Is Kitty Hart-Moxon a plagiarist?

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
Post Reply
User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 8767
Joined: 29 Dec 2006, 21:11
Location: Poland

Re: Is Kitty Hart-Moxon a plagiarist?

#121

Post by wm » 19 Jan 2018, 19:24

Yuli wrote:In the English version of "Return to Auschwitz" the Jewish identity of KHM and her mother and the possession of false documents was revealed at Gestapo headqurters in Bitterfeld
They knew or claimed to know? The later is an example of cold reading - the usual interrogation trick.

In the occupied Poland documents were frequently forged for non-political reasons - for example as a shield against forced labour, or means to get additional rations.
The interrogators could have been aware of that and to avoid a long unrewarding investigation administratively sentenced them directly to KZ.

Prisoners under investigation were privileged (or rather protected), even Jews I think - so they existed.
Mishandling of such prisoners led to the downfall of the dreaded SS-Untersturmführer Max Grabner.

history1
Banned
Posts: 4095
Joined: 31 Oct 2005, 10:12
Location: Austria

Re: Is Kitty Hart-Moxon a plagiarist?

#122

Post by history1 » 19 Jan 2018, 19:40

I guess you mean privileged as being incarcerated in the basement of Block 11 in Auschwitz I, wm?
The DÖW database provides a couple Jews camouflaged as aryans and sent within a few weeks to Auschwitz were they perished within a few month. Or to other places in the east were they got murdered right after their arrival.
Pretending to be not a Jew, eg. not wearing the star of david, forging fake papers, ommiting to mention of being Jewish in offices, at doctors, at the police station is not something the Nazis did appreciate but what they punnished very serious.

And Maximillian Grabner´s problem wasn´t the mishandling of prominent inmates but allegations of bribery and enrichment with government property ( = inmates property). Additionaly it wa suspected that he did order to kill 2000 imates for whom no death sentence/exection orders were provied by the RSHA. That´s why SS-judge Konrad Morgen visited Auschwitz and did investigate his case. But protected by Gestapo Chief Heinrich Müller his case got recessed and during the progression of the war it didn´t come to an end. Further infos you´ll find in this book:
http://www.suhrkamp.de/buecher/weil_ich ... 42599.html


User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 8767
Joined: 29 Dec 2006, 21:11
Location: Poland

Re: Is Kitty Hart-Moxon a plagiarist?

#123

Post by wm » 19 Jan 2018, 20:54

history1 wrote:I guess you mean privileged as being incarcerated in the basement of Block 11 in Auschwitz I, wm?
In the basement or above the ground it was a privilege to be protected from execution or random "workplace violence".
history1 wrote:And Maximillian Grabner´s problem wasn´t the mishandling of prominent inmates but allegations of bribery and enrichment with government property ( = inmates property). Additionaly it wa suspected that he did order to kill 2000 imates for whom no death sentence/exection orders were provied by the RSHA. That´s why SS-judge Konrad Morgen visited Auschwitz and did investigate his case.
As far as I know his problems started when Berlin couldn't find "their" prisoners in Auschwitz, because just for fun he killed them all, despite the fact they were still under investigation and still needed.

michael mills
Member
Posts: 9002
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 13:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Is Kitty Hart-Moxon a plagiarist?

#124

Post by michael mills » 20 Jan 2018, 02:43

There was the case of some German Jewish men who were privileged by reason of being married to non-Jewish women, but who were sent by mistake to Auschwitz in early 1943.

That occurred in the context of the purging of the Reichsvereinigung der deutschen Juden at that time, which was part of the "Fabrikaktion" initiated by Goebbels. There were two categories of privileged Jews in Germany: (1) employees of the Reichsvereinigung, and (2) persons with non-Jewish spouses. At the suggestion of Goebbels, it was decided to reduce the number of privileged Jews by cancelling the privileged status of Reichsvereinigung employees who were not married to non-Jews and deporting them to Auschwitz, and replacing them with Jewish men who were married to non-Jews and thereby already had privileged status.

All the privileged Jewish men in Berlin were rounded up and held in the building of the welfare office of the Reichsvereinigung for the purpose of sorting through them to determine which did not have non-Jewish wives and therefore could be deported, and which did have non-Jewish wives and therefore could not be deported. An additional purpose was to select from the men with Jewish wives suitable replacements for the former Reichsvereinigung employees who had lost their privileged status and were now to be deported.

