POST 207: KÄTHE HEUSERMANN, DENTAL ASSISTANT TO MY UNCLE AND HITLER’S PERSONAL DENTIST: HER POSTWAR IDENTIFICATION OF HITLER’S DENTAL REMAINS

CORRECTIONS MADE ON 11TH SEPTEMBER 2026


Note: This post is inspired by a query from a Russian Holocaust researcher requesting permission to use documents and pictures of my uncle Dr. Fedor Bruck . I’m revisiting the role that his erstwhile dental assistant Käthe Heusermann, later assistant to Hitler’s personal dentist, played in the identification of the
Führer‘s dental remains following the end of the Second World War. A collaborative French-Russian documentary produced in 2017, translated below for the benefit of readers, provides the historical context. 

Related Posts: 

POST 17: SURVIVING IN BERLIN IN THE TIME OF HITLER: MY UNCLE FEDOR’S STORY 

POST 40: ELISABETH “LISA” PAULY NÉE KRÜGER, ONE OF MY UNCLE FEDOR’S “SILENT HEROES” 

POST 40, POSTSCRIPT: ELISABETH “LISA” PAULY NÉE KRÜGER, ONE OF GERMANY’S SILENT HEROES—DISCOVERING HER HUSBAND’S FATE 

POST 41: DR. OTTO BERGER & OTHER “SILENT HEROES” WHO HELPED MY UNCLE DR. FEDOR BRUCK SURVIVE THE NAZI REGIME 

POST 186: THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN A GERMAN “DENTIST” AND A GERMAN “ZAHNARZT” AND WHAT IT TELLS US ABOUT HITLER’S DENTIST AND HITLER’S FATE  

 

This post is inspired by a recent contact from a Russian Holocaust researcher, Ms. Elena Godunova (Figure 1), requesting permission to use several pictures and documents published on my blog related to my uncle Dr. Fedor Bruck. (Figure 2) Our subsequent back-and-forth emails resulted in obtaining a few fascinating pictures of and learning some lesser-known facts about Käthe Heusermann (1909-1993) who was my uncle’s dental assistant in Liegnitz, Germany (today: Legnica, Poland). (Figure 3)

 

Figure 1. Russian Holocaust researcher, Ms. Elena Godunova

 

Figure 2. My uncle Dr. Fedor Bruck in 1930

 

Figure 3. My uncle Dr. Fedor Bruck in his dental office in Liegnitz, Germany with his young dental assistant, Käthe Heusermann

 

Elena also shared a link to a documentary, a Russian-French collaboration, discussing Käthe’s historical role in identifying Hitler’s teeth after the Second World War and the personal toll it took on her. I’ve discussed this in previous posts and will review it below. From my own personal knowledge based on historical accounts and on writings my uncle left behind discussing what Käthe told him about Hitler’s fate, the documentary is exacting and accurate. For this reason, I asked my good friend’s daughter for help transcribing the French narrative using AI and translating it into English; at the bottom of this post is the correlation of the narrative with the names and titles of the narrators. This allows readers to follow along as they watch the documentary and learn about Käthe’s historical significance. 

I begin this post by reintroducing readers to my uncle Dr. Fedor Bruck who has been the subject of several earlier publications, notably, Post 17 and Post 41. I revisit this topic as a way of reacquainting followers with Käthe Heusermann. 

After Käthe moved to Berlin she become the assistant to Hitler’s personal dentist, Dr. Hugo Blaschke (1881-1959). (Figure 4) He was American-trained and seems to have attained his position more by virtue of his early membership in the National Socialist Party than due to his technical skills. As a matter of fact, in my uncle’s writings he specifically remarked on Dr. Blaschke’s outmoded, therefore very distinctive, dental techniques. This becomes relevant to the postwar identification of Hitler’s recovered dental remains and pertinent to the story I’m about to relate.

 

Figure 4. Hitler’s dentist, Dr. Hugo Blaschke

 

Let me begin by reviewing the historical context under which the events described in this post unfolded. My Uncle Fedor obtained his dental license from the University of Breslau (today: University of Wrocław) in around 1921. He had a private practice in Liegnitz, Germany from November 1924 until April 1936, when he was forced by the Nazis to shutter his practice. 

While Hitler did not become chancellor of Germany until January 30, 1933, dark clouds loomed before his ascendancy. Already, by March 1932, a letter (Figure 5) among my uncle’s surviving papers document that he had been relieved of his responsibilities as a so-called “Schulzahnarzt,” a school dentist for small municipalities surrounding Liegnitz. Schulzahnärzten merely examined pupils’ teeth, advising them whether a follow-up with a dentist was warranted. It’s important to understand that among German dentists there was widespread support for the National Socialist ideology. In anticipation of their rise to power, many dental organizations displaced their Jewish colleagues as a sign of “anticipatory obedience.”

 

Figure 5. A letter to my uncle from the Magistrate of Liegnitz dated the 22nd of March 1932 relieving him of his responsibilities as a so-called “Schulzahnarzt”

 

Formal restrictions on Jewish professionals in Nazi Germany began primarily with the “Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service” passed on April 7, 1933. This law barred Jews and political opponents from holding government, university, and public-school jobs. Some concurrent 1933 decrees stripped Jewish lawyers of their licenses to practice and severely restricted Jewish doctors and medical practitioners from treating non-Jewish patients or receiving payments from state health insurance funds. The 1933 laws initially made minor exceptions for Jewish veterans who fought for Germany in the First World War or for those who had been in office since 1914. Since my Uncle Fedor had fought and been wounded on the Russian Front in WWI (Figure 6), he had an exemption to continue working.

 

Figure 6. My Uncle Fedor in his military uniform

 

However, in September 1935, the Nazi Regime introduced the Nuremberg Laws comprising the “Reich Citizenship Law” and the “Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honor.” A supplementary decree to the citizenship law issued in November 1935 removed the 1933 exemptions for WWI veterans, forcing all remaining Jewish public officials and civil servants into retirement by the end of 1935. By April 1936, my uncle had sold or shut down his practice. Presumably he left for Berlin shortly thereafter. 

Käthe may have relocated to Berlin at roughly the same time as my uncle. However, it’s unlikely she intended to continue working as his dental assistant given the increasingly restrictive prohibitions against associating with Jews. While Käthe worked for my uncle in a professional capacity in Liegnitz rather than in private employ, the Nazi regime prohibited Jewish households from employing German (non-Jewish) domestic workers under the age of 45 under the aforementioned “Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honor.” The Nazis claimed this would prevent “race defilement” (Rassenschande), falsely alleging that Jewish men would have sexual relations with young German maids. 

Regardless, Käthe went on to work for Hitler’s dentist through circumstances that are unknown. By her own account she worked for Dr. Blaschke for almost ten years, roughly from 1936 until 1945. It is known Hitler had a designated dental office at the Reichstag where he received treatment. Most relevant to this post is that as Dr. Blaschke’s dental assistant, Käthe was always present when he attended to the Führer’s oral care. Thus, she was very familiar with the dental procedures that had been performed on him and with Blaschke’s signature dental work. 

As for my uncle, after leaving for Berlin, he could still work though under very trying circumstances. He continued to have a private practice at Fasanenstraße 20 in Berlin-Charlottenburg for a time. However, after the “Regulation for the Elimination of the Jews from the Economic Life of Germany” was enacted in February 1939, my uncle had his dental license revoked. Only in November 1939 was he again certified, but then only as a so-called “Zahnbehandler,” which meant he could only treat Jews and relatives. 

A document found in the archives at the Centrum Judaicum Berlin shows that during this period, specifically on June 11, 1939, my uncle converted from Judaism at the Messiah Chapel in Berlin’s Prenzlauer Berg, Kastanienallee 22. (Figure 7) He must still have believed at this late date, even after the violent pogrom of Kristallnacht the previous 9th-10th of November 1938, that conversion to Protestantism would alter his fate. I can only conclude that his status as a wounded German veteran of the First World War clouded his judgement making him believe this provided a protective cloak, though the supplementary decree accompanying passage of the Nuremberg Laws had specifically removed protection for Jewish veterans of WWI.

 

Figure 7. Messias Kapelle in Berlin where my Uncle Fedor converted to Protestantism in 1939 (former Evangelical Church)

 

For several months starting in March 1941, my uncle had the good fortune of managing the practice of a colleague preparing to emigrate from Germany. Then, again, in June 1941, he took over a well-equipped practice located in Kürfurstendamm. Thus, compared to many of his fellow Jews, for a time, he was better off economically. By January 1942, however, he had been permanently displaced from this last office by an Aryan colleague. 

Eventually, in a letter dated October 12, 1942 (Figure 8), my uncle was summoned by the Gestapo to present himself to an “age transport.” 

 

Figure 8. Letter dated October 12, 1942, telling my uncle to report to report for an “age transport”

 

Regarding Deportation

The undersigned has presented your evacuation case to the relevant authority. 

The application for a deferral was rejected; however, following this consultation, you have been assigned to the transport for the elderly—under the transport number indicated above—instead of the transport to the East. 

Respectfully,

Jewish Cultural Association of Berlin (Registered Association) – The Executive Board 

Realizing this meant deportation to a concentration camp and a death sentence, he fled to a friend living in Dahlem within the borough of Steglitz-Zehlendorf and went into hiding. This was the beginning of a two-and-a-half-year ordeal living “underground” in Berlin. In the ensuing months, Uncle Fedor found refuge with a cousin (see Post 40) or hid in “green belts,” coal cellars, and parks. 

Most helpful to him during his clandestine odyssey was a fellow dentist by the name of Dr. Otto Berger, a right-minded individual vehemently opposed to the National Socialists. Berger was somehow able to illegally procure papers for Fedor in the name of Dr. Friedrich Burkhardt (Figure 9), matching my uncle’s own initials; without this identity card, it is hard to imagine how my uncle would have survived.

 

Figure 9. My uncle Dr. Fedor Bruck’s false identity paper in the name of “Dr. Friedrich Burkhardt”

 

In March 1944, both Berger and my uncle were among nine survivors from a group of 44 people who had sought refuge from Allied bombing in an air raid shelter. Following this narrow escape, for a short period Fedor again hid with his cousin before returning to live with Berger. First, they lived in Berlin-Zehlendorf, then in an apartment in Berlin-Steglitz. Their last flat was destroyed by fire on the eve of the Russian push to capture Steglitz on April 26, 1945. 

It is worth noting that Roger Moorhouse, in his book entitled “Berlin at War: Life and Death in Hitler’s Capital 1939-1945,” estimates that of the 11,000 Jews who hid underground in Berlin between 1939 and 1945, only about 1,400 survived. My uncle was one of those. Luck certainly played a part. When his friend Dr. Sieber was arrested in his presence by the Gestapo on February 15, 1943, he was miraculously spared. It’s unclear how important his pre-war connections and non-Jewish relatives were to his survival, though they likely played a role. 

The capture by the Russians of Berlin-Steglitz where my uncle last lived with Dr. Berger marked the beginning of the next phase of my uncle’s life in Berlin. After the Russian capture of Berlin on May 4, 1945, my uncle followed in their footsteps and made his way to Käthe Heusermann’s apartment in Pariserstraße in Berlin-Wilmersdorf where he found her. Astonishingly, there is evidence to suggest that during his time underground my uncle was occasionally hidden by Käthe in her apartment. 

The Nazi command had wanted Käthe to evacuate to Obersalzberg as Dr. Blaschke and other high ranking Nazis hiding in the Reich Chancellery with Hitler were ordered to do. Käthe refused. She insisted on staying in Berlin hoping for the return of her soldier husband. 

Käthe Heusermann’s refusal to be evacuated to Obersalzberg may have saved her life. Käthe was seemingly tasked with packing Dr. Blaschke’s dental records and equipment, including Hitler’s records at the Reichstag. The plane carrying those records crashed and eight of the nine passengers aboard were killed. There is reason to believe Käthe would have been aboard this flight. The Bureau of Aircraft Accidents Archives (B3A) website includes a photo of the destroyed aircraft, a Junkers JU.352 Herkules, that went down in Börnersdorf. (Figure 10)

 

Figure 10. Details and photo of the Junkers JU.352 Herkules containing Hitler’s dental records that crashed on April 21, 1945, in Börnersdorf, Germany (photo credit: Bureau of Aircraft Accidents Archive)

 

Having been present in the Reich Chancellery until almost the Nazi regime’s bitter end, Käthe had learned of the Führer’s fate from his inner circle. According to my uncle’s written account, Käthe had told him what had happened to Hitler. My uncle’s former close association with Käthe Heusermann inadvertently made him a “witness” to history. After the war reporters and writers were wont to dismiss his account. Afterall, how could a Jewish survivor know whether Hitler had survived the war? 

The office building where Dr. Blaschke had his dental practice had only been slightly damaged. It was in Berlin-Charlottenburg, in the district of Berlin then occupied by the Russians. Käthe encouraged my uncle to apply to the Russians to take over Dr. Blaschke’s largely intact office. As a victim of National Socialism, he was entitled to such consideration. 

With the approval of the Russian commandant, my uncle was assigned Blaschke’s office and living quarters. Among my uncle’s surviving papers is a pass dated the 30th of May 1945 written in both German and Cyrillic permitting him safe passage to access his office and presumably move about. (Figures 11a-b) 

 

Figure 11a. Pass dated May 30, 1945, written in both German and Cyrillic, allowing my Uncle Fedor unhindered access to Dr. Blaschke’s former office

 

Figure 11b. Closeup of the Cyrillic writing on my uncle’s pass allowing him unhindered access to Dr. Blaschke’s former office

 

Dr. Blaschke’s dental office was located at Kürfurstendamm 213, in a building that still stands. (Figure 12) Post-war Berlin phone and address directories for both 1946 (Figure 13) and 1948 attest to this. They list my uncle Fedor Bruck as a “Zahnarzt” (dentist) occupying these premises, as indeed he did until he left for America in 1947 (his name continues to show up in the 1948 phone directory even though he was no longer in Berlin).

 

Figure 12. Entrance to Dr. Blaschke’s former office at Kürfurstendamm 213 as it looks today

 

Figure 13. 1946 Berlin phone directory listing my uncle Dr. Fedor Bruck’s dental practice at Kurfurtendamm 213, Dr. Blaschke’s former office

 

According to the documentary translated below, Elena Rzhevskaya (Figure 14) from SMERSH, who ended the Second World War with the rank of Lieutenant, was tasked soon after hostilities ended in Berlin with ascertaining Hitler’s fate and determining whether dental remains discovered in the garden of the Reich Chancellery belonged to him.

 

Figure 14. Elena Rzhevskaya from SMERSH tasked with discovering Hitler’s fate after the fall of the Nazi Empire (photo credit: Elena Rzhevskaya’s book “Memoirs of a Wartime Interpreter: From the Battle of Rzhev to Hitler’s Bunker”)

 

SMERSH is an acronym for the Russian phrase Smert‘ shpionam, which translates directly to “death to spies.” Coined by Joseph Stalin, SMERSH was an umbrella term for independent counterintelligence agencies in the Soviet Red Army. As a trivial aside, in popular culture author Ian Fleming made the name famous by featuring SMERSH as James Bond’s ruthless fictional enemy organization. 

Elena Rzhevskaya was given a velvet-lined box containing the dental remains discovered in the Reich Chancellery and tasked with determining whether they belonged to Hitler. She immediately went in search of Hitler’s then-unknown dentist. She would eventually learn that his dental office, now occupied by my uncle, was still intact. She headed there in search of information about Blaschke. 

In writings my uncle left behind, he remarks on the arrival in his office of Russian military personnel including an unnamed woman who could have been none other than Elena Rzhevskaya. My uncle never mentioned her name, likely because she never told him. She asked about Dr. Blaschke and was told he had fled Berlin.  However, my uncle mentioned that Käthe Heusermann, as well as Fritz Echtmann, Dr. Blaschke’s dental technician, were still in Berlin. My uncle was ordered to fetch Käthe, and upon arrival she was interrogated by the Russians. 

