Who were the SS Helferinnen shown in the famous Hoecker album?

[CraigM]

Fingers crossed.

Good luck! I think it might be nice for anyone reading this that's going to DE or is already there and near the archive to pop in and get as many names as they can. To that end, Mary Jane can you post here what people should do and ask for if they go there, and where it is?

[Mary Jane]

Fingers crossed.

Good luck! I think it might be nice for anyone reading this that's going to DE or is already there and near the archive to pop in and get as many names as they can. To that end, Mary Jane can you post here what people should do and ask for if they go there, and where it is?

Oh, how much I wish! I sincerely like to believe that my efforts so far will satisfactorily conclude this research, but I may as well be wrong, since certain things are totally out of my control... For example, I asked for the details of 8 names and really wish that I will receive all of them. For the Bundesarchiv to provide you with the details of any person, (this is a RIGHT you have in the meantime), they should be born either 100 years ago (several ladies here actually were), or have been dead for the last 10 years. I believe that hardly anyone from the Höcker album is alive today. Despite so, I hope that we don't bump into any barriers in this respect in receiving anyone's file... IF we do, now your suggestion becomes very important, because if a person in Germany (Berlin) decides to conduct such a research in person, all they need to do is to visit the Bundesarchiv headquarters and fill a form; AND given that they are asking for this information for a valid reason (such as historical research as it is the case here), the Bundesarchiv CAN flex the mentioned rules and will provide you with the details of the persons even if they are alive... [In that case however, one should not publish any person's surname to protect their personal rights. And here, no matter what, I will NOT share the married surnames of these women, even if they are dead...

I realize that this topic is sensitive and I would never want their descendants to get stigmatized in any way because their ancestors served at Auschwitz while they were pretty young and yet single... It would be unfair to publish "irrelevant" married surnames then. Charlotte Schünzel Bartsch was already public due to the Frankfurt trials. If their files reveal it, I will of course share their fates and what happened to them after the war.]

Somebody who is in Germany who would be willing to visit the Bundesarchiv and request the files of these women *for free* (as it is), it would be of great help, in case we need it.

However there is something VERY IMPORTANT a German speaker can do here for us... : Offering help in the translation of the details of these women.

I myself am only a beginner. I am doing my best here, but when I receive their files (I don't know yet in which computer file format), this may be very important since I need the copy paste feature to receive the help of any translation app. A native or any fluent German speaker can provide more than I can.

[Mary Jane]

Update: Accessing the details of women seemingly incurs a fee which is beyond the scope of my effort. I will try another method, plan b, if that doesn't work too then I will apply plan c. Now if that too fails, we will be able to conclude this project in the future. i.e.: it will take more time to receive answers.

I also contacted NARA. Everything is digitalized so far except the SS Women Personnel Files. This is supposed to be a work in progress, since like the details of a whole ARMY is available there. When they finish, I requested them to contact me. If I can access the rolls for a reasonable fee ($20-25), I do not plan to withhold information from anyone just because I paid for it. Any more than that amount I can't pay anyway...

In the meantime, Bundesarchiv records can tell us what happened to the women after the war, as well, while the SS Personnel Files will help us to match their faces in the pictures and offer their basic contemporary details.

I am %110 sure that somebody else in the future will identify and match these women in the Höcker album if that person isn't me.

[WWII Germany were atheists]

The topic is an attempt to identify the SS-Helferinnen in the famous Höcker album . Stay on topic! If you can't give any facts to the thread don't reply. Consider this as a mild warning.

/Georg

[WWII Germany were atheists]

An off topic reply was deleted. Stay on topic!

Georg

[Mary Jane]

WWII Germany were not atheists but many of them were pretty much Christians. Hitler's (and the top Nazis') ultra-racist worldview was centered on a mish-mash of ancient, rather pagan beliefs, manipulated according to the purpose. And that's why the regime targeted (i.e. harassed, executed, or sent to concentration camps) the pastors and clerics who stated that they were in the wrong... Before the Jews, Poles, and the Roma, they had long started with ethnic Germans who were "unfit". To this day, the German government refuses to compensate the descendants of the murdered disabled people, on the grounds that back in time, their killing was not "against the law - of racial hygiene".

