Category: Wehrmacht

POST 164: THE NAZI SS & WEHRMACHT SOLDIER, PRINZ WILHELM VON HESSEN-PHILIPPSTHAL-BARCHFELD

Note: In this lengthy and involved post, I continue to discuss recently obtained documents related to the Nazi SS and Wehrmacht soldier Prinz Wilhelm von Hessen-Philippsthal-Barchfeld. As with other individuals discussed in my blog, notably one of my father’s first cousins, Heinz Löwenstein, my knowledge about them is not obtained linearly but rather comes in spurts and episodically. Inevitably, my Jewish family came into contact and had their lives convulsed by the Nazis so for this reason I will occasionally discuss the fate of some of these individuals.

Related Posts:

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

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

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

POST 157: USING AI TO CONFIRM THE MISIDENTIFICATION OF REINHARD HEYDRICH, “THE BUTCHER OF PRAGUE” IN POSTS 133, PARTS I & II

POST 157, POSTSCRIPT: USING AI TO CONFIRM THE MISIDENTIFICATION OF REINHARD HEYDRICH, “THE BUTCHER OF PRAGUE” IN POSTS 133, PARTS I & II

 

My continued interest in the Nazi Schutzstaffel (SS) and Wehrmacht soldier Prinz Wilhelm von Hessen-Philippsthal-Barchfeld stems from the fact that in Posts 133, Parts I & II, I misidentified him as Reinhard Heydrich, the notorious “Butcher of Prague.” The picture in which the putative Heydrich appeared was a group photo taken at Castle Kamenz (Figures 1a-b) in Lower Silesia [today: Kamieniec Ząbkowicki, Poland], purportedly in 1936 or 1937.

 

Figure 1a. The photograph from ca. 1935 taken at Castle Kamenz, Germany [today: Kamieniec Ząbkowicki, Poland] when several high-level Nazis visited, including Prinz Wilhelm von Hessen, originally misidentified as Reinhard Heydrich (photo courtesy of Peter Albrecht von Preußen)
Figure 1b. Prinz Wilhelm von Hessen dressed in an SS uniform

 

To remind readers Reinhard Heydrich was a high-ranking German SS and police official during the Nazi era and a principal architect of the Holocaust. Heydrich was chief of the SS’s Reichssicherheitshauptamt (RHSA), the Reich Security Main Office, and Stellvertretender Reichsprotektor, Deputy Protector of Bohemia and Moravia. The resemblance of the individual in the group photo to Heydrich, and the fact the person was clearly dressed in a SS uniform convinced me he was indeed Heydrich. I further explained in Posts 133, Parts I & II how and why Heydrich might have been at Castle Kamenz at the time the picture was taken. For these reasons I had no reason to question the identification.

My misidentification might well have gone unnoticed save for the fact that an astute German physics teacher with an avid interest in German military history pointed out my mistake. He told me the Nazi in the SS uniform at Castle Kamenz was Prinz Wilhelm von Hessen, a relative of Prinz Friedrich Heinrich Albrecht von Preussen (Figure 2), the then-owner of the castle. While initially hesitant to believe I’d made such a blatant error, I realized further investigation was necessary given the high standard of accuracy to which I strive. I used an artificial intelligence application to confirm that Wilhelm was indeed Heydrich’s doppelganger. This was the subject of Post 157 & Post 157, Postscript.

 

Figure 2. Prinz Friedrich Heinrich Albrecht von Preussen in the front row of the ca. 1935 group photo at Castle Kamenz

 

Some brief background on the group photo. It was furnished to me by a reader who stumbled upon Post 46 where I discussed Prinz Friedrich Heinrich Albrecht von Preussen. This reader, related to both Prinz Friedrich and Prinz Wilhelm, originally estimated the picture was taken in 1936 or 1937, though the evidence now suggests it was probably taken in 1935; more on this below. While the reader who sent me the photo was initially reluctant to believe Heydrich was Prinz Wilhelm von Hessen, additional research he’s undertaken proves this is the case.

Below I discuss recently uncovered evidence of Prinz Wilhelm von Hessen’s time and place of death and review the earlier documents related to Wilhelm von Hessen’s Nazi Party membership and military service discussed in Post 157, Postscript. This data helps explain why in the ca. 1935 picture Wilhelm von Hessen is wearing a SS uniform while in subsequent images he is dressed as a Wehrmacht soldier. The recent records confirm Wilhelm von Hessen’s fate in the Soviet Union following Germany’s defeat at the Battle of Moscow and its subsequent retreat.

As I explained in Post 157, Postscript, the Berlin State Archives retains a list of members of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei  or NSDAP), the Nazi Party, who were members of the royal houses. Wilhelm Prinz von Hessen-Philippsthal-Barchfeld’s name is included in this roster. (Figure 3)

 

Figure 3. “Prinz Wilhelm von Hessen’s” name among a list of members of the royal houses who belonged to the Nazi Party showing he joined on the 1st of May 1932 and that his Nazi Party number was “1187621”

 

The unseen column headings from this list of aristocrats who were members of the Nazi Party and the information specific to Wilhelm von Hessen reads as follows:

“Region” (Kurhessen)

“Name” (Prinz Wilhelm von Hessen)

“Date of Birth” (1st of March 1905)

“Member Number” (of the Nazi Party) (1187621)

“Date of Admission” (to the Nazi Party) 1st of May 1932)

“Remarks” (in Prinz Wilhelm’s case, it shows that he died on the 1st of May 1942).

The roster indicates Wilhelm died on the 1st of May 1942, but elsewhere his death is recorded as the 30th of April 1942. I reckon Wilhelm died on the 30th of April but that his death was officially recorded a day later.

Separately, some of my German contacts also found “Prinz von Hessen Wilm.,” as he’s identified, in the so-called Dienstalterliste, the SS seniority list. This is further proof that Wilhelm was indeed a member of the SS.

As discussed in Post 157, Postscript, Prinz Wilhelm von Hessen’s name appears on the Dienstalterslisten for the years 1934-1937. Below is what these lists tell us.

1934 Dienstaltersliste (Figures 4a-d)

 

Figure 4a. Cover page of the 1934 “Dienstaltersliste”

 

Figure 4b. First page of the 1934 “Dienstaltersliste” with the key to abbreviations

 

Figure 4c. Column headings from the page with “Prinz v. Hessen Wilh.’s” name from the 1934 “Dienstaltersliste”

 

Figure 4d. Line with “Prinz v. Hessen Wilh.’s” name and information

 

 

The column headings are as follows:

“Consecutive number”

“Surname & first name”

“Service”

“Nazi Party Number 1-500,000”

“Nazi Party Number 500,001-1,800,000”

“Nazi Party Number over 1,800,000”

“SS Number”

“Sturmführer” (Date rank obtained)

“Obersturmführer” (Date rank obtained)

Prinz von Hessen Wilhelm’s party number “1 187 621” is again shown on the SS seniority list, but in a separate column his SS member number, “52 711,” is now indicated. Wilhelm von Hessen joined the SS as a SS-Sturmführer on the 20th of April 1934. Sturmführer was a paramilitary rank of the Nazi Party which began as a title used by the Sturmabteilung (SA) in 1925 and became an actual SA rank in 1928. Translated as “storm leader or assault leader,” the origins of the rank dated to the World War I when the title of Sturmführer came to be used.