As mentioned above, Käthe Heusermann had always been present when Hitler was undergoing dental treatment. Because Hitler was always treated in a specially equipped dental office at the Reichstag, none of his dental records appear to have been stored in Dr. Blaschke’s office. Because Hitler’s dental records were not found at the Reichstag, Elena Rzhevskaya was compelled to rely on Käthe’s description of the work that had been performed on Hitler. As the translated documentary below tells us, Käthe was asked to describe the work Blaschke had performed on Hitler from memory. She was NEVER shown the dental remains that had been recovered in the shallow grave at the Reich Chancellery. Nonetheless, her description and sketches of the dental procedures Blaschke had performed on Hitler precisely matched those that appeared on the dental remains from the Reich Chancellery. While she was endlessly cross-examined by Russian officials, Käthe was consistent in her description of Hitler’s teeth and the work done on them. As the documentary attests, based on her testimony, the Russians had no doubt Hitler had killed himself. 

Nonetheless, Stalin assertively lied to the Allies and claimed that Hitler had fled to either Spain or Argentina or escaped in a submarine to Japan. Stalin chose to conceal what had happened to Hitler. For him, knowledge was power and he could potentially use the information about Hitler’s fate against the Allies in the future in yet unknown ways. Afterall, the “cold war” had already started. 

The fact that Stalin didn’t want the world knowing Hitler was dead put both Käthe Heusermann and Fritz Echtmann in danger, and in fact both were eventually arrested, taken to Russia, and given ten-year prison sentences. They were not released until 1955. Readers can pick up the thread of what happened to Käthe by reading the translation of the documentary below. 

As a side note, my Uncle Fedor was warned by the Americans that because of his knowledge of Hitler’s fate and Stalin’s wish to keep this information concealed, he too was in danger of being whisked away by the Russians. It’s for this reason that he fled Berlin and left his dental practice behind. 

As mentioned at the outset, Elena Godunova, the Russian Holocaust researcher who inspired this post, sent me a few pictures of Käthe Heusermann and Fritz Echtmann taken in Moscow. These include mugshots of the two of them (Figures 15-16) after their arrest by the Russian NKVD (Romanized: Narodnyy komissariat vnutrennikh del), the People’s Commissariat for Internal Affairs; this was the interior ministry and the secret police of the Soviet Union from 1934 to 1946. The other is of Käthe and Fritz with two Russian officers in a park setting possibly in Berlin. (Figure 17)

 

Figure 15. Mugshot of Käthe Heusermann taken by the NKVD after her arrest and deportation to Russia (photo credit: Электронная библиотека исторических документов (ЭБИД) | Агония и смерть Адольфа Гитлера)

 

Figure 16. Mugshot of Fritz Echtmann, Dr. Blaschke’s dental technician, taken by the NKVD after his arrest and deportation to Russia (photo credit: Электронная библиотека исторических документов (ЭБИД) | Агония и смерть Адольфа Гитлера)

 

Figure 17. Käthe Heusermann and Fritz Echtmann with two Russian officers in a photo possibly taken in Berlin (photo credit: 10 лет тюрьмы: как СССР «отблагодарил» женщину, которая помогла опознать труп Гитлера https://share.google/ISgAVFfclRLwOB1yh)

 

Of particular interest, Elena Godunova shared a Russian article about one of Hitler’s first cousins, Maria Koppensteiner (1899-1953). Maria was the daughter of Hitler’s mother’s sister. The Koppensteiners lived in the town of Gmünd in Lower Austria that fell within the Soviet occupation zone after the war. In late May 1945, Maria Koppensteiner was arrested by the counter-intelligence unit of the 3rd Ukrainian Front, along with other members of her family. Hitler’s cousin was arrested based on “kinship liability,” according to Austrian historian Stefan Karner, though Maria had not seen her cousin Adolf since 1907. 

Initially, Hitler’s relatives were imprisoned in Lefortovo Prison in Moscow. Of personal interest is that for a time Maria shared a cell with Käthe Heusermann. One of my readers rhetorically asked: “One wonders whether it was intentional putting them together, maybe to see if they would talk about Hitler (their cells had listening devices, from what I can tell from reports of the prisoners’ conversations being quoted in their intelligence reports). I recall someone saying Heusermann suspected the Soviets of planting ‘moles’ as cell-companions, so they could trick the prisoners into talking about Hitler.” (Andrew van Ginkel, personal communication) 

According to the documentary, Käthe Heusermann was not formally tried until 1951. She was given a ten-year prison term and credited for the 6 ½ years she’d already spent in prison by the time she was convicted. She was exiled to Siberia, and according to Elena Godunova, was held at Ozerlag in the Irkutsk region, likely transported there and back along the Trans-Siberian Railway. Käthe wrote a short account of her years of imprisonment, leaving it forgotten at the back of a drawer, and never looked back. In 1992, she was rehabilitated as a “victim of political repression.” Käthe Heusermann died in 1993. 

As we speak, I’m working with Elena Godunova to try and contact Lioubov Summ, the granddaughter of Elena Rzhevskaya, hoping to obtain a copy of Käthe Heusermann’s unpublished memoir. Beyond being of historical interest, I’m curious whether Käthe mentions working for my uncle as a dental assistant in Liegnitz.

 

Figure 18. Ms. Lioubov Summ, Elena Rzhevskaya’s granddaughter, who may have a copy of Käthe Heusermann’s unpublished memoir

 

 

Mort d’Hitler, l’histoire d’un secret d’État TRANSLATION 

EDITOR’S NOTE: THE TEXT BELOW STANDS ON ITS OWN SHOULD READERS CHOOSE NOT TO VIEW THE 52-MINUTE DOCUMENTARY. 

NARRATOR: This is the final battle. Berlin is a gigantic pile of rubble, and the Nazi empire is now confined to the streets of the capital’s center, which is under siege by the Red Army. 

For our soldiers, the priority is to capture the leader of the Third Reich—it is a symbol, a symbol of war and fascism.  He is, therefore, a trophy, and everyone is searching for him. 

Where is Hitler?  To whom do the charred remains found in the Chancellery garden belong—remains that, some time ago, were miraculously pulled intact from the rubble? Will they reveal the fate of the Nazi dictator? 

Two young women. One is Soviet—Elena Rzhevskaya, an interpreter for the Red Army. The other is German— Käthe Heusermann, Hitler’s dentist’s assistant.  They are at the heart of the investigation and play a decisive role in identifying the remains of the Nazi leader. 

The witness states, “I clearly recognize the gold teeth and dentures presented to me.” 

Stalin is immediately informed of the discovery of the remains and then of their identification. He knows there is no doubt. Hitler is dead. 

Stalin knows the truth. Hitler is dead, but he chooses to lie and tells the Allies that the monster is alive and has managed to escape. 

Why didn’t Stalin tell the Allies anything? To keep a secret? It could always come in handy. 

The story of Hitler’s death is characteristic of Stalin’s paranoid attitude toward the West.

Stalin’s lie about Hitler’s death lasted nearly 50 years. All the evidence is hidden. Kept secret until the day the Soviet Union disappears and the truth can finally be told. 

Nothing can be hidden. Everything eventually comes to light. Everyone should learn this lesson from history. 

For the Soviet Union, the war began in June 1941 with a surprise attack by Hitler. Within a few months, the enemy was at the gates of Moscow, and Stalin ordered the mass mobilization of the population. The regiments—almost entire armies—marching through Red Square set off directly for the front. 

Elena is just 22 years old and already has a two-year-old child, but the Red Army needs interpreters, and Elena, who speaks German, enlists.  Four years later, she is part of the first Soviet detachment to enter Berlin, tasked with capturing the Nazi leaders. No one knows where Hitler is; he is said to be dead or dying, the victim of a cerebral hemorrhage. Or perhaps his officers executed him—unless he took his own life. But according to Soviet radio reporters following in the Red Army’s wake in Berlin, Hitler is, on the contrary, very much alive and in hiding in the Tyrol. It is a lookalike who is fighting in his place in the streets of the capital, watched over by Nazi propaganda officials who are waiting for the moment he falls so they can photograph him and deceive the Allies. A final rumor claims that Hitler is hiding in the ruins of the Reichstag. It is a historic moment—The storming of the Nazi Parliament and Elena hasn’t forgotten a thing. 

ELENA RZHEVSKAYA: I’m going around in circles. It was our division that led the attack on the Reichstag.  It was a stroke of luck and a great honor for us. 

NARRATOR: They attacked the Reichstag thinking Hitler was hiding there, but in reality, no one knew where he was. 

Hitler was not at the Reichstag, as the Soviet command had believed. The Red Army’s vanguard then headed toward the Chancellery—the heart of Nazi power. 

ELENA RZHEVSKAYA: It was terrifying to imagine that Hitler might still be there. We were on edge. Where is Hitler—alive or dead?  

NARRATOR: German radio had just announced the Führer’s death, fallen in his heroic struggle against Bolshevism.  And that night, the German Chief of Staff, General Krebs, made his way to Soviet headquarters. He wanted to begin peace talks and informed his counterpart, Marshal Zhukov, of Hitler’s death. 

In his memoirs, Zhukov recalls immediately having Stalin woken up in Moscow. “He got what he deserved—that bastard. Where is the body?” asks Stalin. “According to the German general, the body was burned,” replies Zhukov. “Too bad we couldn’t take him alive,” concludes the master of the Kremlin. 

While people continue to die in the streets of downtown Berlin, the small group of scouts, along with Elena, the interpreter, makes its way to the Chancellery Garden. Right above the bunker where Hitler may have been hiding for several months. 

He comes upon a chaotic scene, a landscape pockmarked by shells and corpses everywhere.  They quickly recognize the first body, Joseph Goebbels, then his wife Magda and their six children. 

ELENA RZHEVSKAYA: Goebbels’ body was burned but still recognizable. It was carried out onto the street in front of the Chancellery to be displayed—to show Hitler’s close associate, the Minister of Propaganda. In Hitler’s absence it was already a symbol of the fall of the Third Reich.  

NARRATOR: Hitler’s body had not yet been found, but the very next day, the news of his death made headlines on the front pages of newspapers around the world. 

Except in the Soviet Union. Pravda, the official organ of the Communist Party and the voice of the Kremlin, wrote that the announcement of Hitler’s death was a ruse intended to facilitate the Nazi leader’s escape. As a result, in Paris as well, people were filled with doubt and uncertainty. 

In the garden of the Chancellery. The search continues everywhere—through the rubble, the shell craters, the piled-up bodies. Suddenly, someone thinks they recognize the monster’s mustache on one of the corpses. Immediately, there is excitement and confusion; people are brought in from the bunker, and the truth must be faced: it is not Hitler—the mustache alone is not enough to make the dictator—but the legend of the lookalike is born. 

On orders from the Soviet high command, the entire occupying Red Army is searching for Hitler, but the actual investigation is secret and limited to just three people: Major Gorbushin, Commander Bistrof, and Elena, the indispensable interpreter without whom no interrogation of German prisoners is possible. The two officers are part of the SMERSH, a military intelligence unit that reports directly to Stalin. 

NIKITA PETROV (HISTORIAN—ONG MEMORIAL): The SMERSH is a special intelligence unit under Stalin’s direct authority, headed by Victor Abakumov, who was considered at the time to be one of Stalin’s protégés and oversaw the most secret operations. He spied on the generals. He eavesdropped on all conversations. In short, he deals not only with spies who might attempt to infiltrate the Red Army, but also with traitors within the army itself. Abakoumov keeps an eye on everyone. Stalin entrusts him only with the most secret and delicate missions—if you can call them that. 

NARRATOR: It is the SMERSH that is investigating Hitler’s death. This demonstrates Stalin’s involvement in this matter, as well as the absolute discretion that must surround the investigations. The top-secret reports from the special unit are read by only three people: Stalin, of course, Molotov, the foreign minister, and Beria, the sinister head of the NKVD—the predecessor to the KGB. 

In the stifling atmosphere of the bunker, Elena sorts through the papers on Hitler’s desk and interrogates the first prisoners. 

ELENA RZHEVSKAYA: On May 4, I interviewed a small man, the bunker’s heating engineer. He was the one in charge of ventilation in the rooms occupied by Hitler. He saw how the lifeless bodies of Hitler and Eva Braun were carried out of the bunker. 

NARRATOR: Based on the initial statements from their prisoners, the investigators are convinced that Hitler remained holed up in his bunker until the very end and strongly suspect that he committed suicide just before the arrival of the first Soviet soldiers. They also know that all the gas for the vehicles stored in the Chancellery garage was requisitioned after 12 p.m. on April 30. Did Hitler disappear without a trace by ordering that his body be completely burned after his death? Are there still remains to be found, and where should they be searched for? 

SERGEY MIRONENKO (HISTORIAN—FORMER DIRECTOR OF THE RUSSIAN STATE ARCHIVE): The bodies of Hitler and Eva Braun were discovered entirely by chance. In the garden of the Chancellery a soldier saw the tip of a boot in good condition sticking out of a hole covered with dirt. He decided to pull it out and found two bodies. 

RUDOLF PIKHOYA (HISTORIAN, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE ARCHIVES COMMITTEE): At that point, they did not know if it was really Hitler, unlike Goebbels’s body, which was recognizable because gas had to be economized and his features had been spared. These remains were completely charred. 

NARRATOR: Official Report on the Discovery of Two Bodies.  May 5, 1945. Near Hitler’s bunker, we discovered and exhumed two burned bodies that were impossible to identify. 

The Goebbels family, several officers, and remains that are still unidentified.  The SMERSH now holds about ten remains, some more charred than others. 

Vice Admiral Vos admitted to being one of the last people to have seen Goebbels and Hitler alive. Identifying Goebbels poses no problem, but the body believed to be Hitler’s is too badly damaged to be visually identified, even by a member of the inner circle. 

After the autopsy, doubts remain. The results are consistent with what is known about Hitler—his height and weight. But the doctors cannot say with certainty that these charred remains are indeed all that is left of him. There is only one hope left for identifying him.  The teeth. 

ELENA RZHEVSKAYA: Both jaws were well preserved.  15 teeth on the lower jaw.  On May 8, my commander, Major Gorbushin, asked me to come see him.  He handed me a burgundy-colored box and said, “These are Hitler’s teeth. You are responsible for them.” 

NARRATOR: It was Victory Day, the end of a war that had claimed tens of millions of victims. Amid the ruins of Berlin, Elena, the 25-year-old Soviet interpreter, refrains from toasting or joining in the celebrations. She is the secret guardian of a small box lined with red satin that may contain all that remains of the mad dictator who led the world into catastrophe. 

In the suburbs of Berlin, in the middle of the night, under the chairmanship of Marshal Zhukov, the Allies, facing Marshal Ketel, sign Germany’s act of surrender. 

This time the war is finally over. 

First thing in the morning, Elena and her officers set out in search of the one person who would surely know the name of the owner of the teeth: Hitler’s dentist.  The investigators know nothing about him—neither his name nor his address, let alone whether he is still alive and in Berlin. 

After a day of wandering and following dead ends, they finally obtain a name and, at the same time, the information that the dentist fled the city about fifteen days ago. But they also learn that his assistant has remained in Berlin, hoping for the return of her soldier husband.  A few hours later, Elena meets Käthe Heusermann, a smiling, friendly young woman who, for nearly 10 years, has been present at every one of Hitler’s visits to his dentist. The Führer’s teeth should hold no secrets for her. 

LIOUBOV SUMM (GRANDDAUGHTER OF ELENA RZHEVSKAYA): She became the key witness because teeth are of no use unless one also finds the person who can identify them.  

NICOLAY VLADIMIRTSEV (HISTORIAN AT THE RUSSIAN NATIONAL ARCHIVES): During the interrogation of Käthe Heusermann, the witness states: “I clearly recognize the gold teeth and dentures presented to me. They belong to Chancellor Hitler.” The witness made the same statement regarding Eva Braun. This testimony is the most important piece of evidence.  It proves that these teeth truly belong to Hitler. 