Among the Nazis, and among the people in the Nazi Germany, there sure were psychopaths and sadists. But they were the minority...

The Holocaust was only possible with the /seemingly small or even unimportant/ participation of many, many ordinary people like you and I...

And this is why there is more to these pictures than first meets the eye... These women were not monsters, but ordinary people. And it's a hard pill to swallow. They were neither special, nor distinctive.

If you vilify the majority (that which these women were members of) as monsters, you do no good... because you miss the potential as to what ordinary human beings are generally capable of, everywhere and anywhere in the world. We have to understand correctly the human psychology behind this, in scientific and objective terms, and without anachronism, if we want to prevent future genocides and crimes against humanity.

[steve248]

So, WWII Germany were atheists, no one should write about camps or Gestapo offices or the Trump administration without going into minute detail of everyone concerned. From the office clerk to the person at the top, not forgetting the prisoners, victims, voters.

I do not understand why any teleprinter operators should be prosecuted simply for being posted to do this office job in a camp, Gestapo office or the White House. The poor woman probably had no idea what "SB" or "Sonderbehandlung" meant until she got there and it was no doubt whispered to her; it was hardly something explained on a notice board.

When you have written something worth publishing you could let us know.

[WWII Germany were atheists]

So, WWII Germany were atheists, no one should write about camps or Gestapo offices or the Trump administration without going into minute detail of everyone concerned.

1. I see only 2 logical means of someone seriously, comparing the Trump administration to the camps or Gestapo offices, shows (1) either complete ignorance of what the camps or Gestapo offices mean, or (2) being a nazi supporter, considering this is a history forum that eliminates the likelihood of 1, and the type of forum independently increases the likelihood of 2.
2. my main point was not this but feeling sorry for them
3. lets try something different how about writing about Jeffrey Dahmer and talking about everything about him except his murders, from his education to how handsome you think he is (comparing it to what was written about Annemarie Langer), no normal person would ever do that because it is missing the key element. Writing about people who were responsible for murdering millions without that as a baseline makes everything else irrelevant. please respond to the point I'm saying here
4. I was addressing someone else (Mary Jane) who I don't think is also in favor of murdering Jews.

From the office clerk to the person at the top, not forgetting the prisoners, victims, voters.

comparing prisoners to the person on top, just shows you missed every single thing I said.

I do not understand why any teleprinter operators should be prosecuted simply for being posted to do this office job in a camp, Gestapo office or the White House.

because that office job helped million die, she by her own admission was giving information to the guards of when transports came to have them murdered and transmitted their deaths back to Berlin. And i don't just think she should be prosecuted, she should have been executed. I no one else did her job Hungarian Jewry would not have been murdered. Yes she committed a crime worthy of death. Let's minimize her crime by applying it to only one person, she was equivalent to someone who knowingly was the lookout for when a specific person was coming by for a gang of murderers she worked for would murder them, giving them the headsup helping them be prepared to killed the victim, then transmitting the information back to higher ups in the gang that the murder was done. In not a single justice system in the world would such a person ever get away with it, this lady with her other 3 partners in the office did that for around a million people. I see no difference between the 2 except for 2 values that can make someone distinguish this lady from the lookout them, (1) murdering 1 person is worse than murdering a million, or her victims were mostly jews.

PS: and before you say some nonsense about victors justice, remember using nazi justice her parents, children, siblings, uncle, aunts, cousins, Nephews, nieces, and in some cases neighbors would have also been executed, victors justice can not be less than the so called losers.

The poor woman probably had no idea what "SB" or "Sonderbehandlung" meant until she got there and it was no doubt whispered to her; it was hardly something explained on a notice board.