However, it appears that the German officials carrying out the sorting process became confused and mistakenly included a number of men with non-Jewish wives among the group of Reichsvereinigung employees who were deported to Auschwitz. When the men with non-Jewish wives arrived at Auschwitz, they were not killed but were held separately because the Auschwitz staff were not sure of their status, ie whether they were still privileged or whether they had lost their privileges status and could be treated like the vast majority of Jews arriving at Auschwitz. In a few days the Berlin authorities realised their mistake and ordered the return of this group of men; they were in fact returned unharmed and non was killed at Auschwitz.

That incident shows that the Auschwitz staff did not have carte blanche to kill willy-nilly all Jews arriving at Auschwitz; they could kill only those they were specifically authorised to kill, which of course was the overwhelming majority. There was a small minority of Jews whose killing was not authorised, eg "privileged" German Jews and Jews who were citizens of Allied countries recognised as belligerents by Germany (eg UK, US) or of neutral countries (eg Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Bulgaria) which had not given specific permission for the deportation of their Jewish citizens.

That was the background to the prosecution of Grabner by the SS courts. As wm correctly stated, he had as head of the Political Section at Auschwitz ordered the execution of a group of prisoners without having received authorisation from Berlin. In that respect his prosecution had the same basis as the reprimand given by Himmler to Jeckeln on 1 December 1941 for the latter's unauthorised killing of the first transport of German Jews that arrived at Riga on 30 November as the Rumbula massacre was just starting. Himmler warned Jeckeln to obey the regulations governing the treatment of German Jews, and threatened to punish him for any further unauthorised killings.

michael mills
Member
Posts: 9002
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 13:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Is Kitty Hart-Moxon a plagiarist?

#125

Post by michael mills » 20 Jan 2018, 03:12

So was she registered as a Jewish political prisoner, a more priviliged prisoner than a "reguler" Jew? No such catagory to my knowledge. Another big question mark!
Jews who arrived at Auschwitz were divided into two categories:

1. Schutzhaftjuden = Jews in Protective Custody. These were Jews who as individuals had been sentenced by the German authorities to "Protective Custody " (Schutzhaft), the official term for imprisonment in a concentration camp. Schutzhaftjuden were registered and had to be kept in detention for interrogation or some other purpose that the Sipo had, and could only be killed if a specific order to do so was issued by the RSHA in Berlin. If such an order arrived, and a schutzhaftjude was executed, the execution had to be recorded in the register of deaths in the camp.

2. Transportjuden = Jews who arrived on a deportation transport. These constituted the overwhelming majority of the Jews who arrived at Auschwitz, and were deported as members of a group of deportees rather than as individuals sentenced to Schutzhaft. The Auschwitz staff was authorised to kill all Transportjuden who were not fit for forced labour, and was not required to record them; only those selected for labour were registered and were recorded in the death books if they died in the camp (as most did).

Net_Skater
Member
Posts: 73
Joined: 01 Jun 2004, 00:00
Location: Cranston RI, USA and Warsaw, Poland

Re: Is Kitty Hart-Moxon a plagiarist?

#126

Post by Net_Skater » 20 Jan 2018, 03:37

David Green:
What is your source for this information? What year did Zywulska marry Leon?
I just purchased a book by Zbigniew Blazynski "Mowi Jozef Swiatlo" (Jozef Swiatlo Talks). Swiatlo was a high ranking functionary of Ministerstwo Bezpieczenstwa Publicznego (Internal Security Ministry) who in 1953 escaped to the West. You can find information about him on web page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%B3ze ... iat%C5%82o. First print of this book - 1985. Autor of this book, in fifties a jurnalist working for Radio Free Europe, conducted a number of interviews with Swiatlo. The book is a report from those interviews.
During interviews Swiatlo provided detailed information about a Ministry's organizational structure. Leon Andrzejewski, Krystyna Zywulska's husband, was a head of Department III. His real name was Leon Ajzef vel Lajb Wolf Ajzen. Jozef Swiatlo provided detailed information about Andrzejewski/Zywulska: their professional life, associations, contacts, private life issues ect.
Regretably there is no information about the year they got married - but first few years after WW II is a good guess.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 10162
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19

Re: Is Kitty Hart-Moxon a plagiarist?