ELENA RZHEVSKAYA: She had been asked to draw a diagram of Hitler’s teeth, but without showing her the teeth that had been found.  

NARRATOR: Käthe was present at all of the Führer’s dental appointments, and she hasn’t forgotten a single detail about Hitler’s disastrous set of teeth.  Her drawing matches exactly the jawbone found by the Soviets. There is no longer any doubt: the charred body discovered in a hole in the Chancellery garden is all that remains of the greatest criminal of the 20th century.  

LIOUBOV SUMM (GRANDDAUGHTER OF ELENA RZHEVSKAYA): On May 11, they escorted her home with heartfelt thanks and many cans of food.  They know they’ve successfully identified Hitler.  So, to thank Käthe Heusermann, they give her food, but for themselves, they were hoping to receive medals. 

NARRATOR: Hitler is indeed dead. But is Stalin aware? For the Soviet command in Berlin, it’s very clear. Hitler is dead, and Stalin is immediately informed. 

RUDOLF PIKHOYA (HISTORIAN, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE ARCHIVES COMMITTEE): Failing to give Stalin a detailed report on such a matter is completely impossible. Absolutely out of the question, because Hitler is a symbol that carries very strong political significance, like the storming of the Reichstag and the conquest of Berlin. 

NIKITA PETROV (HISTORIAN—ONG MEMORIAL): It’s obvious. Stalin was immediately informed of the discovery of the remains and then of their identification. He knew there was no doubt. Hitler was dead. 

NARRATOR: Stalin rarely left the Kremlin, but he had eyes and ears everywhere.  Every day, documents concerning Hitler’s death and identification pile up on his desk, becoming increasingly precise and definitive.  And following Käthe Heusermann’s testimony, it is no longer a matter of speculation—we know. Hitler is dead, and Stalin has been informed.

However, a few days later, a general whose identity has remained secret arrives in Berlin to verify everything. 

LIOUBOV SUMM (GRANDDAUGHTER OF ELENA RZHEVSKAYA): The general resumes all the interrogations, and for the first time, Elena, as an interpreter, is warned that she will be held responsible in the event of an erroneous translation. Everyone is warned and threatened. 

NARRATOR: For the purposes of the new investigation, the SMERSH comes to fetch Käthe Heusermann and orders him to pack a suitcase for an absence of about a week. 

LIOUBOV SUMM (GRANDDAUGHTER OF ELENA RZHEVSKAYA): Minutes of the supplementary interrogation of Käthe Heusermann. It is recorded that it began at 1:15 a.m. and ended at 6:00 a.m.  The questions are repeated endlessly—always the same ones. She is made to say, over and over, what she knows about Hitler’s teeth, and after she has explained everything, she is asked the same question again.  “So, you continue to assert that the teeth and dentures presented to you belong to Hitler?”  “Yes, I confirm that.” The document is only five pages long, but we know the interrogation lasted 5 hours. So, we can imagine how many times she was forced to repeat the same answers. 

NARRATOR: The unnamed general did not sign any official record. And at the end of the second investigation, which fully confirmed the first, he leaves just as mysteriously as he arrived. Investigators are certain of Hitler’s death thanks to Käthe Heusermann’s positive identification of his teeth.  But this information has still not been made public, and the Soviet command in Berlin officially maintains the order to search for Hitler, dead or alive. A medal is even promised to whoever succeeds in capturing him. Yet, although the SMERSH investigation was conducted in the utmost secrecy, rumors are circulating outside the Soviet zone, and the international press is picking up on them. The Russians are said to have found and identified the remains of the Nazi leader. 

Even the world is wondering, awaiting the necessary Soviet confirmation. 

The next act takes place in the Kremlin. Harry Hopkins is an advisor to U.S. President Truman, and he arrives in Moscow in late May 1945 for a series of meetings with Stalin to prepare for the first postwar conference among the Big Three.  When Hopkins asks Stalin where Hitler is, Stalin replies that he believes Hitler is alive, that he managed to escape, and that he may have fled in a submarine to seek refuge in Japan. 

This was the first false claim regarding Hitler’s death made by Stalin himself and recorded in black and white in the secret memorandum that was sent to Washington that very evening. 

Ten days later, in Berlin, Marshal Zhukov held a press conference for foreign correspondents.  They expect the rumors about the discovery and identification of Hitler’s remains to be confirmed. But to the journalists’ surprise, Zhukov asserts, on the contrary, that no trace of Hitler could be found, that he is therefore certainly alive, that he managed to escape by plane, and that he has taken refuge in Spain or Argentina. 

NIKITA PETROV (HISTORIAN—ONG MEMORIAL): Zhukov’s statement can be explained by the fact that he follows Stalin’s orders to the letter, since Stalin did not order him to tell the truth. The bodies were found and identified. So, he is lying. 

RUDOLF PIKHOYA (HISTORIAN, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE ARCHIVES COMMITTEE): Why didn’t Stalin say anything to the Allies? The answer is not simple. It is more of a psychological matter—knowing something that others do not know. It’s always advantageous to hold onto a secret. It can always come in handy. 

NIKITA PETROV (HISTORIAN—ONG MEMORIAL): The story of Hitler’s death is characteristic of Stalin’s paranoid attitude toward the West. We mustn’t give them too much information or evidence. Perhaps one day, it will be to our advantage to have left them in the dark. 

NARRATOR: That’s it—the lie has been thrown in the world’s face. There is widespread consternation, because no one can imagine that, just one month after the joint victory, the Soviets could lie to their allies about such a matter. Why? To what end?  It’s absurd. No. If Zhukov claims that Hitler hasn’t been found, then he hasn’t been found. 

A few weeks later, Stalin, Truman, and Churchill met in Potsdam, near Berlin, for their first postwar summit.  The future was being decided here in discussions among the three leaders, and particularly the future of Eastern Europe. 

NIKITA PETROV (HISTORIAN—ONG MEMORIAL): At that time, the disagreements between the Soviet Union and the Allies were only getting worse due to Soviet control over the countries of Eastern Europe and because of Soviet policy in the territories occupied by the Red Army. 

NARRATOR: Compared to these issues, the question of Hitler’s fate was obviously of very secondary importance. However, an advisor to Truman recounts that during an informal dinner with the American president, Stalin asserted once again that Hitler was alive and was either in Spain or Argentina. In Potsdam, the three leaders also had to decide which Nazi leaders would be placed in the dock in a few months, at the Nuremberg trials. Stalin had just reiterated this. Hitler is alive. He, therefore, should be at the top of the list of criminals to be tried. But curiously, no one asked for him. Not the Americans, not the British, not even Stalin. 

LIOUBOV SUMM (GRANDDAUGHTER OF ELENA RZHEVSKAYA): Everything is kept secret in case it might be needed one day. This is the reality of our country, the Soviet Union, where everything operates according to the rules of the secret police.  Everyone is watched, threatened, and intimidated. 

ELENA RZHEVSKAYA: It could be said that Stalin’s decision to hide what belonged to all the Allies was the first Soviet move in the Cold War. 

NARRATOR: For Elena, the time has come to take off her uniform and put on a pretty dress and ladies’ shoes.  A few souvenir photos and one last visit to Käthe, the key witness to Hitler’s death, who is still being held at Soviet headquarters.  Between interrogations, the young women hit it off.  The Russian interpreter and the German dental assistant feel they’ve been part of an extraordinary adventure, even if it must remain a secret. 

LIOUBOV SUMM (GRANDDAUGHTER OF ELENA RZHEVSKAYA): Their last conversation was very warm. Käthe said, “I, too, will soon be free. I’m going back to Berlin. We can meet before you leave; I’ll take you to my hairdresser.” And in the end, it didn’t happen. 

NARRATOR: The Great Patriotic War lasted four years. It ravaged the Soviet Union, costing it more than 20 million lives.  Elena’s husband died in battle. Her daughter has grown up, and Elena now dreams of becoming a writer.  But she is worried. She knows she knows something that the Kremlin leader has decided must remain a secret.  

IOURI KAGAN (BROTHER OF ELENA RZHEVSKAYA):  Those who had participated in the investigation into Hitler’s death were aware that they held a state secret, and they could confide in no one.  At the time, Elena didn’t tell me, her father, or her mother, about it. We didn’t know her story. 

NARRATOR: For their part, the British and Americans have not given up on uncovering the truth about Hitler’s mysterious disappearance, and they still hope to obtain Soviet assistance. 

NICOLAY VLADIMIRTSEV (HISTORIAN AT THE RUSSIAN NATIONAL ARCHIVES): Here is a request for information sent by the Anglo-American Allies to the Soviet command in Berlin.  Our generals have forwarded this letter to Molotov and Stalin and are requesting instructions.  What information are they authorized to disclose, and may they cooperate with the Anglo-American investigation into Hitler’s death? 

NARRATOR: The archives contain a draft of a positive response to this request sent by Beria to Molotov, but the Allies themselves never received anything. 

NIKITA PETROV (HISTORIAN—ONG MEMORIAL): It is clear that the ultimate decision-maker was above Molotov and Beria. It was Stalin himself. If Stalin had decided to tell the Allies everything—even to show them or hand over the body—it would have been done. But Stalin decided that no information should be released. 

NICOLAY VLADIMIRTSEV (HISTORIAN AT THE RUSSIAN NATIONAL ARCHIVES): Why was this collaboration refused? It is a question of high politics that should have been put to Stalin himself—and for which we will never find a clear and precise answer. 

NARRATOR: The lie spread around the world and became fodder for the tabloid press.  We see Hitler everywhere, in every corner of the globe, along with those nostalgic for the regime.  Nazis are taking advantage of this to sow doubt.  Hitler is not dead. He will return to save Greater Germany. 

Of all the legends, there is one that particularly exasperates the British. The Soviets are now accusing the British of having facilitated Hitler’s escape and of keeping him hidden somewhere in their own occupation zone in order to use him one day against their Soviet ally. 

To put an end to this insulting accusation, a young British historian, Hughes Trevor-Roper, is tasked with investigating Hitler’s fate.  The Russians refuse to cooperate and deny all access to the Chancellery area under their control. But Trevor-Roper tracks down and interviews numerous witnesses to the final moments in the bunker in the Anglo-American prisoner-of-war camps.  Within a few weeks, he was convinced. Hitler did indeed commit suicide shortly after noon on April 30, and his body was burned by his guards. His report was convincing, but he had no direct evidence—no body.  This, therefore, is not enough to stop the ever-increasing and increasingly far-fetched rumors. 

For years, the FBI receives thousands of reports of Hitler’s whereabouts from around the world, which it must verify and file away. 

March 1953.  It was a global shock. Stalin is dead. The leader of world communism, the bloodthirsty dictator, the victor of World War II, the ruthless tyrant, the leader both adored and hated—has disappeared. And no one knows what the future holds for the regime of terror that he managed to impose for nearly 30 years in the Soviet Union. On Red Square, Beria has the honor of delivering the eulogies—the head of the secret police who hopes to rise to the highest office, but who, before the end of the year, will be executed with a bullet to the back of the neck in a KGB basement. The disappearance of two of his main executioners, a few months apart, may mark the end of fear for the Soviet people—and for Elena, who still holds one of Stalin’s secrets. 

IOURI KAGAN (BROTHER OF ELENA RZHEVSKAYA):  After Stalin’s death, beginning in 1953, Elena broke free. She began to speak, telling us what had happened and how she had been involved in the events in Berlin in ’45.  But she couldn’t prove anything. 

NARRATOR: All the secrets of a criminal regime lie on those countless, completely inaccessible shelves. Ten years later, the truth about Hitler’s death remains hidden in archives that no one has the right to access and in the memories of only a handful of surviving witnesses. 

LIOUBOV SUMM (GRANDDAUGHTER OF ELENA RZHEVSKAYA): Elena was able to publish a short story that ends with these words: “During those days in the bunker beneath the Chancellery, Hitler committed suicide.” So, I asked her—since it was no longer a secret—if it was okay to say that he had committed suicide. “Could you talk about it?” I asked. She said: “Yes, since the true cause of his death remained unknown, we were allowed to say that he had committed suicide by taking poison or shooting himself in the head. We could also make up a story that he escaped to Argentina, disguised as a woman.” 

NARRATOR: In Moscow, in 1955, Elena was allowed to say and write that Hitler had committed suicide, but not more. But it was still impossible to recount the investigation, the identification of the remains, and even less so Stalin’s lie.  Anyway, who would believe her? Where’s the evidence? Among the many versions of Hitler’s disappearance, the suicide theory is now the one favored by those in power, but not just any suicide. 

RUDOLF PIKHOYA (HISTORIAN, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE ARCHIVES COMMITTEE): The idea that Hitler poisoned himself is much more interesting for propaganda purposes than if he had shot himself in the head.  Suicide by gunshot is an act of courage, whereas taking poison is a sign of cowardice. 

NARRATOR: There was the first lie told by Stalin himself.  Hitler is alive and managed to escape. Then, a half-truth gradually took its place.  Hitler ultimately committed suicide—but by poisoning himself like a coward. 

RUDOLF PIKHOYA (HISTORIAN, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE ARCHIVES COMMITTEE): This legend would be repeated and regurgitated until it became completely impossible to dispel the lie. 

NARRATOR: 1965, 20 years after the event, Brezhnev. For the first time since the end of the war, the Soviet leadership decided to commemorate the victory. 

RUDOLF PIKHOYA (HISTORIAN, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE ARCHIVES COMMITTEE): When Leonid Brezhnev, a true war veteran, became head of state, little by little, a window began to open, allowing for the study of the history of the war.  And it was at that moment that a small—though very limited. 

IOURI KAGAN (BROTHER OF ELENA RZHEVSKAYA): The opportunity for publication also arose for researchers to mark the 20th anniversary of the end of the war. Can you believe it—20 years have already passed? So, in 1965, Elena decided to write a true historical work. How events unfolded, what the intelligence services managed to accomplish. 

NARRATOR: Elena is now a respected writer. But the story of Hitler’s death—or rather, the story of the lie surrounding Hitler’s death—obsesses her, and she is determined to tell it at all costs. For her account to be irrefutable and to put an end to the legends, it must be based on the evidence hidden in the archives. After numerous requests, she finally obtained permission to enter the off-limits building—a strictly supervised visit for a very limited time. So, Elena frantically copied all the documents brought to her. 

LIOUBOV SUMM (GRANDDAUGHTER OF ELENA RZHEVSKAYA): She filled five large notebooks. She wasn’t the one doing the research, and she didn’t know what was kept in those archives. There was no catalog, and she couldn’t wander through the shelves to choose what she wanted either. She had to remain seated at her desk, and an officer would bring her one file after another. What matters is the interest in the documents varied widely. One day, she opened a file containing a list of various trophies sent from Berlin to Moscow: Hitler’s coat, a paper doll recovered from the bunker.  And on the list, among the objects, were the names of Käthe Heusermann and several other Germans.  That’s how my grandmother learned that Kate had been sent to Moscow as an object. 

NARRATOR: It was a huge shock. Elena suddenly found herself transported 20 years back in time to Berlin, in the interrogation room of the Soviet General Staff.  Käthe Heusermann, Hitler’s dentist’s assistant, was the key witness who helped identify the monster’s remains. The cheerful young woman with whom Elena had bonded— Käthe—whom the Soviet secret service would not release. 

INGEBORG HILLS (NIECE OF KÄTHE HEUSERMANN) READING FROM KÄTHE’S UNPUBLISHED MEMOIRS: “On July 29, 1945, at 6 a.m., I was transported by truck with seven other prisoners to the Berlin airport, and we boarded a cargo plane bound for Moscow.  Upon arrival, we were immediately crammed into a salad bowl and taken to solitary confinement at the Lubyanka Prison. My cell was very small, seven paces long, and water was seeping from the black-painted walls.” 

LIOUBOV SUMM (GRANDDAUGHTER OF ELENA RZHEVSKAYA): She does not understand how long they will keep her or why she has not been charged with any crime. She is completely baffled by her situation and the reason for her imprisonment. 