1. this lady lied about knowing Auschwitz was a concentration camp, on seeing children on their wat to be murdered etc. what else did she lie about, that she was never caught in?
2. she was in Auschwitz for a year after she clearly knew what it meant?
3. did she ever try to leave, not be diligent in her job murdering people etc.?
4. poor woman? how about the poor people she murdered, or does it not count because they were Jewish?
5. she knew (after lying first) that she was going to work in a concentration camp, and everybody in Germany knew what that meant in the Dachau's sense of the word, anyone who willingly worked at Dachau in any capacity was also a criminal, even if nowhere near as much of a criminal as working at Auschwitz
5. I would wager there was more than a 50% chance beforehand what Auschwitz meant (considering how widely the knowledge was that jews were being murdered by the thousands(there were hundreds of thousands of witnesses to the einsatzgruppen) that she knew after being in an ss school what Auschwitz was ) (her testimony hear was full of proven lies and she was never pressed for everything)

When you have written something worth publishing you could let us know.

Nothing I write would ever be accepted in the Der Stürmer, sorry it doesn't meet their standards of excellence, maybe I can try and write a great work of fiction like the Germans did in explaining, how millions of people got themselves murdered, with no murderers.



let's see if you answer this, you wrote "From the office clerk to the person at the top" since you are comparing this nazi murder Bartsch to you believe they should have been prosecuted, how about the person shooting prisoners trying to escape, how about the doctors, and others selecting people for the gas chambers, how about those putting people in the gas chambers, what about those who rounded them up knowing it was a death sentence, what about the train drivers (where it can be proven they knew before a transport what Auschwitz, Treblinka etc meant), how about the bureaucrats like Eichmann who admitted he would have murdered 12 million? what about the commandants of Aushwitz Rudolf Höss, and Arthur Liebehenschel. I highly doubt you would truthy even want Hitler or Himmler prosecuted, because they didn't kill anyone personally, everyone else get away with they were just following orders.

[steve248]

All that rhetoric but no objectivity. Basically you are saying every single German knew about the camps (which is not true, by the way), and that every person of whatever level who worked in a camp must be tried and punished. That every person who worked in a camp should have resigned and found another job (that just did not happen). That prisoners always told the truth (which is not true, by the way). Armchair hindsights in 2023 just do not imitate wartime terms and conditions of 1943.

You really should get out more and visit archives (like I do) and yes examine perpetrator records (like I do). RSHA and WVHA records show they were not in the business of taking into account their employees dislike of a job. It was not take it or leave it, it was do this job or else.

[Mary Jane]

@"WW2 Germany were atheists": Alright, are you able to help in any way to identify these women? A philosophical discussion as to how justice should have been served may be valuable in its own right; but here it doesn't help us. Let's stay on topic.

If you've read my posts, I mention that there are rules and regulations as to what you can do with the material Bundesarchiv provides you with. There are personal rights, they make you fill a form and sign papers, you just can't go about "Hey, I found the descendants of this Nazi and am publishing their details to name and shame them for being the children of her/his." This is not historians (i.e. social scientists) do.

We give you the facts, not our opinions or feelings, and you do whatever you like to do with the facts.

*Charlotte says that words somewhere in her statement which you already copy-pasted. I received the help of a translation app as well.

[WWII Germany were atheists]

All that rhetoric but no objectivity.

are you objective, you ignored every point I said? and invented strawmen I explicitly said differently

works through this step by step

1. Assuming I could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Charlotte Schünzel Bartsch knew Auschwitz was a death camp is willingly working there in a capacity that she actually did, do you be believe it is a crime?
if the answer is no, this means to you murdering over a million people of who most of them are jews is not a major crime, (in the case of one murder every single justice system would hold the similar criminal actions of Charlotte Schünzel Bartsch accountable on some level)

if the answer to this is no, any normal human being would assume you have no major problem with the murdering of over a million people of who most of them are jews.

2. assuming I could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Charlotte Schünzel Bartsch knew Auschwitz was a death camp is willingly working there in any capacity, do you be believe that is a crime?

3. do you believe that if Charlotte Schünzel Bartsch willingly (not forced in any way) worked at Dachau doing similar actions of collecting information about transports (which she must have expected if she was going to be working in any concentration camp) do you be believe that is a crime?
Charlotte Schünzel Bartsch admitted after lying beforehand that she knew Auschwitz a concentration camp, everybody in Germany knew that Dachau was a crime, unless they believed in nazi justice. If she worked at Dachau doing what she did in Auschwitz that alone is worthy of prosecution in any just legal system.