In 1934 Prinz von Hessen Wilhelm was a member of the service unit abbreviated as “F. Mo. II/27.” “F.” is short for Führer, while “Mo. Sta.” stands for “Motorstaffel,” or motorized squadron. Thus, it appears that in 1934 he was head of the motor assault team of II Sturmbann of the Standarte 27. Let me try and explain what this means. Bear in mind I know little about the organization of the SS so my explanation may be imprecise. I invite knowledgeable readers to correct and/or amplify my characterization.

The number of soldiers in a motorized squadron is unknown but was possibly only a few men. Standarte was a regimental sized unit of the SS; more on this below. Sturmbann refers to an “assault unit,” and was a paramilitary unit within the Nazi Party. As previously mentioned, the term originated from German shock troop units used during World War I who were characterized by their aggressive tactics and were often at the forefront of assaults. Putting this together suggests Wilhelm von Hessen was the motorized squadron leader of the assault unit of a particular regiment.

1935 Dienstaltersliste (Figures 5a-d)

 

Figure 5a. Cover page of the 1935 “Dienstaltersliste”

 

Figure 5b. First page of the 1935 “Dienstaltersliste” with the key to abbreviations

 

Figure 5c. Column headings from the page with “Prinz v. Hessen Wilh.’s” name from the 1935 “Dienstaltersliste”

 

Figure 5d. Line with “Prinz v. Hessen Wilh.’s” name and information

 

The number of column headings in the 1935 Dienstaltersliste was expanded to two side-by-side pages. Wilhelm’s previous rank of Sturmführer was now referred to as an Untersturmführer. A SS-Untersturmführer was the first commissioned SS officer rank, equivalent to a second lieutenant in other military organizations.

Translated, the left-hand page columns include the following information:

“Consecutive number”

“Surname & first name”

“Epee”

“Ring”

“SA sports badge”

“Reich sports badge”

“Service”

“Nazi Party Number 1-1,800,000”

“Nazi Party Number over 1,800,000”

“SS Number”

“Date of birth”

Several of the columns above refer to orders and decorations awarded during World War I by the German Empire, then later by the Nazis.

The right-hand page columns include the expanded list of SS paramilitary ranks, and the date, if applicable, that a soldier attained the rank:

“Untersturmführer”

“Obersturmführer”

“Hauptsturmführer”

“Sturmbannführer”

“Obersturmbannführer”

“Standartenführer”

“Oberführer”

“Brigadeführer”

“Gruppenführer”

“Obergruppenführer”

The 1935 Dienstaltersliste tells us that Wilhelm von Hessen was promoted to a SS-Obersturmführer on the 9th of November 1934. A SS-Obersturmführer was typically a junior company commander in charge of fifty to a hundred men.

Then on the 20th of April 1935 he was promoted to a SS Hauptsturmführer. This rank was a mid-level commander who had equal seniority to a captain (Hauptmann) in the Wehrmacht and the equivalency of captain in foreign armies. (Figure 6)

 

Figure 6. Circled the three SS ranks Wilhelm von Hessen attained, “SS-Untersturmführer,” “SS-Obersturmführer,” and “SS Hauptsturmführer”

 

By 1935 Wilhelm von Hessen was now attached to the “6 Mo. Sta.,” believed to mean that he was then part of the “6 Motor-Standarte.” Again, the number of soldiers in this motorized squadron is unknown. Not entirely clear to me is whether the “6 Motor-Standarte” equates to the 6th SS-Standarte, though this seems likely.

1936 & 1937 Dienstalterslisten (Figures 7a-d; 8a-d)

 

Figure 7a. Cover page of the 1936 “Dienstaltersliste”

 

Figure 7b. First page of the 1936 “Dienstaltersliste” with the key to abbreviations

 

Figure 7c. Column headings from the page with “Prinz v. Hessen Wilh.’s” name from the 1936 “Dienstaltersliste”

 

Figure 7d. Line with “Prinz v. Hessen Wilh.’s” name and information

 

Figure 8a. Cover page of the 1937 “Dienstaltersliste”

 

Figure 8b. First page of the 1937 “Dienstaltersliste” with the key to abbreviations

 

Figure 8c. Column headings from the page with “Prinz v. Hessen Wilh.’s” name from the 1937 “Dienstaltersliste”

 

Figure 8d. Line with “Prinz v. Hessen Wilh.’s” name and information

 

According to the Dienstalterslisten, Wilhelm von Hessen was assigned to new units in both 1936 and 1937. In 1936, he had a position in the “Stammabt. Bez. 14.” “Stammabt.” stands for “Stammabteilung,” which was a unit of the so-called Allgemeine SS (more on this below) in which men older than 45 years of age or SS members no longer fit for service were grouped together. These “Stammabteilung” were in turn divided into “Bezirke” or districts. Wilhelm von Hessen’s assignment to this organizational unit is puzzling since in 1936 he was only 31 years old and had no known physical disabilities that would have limited his fitness for service.

By 1937 Wilhelm von Hessen was no longer with the “Stammabt. Bez. 14.” but had been reassigned to the “SS Abschnitt XXVII.” This unit had originally been established in November 1933, but by October 1936 had been reorganized. SS Abschnitt XXVII was primarily an administrative and organizational unit within the Allgemeine SS. It did not directly engage in major military campaigns or operations, but instead was focused on overseeing SS activities, recruitment, and coordination within its designated area. While the unit was not involved in combat, SS Abschnitt XXVII played an essential role in supporting the Nazi regime and its ideology.

Let me quickly explain two things I mentioned above, namely, the Allgemeine SS and the Standarte.

Wilhelm was a member of the so-called “General SS,” or Allgemeine SS which was the administrative and the non-combative part of the SS. This is to be distinguished from the Waffen-SS which was the combat branch of the Nazi Party’s paramilitary Schutzstaffel organization.

As discussed in Post 157, the German physics teacher mentioned above tells me that in the group photo Wilhelm von Hessen is wearing the letter “M” on his collar tab. This is the badge of the Motor-Standarten of the SS. As previously mentioned, according to the Dienstaltersliste der SS for 1935, he was a member of the 6. Motor-Standarte, suggesting the group photo was taken at around this time. The SS-Standarte was the primary regimental-sized unit of the Allgemeine SS. There were 127 SS-Standarten although by 1945 most existed only on paper never reaching their prescribed strength.

The Standarten regiments each had their own number, but were also referred to by other names, such as location, a popular name, or an honorary title. After Hitler became Chancellor of Germany in 1933, the 6th SS-Standarte, for example, adopted the honorary title of “Charlottenburg” and often participated in major Nazi Party rallies held in the German capitol.