INGEBORG HILLS (NIECE OF KÄTHE HEUSERMANN) READING FROM KÄTHE’S UNPUBLISHED MEMOIRS: “I remained in solitary confinement for six years, and in August ‘51, I was charged.  I was accused of helping the bourgeois system prolong the war by participating in dental care of Hitler. During the sessions, I should have killed Hitler—for example, by smashing a water bottle over his head? And in doing so, I would have saved the world.” 

NARRATOR: Six years of solitary confinement in KGB prisons. And then suddenly, in August 1951, an absurd accusation and a conviction without trial. 

What happened was that one month earlier, Abakouov, the former head of SMERSH, who had become Minister of State Security and was Stalin’s protégé, fell abruptly from grace and was arrested. 

NIKITA PETROV (HISTORIAN—ONG MEMORIAL): In 1951, when Abakouov was arrested, it was discovered that there were a number of Germans—witnesses to Hitler’s death—who were being held without even having arrest warrants issued. So, a list was drawn up, and Stalin was asked what should be done with them.  The decision was to convict them; they were all sentenced to many years in prison— on trumped up political charges—that way, no one would say anything and everything would be in order. 

INGEBORG HILLS (NIECE OF KÄTHE HEUSERMANN) READING FROM KÄTHE’S UNPUBLISHED MEMOIRS: “I was sentenced to 10 years in a maximum-security labor camp in Siberia. But they took into account the six and a half years I had already served. I signed my sentence. I was glad to be going to a camp with fellow sufferers and to escape from my stone tomb in Moscow.” 

NARRATOR: In December 1951, Käthe left Moscow for Siberia in a cattle car.  She was given back the small suitcase she’d packed in Berlin for her summer trip to Europe, when she’d planned to be away for a week.  The journey lasted 14 days, and Käthe recounts that whenever a prisoner died of cold or hunger, the guards would open the train car door and throw the body into the snow. 

LIOUBOV SUMM (GRANDDAUGHTER OF ELENA RZHEVSKAYA): Käthe writes that the work quota was very high. “I couldn’t meet it. At the time, I didn’t even weigh 40 kg. I was never able to meet that quota. And as punishment, I was deprived of part of my food rations. I wasn’t allowed anything in the morning or at night, only in the middle of the day. If I hadn’t had a good friend who worked hard and shared her rations with me, I would have starved to death.” 

NIKITA PETROV (HISTORIAN—ONG MEMORIAL): Why were the witnesses to Hitler’s death kept in prison until 1955 or 1956?  What was the dentist’s assistant guilty of—she was imprisoned and sentenced like so many others? Why were they arrested by the KGB? Why did they serve such long sentences?  

LIOUBOV SUMM (GRANDDAUGHTER OF ELENA RZHEVSKAYA): Käthe Heusermann was convicted as a witness to Hitler’s death. She was imprisoned in the Soviet Union so that her testimony would not prevent this historical fact from being concealed. She suffered because of the service she rendered to history. 

NARRATOR: First a secret prisoner, then convicted of a fabricated crime, she was detained until that day in 1955 when her 10-year sentence was fully served.  Then her status suddenly changed. 

INGEBORG HILLS (NIECE OF KÄTHE HEUSERMANN) READING FROM KÄTHE’S UNPUBLISHED MEMOIRS: “We arrived in Moscow on June 1 and were taken on a bus tour of the city. We were shown the Kremlin, the university, and particularly the metro, whose stations are all decorated in different artistic styles with mosaics, paintings, and marble.” 

NIKITA PETROV (HISTORIAN—ONG MEMORIAL): The German prisoner of war sentenced to 25 years or a little less goes from being a prisoner of the Soviet Union to a foreign tourist; all of a sudden, he becomes a free man or woman waiting for the moment to return to his homeland—so why not give him a tour of Moscow so he can leave as a friend of the Soviet Union, and then he can say, “Here is the kindness of the communists.”  “Yes, we threw you in prison for 10 years, but now you’re a friend—almost a brother.” “Go on leave!” 

NARRATOR: Käthe returns to Germany by express train with a sleeper car, white sheets, and a lampshade all to yourself. In the Soviet Union, tourists are required to spend all their foreign currency before leaving the country along with their few rubles. So, the men in the convoy buy Crimean champagne in the dining car and leave the change as a tip for the waiters. 

By 1950, nearly 2 million German prisoners had been repatriated from the Soviet Union. And by 1955, only a few thousand prisoners remained in Siberia. Käthe is among the very last. 

Upon arriving in Hanover, she called her sister. Her 19-year-old niece answered the phone. 

INGEBORG HILLS (NIECE OF KÄTHE HEUSERMANN): Yes, that’s right. Exactly. I was home alone, completely distraught. What should I do? What should I do?  I have to go to the train station. I recognized her right away. She hadn’t changed that much.  It was I, on the contrary, who must have grown up over all those years. 

NARRATOR: For eight years, Käthe’s family knew nothing of what had happened to her.  It was only two years earlier that a fellow camp inmate, who had just been released, was able to inform her brother and sister that she was alive and in Siberia.  But the husband whose return she had awaited in Berlin in May ’45—he was the one who had grown tired of waiting.  Käthe had been declared dead, and her husband had remarried. 

INGEBORG HILLS (NIECE OF KÄTHE HEUSERMANN): She immediately adapted to her new life.  Soon, she told us with great determination: “Well, that chapter of my life is over. Now I’m starting a new life. I’m not a woman whose husband is away. I am… I have no idea what I am.”  It’s true—what are you when you’ve been declared dead?  Dead. I don’t know what they’d call that. 

NARRATOR: Elena’s book was published to mark the 20th anniversary of the end of the war. It wasn’t without its difficulties. It had to pass through a double layer of censorship: the usual, standard censorship that every book undergoes in the Soviet Union, and then a more exceptional form of censorship by the KGB.  The security service didn’t make too much of a fuss but refused to let Elena write that she had been authorized to consult KGB archives. Her book is therefore still not a historical document based on archival evidence, but once again a work of fiction in which Elena is not allowed to mention secrets or lies either.  So, we must wait another 25 years. 

In 1991, the Soviet Union collapsed, and in front of the Lubyanka building, the statue of Dzerzhinsky—the founder of the GPU, the predecessor of the KGB—was dismantled. 

Will we finally be able to learn and tell the truth about a country and a regime that no longer exist?  

SERGEY MIRONENKO (HISTORIAN—FORMER DIRECTOR OF THE RUSSIAN STATE ARCHIVE): When I became director of the State Archives of our National Archives in 1992, there was a sort of handover of power. My predecessor handed me a cardboard box containing fragments of Hitler’s skull and the documents from the investigation into his death.  It was only after the collapse of the Soviet Union that what has been called the “archives revolution” could begin. Millions—and I mean millions—of documents were declassified, and, in fact, they are now accessible to researchers.  

NICOLAY VLADIMIRTSEV (HISTORIAN AT THE RUSSIAN NATIONAL ARCHIVES): Here are fragments of the sofa on which Hitler ended his life, bearing traces of his blood. These pieces were dismantled and brought here along with the investigation documents. They were seen only at the time of the investigation, then kept under wraps until 1992 in our national archives. 

NARRATOR: So, there are the investigation files, pieces of physical evidence, and fragments of Hitler’s skull at the National Archives, while the KGB archives—now part of the FSB—secretly held some of the prisoners’ testimonies, including that of Käthe Heusermann, as well as the main piece of evidence: Hitler’s teeth. 

But where are the bodies—the charred remains of Hitler, Eva Braun, and the Goebbels family?  

NIKITA PETROV (HISTORIAN—ONG MEMORIAL): The remains were attached to the General Staff of the 3rd Army, stationed in eastern Germany. And they moved along with the regiment’s changing assignments. With each move, a new secret location had to be found to bury them. 

NARRATOR: In 1970, Andropov, the head of the KGB, asked Brezhnov to put an end to these charred remains that had been following the 3rd Army for 25 years.  The secret document detailing the destruction of the Nazi leaders’ bodies was discovered in the archives in 1992, bringing the matter to a close. 47 years later, all the evidence of Hitler’s suicide by gunshot in his bunker shortly after noon on April 30, 1945, has finally been gathered and revealed. 

SERGEY MIRONENKO (HISTORIAN—FORMER DIRECTOR OF THE RUSSIAN STATE ARCHIVE): Nothing can be hidden. Everything eventually comes to light. Everyone should learn this lesson from history. Even the best-hidden truth eventually resurfaces. 

NIKITA PETROV (HISTORIAN—ONG MEMORIAL): Those in power never thought it necessary to explain themselves to society. In the 1990s, Russian leaders said, ‘All right, all of that was hidden, but it was the Soviet Union that hid it.’ A general verdict should have been reached regarding the Soviet period and the Soviet regime as a power based on violence that violated its own laws, but this judgment on the past and on Soviet communist crimes was never handed down.

 

REFERENCES 

Karner, Stefan. Im Archipel GUPVI: Kriegsgefangenschaft und Internierung in der Sowjetunion, 1941-1956. Munich: R. Oldenbourg Verlag, 1995. 

Moorhouse, Roger. Berlin at War: Life and Death in Hitler’s Capital 1939-1945.  Basic Books. New York, 2010. 

Mort d’Hitler, l’histoire d’un secret d’État. Directors: Nina Beliaeva and Jean-Pierre Bozon, broadcast in 2016/2017 by RMC Découverte and Betula Productions. 

Rzhevskaya, Elena. Memoirs of a Wartime Interpreter: From the Battle of Rzhev to Hitler’s Bunker. Greenhill Books. London, 2018.

 

POST 109 (PART 2): JOHANNA & RENATE BRUCK’S WARTIME TAGEBUCH (“DIARY”), YEARS 1942-1944

 

Note: In the second part of Post 109, I discuss the broader historic context in which Johanna and Renate Bruck, wife and daughter of my esteemed ancestor, Dr. Walter Wolfgang Bruck (1872-1937), recorded the daily happenings in their lives between January 1942 and December 1944. Regrettably, their “Tagebuch” does not encompass the final few months of the war in Berlin through the surrender of the city on May 2, 1945. Thus, the circumstances of any hardships Johanna and Renate may have suffered in this period at the hands of the Russians and the Allies are unknown to us. Like in years 1940 and 1941, Johanna and Renate’s lives are replete with social engagements (getting together with friends; attending movies, plays, and operas; dining out; shopping; clothes fittings; etc.), distractions (tap, tennis, violin lessons), Renate’s amorous liaisons, and, most remarkably, multiple trips. With a few notable exceptions, the war passes almost unnoticed. I do not dwell on Johanna and Renate’s personal lives except where it adds nuance and texture to their accounts or provides some temporal context. From a story-telling perspective, I explore developments in the war and other happenings that while not explicitly discussed in the diary must have weighed on Johanna and Renate’s minds.

 

Related Posts:

POST 83: CASE STUDY USING THE UNITED KINGDOM’S “GENERAL REGISTER OFFICE” DATABASE TO FIND ANCESTORS

POST 108: RENATE BRUCK & MATTHIAS MEHNE’S “LONG-DISTANCE MARRIAGE”

POST 109 (PART 1): JOHANNA & RENATE BRUCK’S WARTIME TAGEBUCH (“DIARY”)—YEARS 1940-1941

 

As discussed in Post 109(1), in November and December 1941 Johanna Bruck transacted the exchange of her apartment in Breslau [today: Wrocław, Poland] at Oranienstrasse 4, with one in Berlin occupied by a couple named the Günthers, located at Xantener Straße 24, in the Berlin district of Charlottenburg-Wilmersdorf. Johanna physically relocated to Berlin in February 1942, followed several weeks later by Renate. Johanna used the intervening period to have the apartment completely refurbished and upgraded.

By September 1941 Johanna understood that Renate’s application for her to be treated “as an equal to German-blooded people” had been or would be rejected. Given how prominent Dr. Walter Bruck (Figures 1-2) had been in Breslau during his lifetime and the certainty the Nazis knew he was “racially” Jewish and that his daughter was a mischling of the first degree may have been the impetus for Johanna to move her daughter to Berlin; after all, by 1938, Renate Bruck had already been expelled from the “Oberlyzeum von Zawadzky,” the Upper Lyceum in the Zawadskie district of Breslau, the private school for daughters from upper class families. Johanna must have felt the anonymity of a larger city afforded her daughter better protection.

 

Figure 1. Johanna Bruck née Gräbsch at the helm of her Adler automobile with her daughter Renate and husband, Dr. Walter Wolfgang Bruck, in a pre-war photo reflective of their upper-class lifestyle

 

Figure 2. Dr. Walter Bruck with his wife and daughter

 

My cousin Thomas Koch discovered an interesting thing when he examined the Berlin Address Books following Johanna and Renate’s move to Berlin. Johanna is not listed in the 1942 directory, though this may simply have been a function that her move occurred after the directory went to press. However, more mystifying is that she is not listed in the 1943 Berlin Address Book. There are several possible explanations: (1) sloppiness on the part of the publisher in updating the 1943 Address Book; (2) Johanna and Renate lived at Xantener Straße 24 but under the name of another person because of Renate’s racial status as a mischling. This possibility seems unlikely because it would have made obtaining ration cards very difficult and would have been contradictory to the openly, social lifestyle Johanna and Renate led. (3) Johanna unintentionally forgot to register properly; or (4) Johanna and Renate temporarily lived outside Berlin, which was in fact the case for a period in 1943-1944, which I will discuss below.

On May 4, 1942, Johanna makes one of the few entries suggesting the war may have started to impact the everyday lives of ordinary Germans, when she remarks, “Food very scarce!!!” While the scarcity of food is rarely mentioned again, the arrival of “care” packages from friends and relatives outside of Berlin is carefully noted throughout the diary suggesting Johanna and Renate depended on these.

In Post 109(1), I mentioned to readers that upon Renate’s arrival in Berlin, she attended the “Kunstgewerbeschule,” the School of Arts and Crafts. However, neither Johanna nor Renate ever takes her compulsory schooling seriously; numerous instances of Renate missing school are noted. According to Renate’s lifelong friend, Ina Schaesberg, Renate acquired a special skill in arts and crafts that enabled her to make “very pretty and practical things from felt that sold well and brought in money.”

Renate departed Breslau accompanied by her mother on March 19, 1942, though Renate makes a point of noting that two days prior she had visited Matthias Mehne, her future first husband, at his luthier shop to say her goodbyes. (Figure 3) There was already a clear fondness between the two of them. It seems likely Renate and Matthias met at his shop while she was taking violin lessons there. According to Bettina Mehne, Matthias’s daughter by his second marriage, lessons were given not by Matthias himself but by his good friend, a man named “Kulenkampf.”

 

Figure 3. Renate Bruck’s first husband, Matthias Eugen Walter Mehne, at his luthier shop in Berlin in a post-war photo

 

Regardless, immediately after Matthias’s arrival in Berlin in February 1943, he called Renate and they become inseparable until he was forced to enlist in the Wehrmacht towards the latter part of April 1943. Readers may recall from Post 108 that Matthias was found to have helped a Jewish detainee and friend, Anita Lasker-Wallfisch, escape a Sammellager in Breslau, a collection camp for Jewish deportees, with his rucksack in hand. As punishment, the judge, a friend, forced him to join the army rather than let the Gestapo kill him as they had wanted to, figuring he would be killed anyway. Clearly, Matthias’s departure from Breslau, did not prevent the Wehrmacht from finding him there, so his relocation to Berlin was more likely related to his blossoming relationship with Renate than an attempt to avoid military conscription.

By around the 22nd of April 1943, Matthias was forced to present himself in Paris for induction into the German Army, but not without first talking to Johanna about his future with Renate according to an entry before his departure. It took me a while to work out that Renate and her mother referred to Matthias as “boy” throughout much of the diary, possibly because of his youthful demeanor or for some other unknown reason. He was clearly Renate’s primary love interest (Figure 4), though a man named “Gerhard” (surname unknown) was also vying for her affection at the time, a man her twin daughters claim was a love interest for years after the war following her marriage and divorce from Matthias.