#127

Post by Sid Guttridge » 20 Jan 2018, 15:53

Hi history1,

I note, understand and sympathize that you object to diversions from the subject of the thread.

Might I suggest that, to be consistent, you don't make them yourself (see, for one example, 18 Jan 1014 above regarding my use of the word "Gypsies").

If you still wish me to reply to it, I am willing to do so but, as with seaburn's initial post to me, it will necessarily involve a diversion from the thread topic.

The choice is yours.

I would note that Kitty Hart-Moxon hasn't been referred to in a single post (yours included) on this page (9), interesting though they are.

Cheers,

Sid.

Yuli
Member
Posts: 117
Joined: 30 Nov 2016, 12:26
Location: Israel

Re: Is Kitty Hart-Moxon a plagiarist?

#128

Post by Yuli » 20 Jan 2018, 17:27

It turns out it was possible to fool the AB camp authorities regarding your racial identity upon arrival to the camp, as supposedly was done by KHM and her mother.

Seweryna Szmaglewska - Smoke Over Birkenau (1945; English translation 2008, page 141):
"In March there comes from Cracow a group of women whose papers were lost en route. The Political Department registers them as the 38th thousand. Among them are many Polish Jews who declare that they are Aryans - and they get a red triangle with the letter P. Protected by this sign they are able to avoid the especially brutal treatment given the Jewish women. They remain like this to the very end. Their situation is a public secret among the prisoners. All the Polish women know their real Jewish names, even the former addresses and histories of some of them, and yet to the very end of the camp's existence there was not one case of denunciation."

"All the Polish women" - I suppose she meant in a particular block

User avatar
Sergey Romanov
Member
Posts: 1987
Joined: 28 Dec 2003, 02:52
Location: World
Contact:

Re: Is Kitty Hart-Moxon a plagiarist?

#129

Post by Sergey Romanov » 20 Jan 2018, 19:48

Their Jewish identity was not known in Auschwitz.

This explains some things.

Any takers to compare the 2 Hart memoirs?

User avatar
Sergey Romanov
Member
Posts: 1987
Joined: 28 Dec 2003, 02:52
Location: World
Contact:

Re: Is Kitty Hart-Moxon a plagiarist?

#130

Post by Sergey Romanov » 20 Jan 2018, 19:51

michael mills wrote:
So was she registered as a Jewish political prisoner, a more priviliged prisoner than a "reguler" Jew? No such catagory to my knowledge. Another big question mark!
Jews who arrived at Auschwitz were divided into two categories:

1. Schutzhaftjuden = Jews in Protective Custody. These were Jews who as individuals had been sentenced by the German authorities to "Protective Custody " (Schutzhaft), the official term for imprisonment in a concentration camp. Schutzhaftjuden were registered and had to be kept in detention for interrogation or some other purpose that the Sipo had, and could only be killed if a specific order to do so was issued by the RSHA in Berlin. If such an order arrived, and a schutzhaftjude was executed, the execution had to be recorded in the register of deaths in the camp.

2. Transportjuden = Jews who arrived on a deportation transport. These constituted the overwhelming majority of the Jews who arrived at Auschwitz, and were deported as members of a group of deportees rather than as individuals sentenced to Schutzhaft. The Auschwitz staff was authorised to kill all Transportjuden who were not fit for forced labour, and was not required to record them; only those selected for labour were registered and were recorded in the death books if they died in the camp (as most did).
You forgot Durchgangsjuden.

David Green
Member
Posts: 34
Joined: 06 Jan 2018, 20:35
Location: London

Re: Is Kitty Hart-Moxon a plagiarist?

