czyli Dzieje Strazakow Ziemi Raciborskiej.” (“From the Joanites to the rescuers or the history of firefighters of the Racibórz Land”). Nowiny Publishing House.

“Neisse River.” Encylopaedia Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/place/Neisse-River-Europe

“Oder-Neisse line.” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oder%E2%80%93Neisse_line

 

POST 131: AN “EXEMPLARY” RESTITUTION WITH CURT GLASER’S HEIRS INVOLVING AN EDVARD MUNCH PAINTING

 

Note: In this post, I talk about Dr. Curt Glaser, a prominent Jewish art historian, museum director, art critic, and art collector, who until recently lost his place in the history of art and was almost completely forgotten following the Nazi seizure of power. He is a distant relative by marriage. I discuss the ongoing and challenging efforts by his heirs to obtain a fair and just settlement for the large and outstanding art collection Glaser was forced to sell in 1933, a collection that wound up scattered around the world.

Related Posts:

POST 97: PROVING TO MY URUGUAYAN COUSIN THE EXISTENCE OF HIS GREAT-AUNT AND -UNCLE’S DAUGHTER

POST 105: FEDOR LÖWENSTEIN’S NAZI-CONFISCATED ART: RESTITUTION DENIED

 

With this post, I embark on a series of articles that may be of broader interest to readers. While the upcoming posts are inspired by circumstances that impacted members of my family, near and distant, they touch on historical events and people that followers may have some familiarity with. That’s to say, some of the topics transcend and relate to affairs and happenings that affected more than just my family.

In Post 97, I introduced readers to Dr. Curt Glaser (1879-1943), a relative by marriage. For context, Dr. Glaser’s second wife was Maria Milch (1901-1981) (Figure 1), my third cousin once removed, so by no means a close relative.  Curt and Maria were married on the 30th of May 1933 in Berlin, following the death of Curt’s first wife, Elsa Glaser née Kolker (1878-1932) (Figure 2) at the age of just 54 from a serious illness. In Post 97, I related the sad fate of Curt and Maria’s only child, Eva Renate Glaser (1935-1943), who died of Trisomy-21, the most common form of Down Syndrome.

 

Figure 1. Poor quality Xerox photo of Maria Glaser née Milch (1901-1981) taken in 1924 in Cortina, Italy

 

Figure 2. Edvard Munch portrait of Curt Glaser’s first wife, Elsa Glaser née Kolker

 

This post is focused instead on the extensive art collection that Curt amassed with his first wife, its fate following the Nazi ascension to power in 1933, and the ongoing efforts by Dr. Glaser’s heirs to receive just compensation for the forced sale of Curt and Elsa’s accumulation of exceptional artworks.

Curt was born on May 29, 1879, in Leipzig, Germany, the son of the businessman Simon Glaser (1841-1904) and his wife Emma Glaser née Haase (1854-1927). Curt’s parents moved to Berlin shortly after his birth. Curt Glaser received his doctorate in medicine in Munich in 1902, then immediately began a second degree in art history, a topic that had always interested him. He first studied in Freiburg and Munich, then in Berlin where he worked with Heinrich Wölfflin. He wrote his Ph.D. dissertation on Hans Holbein the Elder and received his doctorate in 1907. Glaser, born Jewish, converted to the Protestant faith in around 1911.

In 1903, Curt married his first wife Elsa Kolker from Breslau [today: Wrocław, Poland], the daughter of the industrialist and art collector Hugo Kolker. (Figure 3) Starting around 1910, with the support and in part at the bidding of Glaser’s father-in-law, Curt and Elsa began to build a significant art collection that encompassed, among others, the works of Edvard Munch, Vincent van Gogh, Henri Matisse, Pablo Picasso, and Hans Purmann. To give readers an idea of the extent of the art collection Curt and Elsa amassed, according to a footnote in Wikipedia on Curt Glaser, “The German Lost Art Foundation lists 1806 objects that belonged to Glaser and his wife in its database.” It’s not clear, however, from this footnote whether this constitutes an itemized inventory.

 

Figure 3. The headstone of Hugh Kolker (1845-1915) and Natalie Kolker née Glaser, Elsa Glaser’s parents, from the Old Jewish Cemetery in Breslau [today: Wrocław, Poland]
 

Beginning in around 1902, Glaser began to be active as an art critic and became one of the most important critics and commentators in Berlin over the next thirty years. Yet, as a central figure in Berlin’s art scene, he has largely been forgotten in the years since his death.

Glaser started working in 1909 at the Königliches Kupferstichkabinett where, by 1912, he began significantly expanding their collection of modern and contemporary art and promoting it through numerous exhibitions. Curt’s tenure at the Kupferstichkabinett corresponded with the publication of some of his most important scholarly works, including monographs on Lucas Cranach the Elder (1921) and Hans Holbein the Younger (1924).

In 1924, Glaser became the director of Berlin’s Kunstbibliothek (State Art Library), where he was tasked with redefining it “as an art historical research library.” By 1925, Curt and Elsa had moved into a civil service apartment unattached to Curt’s position as director of the Berlin Art Library in which the Glaser’s art collection could be suitably exhibited. Curt’s lofty position and the Glasers’ luxurious apartment where they could host important art salons meant they now belonged to Berlin’s intellectual elite. (Figures 4-7) The Glaser home on Prinz-Albrecht-Straße [today: Niederkirchnerstraße] became a meeting point for art intellectuals.

 

Figure 4. Curt & Elsa Glaser’s art library in their Berlin apartment

 

Figure 5. Curt Glaser seated in his apartment

 

Figure 6. The Edvard Munch Room in Curt & Elsa Glaser’s apartment

 

Figure 7. Some of the artworks in Curt & Elsa Glaser’s Berlin apartment

 

 

Curt Glaser’s fate was reflective of that of many Jews living in Germany during the 1930’s. Following the seizure of power by the National Socialists in January 1933, the “Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service” was enacted in April 1933. As a result, Glaser was swiftly placed on administrative leave, then fired from his post at the Berlin State Art Library. By May 1933, he was forced from his apartment, a building which came to house the Gestapo headquarters.