 

Figure 4. Renate Bruck and her first husband Matthias Eugen Walter Mehne in Berlin in 1947-48 following his release form British captivity

 

Before backtracking and telling readers about some historic events of WWII I would have expected to be discussed in the Tagebuch, let me briefly tell followers what happened to Matthias following his enlistment. Renate received news of Matthias’s capture on October 12, 1943. He was evidently assigned to the Italian theater-of-war. The Allies landed in Sicily in around July 1943, and by September 1943 had invaded the Italian mainland. Matthias was captured by the Americans in Italy, but quickly turned over to the British and interned as a prisoner of war near Nottingham, England. Renate received her first letter from him dated the 27th of February 1944 about a month later, on the 26th of March 1944. I want to emphatically emphasize that Matthias was not a Nazi but was forced as punishment to enlist in the Wehrmacht because of the courage he had shown trying to help a Jew escape an internment camp in Breslau.

On her 17th birthday on the 16th of June 1943, Renate received a diamond ring. While there is no reason to think this was connected to Matthias, who was by then in the German Army, the day after receiving his first letter in March 1944 following his British internment, Renate celebrated what Johanna referred to as Renate’s “engagement day.” Might Matthias have proposed in his letter? Possibly.

At the beginning of February 1943, the Axis forces including Germany’s 6th Army and its foreign allies surrendered in Stalingrad following a brutal battle that had lasted five months, one week, and three days. There is nary any mention of this development during the war in Johanna’s diary. Nor is there any mention of the “Rosenstrasse Protest” that took place in Berlin during February and March 1943, which fundamentally affected Renate and other mischlinge. This demonstration was initiated and sustained by the non-Jewish wives and relatives of Jewish men and mischlinge who had been arrested and targeted for deportation, based on the racial policy of Nazi Germany. What started out with dozens, then hundreds of women protesting, eventually turned into thousands of women demonstrating in icy winter weather over seven days, until 1,700 Berlin Jews herded together into the Jewish community house on Rosenstrasse near Alexanderplatz were freed. The Rosenstrasse protest is considered a significant event in German history as it was the only mass public demonstration by Germans in the Third Reich against the deportation of Jews. One can only imagine how much horror and misery might have been avoided had such protestations by Germans occurred much earlier. To my cousin Thomas Koch this is very personal since his grandmother and future mother were among the Rosenstrasse protestors, and his Jewish grandfather among those freed.

Let me turn now to an entry made by Renate on the 11th of May 1943, in which she noted that she would not be accepted in the Reich Labor Service, the Reichsarbeitsdienst or RAD. The Reich Labor Service was a major organization established in Nazi Germany to help mitigate the effects of unemployment on the German economy, militarize the workforce, and indoctrinate it with Nazi ideology. It was the official state labor service, divided into separate sections for men and women. So called “half-breeds,” mischlinge, were not excluded from labor service. The mother of my cousin Thomas, like Renate also a mischling, was in the Reichsarbeitsdienst in 1940. Thus, it is a source of irritation to Thomas that Renate was somehow able to avoid the labor service. Were the conditions “tightened” for Renate through contacts Johanna had that “prevented” her from being accepted? Or was Renate’s non-acceptance intended to protect her from something or exclude her from something contrary to the rules? We may never know the answers to these questions.

Years ago, when I was still working with Thomas Koch trying to discover where Johanna and Renate Bruck had gone after they left Breslau, which we now know to have been in February-March 1942, Thomas shared with me an application that had been submitted by a woman named Ms. Edith Czeczatka to the Tracing Service of the German Red Cross in 1948. Ms. Czeczatka requested information on the whereabouts of Johanna and Renate and gave as their residential address in the town of Erfurt, Germany, Dammweg 9. (Figures 5a-b) I mentioned this in Post 83, even including a picture of the residential building where they lived. (Figure 6) Johanna and Renate’s association with Erfurt was a mystery until the discovery of their Tagebuch.

 

 

Figure 5a. 2019 letter to my cousin Dr. Thomas Koch from the “Deutsches Rotes Kreuz Generalsekretariat Suchdienst,” the German Red Cross’s Tracing Service, responding to his request for information about Renate Bruck; this letter cites a 1948 request for information on Johanna and Renate from a former neighbor when they lived at Dammweg 9

 

 

Figure 5b. Translation of 2019 letter from the German Red Cross’s Tracing Service to my cousin Dr. Thomas Koch

 

Figure 6. The apartment building at Dammweg 9 in Erfurt, Germany where Johanna and Renate Bruck lived after Renate was employed by the MAKO Maschinen Co. GMBH as a draftswoman

 

 

An entry on the 22nd of May 1943 explains why Renate accompanied by Johanna temporarily moved to Erfurt that year. That day, Renate was told to come for an interview at the employment office of “MAKO Maschinen Co. GMBH”; she’d apparently applied for and been hired as a technical draftswoman beginning on June 1st. More on this company below. The company had offices in both Berlin and Erfurt, but Renate was required to report to Erfurt beginning on the 17th of June 1943 for training. Almost immediately, the girls that had been hired were given two months of paid vacation until the drawing rooms were readied. It is clear from the diary that Renate was permanently assigned to work in Erfurt.

Towards the beginning of September 1943, prior to moving to Erfurt, Johanna and Renate went to visit family and friends in Breslau, then spent a few days vacationing in Jannowitz, Silesia [today: Janowice Wielkie, Poland], before returning to Breslau, then leaving for Erfurt on September 12, 1943. For the period of her employment, Renate and her mother lived in Erfurt on weekdays, then returned to Berlin on weekends.

It appears that for at least a year until September 24, 1944, Johanna and Renate lived with a family called the “Hallers.” Then, on September 25, 1944, they moved within Erfurt into the house at Dammweg 9, previously mentioned, where the “Maulhardt” family also lived. Presumably, this was a boarding house the family owned.

Let me digress now and briefly discuss the MAKO Maschinen Co. GMBH that Renate worked for. MAKO was a company network owned by Max Kotzan, and the name was a combination of letters from his first and last name. The 1943 Berlin Address Book identified the various components of the business which included chemical-technical and metallurgical development; machine factories; and apparatus engineering and construction. Curious to get a better handle on what the company actually produced, I came upon an obscure reference which I found intriguing because it shed light on Germany’s efforts to develop solid fuel rockets, which might well have changed the trajectory of the war. Quoting briefly from a publication entitled “The V2 and the Russian and American Rocket Program” by Claus Reuter:

More and more information is now surfacing telling of the launch of a ballistic missile powered by solid propellant near Arnstadt just before the war ended.  [EDITOR’S NOTE: Arnstadt is a town in Thuringia, Germany, about 20 kilometers south of Erfurt. During the Second World War, it was the site of a prisoner-of-war camp, mainly for Poles and Russians.]. Many believe it was this missile which was to carry a nuclear payload. The missile was developed in the top-secret think-tank installation at the Skoda factory under the control of the SS-Obergruppenfuehrer Kammler. . . .

. . . Most historians and experts say that because of the shortage of solid propellants the missile was never produced and that no nuclear program existed.

More and more eyewitness accounts surface telling us a different story, accounts which say the missile was launched successfully. Also, a photo surfaced showing a large missile being built at the MAKO factory in Rudesleben, Thuringia. It shows the Sonderrakete A-4 (Special Rocket A-4) for solid fuel. The launch took place nearby at one of the top-secret factories in Thuringia the Polte 2 plant. The plant was controlled by SS-Obergruppenfuehrer Kammler.

The MAKO plant specialized in the construction of pressure tanks and also produced equipment for the Luftwaffe, like drop tank, for the rocket program oxygen tanks for the V-1 and also mobile liquid oxygen transport tanks for the V-2 rocket batteries. The MAKO was owned by Maz Kotzan. Kotzan as a WWI flyer had close connections to Hermann Goering and Ernst Udet, both WWI pilots. The MAKO received the contracts from the RLM [EDITOR’S NOTE: Nazi Germany’s Ministry of Aviation, “Reichsluftfahrtministerium,” abbreviated RLM]. Behind the Polte 2 plant Kotzan had erected two aircraft hangers and a landing strip.

Here personalities like SS-Obergruppenfuehrer Kammler or Wernher von Braun arrived to visit some of the installations. In the MAKO and Polte 2 plants some of the top-secret developments were tested. It was here that the Americans found the top-secret radar-absorbing aircraft paint. The paint was immediately shipped to the U.S.

I am obviously no rocket scientist, pardon the pun, so suffice it to say the advantage of a solid motor is that it can provide huge amounts of thrust, and is therefore used as a booster to make satellite launching rockets gain high initial velocity before using higher-efficient liquid motors to gain horizontal velocity above the densest part of the atmosphere. There seems little doubt that had the Nazis been able to master this technology and place fissile material atop a missile powered by solid fuel, at a minimum, the war would have dragged on and more misery and death occurred.

I will readily acknowledge to readers that I have veered quite a distance from Johanna and Renate’s diary, but this was primarily in the interest of drawing attention to the company for which Renate worked, which was obviously deeply involved in Germany’s arms development. There is virtually no mention in their diary of Johanna and Renate’s time in Erfurt, except for their continuing active social lives. However, it is safe to assume that part of their reticence to talk about Erfurt could be connected to statements of secrecy they were sworn to. Clearly, as a mischling Renate wanted to draw as little attention to herself as possible, and it’s somewhat surprising the company even hired her given her status.

Evidently, by virtue of Renate’s amorous relationship with Matthias Mehne, her future first husband, she and Johanna had gotten to know Matthias’s parents, referred to as “Ma and Pa” in the diary and his sister “Lu,” short for Luzie. Matthias’s parents were Albert Eugen Mehne (b. 1883, Dresden) and Hedwig Gertrud Marie Göbel. Johanna and Renate regularly visited, received packages, and stayed in touch with them during Matthias’s wartime absence. While a reference I found states Albert Eugen Mehne moved to Gelsenkirchen, Germany around 1922 (Figure 7), which is about 500 miles due west of Breslau, Johanna and Renate always visited them in Breslau during the war, suggesting Matthias’s parents had returned there at some point.

 

Figure 7. Obscure reference from “Amati Auctions” mentioning that Renate’s future father-in-law, Eugen Mehne, worked in Gelsenkirchen, Germany after 1922

 

Surprisingly, Johanna and Renate traveled quite extensively during the years 1942 through 1944. While there were periodic disruptions and delays on account of the war, amazingly the trains continued to run on a predictable schedule though often with significant delays. Among the places they stayed besides Berlin, Breslau, and Erfurt were the widely scattered towns of Friedrichroda (small town and health resort in Thuringia), Babelsberg, Potsdam, Jannowitz, Neuendorf and Kantreck in Pomerania bordering the Baltic Sea, and Hamburg. They clearly knew people in many of these places, but others were seemingly vacation destinations.

Not surprisingly, the war had an impact on the lives of Johanna and Renate, although this fact is rarely manifested in the diary. However, on the night of February 16, 1944, the Allies launched a major bomb attack against Berlin, and the following day Johanna was notified by teletype that “our apartment had suffered greatly.” Then, on February 18th, Johanna remarks “Our apartment—a field of rubble, quite terrible.” It does not become clear until an entry in the early part of May 1944 that Johanna and Renate’s apartment was still habitable.

It goes without saying there are dozens and dozens more entries in Johanna and Renate’s Tagebuch reflecting on the weather, taking umbrage in air raid shelters, Johanna being hospitalized, and much more. Readers should realize I’ve been very selective in the entries I’ve chosen to highlight to make this post engaging and more reflective of the wartime events that had to have impacted Johanna and Renate’s lives. My intent is merely to give followers a glimpse into the lives that my ancestors Johanna and Renate Bruck lived during WWII (Figure 8), and how surprisingly “normal” their existence seems to have been given the enormity of death and destruction that surrounded them.

 

Figure 8. Post-WWII photo of Renate and Johanna Bruck in England

 

REFERENCE

Reuter, Claus (2000). The V2, and the Russian and American Rocket Program. (2nd ed.). Repentigny, Quebec (Canada): S.R. Research & Publishing.

 

 

POST 109 (PART 1): JOHANNA & RENATE BRUCK’S WARTIME TAGEBUCH (“DIARY”)—YEARS 1940-1941

 

Note: This is the first of a two-part story about the wartime “journal” or “diary” written by Johanna and Renate Bruck, the widow and daughter of my esteemed ancestor from Breslau, Germany [today: Wrocław, Poland], Dr. Walter Wolfgang Bruck (1872-1937), a second cousin twice removed. The German word “Tagebuch” strictly speaking translates as a diary or journal but in effect is more of a record or log of the extensive daily activities Johanna and Renate were engaged in between January 1940 and December 1944. What could have been an extremely absorbing account of the daily lives of an Aryan woman and her “mischling” daughter during WWII, within the context of global events and the impact of National Socialism on Jews, half-Jews, Germans, and others in Europe, instead turns into a mundane and drab account of their rather “ordinary” existences. The Tagebuch is often more remarkable for what it omits than what it says about the ongoing events of the tragic period in which it was written. It is difficult to make sense of many of the entries, which would in any case be of little or no interest to readers. For this reason I explain some of the war-related references and discuss a few specific people I’ve been able to identify.

 

Related Posts:

POST 54: “I DECIDE WHO IS A JEW”

POST 99: THE ASTONISHING DISCOVERY OF SOME OF DR. WALTER WOLFGANG BRUCK’S PERSONAL EFFECTS

POST 100: DR. WALTER WOLFGANG BRUCK, DENTIST TO GERMANY’S LAST IMPERIAL FAMILY

POST 101: DR. WALTER WOLFGANG BRUCK: HIS DAUGHTER RENATE’S FIRST HUSBAND, A “SILENT HERO”

POST 102: DR. WALTER BRUCK, HIS SECOND WIFE JOHANNA GRÄBSCH  & HER FAMILY

POST 103: RENATE BRUCK: A TALE OF TWO GODMOTHERS

 

Regular followers of my Blog are aware of the multiple posts I have recently written about Dr. Walter Wolfgang Bruck (1872-1937) and his extended family. This sequence of posts was prompted by a contact earlier this year from a Berlin doctor, Dr. Tilo Wahl, who in around 2013 purchased at auction the commemorative medals, personal effects, private papers, and photos that once belonged to Dr. Bruck. The seller of these items was Nicholas Newman, Dr. Bruck’s grandson, who sadly committed suicide in 2015 in London.

As Ms. Madeleine Isenberg, my friend affiliated with the Jewish Genealogical Society of Los Angeles, has been wont to tell me, there is no such thing as coincidence but rather as her uncle impressed upon her, its “beshert,” fate or predestination. Not only was it providential Dr. Wahl would stumble upon my Blog and contact me, but that he would also share copies of Dr. Bruck’s personal papers and photos. This was magnified when Nicholas Newman’s twin sisters from Sydney, Australia, similarly chanced upon my Blog while researching their deceased brother and contacted me.

 

 

Figure 1. Francesca and Michele Newman, my fourth cousins

 

Nicholas’s twin siblings, Francesca and Michele Newman (Figure 1), are the offspring of Renate Bruck’s third marriage. Since our initial encounter, we have developed a warm relationship and have had several Zoom calls. The twins have been able to fill in a few holes in my understanding of their mother and grandmother’s lives following their grandfather’s death in 1937, but most astoundingly, while examining their family memorabilia, they happened upon a so-called “Tagebuch,” written between January 1940 and December 1944 by their grandmother and mother, Johanna and Renate Bruck. (Figure 2) Technically a diary or journal, it can more accurately be characterized as a record or log of daily events the writers were engaged in.

 

Figure 2. The frontispiece of Johanna and Renate Bruck’s 5-year wartime “Tagebuch,” diary, covering the period from January 1940 through December 1944

 

Knowing the numerous questions I had about Dr. Bruck’s wife and daughter following his death, they offered to send me the original Tagebuch. While hesitant to risk losing this valuable document, I accepted their gracious offer and fortunately it arrived safely. The twins have since generously donated their mother and grandmother’s diary to the Museum of Cemetery Art (Old Jewish Cemetery), a Branch of the City Museum of Wroclaw, where their great-grandfather and great-great-grandfather are interred. Since Dr. Walter Bruck is well-known to staff of the museum, they were thrilled beyond measure to receive this donation.