In ancestry.com, I found Prinz Wilhelm von Hessen’s military personnel card (Figure 9) which provides information on the date and place of his death and confirms the Wehrmacht unit he was a member of at the time of his death including his rank. To remind readers, I erroneously concluded in Post 157, Postscript based on inaccurate information in the German Wikipedia entry for Wilhelm von Hessen that he was a soldier in the SS at the time of his death. The transcription and translation of Wilhelm’s personnel card proves otherwise:

 

Figure 9. Prinz Wilhelm von Hessen’s Wehrmacht military personnel card

 

 

[Familien- und Vorname = surname and first name]

Prinz von Hessen, Wilhelm

[geb. am = born on the]         [in]                                                        [Kreis = county]

1.3.1905 (1 March 1905)        Rotenburg = today Rotenburg on the Fulda    Kassel

[Truppenteil = unit]

Stabskomp(anie) Schütz.(en) Reg(imen)t. 2 (garrison: from 1934 in Meiningen in Thuringia, from 1938 in Austria)

[Ersatztruppenteil = substitute unit]

Schütz.(en) Ers.(atz) Bat(ail)l.(on) 2 Mähr.(isch) Weisskirchen [today: Hranice in Moravia, Czech Republic]

[Erk.(ennungs)-M.arke = identification tag]

    1. (company) Kradschtz. 2 [Krad-Schützen-Bataillon 2, Krad = motorcycle]

[Dienstgrad = rank]

Hauptm.(ann)

[Tag, Stunde, Ort und Art des Verlustes = Day, hour, place and type of loss, so of death]

30.4.42, fallen

The so-called Ersatztruppenteil, the substitute unit of which Wilhelm was at one time a member, trained soldiers to make up for the losses of the fighting regiment that fought on the front; such units were not directly involved in combat. Once the war started in 1939, the Wehrmacht started to establish these “Ersatz” substitute units for every battalion. Wilhelm’s personnel card identifies his Ersatz battalion as Schützen Ersatz Bataillon 2.

Wilhelm’s military personnel card makes two things clear. First, since Wilhelm was killed in a combat Wehrmacht regiment, he was obviously no longer involved in training soldiers in the Ersatztruppenteil. Second, since he died fighting for the Wehrmacht, clearly at some point he’d voluntarily transitioned to or been conscripted into the regular army. The question of when he transferred from the SS will now be examined in depth.

While trying to make sense of Wilhelm’s military service, including when he might have transferred from the SS to the Wehrmacht, my good friend Peter Albrecht sent me a link to a newsletter published by the so-called “Eaglehorse.org” which sheds light on this issue. This organization describes itself “. . .as a rallying point for former members of the Squadron, our German comrades in the Bundeswehr, Bundesgrenzschutz, Bayern Grenzpolizei, the people of Bad Kissingen and surrounding towns in the Squadron area of operations.” The military unit in question is the 2nd Squadron/11th Armored Cavalry Regiment (ARC), once based in Bad Kissingen, Germany.

Readers might rightly ask, “How is this relevant to Wilhelm von Hessen?” Let me explain.

It turns out that officer cadets of three Wehrmacht battalions were assigned to Manteuffel Kaserne near Bad Kissingen during the Third Reich. Eaglehorse not only chronicles their history and stories but also those of U.S. regiments later stationed there. One of the Wehrmacht battalions based at Manteuffel Kaserne included the Kradschützen Bataillon 2 (also known as “2 Krad” and “K2”), a motorcycle infantry battalion which Wilhelm von Hessen was known to be a member of. According to Eaglehorse.org, records for the three battalions at Manteuffel Kaserne “are long lost or hopelessly scattered.” However, surviving sources have allowed the group to partially reconstruct the experience of officer cadets at the time using “. . .the officer accession system of the Wehrmacht Heer and the brief ‘201’ file of a cadet then lieutenant and company commander in 2 Krad named Prince Wilhelm von Hessen. . .” It appears, then, that a file related to Wilhelm survives which allows us to accurately speculate about the experiences of German soldiers who aspired to become officers when Monteuffel Kaserne initially opened in 1935.

A brief point of clarification. The Wehrmacht consisted of three branches, the Heer (army), the Kriegsmarine (navy), and the Luftwaffe (air force).

As Eaglehorse.org notes, Germany never established a national army academy in the model of Sandhurst in England; L’Ecole Speciale Militaire de Saint Cyr in France; or West Point. Instead from the 19th century onwards Germany had several private or partially supported “cadet training schools.” These academies exposed the children of the German aristocracy and the upper middle class to the study of military tactics, organization, and discipline. A graduate of these schools could enter the army as an “Officer Aspirant” or Anwärter, a German title that translates as “candidate,” “applicant,” or “recruit,” and begin a two-year probationary period on active duty. During this time, the cadet was assigned to a so-called line unit, or regiment, and trained at the junior enlisted then mid- and senior-grade NCO levels. They received specialized training monitored at the division level, attended branch specific training courses at centralized locations and were field and academically tested to either fail or progress to the next level.

In the pre-war period, a German general by the name of Heinz Wilhelm Guderian was tasked with building the Wehrmacht’s 2nd Panzer Division. It was formed on the 15th October 1935, and was one of three tank divisions created at the time. General Guderian selected the newly promoted Major Hasso von Manteuffel from Kradschützen Bataillon 2, the same battalion in which Wilhelm von Hessen had been an officer cadet, to run the aspiring officer training program for the Panzer Division. Wilhelm von Hessen’s record as a cadet, then later as a reserve officer, has surfaced that informs us of his military service.

Quoting from Eaglehorse.org:

“Von Hessen, a minor member of a German royal family from Fulda, was highly connected to the old guard of Gernany. . .Hessen entered the Army as an aspirant officer in the reserves in 1935 with the 2 Krad in Eisenach. His title of Prince may have impressed some, but progression through the pre commissioning program was based solely on merit and achievement.

Von Hessen’s record does not specify the exact dates of advancement, however, as the unit moved to Bad Kissingen, his career clearly progressed. Perhaps at Manteuffel [EDITOR’S NOTE: BAD KISSINGEN] or in Austria [EDITOR’S NOTE: EISENSTADT, 36 MILES FROM VIENNA, AUSTRIA], he successfully passed his final examination and probationary period as a lieutenant and received his commission as a lieutenant in the reserve army with active-duty status. Upon formal commissioning, he already would have been a proven platoon leader.

Once the war began, still as a platoon leader, he was wounded in Poland and again in France. In 1941, with the campaign in Greece, he was a company commander with the K2, and, the following year, moved to a staff position with the higher command 2nd Schützen Regiment. Then, some months later, he took command of the regimental headquarters company. Continuing as a first lieutenant, as the war in Russia began and the 2nd Panzer Division was committed, he took command of Rifle Company 7 in the mechanized brigade and the same week that his promotion to captain was approved, was killed in action in April 1942.”