May 1933 also corresponds with the period that much of the Glasers’ collection was auctioned in Berlin. The bulk of Glaser’s art collection and library, as well as his home furnishings, were auctioned at the Internationales Kunst- und Auktions-Haus on May 9, 1933, and at the Berlin Buch- und Kunst-Antiquariat Max Perl on May 18-19, 1933. These auctions in 1933 resulted in Glaser’s collection being scattered across the globe.

An auction was believed to be the option that provided the opportunity to obtain the best possible prices given the circumstances at the time. These circumstances included the world economic crisis, the National Socialists’ seizure of power, and an increasing number of auctions of entire collections belonging not only to fleeing Jews but recently impoverished owners as well. There’s no question that many museums and private collectors tried to take advantage of these conditions to make inexpensive purchases of sought-after art collections. It’s clear that Glaser largely dissolved his collection for personal reasons, but also under pressure from the National Socialists. More will be said about this below in connection with the purchase in 1933 by the Kunstmuseum in Basel of almost 200 drawings and graphics from the Glaser collection.

According to a report by the Kunstmuseum in Basel entitled “Curt Glaser Report: III. Summary of the Historical Facts,” “While proceeds from auctions by Jewish consignors were already being transferred to blocked accounts during the first years of the Nazi regime, in Glaser’s case the research assumes that he received the proceeds of the auctions. It cannot be ascertained whether and to what extent Glaser had access to his salary and bank accounts from abroad in 1933 due to the foreign currency legislation of 1931.”

This report also makes the following observation as to the final sale amounts realized at the Glaser auction in Berlin, specifically the Max Perl auction, and its impact on Glaser’s fortune: “The final sale amounts at the auction reflect the trend that important pieces attained high prices while less important works remained below expectations. The two prominent lithographs by Munch that were acquired for the Kunstmuseum Basel were bid up above the appraisal (by 29.2% and 8.3%), while the total price of all 200 works acquired for the museum amounted to 10.1% below the appraised value. Existing research, as well as the Glaser compensation proceeding of 1963, indicates that Glaser lost a considerable portion of his fortune in the auctions.”

A brief digression. Following the death of Curt Glaser’s first wife Elsa in 1932, as a tribute to her life as a wife, collector, and patron of Edvard Munch’s work, Curt donated Munch’s painting “Music on Karl Johan Street (1889)” to the Nationalgalerie in Berlin. This painting was eventually returned to Curt Glaser by the Nationalgalerie, no doubt as a part of the Nazi effort to remove from museums what they deemed as “degenerate” art. This included works of Expressionism, Dadaism, the New Objectivity, Surrealism, Cubism, and Fauvism; more than 21,000 objects were seized by the Nazis, many of which were presented in the exhibition “Degenerate Art,” which traveled throughout Germany. In any case, Glaser took Munch’s painting with him when he later left for Switzerland. No longer able to afford donating it, he sold it to the Kunsthaus Zürich in December 1940 for 12,000 Swiss Francs.

Curt Glaser was permanently dismissed from the civil service on September 27, 1933, Ironically, in January 1934, he was awarded a pension by the Nazi government, although it amounted to only three-quarters of what would have been paid to an Aryan civil servant. Apparently, Glaser’s pension was transferred abroad, although after November 1, 1936, the Reich Flight Tax introduced by the Nazis was deducted.

Following the liquidation of his art collection, Curt left Germany with his future second wife Maria Milch. In June/July of 1933 they stayed briefly in Paris, then moved temporarily to Ascona, Switzerland. Between 1936 and then again between 1938-1939, the Glasers stayed in Florence, Italy with their daughter, who was born in 1935, probably in Ascona. After WWII was declared and Italy became part of the Axis powers, the Glasers emigrated to America in 1941 via Italy and Cuba without their daughter. Curt died in New York in 1943, aged just 64, never having managed to reestablish a professional career either in Switzerland or the United States following his departure from Germany.

As mentioned briefly above, about 200 works in Curt Glaser’s collection were acquired by the Kunstmuseum Basel at the Max Perl auction. In what can only be considered another ironic development, in the summer of 1938, Glaser had applied unsuccessfully for the directorship of the Kunstmuseum in Basel that had acquired so many of his artworks.

Next, I want to contrast the differing approaches taken vis a vis Glaser’s heirs by the Kunstmuseum in Basel and the family of the Norwegian shipowner Thomas Olsen who recently auctioned a masterpiece by Edvard Munch that once belonged to Curt Glaser.

First, however, let me briefly touch on the 1998 Washington Conference on Holocaust-Era Assets. This was a conference hosted by the Department of State and the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum at the Department of State from November 30 through December 3, 1998. Forty-four countries as well as numerous international non-governmental organizations with a stake in these issues participated. The attendees adopted eleven basic rules, known as the Washington Principles, that are meant to help resolve open questions relating to Nazi-looted art. Museums are urged to review their collections, fill in gaps in the histories of the works, and identify illegal changes in ownership. As necessary, museums should initiate steps to return and restitute the works in question to the rightful owners or seek another form of “just and fair solution.”

A subsequent conference, the Holocaust Era Assets Conference, took place in Terezín, Czech Republic, the site of the Theresienstadt Ghetto, in June 2009. This resulted in the Terezin Declaration, a non-binding declaration by 47 countries agreeing on measures to right economic wrongs that accompanied the Holocaust against the Jews and other victims of Nazi persecution in Europe. It is neither a treaty nor a legally binding international agreement. As far as the current discussion is concerned, the Terezin Declaration ruled that forced sales fell under the terms of the Washington Conference on Holocaust-era Assets and were thus entitled to a “fair and just solution.” A forced sale would apply to the 1933 auctions of the Glaser collection.