Briefly, let me explain to readers how I was able to learn the contents of the Tagebuch. For much longer than I have been in contact with Francesca and Michele Newman, I have known one of their cousins from the Berlin neighborhood of Köpenick, Dr. Frank Thomas Koch (Figure 3); as another instance of serendipity, Dr. Tilo Wahl is a practicing dentist in this same district of Berlin. In any case, whereas Thomas and I are fourth cousins, Thomas and the twins are third cousins, so a generation more closely related. Over the years, Thomas and I have collaborated in tracking Johanna and Renate Bruck to England following their emigration from Germany, without specifically uncovering the intermediate steps that led to them arriving there.

 

 

Figure 3. My fourth cousin, Frank Thomas Koch, in Berlin in 2015, who is a third cousin to Francesca and Michele Newman; Thomas transcribed & translated Johanna & Renate’s “Tagebuch”

 

Given Thomas’ interest in this branch of our family, upon learning of the existence of the Tagebuch, he offered to transcribe it. I sent Thomas a high-quality PDF of the journal, which he systematically transcribed over a roughly two-month period. Then, using the best of the known online translators, DeepL, he translated the log. But Thomas went beyond a cursory perusal of the “journal.” He provided some context for events taking place in Nazi Germany that ought to have been touched on by Johanna Bruck but were not. As one additional step, I put Thomas in touch with Renate Bruck’s lifelong still-living 95-year-old friend, Ina Schaesberg (Figure 4), who was able to recall specific people named in the Tagebuch and identify their role in Johanna and Renate’s lives. Since Ina speaks little English, Thomas was more effectively able to extract information about these people from her than I could. Finally, yet another source of information was Bettina Mehne (Figure 5), daughter of Renate Bruck’s first husband, Matthias Eugen Walter Mehne, by Matthias’ second wife; Bettina was able to recognize the diminutive names of some of her ancestors.

 

Figure 4. Renate Bruck’s lifelong best friend, Ina Gräfin von Schaesberg née Weinert (b. 19 March 1926, Breslau) as she looks today (photo courtesy of Ina Schaesberg)
Figure 5. Matthias Mehne’s daughter by his second marriage, Bettina Mehne

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Briefly, let me give readers an impression of the Tagebuch. It is a five-year diary, of a type that still exists today, with some peculiarities. It covers the span from January 1, 1940, through December 24, 1944, although not chronologically. That’s to say, January 31, 1940, is not followed by February 1, 1940, but rather by January 1, 1941, then January 1, 1942, etc. While this may make sense, it prevents the reader from following the flow of events. Thus, Thomas, in transcribing and translating the diary, did so chronologically.

The diary has two authors, Dr. Walter Wolfgang Bruck’s widow, Johanna Bruck née Gräbsch, and his daughter, Renate Bruck. (Figure 6) Most of the entries are recorded by Johanna, whose writing is Old German Script in vogue around the 1900’s (known as “die Kurrentschrift” or “Kurrent for short in German); Renate’s handwriting is more typical of today’s German cursive.

 

Figure 6. Authors of the “Tagebuch,” Johanna & Renate Bruck, in England following WWII (photo courtesy of Dr. Tilo Wahl)

 

The Tagebuch is written in a telegraphic style, meaning in a clipped way of writing that abbreviates words and packs as much information into the fewest number of words or characters. At times, this means that certain terms or turns of phrases are not well understood or are indecipherable.

Rarely is the Tagebuch introspective or self-analyzing. Comparatively intimate, confidential, or personal messages are rarely recorded. The diary does not give us a sense of the broader events going on in the war during the Nazi era. For Johanna and Renate life seems to go on as normal, notwithstanding the fact that as a half-Jew Renate was considered a mischling of the first degree.

The war, the aftermath of its destruction, hunger, and repression are rarely mentioned. If Renate as a mischling or her mother were ever under observation by the Nazis and their informants is never made clear. However, as the author James F. Tent asserts in his seminal book about German mischlinge, “In the Shadow of the Holocaust: Persecution of Jewish-Christian Germans,” the intensity of persecution, discrimination, and harassment of mischlinge in the Third Reich varied greatly. Tent reports that in certain areas and regions, there was little distinction between “Jews” and “Mischlinge” in terms of persecution, while in other parts of the Reich virtually nothing happened to them, and they were not treated as outsiders.

There were at least two areas where Renate’s status as a mischling affected her life. Until 1938, Renate attended the “Oberlyzeum von Zawadzky,” the Upper Lyceum in the Zawadskie district of Breslau, which was a private school for daughters from upper class families. After 1938, all “non-Aryan” girls were forced to leave. Following her expulsion from the Lyceum, until Renate relocated with her mother to Berlin in February-March of 1942, she attended the “Kloster-Schule der Ursulinen,” the Ursuline Convent School. Then, beginning in 1942 upon her arrival in Berlin, she attended the “Kunstgewerbeschule,” the School of Arts and Crafts.

The second area where Renate’s life was affected by her status as a mischling of the first degree was in her desire to be a fully recognized member of the “deutschen Volksgemeinschaft,” wanting “to belong” and not be an outsider; the Volksgemeinschaft is a German expression meaning “people’s community” that originally became popular during WWI as Germans rallied in support of the war. It appealed to the idea of breaking down elitism, and uniting people across class divides to achieve a national purpose. During the Nazi era, the wanting “to belong” among children and young people was expressed, among other ways, in their membership in the Hitlerjugend (HJ), Hitler Youth, or the Bund Deutscher Mädel (BDM), League of German Girls or Band of German Maidens. However, anyone who was “non-Aryan” could not become a member of the Hitler Youth or BDM.

Ina Schaesberg, Renate’s lifelong friend, relates an uncomfortable situation Renate put her in on account of her desire to belong to the BDM. So the story goes that Renate forced Ina to get her a BDM uniform so they could play together as “German Maidens” privately at home wearing their outfits. Jumping ahead to January 1942 which will be discussed in Part 2 of this post, Renate was denounced for this act by an informer that required Johanna to report to the police, although the incident appears to have had no serious consequences.

Johanna resolved to address the matter of Renate’s exclusion from the BDM. She makes the following entry on January 29, 1941. “I received first a call from Norbert Pohl about BDM application to Hess.” Let me attempt to put this in context for readers and tell readers about the players, acknowledging that I do not have a copy of Renate’s BDM application so can only surmise what it may have included.

Johanna Bruck seemingly appealed the issue of Renate’s application to join the BDM to a high, if not the highest, authority, namely to Hitler’s deputy in the Nazi Party, Rudolf Hess (1874-1987). The quote above makes this evident. Hess had been the highest-ranking member after Hitler of the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP), National Socialist German Workers’ Party, and Reich Minister without portfolio since 1933 when the Nazis seized power.

Johanna could have justified her request that Renate be accepted into the BDM in one of two ways. Purely hypothetically, Johanna could have argued that Dr. Walter Wolfgang Bruck was not the biological father of Renate and that she was the daughter of an affair Johanna had had with an “Aryan.” It’s conceivable Johanna was aware of a similar argument that had been made in the case of the German field marshal general Erhard Milch (Figure 7) by his mother, distant relatives of both Renate and me.

 

 

Figure 7. Field Marshall Erhard Milch (far left) with Hitler and Hermann Göring (white uniform) (photograph by Heinrich Hoffmann, available at www.audiovis.nac.gov.pl, copyrighted by the State Treasury of Poland)

 

To remind readers, I wrote about Erhard Milch (1892-1972) in a post entitled “I Decide Who is a Jew” (Post 54), a saying widely attributed to Hermann Wilhelm Göring, one of the most powerful figures in the Nazi Party between 1933 to 1945. Erhard Milch was a German field marshal general (Generalfeldmarschall) who oversaw the development of the German air force (Luftwaffe) as part of the re-armament of Nazi Germany following WWI. He was State Secretary in the Reich Ministry of Aviation and Inspector General of the Air Force. During most of WWII, he oversaw all aircraft production and supply. In other words, Milch was important to the Nazis. Based on his mother’s disclosure that Erhard was not the son of her Jewish husband but supposedly born of an incestuous relationship with her uncle, an “Aryan,” he was declared a so-called “Honorary Aryan” (i.e., a person with Jewish roots who was appointed an honorary Aryan).

Thus, one way Johanna hypothetically could have argued that Renate be accepted into the BDM was by professing she was not the child of a Jew. Alternatively, Johanna could have argued that while Renate was regrettably a “mischling of the first degree,” her enthusiasm for the Nazis, their movement, and their ideals more than made up for this “flaw.” Which option Johanna chose is unknown to us. Probably her request was not supported by Hess or was delayed and put on the backburner. Regardless, several months after Johanna’s request, Hess flew to England in May 1941, ostensibly to make peace with the Allies. He was interned in England, and following Germany’s defeat, at Nuremberg he was sentenced to many years in prison as a Nazi and war criminal.

Who then was the Norbert Pohl who called Johanna Bruck on January 29, 1941? According to my cousin Thomas Koch, Norbert Pohl (1910-1968) was probably already a big shot in the SS (Schutzstaffel, or Protection Squads) at the time of Johanna’s BDM request. He was the chief judge of the SS at the Police Court VI in Krakow from July 1940 until March 1942. Johanna makes a remarkable entry on February 12, 1941, recording that she received a call from Frau Pohl, presumably the wife of the SS grandee Norbert Pohl, urging haste with the written request. On February 20th, Johanna delivered the application to the Obergau, a division of the National Socialist state, specifically to the “Obergau 4, Obergaubehörde Niederschlesien der Nazipartei NSDAP,” which was headquartered in Breslau. Pohl may subsequently have forwarded Johanna’s letter and documentation to Rudolf Hess and kept her informed about developments.

Because of the clipped style in which the Tagebuch is written, we are left to wonder about some of the brief entries recorded by Johanna that may have been related to the application submission. For example, on February 28, 1941, so eight days after submitting the petition to the NSDAP, Johanna writes that she sent a letter to Mackensen. This is undoubtedly Anton Ludwig Friedrich August Mackensen (1949-1945), Generalfeldmarschall, Field Marshall General, Dr. Walter Wolfgang Bruck’s military superior during WWI (Figure 8) and someone who stood up for him in 1933 after he was dismissed from his academic position. (Figure 9) Could the letter have had anything to do with Renate’s application to the NSDAP and a request for his support? It seems likely, but we may never know.

 

Figure 8. During WWI, Dr. Walter Bruck in the front seat with his first wife, Margarethe Bruck née Skutsch (1872-1942), who was Jewish, accompanied by his military superior, Field Marshall General Anton Ludwig Friedrich August Mackensen (1949-1945), and his wife (photo courtesy of Dr. Tilo Wahl)

 

 

Figure 9. Transcription & translation of section from book entitled “Zwischen Kaiser und Führer: Generalfeldmarschall August von Mackensen” by Theo Schwarzmüller detailing how and why Mackensen came to Dr. Walter Bruck’s defense following his dismissal from his teaching position in 1933 after the Nazis came to power

 

As it relates to the formal written request Johanna submitted for Renate to the Nazi authorities on February 20, 1941, Thomas figured out the German designation for this application was called “Gesuch über die Gleichstellung mit Deutschblütigen,” an “application for equality with German-blooded people.” The relevant literature indicates about 10,000 such applications were presented, but that only about 500 of them were ever approved. Of particular interest is that Hitler himself approved or denied these requests. Hitler’s allies were apparently more lenient in ratifying them.

What is clear from the journal and what we now know was an “application for equality with German-blooded people” submitted by Johanna is that she knew many people, including influential Nazis.

Unfortunately, the Tagebuch contains no mention as to what transpired after Renate’s application was submitted. However, based on an entry recorded on the 16th of September 1941, apparently Johanna suspects that her “request” for Renate to be treated “as an equal to German-blooded people” has been or will be rejected.

Let me turn now to log entries having to do with the Nazi regime and wartime events that may be of interest to readers.

On January 30, 1940, Johanna mentions the hustle and bustle going on that week on account of “Führerwoche,” Führer Week, in honor of the seventh anniversary of Hitler becoming Chancellor of the Reich on January 30, 1933.

On February  23, 1940, schools other than Renate’s were closed on account of a so-called “coal vacation,” days schools were closed during severe winters to save coal and heating oil to be used in support of the war effort.

On February 25, 1940, Johanna records that “Klaus,” one of Renate’s friends, had his National Socialist youth initiation ceremony as school graduation ceremonies and initiation rituals into the Hitler Youth and BDM were referred to at the time.

May 1st was a National Holiday, “Tag der Arbeit,” Labor Day, interestingly appropriating a tradition from the Labor movement.

On June 2nd, 1940, Johanna mentions listening to the radio, without specifically indicating that the broadcast presumably celebrated the Wehrmacht’s victory over France. Then, on June 25th, there was a school vacation because of “the acceptance of the peace terms imposed on the French.”

Interestingly, on November 23, 1940, the day of Hitler’s failed “Beer Hall Putsch” in 1923, in Munich, the Führer delivered a radio broadcast.

In several places, Johanna merely records “Führer speech,” so we are left to peruse the history books to identify what major speech Hitler delivered on these dates. The first instance is on February 24, 1941, which corresponds with a celebration at the Münchener Hofbräuhaus on the announcement of the NSDAP platform when Hitler declared an intensification of submarine warfare.

On April 9, 1941, Johanna remarks on the “great political events in the Balkans,” which coincided with the Wehrmacht’s campaign against then-Yugoslavia and Greece, resulting in Salonika’s capture on that date.

On May 4, 1941, Johanna again merely records, “Führer speech.” This coincides with an address Hitler made before the German Reichstag, in which he invoked the alleged desire for peace on the part of Nazi Germany, which had always been thwarted and now led once again to the defeat of then-Yugoslavia and Greece in the Balkans.

On June 22, 1941, Johanna records that Adolf Hitler declared war on the Soviet Union. No further embellishment is provided. Then, on October 3rd, there is another entry, “Führer speech.” This day it turns out marked the start of the Kriegswinter-Hilfswerks, War Winter Relief Fund, and Hitler’s declaration that the Soviet Union had already been defeated and would never rise again. Barely two weeks later, the German Wehrmacht, accustomed to victory, took its first major defeat during the Battle of Moscow.

Relatedly, jumping ahead to January 3, 1942, Johanna makes another clipped entry that requires explanation: “. . .sweater and jacket donated for the soldiers.” Operation Barbarossa, the German invasion plan, called for the capture of Moscow within four months of the Axis forces invasion of the Soviet Union on the 22nd of June 1941. Hitler and his generals were convinced they would defeat the Soviet Union before the onset of winter 1941. Therefore, the German soldiers were ill-equipped for the severe winter when the Red Army counter-attacked during the Battle of Moscow, and they were largely without winter clothes. The donations of clothing from the German population were intended to compensate for this lack of winter equipment; Johanna was among the donors.

Let me turn now to some entries in the Tagebuch that give us insight into aspects of Johanna and Renate’s personal lives and their circle of friends and acquaintances. While of lesser interest than the terse war-related notes, they are still noteworthy.

According to a note recorded on the 24th of March 1940, Johanna and Renate were members of the “Christengemeinschaft.” The “Christengemeinschaft, Movement for Religious Renewal” is a Christian church that is close to anthroposophy but is regarded as an independent cult community. It was founded in Switzerland in 1922 following the suggestions of Rudolf Steiner and had followers in Breslau. Today, there are 140 congregations in Germany though the church exists worldwide. From the point of view of the mainstream churches, it represents, among other things, a different understanding of baptism.

It was through the Christengemeinschaft that Johanna sought to have Renate accepted for confirmation classes. Judging from the somewhat vague notes in the Tagebuch, there were discussions and a dispute with Church Pastor Müller about this, but Johanna eventually prevailed seemingly with the help of other members of the congregation. In any case, Renate was eventually confirmed on the 17th of March 1941.