4. let's say she managed to only learn about the true nature of Auschwitz on her first week there, and later had an opportunity to transfer and didn't, is her working there a crime?


I'm assuming based on your posts here (including Demjanjuk) and a few I looked up on you elsewhere on this forum your position but I rather hear it from you your moral or lack of moral view point, instead of assuming positions you never said, thought, or imagined.
However the fact you says that Demjanjuk who assumingly you agree was a guard at Sobibor (I did not follow the Demjanjuk trial in details but I'm assuming it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Demjanjuk was a guard at Sobibor, and you do not challenge that point do to the fact you seem to acknowledge the association) and yet you still believe that Demjanjuk was guilty by association, despite being a guard at Sobibor means I think you have no standards of justice. Any guard at Sobibor prevented jews who were sentenced to death (without the revolt not a single jews would have survived Sobibor) If there were no guards at the death camp of of Sobibor jews would have escaped, those guards sentenced every jew in Sobibor to be murdered, yet since you called that "guilt by association" I have 3 major questions.

1. Should someone who knowingly locks the door to a building full of people while it is on fire which someone else sets be criminally accountable?
2. If yes how is Demjanjuk different from the person locking the door?
3. If it could be proven that in his "duty" to his job Demjanjuk shot a prisoner trying to escape should he be criminally accountable?

There is a jewish legal teaching that Shtika Kihoda, silence is like agreement, not answering these 3 questions confirms to me the answer, hopefully any honest person who spends the time reading this.

Basically you are saying every single German knew about the camps (which is not true, by the way),

death camps, and gas chambers no, concentration camps like Dachau yes.
If you meant death camps she was in an SS school, I'm sure she knew more than most, and due to that fact and the fact that she had the name of Auschwitz before she went I'm sure she is not comparable to most Germans

and that every person of whatever level who worked in a camp must be tried and punished.

100% every single one is an accessory to murder and should be held accountable and be extremally merciful still majority of them should have been executed. the worse crime in history should not have lighter standards that lighter crimes.

That every person who worked in a camp should have resigned and found another job (that just did not happen).

because they became murderers and/or accessories to murder. and those defending them justifiers of murder. If someone was a willing accessory to a school shooting everyone would say prosecute them, but doing the same deed in a way that leads to the murder of a schools worth of children plus adults for a year straight and she is now not guilty?

That prisoners always told the truth (which is not true, by the way).

never said they did, a supermajority of them tried to tell the truth, the nazis who worked there never told the truth, I have read quite a few statements and they always clearly lied about real important things, just like Charlotte Schünzel Bartsch did.

Armchair hindsights in 2023 just do not imitate wartime terms and conditions of 1943.

in 1943 people not nazi (using 1943 Jews definition not yours) thought way worse than I do. If you somehow would have been able to poll all Jews in Auschwitz in 1943 I'm sure they would have been even harsher, and they are correct, only the fact that nazi won the post war propaganda makes anyone say differently. What do you think would have happened if somehow in 45 on the day Bartsch left Auschwitz there would gave been a trial (that the world would have accepted as just) by the Jewish inmates (and I'm specifically picking Jews because they had by far the worst treatment there and were at times persecuted by the other victims) of everyone who worked there think anyone would have survived it who didn't pass my 3 prong test. (I highly doubt that even a few who passed some of my prongs would have not been sentenced to death)

In fact that is why the few Auschwitz survivors still fly to Germany in order to help prosecute these murderers, even though they rightfully hate Germany for murdering their entire families, because there is no such thing as a concentration camp worker who didn't commit a crime, because working there in it of itself was a unimaginable crime. only extreme duress, complete cluelessness, or who's sole justification was to save people are justifiable excuses and these types of excuses are in at least American law affirmative defenses, meaning the prosecutions sole job is to prove they worked at the camp, the defenses job is to prove that fit one of the 3 conditions.