According to the guidelines in the Terezin Declaration, while restitution of the property itself is preferred, the participating countries acknowledged, however, this is not always possible; alternatively, the guidelines suggest possible compensation that is “genuinely fair and adequate.” Since the declaration is not legally binding, it does not define how countries should act on its principles.

In terms of the artworks acquired by the Kunstmuseum in May 1933, the Glaser heirs initially approached the Basel government demanding restitution in 2008. This was roundly rejected by the city government who argued that under civil law the purchase had been lawful and was still legally binding. They further claimed, falsely as it turns out, that they had been unaware the acquisitions came from the Glaser collection. For readers interested in this issue, I refer them to the previously cited “Curt Glaser Report” by the Kunstmuseum.

By November 2017, when the heirs once again approached the Basel government, the political landscape had shifted. German museums had by then paid out millions in restitution, so the Basel government felt pressured to act to protect their reputation. They handed the question over to their Art Commission who sought a face-saving solution.

Applying the Washington Principles the Commission sought a “fair and just” settlement, writing in their report “because it is not primarily a question of legal issues, but of moral issues.” However, fearing being disavowed by the then left-green city government majority, the Commission made it clear that the government’s decision of 2008 was not being called into question, in other words, there was no “right of return” of the artworks. Rather, they argued Glaser had to be regarded as a victim of National Socialism and thus his heirs were entitled to a “fair and just” settlement. Having established the framework for an agreement that “an extrajudicial restitution of the drawings and graphics was excluded,” the Art Commission finessed the situation and negotiated financial compensation with Glaser’s heirs in 2020. This included organizing an exhibition on Glaser as an art collector and art historian and covering the legal fees and expenses for the heirs to travel to Switzerland to attend the exhibition. The exhibition allowed Curt Glaser to be remembered as one of the most important and influential museum directors of his time. While the Basel government eventually came to an amenable resolution, it took decades for Glaser’s heirs to attain satisfaction.

Let me move now to a discussion of a “fair and just” settlement recently reached with the Glaser heirs related to a painting by Edvard Munch that once belonged to Curt Glaser. This has been characterized by the Glaser family’s lawyer, David Rowland, as a case that was handled in an “exemplary” manner.

As a brief aside, I am in touch with Curt Glaser’s wife’s niece, Bettina Basanow née Meyer. (Figure 8) Following publication of Post 105 where I lamented my failed attempt to obtain restitution from the French Ministry of Culture for paintings confiscated by the Nazis in December 1940 from my father’s first cousin, Bettina referred me to David Rowland. David recommended a French-speaking law school classmate of his who in turn put me in touch with the French lawyer who is representing me in my restitution case.

 

Figure 8. Maria Glaser née Milch’s niece, Bettina Basanow née Meyer, my fourth cousin

 

One painting Curt Glaser was forced to sell under duress after the Nazis came to power was “an expressionist masterpiece” by Edvard Munch entitled “Dance on the Beach.” It was part of a pioneering 12-panel work, referred to as “The Reinhardt Frieze.” The work was originally commissioned in the early 20th century by Max Reinhardt, the famed Jewish financier of plays, operas, and concerts, for his avant-garde theater in Berlin. As Southeby’s explained in media materials, this 12-panel work was designed as an “immersive installation” before audience members stepped into the Berlin theater’s upper level. Eventually in 1912 when the theater was being refurbished, the frieze was split into its component parts, and Glaser, who was a friend of Munch, acquired the piece.

After Glaser was forced to sell “Dance on the Beach,” the Norwegian shipowner Thomas Olsen acquired the painting at a sale in Oslo in 1934. Like Glaser, Olsen was a friend and patron of Munch, and after the Nazis invaded Norway in 1940, he hid the painting in a barn. It stayed hidden until the end of the war, and since 1945 had remained in the hands of the Olsen family, the only part of the original Reinhardt-commissioned frieze still in private hands. On March 1st of this year, the painting was auctioned by the Olsen heirs, and sold for $20 million. Prior to its sale, Petter Olsen, the scion of the Olsen family, reached a “fair and just” settlement with the Glaser heirs that avoided litigation.

I’m not privy to the terms of the settlement, although Bettina Basanow, Maria Milch’s niece, tells me there are four groups of Glaser heirs involved in ongoing litigation. A 2021 New York Times noted that “Since 2007, 13 private collectors or institutions — including the Dutch Restitutions Committee, the Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation in Berlin, the Museum Ludwig in Cologne and the city of Basel — have concluded that Glaser sold his collection in May 1933 as a result of Nazi persecution, and agreed to either return or pay some compensation to his heirs for art he sold that wound up in their collections.”

The New York Times article goes on to say, however, that “. . .the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston have repeatedly rejected the heirs’ claims for paintings that were sold at the same auctions. They argue there is not enough evidence that Glaser sold under duress.” Similarly, David Rowland is critical of the United Kingdom’s Spoilation Advisory Panel conclusion in 2009 that while “Nazi oppression” was a “predominant reason” for Glaser’s sale of eight drawings in 1933 to the Courtauld Institute of Art, London, the “moral claim was insufficiently strong to warrant the transfer of the drawings” to Glaser’s heirs.

Suffice it to say, it is reasonable to assume that time-consuming and expensive litigation will continue with these and other institutions and individuals until some “fair and just” settlement is reached with Glaser’s heirs on his behalf.