As I noted earlier, according to Wilhelm von Hessen’s entry in German Wikipedia he was a member of the 2nd SS Panzer Division. For this reason, I erroneously concluded that he died as a member of the SS. Confusing matters, it turns out that the Wehrmacht also had a 2nd Panzer Division, and this is the unit Wilhelm was a member of. The Wikipedia entry for the Wehrmacht’s 2nd Panzer Division matches the conflicts in Poland, France, Greece, and the Soviet Union which Wilhelm participated in according to the information in his file discussed above.

Let me turn now to another issue that may confuse readers as it did me. The SS seniority lists, the Dienstalterslisten, from 1936 and 1937 continue to include Wilhelm von Preussen’s name even though he is known by 1935 to have been in the cadet training school and as noted above assigned to the Wehrmacht’s Kradschützen Bataillon 2. This suggests Wilhelm continued to hold a commission within the SS. This possibility is supported by a sentence in Wikipedia tucked into the discussion about the Allgemeine SS: “SS members could also hold reserve commissions in the regular military as well as a Nazi Party-political rank.” This means that Wilhelm von Hessen could have been a member of the non-combative Allgemeine SS and worn their uniform, but also had a commission in the Wehrmacht and separately worn their uniform. In the case of the ca. 1935 picture Wilhelm is obviously wearing a black SS uniform while in seemingly contemporaneous photos he is in a Wehrmacht outfit. (Figure 10)

 

Figure 10. November 1936 photo of Wilhelm von Hessen in his Wehrmacht uniform with his wife Princess Marianne von Preußen at her sister Princess Luise’s marriage

 

I briefly summarize Wilhelm von Hessen’s trajectory in the Nazi Party, SS, and the Wehrmacht roughly as follows. He was admitted to the Nazi Party on the 1st of May 1932; joined the SS on the 20th of April 1934; transitioned to the cadet training school and the Wehrmacht around the 15th of October 1935 when the cadet school opened in Bad Kissengen; continued to retain a commission in the SS while in the Wehrmacht until 1937; fought as a member of the 2nd Panzer Division in Poland (1939), France (1940), Greece (1941), and the Soviet Union, before eventually being killed on the 30th of April 1942 in Russia.

Before closing out this lengthy post, I want to discuss two other documents related to Wilhelm von Hessen that were found.

Peter Albrecht ordered and sent me Wilhelm’s official death certificate he obtained from the Volksbund Deutsche Kriegsgräberfürsorge e. V. (VDK), Germany’s War Graves Commission. (Figures 11a-b) It confirms that Wilhelm was in a Wehrmacht unit as a Hauptmann (Captain), and that he was killed-in-action on the 30th of April 1942 in a place called Wyschegory, Russia. The VDK included a map of the location of Wyschegory. (Figure 12) They stated that an official casualty report does not provide a clear grave location, and that he likely could not be buried by his comrades. They noted that Wilhelm probably rests in an unmarked grave, and that if he’s eventually found he will be moved to a war cemetery in Germany. Wilhelm’s death was reported in the New York Times. (Figures 13a-b)

 

Figure 11a. Page 1 of letter with Prinz Wilhelm’s official death information obtained by Peter Albrecht from the Volksbund Deutsche Kriegsgräberfürsorge e. V. (VDK), Germany’s War Graves Commission

 

Figure 11b. Page 2 of letter with Prinz Wilhelm’s official death information obtained by Peter Albrecht from the Volksbund Deutsche Kriegsgräberfürsorge e. V. (VDK), Germany’s War Graves Commission

 

Figure 12. Map provided by the VDK showing location of Wyschegory where Wilhelm von Hessen was killed in relation to a place called Belyi, Russia

 

Figure 13a. Cover page from June 18, 1942, New York Times article reporting Wilhelm von Hessen’s death

 

Figure 13b. June 18, 1942, New York Times article reporting Wilhelm von Hessen’s death

 

  1. By way of historic context, Nazi Germany’s invasion of the Soviet Union, known as Operation Barbarossa, started on Sunday, the 22nd of June 1941. The failure of Operation Barbarossa reversed the fortunes of Nazi Germany. The German offensive came to an end during the Battle of Moscow near the end of 1941 and resulted in the Wehrmacht’s defeat and the eventual collapse of Nazi Germany in 1945.

Possibly, Wilhelm’s unit was retreating westward following the Battles of Rzhev (Tver Oblast, Russia) when he was killed near Belyi (Tver Oblast, Russia). Belyi is about 74 miles west-southwest of Rzhev. (Figure 14) The likelihood that Wilhelm was involved in the Battles of Rzhev is conjecture.

 

Figure 14. Map showing the relation of Rzhev where battles were fought to Belyi, near where Wilhelm von Hessen died

 

While I found Wilhelm’s military personnel card in ancestry, I also found his “death certificate” from Herleshausen in the German state of Hesse. (Figures 15a-b) The page is from the town’s civil registry book. This certificate was completed on the 7th of August 1942, so several months following Wilhelm’s death in Russia. Herleshausen is where Wilhelm and his wife and children lived in a castle now owned by his great-grandson.

 

 

Figure 15a. Cover page of Wilhelm von Hessen’s death certificate from Herleshausen, Hesse completed on the 7th of August 1942, more than three months after his death

 

Figure 15b. Wilhelm von Hessen’s death certificate from Herleshausen, Hesse completed on the 7th of August 1942, more than three months after his death

 

 

Below is a transcription and translation of the page:

TRANSCRIPTION:

Nr. 16   –   Herleshausen, den 7. August 1942 Der Hauptmann der Reserve Prinz und Landgraf Wilhelm von Hessen, gottgläubig, wohnhaft in Herleshausen Schloss Augustenau ist am 30. April 1942 um — Uhr — Minuten (Todesstunde unbekannt) bei Wyschegory, östlicher Kriegsschauplatz, verstorben.

Der Verstorbene war geboren am 1. März 1905 in Rotenburg an der Fulda (Standesamt Rotenburg Nr. 21).

Vater: Landgraf Chlodwig von Hessen
Mutter: Landgräfin Karoline von Hessen geborene Prinzessin zu Solms-Hohensolms-Lich

Der Verstorbene war verheiratet mit der Prinzessin Marianne von Hessen geborene Prinzessin von Preußen.

Eingetragen auf schriftliche Anzeige der Wehrmachtauskunftstelle für Kriegesverluste und Kriegsgefangene.

Todesursache: gefallen

Eheschließung des Verstorbenen am 30.1.1933 in Tabarz (Standesamt Tabarz Nr. 2 / 33)

REMARK TOP LEFT:

Herleshausen, den 22. August 1962

Auf Anordnung des Amtsgerichts in Kassel vom 7. Mai 1962 ( 1 III 52/61) wird berichtigend vermerkt, dass der Name des Verstorbenen

Wilhelm Ernst Alexis Hermann Prinz und Landgraf von Hessen

(nicht Prinz und Landgraf Wilhelm von Hessen) lautet.