#131

Post by David Green » 20 Jan 2018, 21:09

Net_Skater wrote:David Green:
What is your source for this information? What year did Zywulska marry Leon?
I just purchased a book by Zbigniew Blazynski "Mowi Jozef Swiatlo" (Jozef Swiatlo Talks). Swiatlo was a high ranking functionary of Ministerstwo Bezpieczenstwa Publicznego (Internal Security Ministry) who in 1953 escaped to the West. You can find information about him on web page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%B3ze ... iat%C5%82o. First print of this book - 1985. Autor of this book, in fifties a jurnalist working for Radio Free Europe, conducted a number of interviews with Swiatlo. The book is a report from those interviews.
During interviews Swiatlo provided detailed information about a Ministry's organizational structure. Leon Andrzejewski, Krystyna Zywulska's husband, was a head of Department III. His real name was Leon Ajzef vel Lajb Wolf Ajzen. Jozef Swiatlo provided detailed information about Andrzejewski/Zywulska: their professional life, associations, contacts, private life issues ect.
Regretably there is no information about the year they got married - but first few years after WW II is a good guess.
Thank you for your contribution, Net_Skater.

David Green
Member
Posts: 34
Joined: 06 Jan 2018, 20:35
Location: London

Re: Is Kitty Hart-Moxon a plagiarist?

#132

Post by David Green » 20 Jan 2018, 21:16

Kitty Hart-Moxon describes her tattooing and being classified as a political prisoner in her testimony to the USC Shoah Foundation Institute.

Timestamp: 2:27:20


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZL7FjsNk90Q

Kitty Hart had a triangle tattooed beneath her serial number:
A third series of numbers was introduced in March 1942 with the arrival of the first female prisoners. Approximately 90,000 female prisoners were identified with a series of numbers created for female prisoners in March 1942 until May 1944.

Each new series of numbers introduced at Auschwitz began with “1.” Some Jewish prisoners (but not all) had a triangle tattooed beneath their serial number.

[Emphasis mine]
https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.ph ... d=10007056


In the short film Kitty's Fortune (2016), Sophie Shad who plays KHM wears only a red (political prisoner) triangle on her Auschwitz uniform. Kitty Hart-Moxon was the technical director for this film and was also present during filming. Therefore, we can hesitantly assume the film is accurate regarding uniform insignia as worn by Kitty on her Auschwitz uniform.

Image
Kitty takes the property of a dead prisoner

Image
Kitty on set with the actress who played Roza

Image
KHM and Sophie Shad

For all intents and purposes any SS man or Kapo encountering Kitty Hart at Auschwitz would have automatically assumed she was a non Jewish political prisoner unless they knew her personally. This would go a long way to explaining how KHM managed to survive for so long in a hellhole like Auschwitz.


Kitty's Fortune: https://vimeo.com/201272373


[Edit: added a link to Kitty's Fortune]
Last edited by David Green on 21 Jan 2018, 00:11, edited 4 times in total.

David Green
Member
Posts: 34
Joined: 06 Jan 2018, 20:35
Location: London

Re: Is Kitty Hart-Moxon a plagiarist?

#133

Post by David Green » 20 Jan 2018, 21:20

Sergey Romanov wrote:Their Jewish identity was not known in Auschwitz.

This explains some things.

Any takers to compare the 2 Hart memoirs?
Unless someone else here has the original 1961 book that task will fall to me.

User avatar
Sergey Romanov
Member
Posts: 1987
Joined: 28 Dec 2003, 02:52
Location: World
Contact:

Re: Is Kitty Hart-Moxon a plagiarist?

#134

Post by Sergey Romanov » 20 Jan 2018, 23:22

I have it in German, so no...

Yuli
Member
Posts: 117
Joined: 30 Nov 2016, 12:26
Location: Israel

Re: Is Kitty Hart-Moxon a plagiarist?

#135

Post by Yuli » 21 Jan 2018, 00:12

David Green:
Kitty Hart-Moxon describes her tattooing and being classified as a political prisoner in her testimony to the USC Shoah Foundation Institute.
Timestamp: 2:27:20
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZL7FjsNk90Q
Kitty Hart had a triangle tattooed beneath her serial number
This video could be confusing. When I watch it at time stamp 2:28 and on, KHM clearly says her mother and herself had the number tattooed with a little triangle underneath "denoted that you are Jewish".

Then shortly after she says: "non-Jews did not have a triangle tattooed on their arms" (2:29:30)

Her 39934 tattoo on display does have a little triangle.

Probably slips of tongue, as she does go on telling that she and her transport, as they were coming from a prison, were classified "political" (2:29:30).

Post Reply

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”