Relatedly, on June 19, 1941, Johanna makes a point of mentioning the ban of eurythmy in schools, and the great joy it elicited; whether this was personal joy or more widespread elation is unclear. Eurythmy is an expressive movement art originated by Rudolf Steiner in conjunction with Marie von Sivers in the early 20th century. Primarily a performance art, it was also used in education, especially in Waldorf schools, and – as part of anthroposophic medicine – for claimed therapeutic purposes. The ban of eurythmy was probably connected with the flight of Rudolf Hess, Hitler’s Deputy, to England on May 10, 1941. With his departure, anthroposophy lost its most important promoter among the Nazi hierarchy. Ten days prior to the ban on eurythmy, the Christengemeinschaft to which Johanna and Renate belonged had been banned, and its priests and leading community members jailed. While Johanna makes mention of the eurythmy ban, she is silent on the ban of the church. What effect the ban had on Johanna and Renate is unknown, but, regardless, by this time Renate had already been confirmed.

A brief entry from July10, 1941, “letter to . . .Lettehaus” was explained to me by my cousin. “Letteverein” and “Lettehaus” were institutions founded in 1866 to “promote the gainful employment of women.” Johanna was faced with the problem that her daughter was basically barred from higher education and university studies in Nazi Germany for “racial” reasons. But even though higher education was not attainable for Renate, economic independence was a goal for Johanna, who had to remember she would not live forever and that her assets might not be transferable to Renate. Therefore, these institutions offered options. In clarifying this entry, Thomas explained that his mother, also a mischling of the first degree, availed herself of the Letteverein and Lettehaus.

As to Johanna and Renate’s financial situation, let me say a few words. As I have alluded to and discussed in earlier posts, Dr. Walter Wolfgang Bruck was an eminent dentist. He was the personal dentist to the last German Kaiser’s family and other members of the nobility. Judging from the lavish social events he hosted and the lifestyle he led, it can be assumed he was well-to-do.

 

Figure 10. Aerial photograph of Dr. Bruck’s lavish home and location of his dental practice at Reichspräsidentenplatz 17, destroyed during WWII

 

According to Breslau address books of the time, during the late 1920’s and the early 1930’s Dr. Bruck and his family lived in a luxurious home at Reichspräsidentenplatz 17 (Figure 10), with the owner of record at the time being Walter Bruck. Following the death of Paul von Hindenburg, the German general and statesman who led the Imperial German Army during World War I and later became President of Germany from 1925 until his death in 1934, Reichspräsidentenplatz was renamed by the Nazis to Hindenburgplatz. The renaming of the square was reflected in Breslau address books only in 1935. By 1937, however, his wife Johanna Bruck was now shown as the owner of record even though Walter continued to live at Hindenburgplatz 17. The change in ownership from Walter to Johanna Bruck was a measure to avoid expropriation of the estate by the Nazis as Walter was considered “Jewish,” whereas his wife was deemed to be “Aryan.” We know from elsewhere that Walter converted from Judaism in about 1917, around the time his mother died, and that, unlike his accomplished father and grandfather, respectively Dr. Julius Bruck and Dr. Jonas Julius Bruck, he was not interred in Breslau’s Jewish Cemetery. Obviously, as far as the Nazis were concerned, Walter’s conversion from Judaism was of no consequence and he was still deemed Jewish. On multiple occasions, Johanna mentions that she and Renate visited her deceased husband’s grave, regrettably never mentioning which cemetery he was interred in. This is a mystery to be resolved.

Dr. Walter Bruck died in Breslau on the 31st of March 1937, whether by his own hand or not is unknown. Following Walter’s death, Johanna is presumed to have sold the house around that time because when in 1939, the “racial” census takes place (Figure 11), the widow Johanna Bruck and her daughter Renate Bruck are no longer living at Hindenburgplatz 17, but at Oranienstrasse 4. (Figure 12) The latter house does not belong to Johanna but to a retired banker by the name of “E. Bucher.” Johanna and Renate apparently lived there in a large stately apartment, from which they sublet rooms. Apart from the income this generated, Johanna undoubtedly received a significant sum of money from the sale of the house at Hindenburgplatz 17 as well as an inheritance from her husband. At various points in the Tagebuch, Johanna bemoans the expenditure of money on certain things, but rarely do we get the impression that she is lacking for money, nor does her active social life or the multiple activities she and Renate are enrolled in suggest otherwise.

 

Figure 11. The 1939 German Minority Census listing Johanna and Renate Bruck, by which time they lived at Oranienstrasse 4

 

Figure 12. Table inside Oranienstrasse 4 with photograph of Dr. Walter Bruck

 

There are scores upon scores of names mentioned in the journal. An unusually large number of them are referred to as “Tante,” aunt, or “Onkel,” uncle, with most presumed to be close friends rather than blood relatives. Several, however, “Tante Leni,” “Tante Irene” or “Tante I.,” and “Onkel Willy” are known to the writer and are unquestionably Johanna and Renate’s kin. In some instances mention is made of celebrating this or that person’s birthday on a particular day or week; given my familiarity with the dates of birth of family members, I was able to work out how some of the people were referred to. Thus “Tante I.” was Johanna’s sister-in-law, Irene Elisabeth Gräbsch née Klar who was married to Johanna’s brother, Paul Karl Hermann Gräbsch. Tante Irene was often accompanied by her son “Ebi,” a cousin and frequent playmate of Renate’s. (Figure 13) “Tante Leni” was Johanna’s sister, Helene Emma Clara Steinberg née Gräbsch. (Figure 14) “Onkel Willy” was Willy Gräbsch, a merchant from Breslau, probably unmarried or widowed, whose relationship to Johanna is unclear.

 

Figure 13. Renate Bruck on her 10th birthday, the 16th of June 1936, with her first cousin Ebi Gräbsch, with whom she spent much time playing
Figure 14. Johanna’s sister, Helene Emma Clara Steinberg née Gräbsch

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Personally intriguing is the mention made on March 30, 1940, that Renate went to visit “Tante Margarethe” to wish her a happy birthday. The quotation marks indicate that while she was not a relative, she was still referred to as an aunt. There is no doubt this is Dr. Walter Wolfgang Bruck’s first wife who was Jewish, Margarethe Bruck née Skutsch. (Figure 15) She was born on March 30, 1872, in Breslau [Wrocław, Poland], and murdered in the Theresienstadt Ghetto on the 22nd of September 1942. (Figure 16) It is surprising that Johanna and Renate were in touch with Walter’s first wife, although, as this was certainly the case, it’s astonishing that Johanna made no mention in the diary when Margarethe was deported. Perhaps Johanna had already distanced herself from this Jewish “aunt” by then?

 

 

Figure 15. Dr. Walter Wolfgang Bruck’s first wife who was Jewish, Margarethe Bruck née Skutsch (1872-1942), and who was murdered in Theresienstadt

 

 

Figure 16. Margarethe Bruck née Skutsch’s death certificate from “Holocaust.CZ” showing she was murdered on the 22nd of September 1942 in the Theresienstadt Ghetto

 

Among the names mentioned are a coterie I surmise are people who provided professional services to Johanna, such as housecleaners, cooks, seamstresses, teachers, clergy, etc. This includes “Fräulein Anna,” Miss Anna. According to Ina Schaesberg, she was the cook in the Bruck household for many years, during Dr. Bruck’s lifetime and after his death. She was considered “Aryan.” According to the 1935 “Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honor,” Jews were forbidden to employ “Aryan maids” under the age of 45. However, since Anna exceeded this age limit, she could remain employed in the house of Walter Bruck even after 1935. Following the death of Walter in 1937, she continued to work for Johanna and even followed her to Berlin (more on this in Part 2 of the post).

Johanna’s and Renate’s beloved long-haired dachshund, “Resi,” is often mentioned, though it took me some time to figure out that this was a dog and not a person. (Figure 17)

 

Figure 17. Renate Bruck with Resi, her long-haired dachshund

 

Because Renate was an exceptionally cute young girl who blossomed into a very attractive young woman, she had droves of admirers whom she frequently saw and skillfully manipulated. The fate of most are unknown, but in at least two instances Johanna tells us precisely the dates they were killed while serving in the Wehrmacht. The death of “Hans Roth,” often mentioned in the diary, is noted on October 26, 1941, though he was killed on the 21st of September 1941 on the Eastern Front as his death certificate confirms. (Figures 18a-b) Similarly, an even closer friend of Renate’s, “Christoph von Kospoth,” was killed-in-action on the 4th of April 1944 near Dresden, Germany. (Figures 19a-b)

 

Figure 18a. Cover page from ancestry.com of Hans Ferdinand Roth’s (1921-1941) death certificate, one of Renate Bruck’s childhood friends
Figure 18b. Hans Ferdinand Roth’ death certificate showing he was killed on the Eastern Front in September 1941

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 19a. Cover page from ancestry.com of Christoph von Kospoth’s (1923-1944) death certificate, one of Renate’s many teenage admirers
Figure 19b. Christoph von Kospoth’s (1923-1944) death certificate showing he was killed in Croatia in 1944

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Other names and deaths are recorded by Johanna, but I’ve been unable to match them with historic documents which might have been able to tell me more about them.

Many names in the Tagebuch include only forenames or surnames, so it’s impossible to precisely identify these individuals. However, in several instances, with surnames and professions given I was able with certainty to discover the identities or people. While these rarely add much to the narrative of Johanna’s and Renate’s lives, I will discuss a few only because I was able to learn something about them.

A name that frequently appears in Johanna’s entries is called “Hella Goossens.” She appears to have been a friend. This represents the sole instance where I was able to find a picture of someone named in Johanna’s and Renate’s diary who was not a family member. A vivacious looking woman born on the 21st of May 1884 in Hagen, North Rhine-Westphalia, a Rio de Janeiro Immigration Card shows she immigrated to Brazil in 1950 (Figure 20); she is identified as a domestic worker. Seemingly, she was joining her son, Herbert Goossens, who had immigrated there in 1939. (Figure 21)

 

Figure 20. The Rio de Janeiro Immigration Card for Hella Goossens, one of Johanna Bruck’s friends from Breslau, showing she immigrated to Brazil in 1950

 

 

Figure 21. The Rio de Janeiro Immigration Card for Hella Goossen’s son, Herbert Eugen Goossens, showing he immigrated to Brazil in 1939

 

As I alluded to earlier when talking about Johanna and Renate’s financial situation, both were involved in numerous extracurricular activities, particularly Renate. For her part, Johanna was taking Italian lessons with a Frau Koesel at the home of a Frau Conberti. Mrs. Conberti is listed in Breslau Address Books between 1934 and 1941 and shows she was an interpreter and language teacher. (Figures 22a-b) One is left to wonder whether Johanna was merely taking Italian for self-improvement, or envisioned emigrating to Italy? In the case of Renate, she was taking piano lessons, violin classes, tap classes, confirmation classes, and more. She would meet her future first husband, Matthias Mehne, in late 1941 in Breslau at his luthier shop, and immediately be “smitten” by him, but there is no indication they got involved romantically until they met again in Berlin in 1942.

 

Figure 22a. Cover page from ancestry.com of 1941 Breslau Address Book listing Maria Conberti as an interpreter and language teacher
Figure 22b. 1941 Breslau Address Book listing Johanna’s Italian language teacher, Maria Conberti

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Readers may wonder, as I did, whether any of Johanna’s and Renate’s acquaintances and friends are directly or indirectly acknowledged as Jewish. In one instance the name “Grete Stomberg or Sternberg” is noted, who can be presumed to have been Jewish because her apartment was confiscated by the Nazis. Another named individual was “Ferdinand Abramczyk,” later identified through a Breslau Address Book as a Justizrat, a member of the Judicial Council, who’d had “Israel” added as his middle name by the Nazis to mark him as Jewish.

Johanna frequently mentions bouts of “biliary pain,” most frequently caused by obstruction of the common bile duct or the cystic duct by a gallstone. This would eventually lead to hospitalization.

There is one final topic I want to discuss before ending the rather lengthy first part of Post 109. As previously mentioned, it appears that by September of 1941, Johanna is aware that Renate’s application for her to be treated “as an equal to German-blooded people” has been or will be rejected. This may have been the impetus for Johanna to relocate to Berlin. However, rather than simply move there, Johanna sought to swap apartments with someone from Berlin. She hosted a couple, the Günthers, with whom she would eventually exchange apartments. In February-March 1942, Johanna and Renate would move to Xantener Straße 24, in the Berlin district of Charlottenburg-Wilmersdorf. More will be said on this in Part 2 of Post 109.

Among the more popular posts I have published in my Blog are veritable wartime diaries I have managed to get a hold of from various branches of my Jewish family. In all these instances, there is clearly an effort on the part of the author to write names in code or designate Jewish or “righteous” individuals by single letters or initials to conceal their identities. At no time do I detect a similar intent by Johanna or Renate.

Literally, with the hundreds of entries in Johanna’s and Renate’s Tagebuch, it is difficult to do justice to the diary. However, as I’ve indicated multiple times, the clipped style of writing associated with a telegraphic style makes it unlikely I would have been able to decipher the names of most of their acquaintances and friends nor the role they played in their lives. More importantly, it’s improbable this would have added much to the narrative since so many of the entries focused not on the political and current events of the time but rather on the social and amorous activities of the writers.

In closing I will quote from Ms. Renata Wilkoszewska-Krakowska’s observations of Johanna and Renate’s diary. Renate is my friend and Branch Manager, Museum of Cemetery Art (Old Jewish Cemetery) which is a Branch of the City Museum of Wroclaw, the  institute where the Tagebuch was donated. Sadly, Renata’s thoughts mirror my own: “I am amazed that in the era of mass deportations of Breslau and Silesian Jews from 1941 to 1944, there is nothing in the diary on this subject. On November 21, 1941, over a thousand people were arrested, held for four days at the Odertorbahnhof train station, then deported to Kaunas, Lithuania, and shot on November 29th. Among them were many famous and influential inhabitants of Breslau, including Willy Cohn and his family, author of the famous diary/journal entitled “Kein Recht. Nirgends” (“No Law. Nowhere.”), published in German and Polish. In the context of the war, the everyday life of Johanna and Renate seems quite banal and normal. It’s hard for me to believe it, because as early as 1942, mischlinge were also deported to the occupied part of Poland and East.”

REFERENCES

Schwarzmüller, Theo. Zwischen Kaiser und Führer: Generalfeldmarschall August von Mackensen. Paderborn, Verlag Ferdinand Schöningh, 1995.

Tent, James F. In the Shadow of the Holocaust: Persecution of Jewish-Christian Germans. Lawrence, University Press of Kansas, 2003.

 

POST 103: RENATE BRUCK: A TALE OF TWO GODMOTHERS

Note: In this Blog post, I discuss Renate Bruck’s two prominent godmothers, images of whom exist among Dr. Walter Bruck’s surviving papers and photographs.

Related Posts:

POST 68: DR. JULIUS BRUCK AND HIS INFLUENCE ON MODERN ENDOSCOPY

POST 68, POSTSCRIPT: DR. JULIUS BRUCK, ENGINEER OF MODERN ENDOSCOPY-TRACKING SOME OF HIS DESCENDANTS

POST 99: THE ASTONISHING DISCOVERY OF SOME OF DR. WALTER WOLFGANG BRUCK’S PERSONAL EFFECTS

POST 100: DR. WALTER WOLFGANG BRUCK, DENTIST TO GERMANY’S LAST IMPERIAL FAMILY

POST 101: DR. WALTER WOLFGANG BRUCK: HIS DAUGHTER RENATE’S FIRST HUSBAND, A “SILENT HERO”

POST 102: DR. WALTER BRUCK, HIS SECOND WIFE JOHANNA GRÄBSCH & HER FAMILY

 

 

The Nuremberg Laws consisted of two race-based measures which deprived Jews of their rights. They were designed by Adolf Hitler and approved by the Nazi Party at a convention in Nuremberg on September 15, 1935. The first of these measures, termed the “Reichsbürgergesetz,” the “Reich Citizenship Law,” declared that only those of “German or kindred blood” were eligible to be Reich citizens; the remainder were designated as “subjects of the state” without any citizenship rights. The second provision, the “Gesetz zum Schutze des Deutschen Blutes und der Deutschen Ehre,” the “Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honour,” usually simply called the “Blutschutzgesetz” or “Blood Protection Law,” forbade marriage or extramarital intercourse between Jews and Germans. These measures were among the first of the racist Nazi laws that culminated in the Holocaust.