You really should get out more and visit archives (like I do)

maybe you should get out of nazi archives and get into Jewish ones (the morality is much cleaner and the truth is not filled with lies, even if occaionly some appear)
have you ever heard of truly amazing Jewish women who worked (under penalty of death) at Auschwitz and truly saved people like Tzila Orlean (worked in the office in Auschwitz), Bozenka Teichnerova (doctor) (who I'm sure you never heard of, or cared to hear of) and since Auschwitz is part of the Reich and they are women why not research them.

and yes examine perpetrator records (like I do).

I do, and take out the kernels that appear to have truth from them, I have read things from the archives, however you have to realize murderers have no compulsions about lying.
To understand the nazi war crimes first read the Jewish records first than the the bystander ones as corroborating reports, and then and only then the nazi ones, murderers have no compulsions about lying. In fact in case you missed it I dissected Charlotte Schünzel Bartsch entire testimony whether or not you agreed with it it shows that I did read what she said, but when even the nazi judge in charge of the trial knew she was

RSHA and WVHA records show they were not in the business of taking into account their employees dislike of a job. It was not take it or leave it, it was do this job or else.

and I in my 3 prong approach of justice I give her the opportunity to prove that she had no choice but to work there, but this is an affirmative defense. I feel even this might be to merciful for Charlotte Schünzel Bartsch because she willingly joined the Reichsschule-SS in Oberehnheim, meaning anything she did afterwards even under the now penalty of death she is fully accountable for unless she can prove that based on the information she had, she had enough information to know that the SS wasn't a criminal organization which I don't think a single sane person in Germany didn't know by 42 (Charlotte Schünzel Bartsch was evil, not insane).

[WWII Germany were atheists]

@"WW2 Germany were atheists": Alright, are you able to help in any way to identify these women? A philosophical discussion as to how justice should have been served may be valuable in its own right; but here it doesn't help us. Let's stay on topic.

It does, because there is still a place you might find the answer you have not looked up at all, prisoners who worked in Auschwitz, I highly doubt anyone of them would help you unless they completely trusted you to use this information in a good manner. There are still a few living Auschwitz survivors who might remember some of them.

If you've read my posts, I mention that there are rules and regulations as to what you can do with the material Bundesarchiv provides you with. There are personal rights, they make you fill a form and sign papers, you just can't go about "Hey, I found the descendants of this Nazi and am publishing their details to name and shame them for being the children of her/his." This is not historians (i.e. social scientists) do.

We give you the facts, not our opinions or feelings, and you do whatever you like to do with the facts.

I was not referring to the legality but your stated viewpoint

[In that case however, one should not publish any person's surname to protect their personal rights. And here, no matter what, I will NOT share the married surnames of these women, even if they are dead...

I realize that this topic is sensitive and I would never want their descendants to get stigmatized in any way because their ancestors served at Auschwitz while they were pretty young and yet single... It would be unfair to publish "irrelevant" married surnames then. Charlotte Schünzel Bartsch was already public due to the Frankfurt trials. If their files reveal it, I will of course share their fates and what happened to them after the war.]

your statement doesn't sound like legality but morality to me

*Charlotte says that words somewhere in her statement which you already copy-pasted. I received the help of a translation app as well.

read 2 different translations plus listened to the audio (I can't read German, but with the pronunciation I can make out enough to follow on a sentence level, yet I still didn't find anything remotely similar to what you wrote, maybe it was in the integration record (which I didn't see) but doesn't seem to be in her trial testimony.

[Mary Jane]

@"WW2 Germany were atheists": Alright, are you able to help in any way to identify these women? A philosophical discussion as to how justice should have been served may be valuable in its own right; but here it doesn't help us. Let's stay on topic.

It does, because there is still a place you might find the answer you have not looked up at all, prisoners who worked in Auschwitz, I highly doubt anyone of them would help you unless they completely trusted you to use this information in a good manner. There are still a few living Auschwitz survivors who might remember some of them.