TRANSLATION

No. 16 – Herleshausen, the 7. August 1942

The captain of the reserve Prince and Landgrave Wilhelm of Hesse (Figure 16), a believer in God, residing in Herleshausen Castle Augustenau is on 30. April 1942 at — clock — minutes (death hour unknown) at Wyschegory, eastern theater of war, died.

The deceased was born on the 1st. March 1905 in Rotenburg an der Fulda (Rotenburg Registry Office No. 21).

Father: Landgrave Chlodwig of Hesse

Mother: Landgrave Karoline of Hesse born Princess of Solms-Hohensolms-Lich

The deceased was married to Princess Marianne of Hesse, born Princess of Prussia.

Registered on written notification of the Wehrmacht information office for war losses and prisoners of war.

Cause of death: fallen

Marriage of the deceased on 30.1.1933 in Tabarz (Registry Office Tabarz No. 2 / 33)

TRANSLATION—REMARK UPPER LEFT

Herleshausen, the 22. August 1962

By order of the district court in Kassel of 7. May 1962 (III 52/61) is corrected that the name of the deceased

Wilhelm Ernst Alexis Hermann Prince and Landgrave of Hesse

(Not Prince and Landgrave Wilhelm of Hesse).

 

Figure 16. A formal photo of Lieutenant Prinz Wilhelm von Hessen while assigned to the K2

 

One final observation. After the abdication of Kaiser Wilhelm II and the termination of Germany’s monarchy following their loss in WWI, the nobility was no longer legally recognized in Germany. While noble titles and designations are still commonly used as part of family names, the 1962 remark in the upper left of Wilhelm’s death certificate is an acknowledgment of this new reality where the title “Prince” is added after his name rather than before.

REFERENCES

“2nd Panzer Division (Wehrmacht).” Wikipedia, Wikipedia Foundation, 23rd September 2024.

“Allgemeine SS.” Wikipedia, Wikipedia Foundation, 24 August 2023. Allgemeine SS – Wikipedia

Cadets: The Hidden Stories: 1970-From Starch to Permanent Press. Eaglehorse.org.

http://www.eaglehorse.org/home_station/hidden_stories/70s/cadets/cadets.htm

“Wilhelm von Hessen-Philippsthal-Barchfeld (1905–1942).” Wikipedia, Wikipedia Foundation, 20 January 2024. Wilhelm von Hessen-Philippsthal-Barchfeld (1905–1942) – Wikipedia

 

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

 

Note: This post is about Renate Bruck, my third cousin once removed, and her long-distance marriage to her first husband, Matthias Eugen Walter Mehne. In my years of doing ancestral research, I have only ever once come across such an arrangement in the case of good friends of my father. Given the uncommonness of such marriage covenants, I became curious about them. I learned as with many social and cultural “protocols” involving the Nazis, there were very specific provisions in law that governed not only long-distance marriages, but also posthumous marriages (i.e., “marriages of convenience”), and even post-mortem divorces.

 

Related Posts:

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

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

 

 

Figure 1. 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)

 

The inspiration for this post came from my 95-year-old friend, Ms. Ina Gräfin von Schaesberg née Weinert (b. 19 March 1926, Breslau [today: Wrocław, Poland]). (Figure 1) Ms. Schaesberg, whom I’ve mentioned to readers in previous posts, was best friends with my third cousin once removed, Renate Bruck (1926-2013), their entire lives. (Figure 2) Over the course of many email exchanges, Ina, with whom I’ve now become friends, mentioned in passing that she had attended Renate’s wedding to her first husband, Matthias Eugen Walter Mehne (1908-1991) (Figure 3), hereafter Matthias Mehne, in around 1943 in Wiesbaden, Germany. Ina emphasized that Matthias had not physically been present at his own wedding, so I became quite curious about this situation.

 

Figure 2. In a school play in around 1936 Renate Bruck in white dressed as a princess, and Ina Schaesberg garbed in black as her “prince” (photo courtesy of Ina Schaesberg)

 

 

Figure 3. Renate Bruck and her first husband, Matthias Mehne, in Berlin in around 1947 or 1948 (photo courtesy of Dr. Tilo Wahl)

 

 

As I alluded to in the introduction to this post, I have only once previously come across such an arrangement involving two of my father’s very close and staunchly anti-Nazi friends, Peter and Lolo Lau. (Figure 4) In their instance, however, Peter’s brother, Rudi Lau, had been his stand-in when he got married to Lolo. While Peter would eventually be captured and held for several years as a prisoner-of-war in Virginia, at the time of his marriage he was still an active German soldier in the Wehrmacht stationed in then-Yugoslavia. Rudi Lau himself would never marry as he later died of injuries sustained during WWII.

 

Figure 4. My father’s lifelong friends Lolo & Peter Lau in Oberhausen, Germany in 2012 who were married in the Free State of Danzig in Peter’s absence while he was deployed in the Wehrmacht and his brother Rudi was his “stand-in”

 

To the best of Ms. Schaesberg’s recollection, in the case of Renate and Matthias’ marriage, Matthias had no stand-in.

As I began to contemplate the circumstances of Renate and Matthias’s marriage, I surmised that as Germany’s fortunes changed as the war progressed, it was not inconceivable that Matthias had been drafted in 1943 into the German Army even though he would have been 35 at the time.

Let me briefly digress. Anticipating what will be the subject of an upcoming Blog post, I am in possession of a copy of Renate and her mother Johanna Bruck’s five-year wartime Tagebuch, in essence a diary. (Figure 5) In early 1943, Renate and Johanna Bruck had relocated to Berlin from Breslau [today: Wrocław, Poland], likely as a precautionary measure; since Renate was a mischling of the first degree according to the Nuremberg Race Laws (i.e., her father’s parents were Jewish making her half-Jewish), and in danger of being deported and murdered, the anonymity of a larger city may have afforded her more protection. Suffice it for now to say Renate’s diary entries make numerous mention of her future first husband Matthias during the months of March through April 1943, thereafter which he is rarely mentioned. As a brief aside, Renate and Matthias were both originally from Breslau and likely knew one another from there, but only became involved romantically after they separately moved to Berlin. Matthias was not Jewish so the reason why he moved to Berlin is unknown.

 

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

 

I already knew from the German newspaper article I had found among Renate’s father’s personal papers that Matthias was a prisoner-of-war in England in the latter stages of WWII. (Figures 6a-c) Curious as to how and when he was captured by the British, I turned to Ms. Bettina Mehne (Figure 7), Matthias Mehne’s daughter by his second marriage. I presented my theory to Bettina that Germany’s declining fortunes during the war caused them to draft older men. The actual story is more involved.