REFERENCES

“Curt Glaser.” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curt_Glaser

“Glaser, Curt.” Dictionary of Art Historians, https://arthistorians.info/glaserc

Hickley, Catherine. “Did the Nazis Force an Art Sale? The Question Lingers 88 Years Later.” New York Times, 6 Jul. 2021, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/06/arts/design/nazis-art-forced-sales.html

Kunstmuseum Basel. Curt Glaser Report: III. Summary of the Historical Facts. https://www.bing.com/search?q=curt+glaser+report%3A+III.+Summary+of+the+historical+facts&form=ANNTH1&refig=4bbfef8a88ec40c29ae32f9547d03369

Mensch, Christian. “Curt Glaser Case: The squaring of the cultural circle: in the case of Glaser, an agreement has been reached.” BZ Basel, 27 Mar. 2020, https://www.bzbasel.ch/basel/basel-stadt/die-quadratur-des-kulturzirkels-im-fall-glaser-wurde-eine-vereinbarung-getroffen-ld.1414834

Parzinger, Hermann. “Remembrances of Curt Glaser: A cosmopolitan, forced into exile.” Commemorative plaque unveiling: May 9, 10:30 a.m. in the foyer of the Cultural Forum of the Kunstbibliothek. https://rowlandlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Parzinger-Essay-ENG.pdf

Philpot, Robert. “Heirs of Nazi-persecuted collector hail justice in auction of Edvard Munch painting.” Times of Israel, 24 February 2023, https://www.timesofisrael.com/heirs-of-nazi-persecuted-collector-hail-justice-in-auction-of-edvard-munch-painting/

“Terezin Declaration.” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terezin_Declaration

The Collector Curt Glaser: From Champion of Modernism to Refugee. 22 Oct. 2022-12 Feb. 2023, Kunstmuseum, Basel.

 

 

POST 130: NAZI-CONFISCATED BOOKS STORED IN RATIBOR (RACIBÓRZ, POLAND), MY FATHER’S BIRTH PLACE

 

Note: This post tiers off an earlier one where I discussed my failed attempt to obtain compensation for my family from the French Ministry of Culture for artworks confiscated from my father’s first cousin by Nazi authorities at the port of Bordeaux in December 1940. As I explained in Post 105, I’m my father’s cousin’s closest surviving blood relative. The Einsatzstab Reichsleiter Rosenberg (ERR), the Nazi’s primary agency of plunder, spearheaded the seizure of artworks in Bordeaux but was also heavily involved in the plunder of libraries and archives throughout the areas the Nazis occupied. Surprisingly, many of the books wound up in Ratibor [today: Racibórz, Poland], the town in Silesia where my father was born.

Related Posts:

POST 105: FEDOR LÖWENSTEIN ‘S NAZI-CONFISCATED ART: RESTITUTION DENIED

POST 126: MY GREAT-AUNT FRANZISKA BRUCK, FLORIST TO THE LAST GERMAN KAISER

POST 127: MY GREAT-AUNT ELSBETH BRUCK, “LA COMMUNISTE,” A DDR APPARATCHIK

 

This story begins in 2014 when I spent 13 weeks in Europe traveling from Poland to Spain exploring places associated with my Jewish family’s diaspora. This included visiting the Stadtmuseum in Spandau, Berlin’s westernmost borough, where the surviving papers of two of my renowned great-aunts, Franziska Bruck (1866-1942) and Elsbeth Bruck (1874-1970), are archived; both have been the subject of recent posts. I photographed all the documents, pictures, and personal effects in the files for later study.

Upon my return to the states, I tried to make sense of what I’d obtained. Obviously, the letters were most useful though some were handwritten in Sütterlinschrift or Kurrentschrift, historical forms of German handwriting that are indecipherable to me as well as most contemporary Germans; fortunately, I know a few older German friends and relatives who learned Sütterlin in school who were able to translate these letters for me.

The most informative letter, however, was a typed one, composed by one of my father’s first cousins, Jeanne “Hansi” Goff née Löwenstein, to her aunt, my great-aunt, Elsbeth Bruck in East Berlin. In this letter written in 1946, Hansi explained that a painting by her recently deceased brother Fédor Löwenstein had posthumously sold for 90,000 French Francs. (Figure 1) Realizing this represented a significant amount of money at the time, I began to suspect Fédor was an accomplished artist. I already knew of his existence from photographs and other letters found among my great-aunt’s papers. (Figure 2) Additionally, knowing Fédor had died in 1946 in Nice, France, I’d previously obtained his certificat de décès, death certificate, when I visited L’Hôtel de Ville in Nice, Nice’s City Hall.

 

Figure 1. The section of Jeanne Löwenstein’s 1946 letter to her aunt Elsbeth Bruck telling her of the posthumous sale of one of her brother Fédor Löwenstein’s paintings for 90,000 French Francs

 

Figure 2. Fédor Löwenstein (middle) and his brother Heinz with their mother Hedwig Löwenstein née Bruck in Nice, France

 

I began my investigation in Nice by contacting the lady I know at L’Hôtel de Ville asking if she could find and send me Fédor’s obituary. This acquaintance did one better and sent me several web links with information about Fédor Löwenstein. Unbeknownst to me during my 13 weeks in Europe the Musée des Beaux-arts in Bordeaux, France had featured three of Fédor’s oil paintings on display between May 15th and August 24th. Naturally, had I known about this special exhibit, I would have detoured there to see the artworks.

The exhibit catalog (livret_lowenstein.pdf (musba-bordeaux.fr) included a lot of detail on Fédor and his paintings, and their history. (Figure 3) The exhibit and the new information confirmed what I already suspected, namely, that Löwenstein had not been an ordinary painter. He was born on the 13th of April 1901 in Munich. He studied at the School of Decorative Arts in Berlin, then at the Academy of Fine Arts in Dresden. In 1923, he moved to Paris, France, attracted by the artistic influence of the capital. Between the two world wars, an artistic movement dominated there referred to as École de Paris, the School of Paris, which was not an actual school. It was in this rich artistic context that Löwenstein painted and drew. His early works reflected the influence of cubism, and his subsequent creations evolved towards abstraction, although his personal style was on the border between the two. In 1936, Fédor joined the Salon des Surindépendants, an association of artists who no longer wanted an admission jury and questioned the restrictions imposed by the new regulations of the Salon des Indépendants of 1924.