Under the Nuremberg laws, Jews could not fly the German flag and were forbidden to employ in domestic service female subjects of German or kindred blood who were under the age of 45 years.

The first supplementary decree elaborating upon the Nuremberg Laws was passed on November 14, 1935. It defined Jews as persons with at least one Jewish grandparent and explicitly declared they could not be citizens of the Reich; it further decreed that Jews could not exercise the right to vote nor occupy public office. This was ultimately one of 13 ordinances that completed the process of Jewish segregation.

One enactment, passed on November 26, 1935, expanded the provisions of the law to include Roma (Gypsies) and Black people. While exact figures cannot be ascertained, historians estimate that the Germans and their allies killed between 250,000 and 500,000 European Roma during World War II. Although the Nazis did not have an organized program to exterminate African Germans, many of them were persecuted, as were other people of African descent. Black people in Germany and German-occupied territories were often isolated, and an unknown number were sterilized, incarcerated, or murdered.

It is important to emphasize that the racial definition of Jews under the Nuremberg Laws meant that Jews were persecuted NOT for their religious beliefs but for their so-called racial identity that was irrevocably transmitted through the blood of their ancestors.

Because the Nuremberg Laws did not define a “Jew” nor the phrase “German or kindred blood,” the critical task of defining their meaning fell to bureaucrats because of the criminal provisions for noncompliance contained within the law. Two basic categories of Jews were recognized. A full Jew referred to anyone with three Jewish grandparents, a rather straight-forward definition. Defining part-Jews, who were referred to as “Mischlinge,” a pejorative term meaning “hybrids, mongrels, or half-breeds,” was more challenging. Eventually they were divided into two classes. First-degree Mischlinge were defined as people who had two Jewish grandparents but did not practice Judaism and did not have a Jewish spouse. Second-degree Mischlinge were those who had only one Jewish grandparent.

Students of history may find it interesting to learn that out of foreign policy concerns, persecutions under the Nuremberg Laws did not begin until after the conclusion of the 1936 Summer Olympics, held in Berlin that year.

Also worth noting is one of the effects of the Nuremberg Laws. It gave rise to a horde of purportedly “licensed family researchers” who offered their services to concerned Germans afraid the Nazis would discover Jewish relatives among their ancestors. The Health Ministry as well as church offices were involved in providing birth and baptismal certificates as proof of Aryan origin.

 

Figure 1. Walter and Johanna Bruck with their daughter Renate in Breslau (photo courtesy of Dr. Tilo Wahl)

 

I introduce the Nuremberg Laws in the context of talking about Dr. Walter Wolfgang Bruck and his wife Johanna Bruck née Gräbsch’s daughter, Renate Bruck. (Figure 1) While Renate’s mother was Protestant, Dr. Bruck’s parents were Jewish, so according to the Nuremberg Laws, Renate was considered a first-degree Mischling. Evidence suggests Walter converted to Protestantism around 1917, confirmation of which I am still trying to track down. The timing of his conversion may have corresponded with the death of Walter’s mother, Bertha Bruck née Vogelsdorf (1843-1917), in 1917 (Figure 2); Walter may have been reluctant to convert from Judaism until his mother passed away. Unlike his parents and paternal grandparents who are buried in the Old Jewish Cemetery in Breslau [today: Wrocław, Poland], the place of Walter’s burial or cremation is unknown. (Figure 3) What is clear is that Walter was not interred in a Jewish cemetery.

 

Figure 2. Walter Bruck’s mother, Bertha Bruck née Vogelsdorf (1843-1917) (photo courtesy of Dr. Tilo Wahl)

 

Figure 3. The headstones of Dr. Walter Bruck’s father and grandfather, Dr. Julius Bruck (1840-1902) and Dr. Jonas Bruck (1813-1883), and their respective wives, following restoration of their tombs in 2016

 

As for Renate Bruck, there is no indication she ever set foot in a synagogue or was taught about the Jewish religion, which makes sense if her father converted from Judaism nine years before Renate was even born. On the contrary, a preliminary examination of the five-year Tagebuch, diary, belonging to Renate and her mother covering a critical period from January 1940 through December 1944, makes it clear Renate was attending Confirmation classes throughout 1940 and early 1941, and was confirmed at age 14 in Breslau on the 17th of March 1941. (Figure 4) As far as the Nazis were concerned, however, this would not have altered Renate’s status as a first-degree Mischling. And, in fact, Renate’s lifelong friend Ina Schaesberg (Figure 5) confirms that Renate and the other Jews and half-Jews were expelled from the private school they all attended in Breslau. More will be said in a future Blog post about the contents of Johanna and Renate Bruck’s diary including their attitude towards the Nazis.

 

Figure 4. Page from Johanna and Renate Bruck’s five-year “Tagebuch,” diary, showing Renate was confirmed on the 17th of March 1941 when she was 14 years old

 

Figure 5. Renate Bruck’s lifelong friend, Ms. Ina Schaesberg, born in 1926, the same year as Renate

 

 

Among the pictures in Walter Bruck’s photo album are two showing people Renate identified as her godmothers. I was curious that Renate had two godmothers but learned that traditionally Christian children can have three godparents in total, though they can have as many as the parents want. Usually, girls have two godmothers and one godfather while boys gave two godfathers and one godmother, although there is no hard and fast rule about this. Without access to Renate’s baptismal record, it is unclear whether both godmothers were listed on it at the time of her baptism. There is no indication as to who Renate’s godfather may have been.

Renate provided information on the captions about each of her godmothers which allowed me to make some interesting connections.

Figure 6. One of Renate Bruck’s two godmothers, “Tante ‘Steffa’ Stephanie,” August Josephine Stephanie Erhlich (1884-1966) (photo courtesy of Dr. Tilo Wahl)

Renate’s first godmother was named “Tante ‘Steffa’ Stephanie” (Figure 6); as readers can make out from the caption, her father was identified as “Geheimrat Prof. Erhlich,” and her husband was the “Commerzienrat Schwerin.” There was also a cryptic parenthetical notation after Stephanie’s father’s name, “Salvasan,” the significance of which only become apparent to me later. (Figure 7)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 7. Three photos captioned by Renate Bruck related to her godmother, Stephanie Schwerin née Erhlich, showing two elegant homes she owned with her husband, Ernst Louis Schwerin (photo courtesy of Dr. Tilo Wahl)

 

A “Geheimrat” is a Privy Counselor, a member of the government or cabinet minister; in the current context, however, “Geheimrat” refers to an honorary title used in Prussia that was bestowed upon Dr. Erhlich as an accomplished doctor (see below). A “Kommerzienrat,” a Commercial Counselor, also called a commercial attaché, is a commercial expert on the diplomatic staff of a country´s embassy or large consulate.

Based on Renate’s captions, I correctly concluded that Tante Steffa was Stephanie Schwerin née Erhlich. I discovered a substantial amount of information about her on ancestry.com, including her birth certificate. Her birth name was August Josephine Stephanie Erhlich, and she was born on the 19th of October 1884 in Berlin. Her parents’ names are listed on her birth certificate as Paul Simon Erhlich and Hedwig Erhlich née Pinkus. (Figures 8a-b)

 

Figure 8a. Cover page from ancestry.com accompanying Stephanie Erhlich’s 1884 birth certificate
Figure 8b. August Josephine Stephanie Erhlich’s 1884 birth certificate listing her parents’ names as Paul Simon Erhlich and Hedwig Erhlich née Pinkus

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I very quickly realized that Tante Steffa’s father was none other than Dr. Paul Erhlich (1854-1915) (Figure 9), the Nobel Prize-winning German Jewish physician and scientist who worked in the fields of hematology, immunology, and antimicrobial chemotherapy. In 1908, Dr. Paul Erhlich was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for his contributions to immunology. His foremost achievements were discovering a cure for syphilis in 1909 (The First Syphilis Cure Was the First ‘Magic Bullet’ | Smart News | Smithsonian Magazine) and inventing the precursor to Gram staining bacteria. The techniques Dr. Erhlich developed for staining tissues made it possible to distinguish between different types of blood cells, which in turn made it possible to diagnose various blood disorders.

 

Figure 9. The noted immunologist and 1908 Nobel Prize recipient, Dr. Paul Erhlich (1854-1915), father of Renate Bruck’s godmother

 

Dr. Erhlich’s laboratory discovered Arsphenamine, the drug introduced in the early 1910s as the first effective treatment against syphilis and African sleeping sickness. Renate Bruck’s cryptic parenthetical reference to “Salvasan” was the mistakenly spelled name for “Salvarsan,” the name under which Arsphenamine was marketed, also known as “compound 606.”

A biographical sketch on Dr. Erhlich to which I link here (Paul Ehrlich – Biographical – NobelPrize.org) makes mention of his two daughters, including Stephanie (Mrs. Ernst Schwerin) and Marianne (Mrs. Edmund Landau).  Both were the result of his marriage in 1883 to Hedwig Pinkus (1864-1948). According to their marriage certificate, Stephanie and Ernst Schwerin got married in Frankfurt, Germany on the 20th of February 1904.

Along with the picture of Stephanie Schwerin née Erhlich among Dr. Walter Bruck’s papers are two showing the elegant homes she and her husband, Ernst Schwerin, owned, a large estate in Breslau, as well as a mountain retreat probably located in the Riesengebirge [today: Krkonoše, Karkonosze, or Giant Mountains in northern Czech Republic and south-west Poland]. (see Figure 7) There can be little doubt Stephanie and Ernst were wealthy, and, likely, lost much of their fortune when they fled Germany after the ascendancy of the Nazis. Primary source documents prove that in accordance with the Nuremberg Laws, both Ernst and Stephanie Schwerin had their German nationalities annulled sometime between 1935 and 1944. (Figures 10-11) Other primary source documents show that Stephanie and her husband made their way to New York City via Switzerland. They emigrated from Switzerland in October 1938. (Figures 12-13)

 

Figure 10. Proof of the annulment of Ernst Schwerin’s German nationality between 1935-1944 on account of him being Jewish

 

Figure 11. Proof of the annulment of Stephanie Schwerin née Erhlich’s German nationality between 1935-1944 on account of her being Jewish

 

Figure 12. Ernst Schwerin’s Swiss Emigration Form showing he left for New York in October 1938
Figure 13. Stephanie Schwerin’s Swiss Emigration Form showing she left for New York in October 1938

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Social Security Death Index indicated Stephanie died in New York in June 1966 (Figure 14) and her husband Ernst passed away on the 25th of November 1946. (Figure 15) I asked a friend with a subscription to Newspapers.com and GenealogyBank if he could track down their obituaries, hoping I might find a living descendant. My friend was unable to locate an obituary for Ernst Schwerin, but his wife’s obituary shows she died a most gruesome death on the 7th of June 1966 at the age of 81 by plunging from her 10th floor apartment at the Hotel Croydon. (Figure 16) According to the obituary, she left two notes in German, confirming she committed suicide. Likely, these notes were intended for her two sons, Hans Wolfgang Schwerin (1906-1987) and Guenther Karl-Joseph Schwerin (1910-1997), neither of whom ever appears to have ever been married. Hans Schwerin, who was an author, lawyer, and psychoanalyst, was a regular fixture on the Society pages during the 1950s. (Figure 17)

 

Figure 14. Stephanie Schwerin’s Social Security Death Index showing she passed away in June 1966 in New York City

 

Figure 15. Cover page from the New York Extracted Death Index showing Ernst Schwerin died on the 25th of November 1946 in Manhattan, New York

 

Figure 16. Stephanie Schwerin’s obituary dated the 8th of June 1966 showing she plunged to her death the previous day (from Newspapers.com)

 

Figure 17. Photo from the Society page of “New York Age” of Ernst and Stephanie Schwerin’s elder son, Hans Schwerin (1906-1987) (from Newspapers.com)

 

 

The second of Renate Bruck’s godmothers, Elfriede Reichelt, turns out to have been another prominent personage. As readers can make out for themselves, Renate Bruck identified her second godmother as a photographer. (Figure 18) Operating under the assumption she was well-known, a Google query confirmed this. She was born Elfriede Klara Emma Reichelt on the 30th of January 1883 in Breslau, and died of bladder cancer on the 22nd of August 1953 in Grünwald , outside Munich. She was a German art photographer, who in her time was one of the best-known professional photographers in Germany.

 

Figure 18. The second of Renate Bruck’s godmothers, noted portrait photographer Elfriede Reichelt (1883-1953), between Johanna Bruck and Elfriede’s husband, Hans Wieland, on the Brionian Islands in April 1927 (photo courtesy of Dr. Tilo Wahl)

 

The photograph of Elfriede Reichelt appears to have been taken in April 1927 in Brioni, Yugoslavia [today: Brijuni, Croatia], when Elfriede and her unidentified husband were vacationing there with Walter and Johanna Bruck. Her unnamed husband I was later able to determine was Hans Wieland, an industrialist from Ulm, Germany, whom Elfriede married in 1927 and separated from in 1936.

In the Deutsche Fotothek 743 of Elfriede Reichelt’s portrait photos are inventoried (Deutsche Fotothek), including multiple self-portraits. Because of copyright issues, I cannot illustrate these images here, but readers are encouraged to peruse them. Allow me to make a few observations about her photos. Reichelt had unprecedented access to Germany’s last Kaiser, Wilhelm II, and his family while they lived in exile in Doorn, Netherlands following WWI, and often photographed them. It is possible that Elfriede also photographed the Kaiser’s wife, Hermine Reuß, when she visited Dr. Walter Bruck in Breslau for dental treatments. It is even conceivable Dr. Bruck introduced the Kaiserin to Elfriede. Not surprisingly, given the friendship that existed between Walter Bruck and Elfriede Reichelt, her images include one of my renowned ancestor. Oddly, the photograph is incorrectly captioned. It is most curious that Walter Bruck’s picture is labeled as Dr. Fedor Bruck, which happens to have been my uncle’s name who was also a Breslau-trained dentist. Could Elfriede have known my uncle? The period my Uncle Fedor Bruck (1895-1982) spent in Breslau following WWI suggests this is possible. (Figure 19)

 

Figure 19. My Uncle Dr. Fedor Bruck (1895-1982) in his WWI uniform, who later attended dental school in Breslau, Germany

 

Regular readers may remember I have written multiple Blog posts about the Neisser branch of my extended family. Among Elfriede’s pictures are a few she took of Dr. Albert Neisser (1855-1916) (Figure 20) and his wife, Toni Neisser, a patron of the arts. Dr. Neisser was a German physician who discovered the pathogen that caused gonorrhea, a strain of bacteria that was named in his honor (Neisseria gonorrhoeae).

 

Figure 20. Dr. Albert Neisser (1855-1916), a member of my extended family, who along with his wife Toni Neisser, were subjects of Elfriede Reichelt’s photographs

 

Part of the pleasure I derive in doing forensic genealogy are finding connections among the people I research and write about even when the people are not blood relatives. Often these connections are trivial but nonetheless interesting. Case in point. After elementary school, Dr. Paul Erhlich attended the secondary school Maria-Magdalenen-Gymnasium (high school) in Breslau where he became friends with Dr. Alfred Neisser, who would later become a professional colleague. Coincidentally, Dr. Albert Neisser is a remote “link” between both of Renate Bruck’s two godmothers, though there is no evidence to suggest either knew Dr. Neisser. Since Elfriede Reichelt and Stephanie Erhlich were born, respectively, in 1883 and 1884, and Renate’s mother was born in 1884, it seems more likely all were schoolmates and friends growing up.