 

 

Figure 6a. Undated German newspaper article post-dating WWII about Renate Bruck’s first husband, Matthias Mehne mentioning he was a British POW

 

 

Figure 6b. Transcription of newspaper article about Matthias Mehne

 

 

Figure 6c. Translation of newspaper article about Matthias Mehne

 

Figure 7. Matthias Mehne’s daughter by his second marriage, Bettina Mehne, who related the story behind her father’s forced deployment during WWII

 

I refer readers to Post 101 in which I discussed at length Matthias Mehne’s courage on Kristallnacht, November 9-10, 1938, and the role he played protecting a Jewish man named Alfons Lasker that night. The fearlessness Matthias showed that night extended throughout the war, and has, to this day, connected the Mehne and Lasker families. Alfons Lasker’s daughter, Ms. Anita Lasker-Wallfisch, was arrested in Breslau, shipped to Auschwitz, and miraculously survived. Anita, who is a world-renowned cellist, wrote a biography in 2000 entitled “Inherit the Truth,” detailing her wartime experiences. In this book she documents Matthias Mehne’s role in protecting her father on Kristallnacht, the passage of which is quoted in Post 101.

According to Bettina Mehne, there is one story Anita does not relate in her biography which explains why Matthias Mehne was forced to join the German Army. After Anita Lasker and her sister were arrested in Breslau and held there in a Sammellager, a collection camp for Jewish deportees, they attempted to escape with Matthias Mehne’s rucksack in hand; why this came to be in their possession is not clear. After they were recaptured, the Nazis found Matthias’s name in the rucksack, and he too was arrested and brought before a judge. Already subject to weekly questioning by the Gestapo because Matthias and his father refused to fly the swastika outside their luthier business on various “flag days” and hang a photo of Hitler inside their shop, they wanted him sentenced to death. The judge, however, was a friend of Matthias from the riding stables, and instead forced him to join the army as punishment, telling the Gestapo to let the Italians do their dirty work and kill him. So Matthias was soon sent off to war, though he made prompt work of being captured by the Americans, thereafter which he was handed off to the British.

With the benefit of Bettina Mehne’s firsthand account, I now understand the circumstances that lead to her father’s incarceration as a prisoner-of-war. Given Matthias’s status as a POW, I was curious how his marriage could be arranged across enemy lines, so to speak. I turned to Ms. Regina Stein (Figure 8), a provenance researcher, who’d previously and graciously researched at no cost to me address information for Matthias for the years 1943-1990. Regina sent me an interesting article from German Wikipedia on so-called “Ferntrauungen,” long-distance marriages (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsches_Eherecht_im_Zweiten_Weltkrieg#Ferntrauung_im_Zweiten_Weltkrieg). Let me highlight some relevant information.

 

Figure 8. Dr. Regina Stein, provenance researcher in Berlin, who provided a source for background information on distance marriages, marriages of convenience, and post-mortem divorces in Nazi Germany post-1939

 

 

It is clear from this article that German marriages during WWII with an absent groom were not uncommon. Beginning in 1939, various special regulations were enacted by the German Reich. This made it possible for distance marriages, posthumous marriages (“marriages of convenience”), and even death divorces. Post-mortem marriages had already taken place in France during the First World War.

Beginning with the enactment of the Nuremberg Laws on the 15th of September 1935, marriages between “Deutschblütigen,” German-blooded people, and Jews was prohibited, and “extramarital sexual intercourse” between Jews and other Germans barred. Different regulations applied to mischlinge, a pejorative term often applied to Jews meaning “hybrid, mongrel or half-breed.” From 1942 onward, however, their applications for marriage permits were no longer processed for the duration of the war. I’ll briefly return to this below, specifically as it relates to Matthias and Renate.

The possibility of a remote marriage existed according to “§§ 13 ff. der Dritten Verordnung zur Ausführung des Personenstandsgesetzes (Personenstandsverordnung der Wehrmacht) vom 4. November 1939,” (Third Ordinance for the Implementation of the Personal Status Act (Personal Status Ordinance of the Wehrmacht) of November 4, 1939. Such marriages were possible for Wehrmacht members (i.e., the Wehrmacht was the unified armed forces of Nazi Germany from 1935 to 1945) who “took part in a war, a war-like enterprise or a special mission” and left their location, presumably were deployed. For such a remote marriage to take place, the Wehrmacht soldier had to declare his intent to the battalion commander who recorded it; had to provide an affidavit documenting “Aryan descent”; and the Oberkommando der Wehrmacht, the High Command of the Armed forces, had to submit a marriage license to the bride’s registry office. According to Ina Schaesberg, Matthias Mehne and Renate Bruck‘s remote marriage took place in Wiesbaden, Germany in 1943 or 1944.

As I’ve discussed, we know that at the time of Matthias and Renate’s marriage, he was already a POW in England, likely in late 1943 or possibly early 1944. The German regulations accounted for such an eventuality. For POWs, the battalion commander to whom a Wehrmacht soldier declared his intent to marry was replaced by a steward appointed according to the agreement of the treatment of POWs or by the most senior captured officer of the highest rank. The marriage ceremony in the local registry office, as in Renate and Matthias‘ case, had to take place within two months, though this timeline changed at various times during the war.

Colloquially, the long-distance marraige was referred to as a “Stahlhelmtrauung,” a “steel helmet wedding,” or as a “Trauung mit dem Stahlhelm,” or “steel helmet wedding ceremony,” because a steel helmet was positioned in the place where the groom would otherwise have stood during the ceremony in the Standesamt, the registry office. The marriage took effect when the woman declared her intent to marry before the registrar, even if the groom had already died by this time. In the latter event, the marriage was deemed to have taken place on the day when the groom had declared his intent to marry. While the free copy of the marriage certificate sent to the Wehrmacht soldier did not indicate it had been a long-distance marriage, the marriage register in the registrar’s office showed the marriage had been concluded in the absence of the husband.

The possibility of long-distance marriage excluded those soldiers who had not written down their intent to marry, but in whom it could be proved that they had been willing to marry. However, it seems that on November 6, 1941, Adolf Hitler had signed a secret decree together with Hans Heinrich Lammers, the head of the Reich Chancellery, and Wilhelm Keitel, the head of the Wehrmacht High Command, in which the Interior Minister Wilhelm Frick was empowered to “order the subsequent marriage of women to soldiers who have fallen or died in the field, if it can be proven that there was a serious intention to marry and there are no indications that the intention was given up before death.” For professional soldiers, the approval of the High Command of the Wehrmacht had to be obtained. It was only on the 15th of June 1943 that the Reich Minister of the Interior notified the registry offices “confidentially” of Hitler’s decree and established guidelines for processing posthumous marriage applications.