 

Figure 3. The cover of the catalog from the 2014 exhibit at the Musée des Beaux-arts that displayed Fédor Löwenstein’s three “martyred” paintings

 

Fédor Löwenstein is often referred to as a Czechoslovakian painter because his father’s family was from there. The Munich Agreement concluded on the 30th of September 1938, provided for the German annexation of land on the border between Czechoslovakia and Germany called the Sudetenland, where more than three million, mainly ethnic Germans, lived. Undoubtedly the signing of this agreement in the city where Fédor was born and involving the country where his father’s family originated inspired him to paint one of his iconic works, “La Chute,” “The Fall.” As the Bordeaux exhibit catalog notes, “The composition and iconographic vocabulary of the work are reminiscent of the convulsed and screaming silhouettes of Picasso’s Guernica. . .”

When France entered the war on the 3rd of September 1939, Löwenstein, like many artists, left Paris. As a foreigner, he had to hide to escape the exclusion laws. Briefly, some background on this. During the interwar period, France was one of the more liberal countries in welcoming Jews, many of them from eastern Europe. However, in the wake of a significant influx of refugees fleeing Nazi Germany and the Spanish Civil War in the 1930s, the French government began to reassess their “open-door” policy.  By 1939 the authorities had imposed strict limitations on immigration and set up several internment and detention camps for refugees, such as Gurs and Rivesaltes, in southern France. Various of my German ancestors got caught up in these detentions.

In the case of Fédor, however, he went to Mirmande in the Drôme Valley, more than 400 miles south of Paris, on the advice of a fellow artist, a place he’d previously stayed in 1935 and 1938. At the time, Miramande was a village in ruins that became a refuge for many Parisian artists of foreign origin. All seemed to lead a peaceful existence there except for the difficulties obtaining art supplies. In any case, sometime in May 1940, Fédor left Miramande for Paris to select works of art to be shipped to a gallery in New York City via the port of Bordeaux. These works would eventually be seized there in December 1940 by the Nazi authorities.

Bordeaux is located in Aquitaine, a historical region in southwestern France. Quoting from the exhibit catalog: “Considered a sensitive and strategic coastal area, the Atlantic coastline was governed in a special way by the army, and access to it was forbidden. Very quickly, the military authorities blocked the shipment of all goods then leaving the port of Bordeaux. December 5 [1940] seems to have been the date of an important seizure operation by the ERR (Einsatzstab Reichsleiter Rosenberg), two sets of goods on their way out were confiscated.” This included Fédor Löwenstein’s consignment of works destined for America.

A little more history. German forces invaded France on May 10, 1940, and by June 22, 1940, France signed an armistice with Germany that went into effect on June 25, 1940. Under the terms of the armistice, Germany annexed the provinces of Alsace and Lorraine, and occupied the remainder of northern and western France. However, southern and eastern France remained unoccupied until November 1942. There a French collaborationist government, referred to as the Vichy Regime, governed. However, the suppression of the demarcation line in November 1942 caused the artist colony gathered in Miramande to break up. From then on, it was the French Resistance network that protected the refugees of Miramande, allowing many Jewish painters to escape.

By the fall of 1943, Fédor was already ill and traveled to Paris under a false identity to consult a specialist at the Curie Institute, though his disease was not diagnosed. His mastery of the French language, his support network, and his discretion about his religion were undoubtedly responsible for his survival during the Nazi occupation. Shortly after the war on the 4th of August 1946 he was hospitalized and died a few days later of Hodgkin Lymphoma in Nice.

The 2014 exhibit at the Musée des Beaux-arts de Bordeaux (livret_lowenstein.pdf (musba-bordeaux.fr) was prompted by the rediscovery of three looted works of art, entitled “Landscape (Composition (Paysage)) (Figure 4),” “The Poplars (Les Peupliers),” and “The Trees (Arbres)” painted by Fédor Löwenstein that had been confiscated by the Nazis. As previously mentioned, the three works displayed were part of a consignment that F. Loevenstein, as Fédor signed his works, tried to send to an American gallery in New York. Seized at the port of Bordeaux in December 1940, they were sent to the Jeu de Paume in Paris, to be stored in the so-called “Salle des Martyrs,” “Martyrs Room” (Figure 5), a chamber to which works in a style repudiated by the aesthetics of the Third Reich, were relegated. It was only at the end of 2010 that the connection between these works that were held at the Musée National d’Art Moderne housed at the Centre Pompidou and the Löwenstein seizure at Hanger H in the port of Bordeaux was made.

 

Figure 4. Fédor Löwenstein’s painting entitled “Landscape (Composition)”

 

Figure 5. The so-called “Salle des Martyrs,” “Martyrs Room,” at the Jeu de Paume in Paris; Löwenstein’s painting “Landscape” is circled (Anonymous 1940. Archive from the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs)

 

Researchers Alain Prévet, Thierry Bajou, Edouard Vasseur, along with the curator of the Bordeaux exhibit Mme. Florence Saragoza, about whom more will be said below, identified the paintings. They accomplished this using two negatives preserved in the Archives of the National Museums that showed views of the Salle des Martyrs of the Jeu de Paume. The researchers undertook detailed digitization of these negatives, painting by painting, and reconciled this with data that had been recorded by Rose Valland, then curatorial attaché at the Jeu de Paume. (Figure 6) In the list that Rose Valland had drawn up in March 1942, she listed eleven works—six watercolors being grouped together in one lot—that had been stolen from Fédor Löwenstein. At least two of the artist’s paintings are visible in one of the photographs taken of the Salle des Martyrs. 

 

Figure 6. Rose Valland, curatorial attaché at the Jeu de Paume, in the Martyrs Room

 

The Salle des Martyrs of the Jeu de Paume became the central repository of the works of art confiscated in France by the Nazi services, the contents of which were made available to the ERR, the Einsatzstab Reichsleiter Rosenberg (the Reichsleiter Rosenberg Taskforce). The ERR was one of the primary Nazi Party organizations dedicated to appropriating cultural property during WWII. It was led by the ideological henchman of the Nazi Party Alfred Rosenberg, from within the NSDAP Office of Foreign Affairs. Between 1940 and 1945, the ERR operated in France, Netherlands, Belgium, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Greece, Italy, and on the territory of the Soviet Union.

The Löwenstein works mentioned by Rose Valland and rediscovered in 2010 had also been catalogued by the ERR agents.  They were listed under ERR file numbers Löwenstein 4 (Landscape), Löwenstein 15 (The Poplars), and Löwenstein 19 (The Trees). Following the war, the works were kept at the Musée National d’Art Moderne. The researcher Alain Prévet previously mentioned involved in the identification of the Löwenstein works has shown that the works were inventoried in 1973 as coming from an anonymous donation. The Bordeaux catalog notes the following:

“According to the minutes of the session of the Commission des Musées Nationaux of December 6, 1973, this ‘donation’ was in fact a regularization of artistic goods that had been ‘lying around’ in the Louvre; works that had ‘remained unclaimed, some of them for forty years,’ in a storeroom of the national museum. Because of the lack of knowledge of the real provenance of these works, it was decided to register them as ‘anonymous gifts’. . . works that had been deposited in the Louvre during the Occupation, following the Nazi spoliations, were . . . part of this collection. . .

As the Bordeaux exhibit catalog notes, Löwenstein’s works, which are conserved to this day at the Musée National d’Art Moderne, Centre Pompidou “. . .bear the stigma of their aesthetic condemnation: a large red cross indicating that they were among others destined to be discarded. The files drawn up by the ERR bear the mention vernichtet, ‘destroyed’. . .The curator at the Jeu de Paume, Rose Valland, confirms this fatal destiny on July 20, 1943: ‘Scholz and his team continue to choose from among the paintings in the Louvre’s escrow and stab the paintings they do not want to keep. This is how they destroyed almost all of Masson’s works, all of Dali’s. The paintings in the Löwenstein, Esmont (sic), M[ichel]-G[eorges] Michel collections are almost all shredded (…)’’. . . On July 23, she added: ‘The paintings massacred in the Louvre’s sequestration were brought back to the Jeu de Paume. Five or six hundred were burned under German surveillance in the museum garden from 11 a.m. to 3 p.m.. . .’” That Löwenstein’s three paintings escaped destruction is astonishing and is probably due to the fact they were classified as “paintings of lesser importance.”

Contained within the materials on the Löwenstein exhibit was the name of the curator who organized the show, Mme. Florence Saragoza, previously mentioned as one of the people involved in identifying Fédor’s works from the negatives of the Salle des Martyrs.

Intriguingly, also included within the Bordeaux museum’s promotional materials was the following statement in French:

Si près de soixante-dix ans après la fin du conflit, de nombreux cas de restitution d’objets d’art restent en attente, trois d’entre eux sont désormais sortis de l’ombre et attendant maintenant l’identification des ayants droit de Wilhelm Fédor Löwenstein  (1901-1946) pour être remis à leurs propriétaires légitimes.

Translated :

“While nearly seventy years after the end of the conflict, many cases of art object restitution remain pending, three have now emerged from the shadows and are now awaiting the identification of the rightful owners of Wilhelm Fédor Löwenstein (1901-1946) to be returned to their rightful owners.”

This is a significant “concession.” Oftentimes, heirs of Jews whose works were either confiscated by the Nazis or whose sale was forced at a deeply discounted price and/or that eventually and illicitly wound up in museums spend years litigating their cases against these museums or private owners. The fact that the France Government’s Premier Ministre’s Commission for the Compensation of Victims of Spoliation or “CIVS” acknowledged that it was looking for the rightful heirs of goods taken illegally by the Nazis suggested the process of receiving compensation or acquiring possession could theoretically be short-circuited.

As I explained in detail in Post 105, I was able to establish contact with Mme. Florence Saragoza (Figure 7) who was literally brought to tears to learn that someone from Fédor Löwenstein’s family still exists. Florence, who I hold in the very, very highest esteem helped me file a claim in 2014 with the CIVS for compensation on behalf of my family; this involved requesting compensation for 25 pieces of art seized and/or destroyed.

 

Figure 7. Mme. Florence Saragoza

 

For orientation, my father and Fédor were first cousins (Figure 8), so I would be Fédor’s first cousin once removed. Being intimately acquainted with my family tree and knowing that neither Fédor nor his two siblings ever had any children, I quickly realized I’m his closest surviving blood relative. Notwithstanding this fact, as I deeply lamented in Post 105, when the CIVS finally rendered their decision in June 2021, they refused to acknowledge I had any rights to compensation for the destruction and confiscation of Fédor’s artworks. Suffice it to say, because France is ruled by the principles of civil law rather than common law, my rights have been supplanted by Fédor’s siblings, who are obviously no longer alive, or by the heirs named in his sibling’s wills. The living heirs are referred to as “universal legatees,” and their rights according to French law supersede my own. That said, there is still some gray area based on which a French lawyer I’ve hired is contesting the decision. Stay tuned for further updates.

 

Figure 8. Heinz Löwenstein (middle) with my parents in Israel in 1973

 

Following their determination in 2021, the CIVS notified me that one of Fédor Löwenstein’s painting entitled “Composition” had been shipped to the Jewish Museum of New York for an exhibit entitled “Afterlives: Recovering the Lost Stories of Looted Art,” scheduled to run between August 20, 2021, and January 9, 2022. This was one of the paintings I had filed a claim for with the CIVS. Even though I’d been denied restitution by the French Minister of Culture, I took an avid interest in how the CIVS would handle the process going forward. For this reason, I ordered the exhibition catalog which, during Covid, took many months to arrive.

Tucked into the book was a surprising picture labeled as having been taken in Ratibor [today: Racibórz, Poland]. This is the town where my father and many of his immediate family were born and where the family business, the Bruck’s “Prinz von Preußen” Hotel, operated through three generations. The photo shows crates containing thousands of books. According to the caption, in 1943 the Nazis established a research and sorting operation for plundered libraries in Ratibor. Eventually more than two million books were transported there. The photograph was included in the photo records of the Offenbach Archival Depot. (Figure 9) The Depot was a central collecting point in the American Sector of Germany for books, manuscripts and archival materials looted, confiscated, or taken by the German army or Nazi government from the occupied countries during World War II.