In the case of such “Leichentrauung,” “funeral marriage,” or “Totenehe,” or “death marriage,” it was up to the woman alone to testify to the authorities of the last will of the dead person. The woman who entered such a marriage with a dead man did not become a wife through marriage, but rather a widow. As a war widow, she was eligible to obtain financial benefits and claim an inheritance, and any common children were not considered out-of-wedlock. Parents often objected since they were typically excluded from the inheritance, and claimed the bride was only concerned with obtaining economic advantages, sometimes justifiably. The possibility of abuse, such as legitimizing children conceived by men other than the deceased husband, was another issue. Because of well-founded concerns, in around 1944, the right to inheritance was limited to the children conceived by the fallen bridegroom. In total, there were about 25,000 such marriages with fallen soldiers.

In connection with the discussion about entering into marriage with a deceased, the Reich Ministry of Justice discussed whether a marriage that had had already been dissolved due to death could still be divorced. This is referred to as a “Totenscheidung,” “divorce from a deceased.” The impetus here was that supposed “hero widows” were free to lead “dishonorable, carefree lives” and get involved with other men following the deaths of their fallen bridegrooms. To address this concern, the Reich Ministry of Justice issued confidential guidelines which made “war adultery” punishable; the possibility of a “death divorce” was created for women who broke their marriage vows while their husbands were on the front lines or acted “offensively” following their husband’s deaths. Legal proceedings could be initiated, and, if “proven” the wife committed adultery, the divorce was effective retroactive from the day before the husband’s death. A wife culpably divorced lost the right of inheritance and the survivor’s pension.

Considering Renate and Matthias’s distance marriage, I became curious whether I could obtain a copy of their marriage certificate from the civil registry office in Wiesbaden where their marriage had supposedly taken place; I wanted to know whether the certificate made any mention of the distance marriage, and who might have been a witness to the ceremony besides Ina Schaesberg. I contacted the Rathaus, City Hall, but they responded I was not closely enough related to obtain the document in question.

As an aside, Germany has a period of “privacy” for vital records. Unless you are immediate family, you cannot access birth records until 110 years following the birth of the individual, marriage records for 80 years, and death records for 30 years. Assuming Renate and Matthias married in 1943, their marriage record will not publicly be available until 2023. Consequently, I asked Renate’s twin daughters by her third marriage, Francesca and Michele Newman (Figure 9), to inquire about their mother’s marriage license. The Wiesbaden Rathaus checked marriage records between 1941 and 1946 but regrettably could not find any trace of Renate and Matthias’s wedding certificate. What to make of this is unclear.

 

Figure 9. Renate Bruck’s twin daughters by her third marriage, Francesca and Michele Newman, my “movie star” cousins

 

One final point I would like to make about Renate and Matthias’ distance wedding. As previously mentioned, according to the Nuremberg Laws, Renate was a mischling of the first degree because she was half Jewish. By 1943, the presumed year of her marriage, the Nazi regulations prohibited marriages between German-blooded people and mischlinge. While Matthias could clearly prove he was of “Aryan descent,” is it possible Renate did not have to submit such documentation to the registry office? If so, this seems highly unusual given the Nazis penchant for strictly enforcing discriminatory measures against Jews and mischlinge. Without a copy of Renate and Matthias’ marriage certificate the question remains unanswered.

 

REFERENCE

Lasker-Wallfisch, Anita. Inherit the Truth: A Memoir of Survival and the Holocaust. Thomas Dunn Books, 2000.

POST 66: DR. WALTER ROTHHOLZ, INTERNEE IN NAZI-OCCUPIED NORWAY

Note: In this post I discuss the internment of Dr. Walter Rothholz, my second cousin once removed, in Nazi-occupied Norway focusing primarily on the historic events surrounding this occupation.

Related Posts:
Post 65: Germany’s Last Emperor, Wilhelm II, Pictured with Unknown Family Member

Figure 1. Dr. Walter Rothholz (1893-1978) in 1964

Dr. Walter Rothholz (1893-1978) who I first introduced to readers in the previous post (Post 65) was a lawyer with a Dr. jur. (Doctor juris). (Figure 1) He is my second cousin once removed. Even was I positioned to present a complete biography of Dr. Rothholz that is not my aim, nor would that be of any interest to readers. Where I delve into specific ancestors, my goal is to show how their lives intersected with major historic events of their time, so in the case of Dr. Rothholz, how his life was upended by the Nazi occupation of Norway starting in 1940 and how he barely survived that ordeal.

Figure 2. Else Marie “Elsemai” Rothholz née Bølling (1915-1976) in 1964, Dr. Walter Rothholz’s wife

Dr. Rothholz was born in Stettin, Germany [Szczecin, Poland] in 1893, a place previously discussed where various of my ancestors come from. Rothholz was decorated with the German Iron Cross for his heroism during WWI. Between the first and second World Wars, he was an international law expert who worked for the German Foreign Ministry. In 1936, he married Else Marie “Elsemai” Bølling (1915-1976) (Figure 2), a Norwegian woman, a move that allowed him to emigrate to Norway in 1939 and seemingly escape the Nazi scourge. Students of history will realize this was not to be Dr. Rothholz’s fate.

 

 

Briefly, some history. Operation Weserübung (German: Unternehmen Weserübung) was the code name for Germany’s assault on Denmark and Norway during WWII and the opening operation of the Norwegian Campaign. The name comes from the German for “Operation Weser-Exercise,” the Weser being a German river. The German occupation of Norway began on the 9th of April 1940 after German forces invaded neutral Norway. Conventional armed resistance to the Germans ended on the 10th of June 1940. Germany occupied Denmark and invaded Norway, ostensibly as a preventive maneuver against a planned, and openly discussed, Franco-British occupation of Norway.

German occupation of Norway lasted until the 8-9th of May 1945 following the capitulation of the German forces in Europe. Throughout this period, Norway was continuously occupied by the Wehrmacht (i.e., the unified armed forces of Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945). Civil rule was effectively assumed by the Reichskommissariat Norwegen, which acted in collaboration with Norway’s pro-German puppet government, Vidkun Quisling’s regime, giving us the origin of the word “quisling,” collaborator or traitor. During the “occupation period,” the Norwegian King Haakon VII and the prewar government escaped to London, where they acted as a government in exile.

Dr. Rothholz was interned in Berg prison on October 26, 1942. Berg interneringsleir (Berg internment camp) was a concentration camp near Tønsberg, Norway that served as an internment and transit center for Jews and later political prisoners during the Nazi occupation of Norway; it is located approximately 102km (63 mile) south-southwest of Oslo. Berg was the only prison camp in Norway that had only Norwegian prison guards, whose treatment of prisoners was particularly harsh, so much so that three of them were sentenced after the war to life-long forced labor. What precipitated Rothholz’s internment on October 26th was a message from Berlin received the previous day ordering the arrest of all Norwegian male Jews. Already by the 26th of October, 60 of the first Jews arrested had been gathered in Berg, where they were set up to build the camp.