 

Figure 9. Post-WWII photo showing crates of books looted by the Einsatzstab Reichsleiter Rosenberg and shipped to Ratibor for sorting (photo from the National Archives Catalog “Photographs of the Operations of the Offenbach Archival Depot”)

 

The relocation of the ERR’s Book Control Center (Buchleitstelle) from Berlin to Ratibor in mid-1943 was prompted by the increased Allied bombing of Berlin, and a desire by the Nazis to save the books, at least until they’d had time to sort and save those they could use for propaganda. More on this below.

While I’d previously been unaware how my father’s hometown had been used during the war, Patricia Kennedy Grimstead, an academic from the Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute, has written extensively on the subject. In a seminal paper entitled “Roads to Ratibor: Library and Archival Plunder by the Einsatzstab Reichsleiter Rosenberg” she goes into great detail on her findings. According to Grimstead, the ERR Silesian research center in Ratibor “. . .was the recipient of archives and books the Nazis plundered as part of a vast ideological, political, and cultural policy. Unlike art, archival and library seizures were not for display, prestige, or profit. If they bolstered Hitler’s imperial pretensions or exposed the evils of ‘Bolshevism,’ then by all means they should be sought. . .Specialists catalogued, analyzed, and preserved the materials, treating them not only as the heritage of ‘enemies of the Reich’ but as raw material for propaganda for ‘operational’ use’” Books that did not meet these criteria were burned in spectacular bonfires or sent to pulping factories. (p. 391)

According to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum’s website, in a section on “Einsatzstab Reichsleiter Rosenberg: A Policy of Plunder,” in January 1940 Hitler informed all offices of the Nazi Part that Alfred Rosenberg, head of the ERR, “. . .should be assisted in assembling a library for the planned new educational and research institute of the Party, the Hohe School, to be located at the Chiemsee in Bavaria. The library would contain 500,000 volumes. . .Preparations for the Hohe School also included other branches within the Reich, such as a ‘Center for Research on the Jewish Question’ in Frankfurt.”

The Jewish Museum exhibit catalog emphasizes this same point: “The segregation of Jews was enforced in a variety of ways. One distinctive strategy was to treat Jewish culture as the subject of historical inquiry, much as one might study a rare but obsolete specimen. Hitler called this an ‘anti-Semitism of reason,’ or ‘scientific anti-Semitism,’ which explicitly identified Jews in racial terms, rather than by religious affiliation. By the late 1930s research centers, institutes, and university departments had been founded throughout Germany and Austria to accommodate this burgeoning field and to inspire looting of works that were to be ‘saved’ expressly for the purpose of spurious academic research. Prominent among these was Alfred Rosenberg’s Institute for the Study of the Jewish Question (IEJ). It housed an estimated five hundred thousand books and manuscripts stolen from synagogues, Masonic temples, and private collections. Key to his mission was to set up a great Nazi university on the Chiemsee, in Bavaria, from the spoils of his plunder, including masterworks of both art and literature that would be instrumental in forming the curriculum.” (p. 54)

In this lengthy post, I reviewed and augmented what I had previously discussed in Post 105 regarding my failed attempt to obtain restitution on behalf of my family for paintings seized by the Nazi’s Einsatzstab Reichsleiter Rosenberg (ERR) from my father’s first cousin. In the process, I learned more about this agency’s role in plundering books that wound up in Ratibor where my father was born. Following the capitulation of Ratibor at the end of WWII, many of the books confiscated by the Nazis in Western Europe were later moved by the Soviets to Minsk, capital of Soviet Belorussia. To this day, an estimated half a million of these books have not been returned to their countries of origin and are referred to as “twice plundered” books.

 

REFERENCES

Afterlives: Recovering the Lost Stories of Looted Art. 20 Aug. 2021-9 Jan. 2022, Jewish Museum, New York.

Alexander, Darsie & Sam Sackeroff. Afterlives: Recovering the Lost Stories of Looted Art. Yale University Press, 2021.

“Einsatzstab Reichsleiter Rosenberg: A Policy of Plunder.” United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, https://www.ushmm.org/information/exhibitions/online-exhibitions/special-focus/offenbach-archival-depot/einsatzstab-reichsleiter-rosenberg-a-policy-of-plunder

Fédor Löwenstein (1901-1946), trois œuvres martyres. 15 May-24 Aug. 2014, Musée des Beaux-Arts de Bordeaux, Bordeaux.

“France.” United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/france

Grimstead, Patricia Kennedy. “Roads to Ratibor: Library and Archival Plunder by the Einsatzstab Reichsleiter Rosenberg.” Holocaust and Genocide Studies, vol. 19, no. 3, Winter 2005, pp. 390-458.

Musée des Beaux-arts de Bordeaux. Fédor Löwenstein, destin tragique d’un élève d’André Lhote.

Photographs of the Operations of the Offenbach Archival Depot. United States National Archive, 541611, https://catalog.archives.gov/search-within/541611?availableOnline=true&typeOfMaterials=Photographs%20and%20other%20Graphic%20Materials

“Reichsleiter Rosenberg Taskforce.” Wikipedia, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichsleiter_Rosenberg_Taskforce

 

POST 128, POSTSCRIPT: A TALE OF TWO DOTS-THE BRÜCK FAMILY FROM NEAR FRANKFURT: MORE FAMILY PHOTOS

 

Note: In this brief post, I discuss a few findings I made about Michael Bruck’s ancestors since the recent publication of Post 128. Also, based on the context in which some photos sent to me by Michael and his siblings were found, I speculate as to who the individuals might have been. It’s my hope that distant members of Michael’s family, some of whom have trees on ancestry, might stumble upon this post and either confirm or rebut my suppositions.

Related Post:

POST 128: A TALE OF TWO DOTS-THE BRÜCK FAMILY FROM NEAR FRANKFURT

In Post 128, I discussed the family of an American gentleman named Michael Bruck (Figure 1) whose ancestors came from west of Frankfurt, Germany, and whose German surname originally had an “umlaut” over the “u.” Michael Bruck’s great-uncle, Max Brück (1884-1942) (Figure 2), and Max’s oldest son, Eugen Kurt Brück (1920-1942) (Figure 3), both perished in Auschwitz. Their fates had previously been unknown to Michael and his siblings, although rumors circulated within the family that an unnamed uncle had “disappeared” during the Holocaust. While investigating Michael’s relatives I learned that somehow Max’s wife, Elsa Brück née Neumeyer (1890-1993), and his daughter, Hilda Ruth Nathan née Brück (1925-2018), escaped Nazi Europe and made their way to the United States to live long productive lives. As discussed in Post 128, I confirmed this in a “Geneanet Community Tree Index” I found for Max Brück. (Figure 4)

 

Figure 1. Michael Bruck

 

Figure 2. Michael Bruck’s great-uncle Max Brück (1884-1942) who was murdered in Auschwitz

 

Figure 3. Max Brück’s eldest son, Eugen Kurt Brück (1920-1942), also murdered in Auschwitz

 

Figure 4. Max Brück’s “Geneanet Community Tree Index”

 

I have yet to figure out what made Elsa and Hilda’s escape to America possible while Max and Eugen Brück were unable to emigrate. From Elsa Brück’s January 1942 “Declaration of Intention” to become a U.S. citizen (Figure 5), I know she arrived in New York on the 20th of August 1941 aboard the “SS Ciudad de Sevilla” and emigrated from Barcelona, Spain. Incredulously, on this declaration, Elsa reports that her son Eugen was then “residing” in “Camps des Milles,” outside Aix-en-Provence, France. One could hardly refer to Camps des Milles as a residence since it was a temporary detention center for Jews being deported to Drancy, outside Paris, then on to Auschwitz.

 

Figure 5. Elsa Bruck née Neumeyer’s January 1942 “Declaration of Intention” to become a U.S. citizen

 

Euphemisms aside, knowing that Elsa and Hilda Brück survived, I Googled them. I quickly discovered both were featured on the “Alabama Holocaust Education Center” website. (Figures 6-7) As sought after speakers on the Holocaust, they helped fulfill the Education Center’s mission of “keeping the history and lessons of the Holocaust alive.” Unlike many other German Jews who converted, they remained practicing Jews and were active in the Congregation B’nai Shalom in Huntsville, Alabama. Of particular interest to Michael and me was that Elsa’s personal page on the Education Center’s website included a picture of she and Max (Figure 8); similarly, Hilda’s personal page showed a picture of her later in life. Elsewhere, on a family tree on ancestry I discovered a heartwarming picture of Elsa Brück, also from later in life. (Figure 9)

 

Figure 6. Elsa Brück née Neumeyer’s featured page on the “Alabama Holocaust Education Center” website

 

Figure 7. Hilda Nathan née Brück’s featured page on the “Alabama Holocaust Education Center” website

 

Figure 8. Photo of Max and Elsa Brück found both on the “Alabama Holocaust Education Center website and on a family tree on ancestry

 

Figure 9. Photo of Elsa Brück née Neumeyer later in life from a family tree on ancestry

 

Michael and his siblings shared other unidentified photos found among their grandfather Arthur Brück’s surviving papers. The only identification on one of the pictures is “father”; he is seated alone in this picture (Figure 10), but in an accompanying image is photographed at his marriage with a woman who is obviously his wife. Knowing Arthur’s family tree from the Community Tree Index, I surmise the photo is of Max and Arthur’s parents, Karl Simon Brück (1844-1927) and Christiane Karoline Brück née Kuhn (1854-1929). (Figure 11) The minimal identification and the context in which these photos were found is what confidently causes me to believe they are Arthur’s parents.

 

Figure 10. Photo I speculate is of Arthur and Max Brück’s father, Karl Simon Bruck (1844-1927)

 

Figure 11. Wedding photo I speculate is of Arthur and Max Brück’s parents Karl Simon Bruck (1844-1927) and Christiane Karoline Brück née Kuhn (1854-1929)

 

Michael shared another set of photographs. One picture shows a couple (Figure 12), the second the same lady alone. (Figure 13) Again, the context in which these pictures were found, and the estimated age of the photos provides a clue as to who is illustrated.

 

Figure 12. Photo I speculate is of Arthur and Max Brück’s younger sister, Selma Brück, and her husband Albert Daniel

 

Figure 13. Photo I speculate is of Arthur and Max Brück’s younger sister, Selma Brück

 

In Post 128, I discussed a picture-postcard mailed in around 1934 from Munich signed by Max Brück’s wife Elsa and their three children, Eugen (1920-1942), Werner (1922-1936), and Hilda (1925-2018). (Figures 14a-b) The card was addressed to Max Brück’s sister and brother-in-law, Selma Daniel née Brück (1886-1965) and Albert Daniel. The card was mailed to the corset factory in Saarbrücken owned by Albert Daniel. I am reasonably confident the unidentified couple are Selma and Albert Daniel.

 

Figure 14a. A picture-postcard from around 1934 showing from left to right Eugen Brück, Hilda Ruth Brück, and Werner Alexander Brück, Max and Elsa Brück’s three children

 

Figure 14b. The text side of the picture-postcard signed by Else Brück and her three children sent to her sister- and brother-in-law in Saarbrücken

 

In making these tentative identifications, it is not my intention to presumptuously override any thoughts that Michael and his siblings may have as to who is pictured. Rather, it is to provoke any distant family members with further knowledge or ancestral trees posted on ancestry to hopefully stumble on my blog post and come forward to corroborate or refute my speculations.