The Jewish round ups involved both Norwegian police authorities and German Geheime Staatspolizei (abbreviated Gestapo, the official secret police of Nazi Germany and German-occupied Europe); Sicherheitsdienst (SD, the intelligence agency of the SS and Nazi party in Nazi Germany); and Schutzstaffel (SS, the German “protective echelon” founded in 1925 as Hitler’s personal guards). By November 26th, women and children were also arrested for deportation. That same day, the male prisoners were divided into two groups: those who were married to Norwegian women, and those who were unmarried or married to non-Aryan women. The last group was sent to the extermination camps. A total of 227 Jewish men were deported from Berg to the extermination camp of Auschwitz in Oświęcim, Poland. Only seven of these men survived. The few Jews who were married to “Aryans” remained in Berg, as in Dr. Rothholz’s case.

There is a humiliating side story about the Berg internment camp. It was referred to as “Quisling’s chicken farm” because some Jews and other Nazi opponents wore metallic poultry leg bands on their fingers as protest markers against the Nazi authorities and the German Occupation; the pro-Nazi government decided to create a “hen farm” for these “chickens” at Berg. In a speech delivered to the National Assembly on Pentecost 1942, President Vidkun Quisling said, “. . .some people walk around with chicken rings on their fingers. . .we’re going to create chicken farms for them. Here near Tønsberg we will thus be able to get a large hen farm.”

In the Jewish campaigns in Norway, 767 of the approximately 1,800 Jews living there were sent to the German concentration camps in Poland. Only 32 of these survived.

On December 2, 1942 Dr. Rothholz was moved from the Berg internment camp to Grini (Norwegian: Grini fangeleir; German: Polizeihäftlingslager Grini), the Nazi concentration camp in Bærum, Norway, which operated between around June 1941 and May 1945. Bærum is a suburb of Oslo and is located on the west coast of the city. The camp was run by SS and Gestapo personnel. Dr. Rothholz had a good understanding of the geography of Germany so as the noose was slowly closing and the war was ending, he was able to keep his fellow prisoners informed of what the messages from the front meant.

Other than guards, the German occupiers devoted few personnel to the camp. Since many politicians, academics and cultural personalities were detained at Grini, a certain level of internal organization was established by the prisoners. They toiled in manufacturing, agriculture and other manual labor, with much of this work taking place outside the camp. Grini was liberated on the 7th of May 1945, although Dr. Rothholz had apparently already been evacuated to Sweden on the 2nd of May. Walter’s son, also named Walter Rothholz, was born while he was interned. (Figures 3-4)

Figure 3. Dr. Walter & Elsemai Rothholz’s son, Dr. Walter Rothholz, born on April 7, 1943 in Asker, Norway, while his father was interned in Norway’s Grini concentration camp
Figure 4. Dr. Walter & Elsemai Rothholz’s daughter, Dr. Anna Rothholz, born on October 25, 1937

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dr. Rothholz was granted Norwegian citizenship after the war and returned to Germany for a period. He became involved in the refugee situation and other international law issues.

Consequentially, Rothholz testified in 1967, along with other of his fellow prisoners, against Hellmuth Reinhard. Reinhard was the head of the Gestapo in Norway between 1942 and 1945. His ability to largely avoid being punished for his crimes against humanity is a sad commentary and worth a short sidebar.

Hellmuth Reinhard was born Hermann Gustav Hellmuth Patzschke in Unterwerschen, Germany, but changed his name in April 1939 to the more Germanic-sounding “Reinhard.” He joined the SS in March 1933, and soon became a member of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (German: NSDAP), the Nazi Party. He had a law office at the Reichsführer-SS Sicherheitsdienst in Leipzig from 1935; later served at the SD headquarters of the Reichsicherheitshaumptamt (RHSA, the Reich Main Security Office, an organization subordinate to Heinrich Himmler); then in 1939, transferred to the Sicherheitspolizei (SiPo). From August 1940, he worked in Amsterdam at the central office for Jewish emigration from the Netherlands. Eventually, he came to Norway in January 1942 as head of the Gestapo.

Hellmuth Reinhard was second in command to Heinrich Fehlis in Norway. He had the rank of SS-Hauptsturmführer, corresponding to captain, then became SS-Sturmbannführer, equivalent to major. According to historians, Reinhard had primary responsibility for the deportation of Jews from Norway. Whether Adolf Eichmann gave direct orders to deport Jews from Norway, or whether Reinhard took the initiative based on Hitler’s overall plans for Jews is not clear. Regardless, Reinhard was the individual responsible for notifying the Gestapo in Stettin that 532 Jews were on their way aboard the SS Donau (Danube) on November 26, 1942.

At the end of the war, Reinhard was in the German state of Schleswig-Holstein, where, using his birth name Patzschke, he was released by British occupation authorities, obviously unaware of his SS background. Incredibly, Reinhard reverted to his birth name, resumed contact with his wife and children, then, in 1951 after “Reinhard” was declared dead, remarried his wife who was then officially a widow. It was only later that the German War Crimes Office in Ludwigsburg, investigating the Gestapo commander in Norway, discovered that the “widow” had married a man of the same birth name as Reinhard. He was arrested in December 1964 and brought up on charges in 1967. The charges involved murder and complicity in murder.

The charge against Reinhard that Walter Rothholz and other former Jewish prisoners testified to related to the deportation of the Norwegian Jews. The various witnesses claimed the internment and deportation of the Norwegian Jews could not have happened without Reinhard’s knowledge. Despite the substantial body of evidence supporting Reinhard’s involvement in the Jewish deportations and several murders, on June 30, 1967, he was sentenced to a mere five years for complicity in the murders during a counter-resistance action dubbed “Operation Blumenpflücken.” While Reinhard was also found guilty of deporting Jews, he supposedly could not be sentenced for this crime because the statute of limitations of 15 years for deportations had run out. Unbelievably, Reinhard was released in 1970 having served barely three years.

The trail was followed closely in Norway, and the verdict, once rendered, was characterized by the Norwegian newspapers as “scandalously mild.”

Let me end on a personal note. My father, a German-trained dentist, was never able to convince the American authorities to recognize his German credentials following his arrival here in 1948; they wanted him to redo his dental studies, something he felt he was too old to contemplate. Still, hoping to resume his dental profession in Germany, he travelled there in the mid-1950’s. For reasons that remain unclear and which we obviously never discussed, my father’s return to Germany never happened. I’ve often wondered whether this might have been related to the “hostile” environment he found in Germany where “low-level” German supporters of the Nazi regime had comfortably resumed their lives and reoccupied positions of power, and protected their former co-conspirators? Perhaps, it’s a rhetorical question to which there is no answer. Or, maybe, the mild judgement meted out to the mass murderer Hellmuth Reinhard was a manifestation of Germans disregarding the past. My father was a man with strong moral principles and would have been deeply offended by this dismissal of past sins, particularly since his beloved sister Susanne was murdered in Auschwitz. During our own McCarthy Era, I remember my father abruptly cancelling his subscription to the former “Long Island Press” for their unbridled support of Senator Joe McCarthy, so it would not surprise me that my father could not abide returning to post-war Germany under the prevailing circumstances of the time.