I don't know, it's a remote possibility. These women were not in direct contact with the prisoners. Will they be able to remember their names, even if someone happens to remember some faces in the pictures?... I've never met an Auschwitz survivor, but hopefully I will. They are very old now, only a few survives.

I contacted Yad Vashem as well. They have a very long list of waiting queries and I don't know if they will return to mine or be of help in this matter.

If you've read my posts, I mention that there are rules and regulations as to what you can do with the material Bundesarchiv provides you with. There are personal rights, they make you fill a form and sign papers, you just can't go about "Hey, I found the descendants of this Nazi and am publishing their details to name and shame them for being the children of her/his." This is not historians (i.e. social scientists) do.

We give you the facts, not our opinions or feelings, and you do whatever you like to do with the facts.

I was not referring to the legality but your stated viewpoint

[In that case however, one should not publish any person's surname to protect their personal rights. And here, no matter what, I will NOT share the married surnames of these women, even if they are dead...

I realize that this topic is sensitive and I would never want their descendants to get stigmatized in any way because their ancestors served at Auschwitz while they were pretty young and yet single... It would be unfair to publish "irrelevant" married surnames then. Charlotte Schünzel Bartsch was already public due to the Frankfurt trials. If their files reveal it, I will of course share their fates and what happened to them after the war.]

your statement doesn't sound like legality but morality to me

Yes, it is both legality and morality. Because their descendants have nothing to do with Auschwitz.

*Charlotte says that words somewhere in her statement which you already copy-pasted. I received the help of a translation app as well.

read 2 different translations plus listened to the audio (I can't read German, but with the pronunciation I can make out enough to follow on a sentence level, yet I still didn't find anything remotely similar to what you wrote, maybe it was in the integration record (which I didn't see) but doesn't seem to be in her trial testimony.

I wish I had taken a screenshot.

[steve248]

I am not interested in replying to your every point. I will reply to the general tenor of what you write. And what you write is emotional and has gone off topic. And if you have to use google translator for the German text you do not get every nuance of the original spoken words. Be that as it may, are you able to identify any of the Helferinnen in the photo which is what this topic is about.

If you want to waffle on about the iniquity of current NS trials in Germany could you raise a topic in the Holocaust and 20th Century Crimes Index.

[WWII Germany were atheists]

I don't know, it's a remote possibility. These women were not in direct contact with the prisoners. Will they be able to remember their names, even if someone happens to remember some faces in the pictures?... I've never met an Auschwitz survivor, but hopefully I will. They are very old now, only a few survives.

I contacted Yad Vashem as well. They have a very long list of waiting queries and I don't know if they will return to mine or be of help in this matter.

Off the top off my head I can think of any living Auschwitz survivors I personally know (The last ones I can think of died probably a year into Corona) However I do have the email of someone who interviews people for yad vashem, and can think of ways to potentially get contacts that might help in NY, however I doubt for a second any sane Jew would ever help a project that was not respectable (meaning nazi concentration camp workers are evil), Asking people in the know is not official so they are not going to play as diplomatic as when going through diplomatic channels. It's a long shot because those few survivors who has personal contact with nazi office murdered are mostly dead.

Yes, it is both legality and morality. Because their descendants have nothing to do with Auschwitz.

In my experience looking into the children of nazi criminals records (which due to fears it mostly comes to the very big fish) very few truly condemn their ancestors (like Niklas Frank), a bigger percentage praise them praise them (like Himler's daughter), and majority play dumb or give clues that they condone it. Which is one of the reasons I'm pretty sure a majority of nazi's children are still nazis at heart.
In my experience most are like the relatives of Friderica Wächter (48:50 minutes in) (grand daughter of Otto Wächter the chief murderer of Krakow's jews)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McnvBlDzJPo&t=278s

Look at how the now American Rudolf Höss's daughter does not truly condemn her father and is clearly playing games, (with comments like this I think worrying about her poor feeling is irrelevant)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlNhXiQ1ueQ


https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyl ... story.html

Assuming decedents of nazi are actually willing to condemn their ancestors, victims and their kin in general treat them quite well (as far as I can tell from forced interactions I've seen filmed) however those who are against their ancestors still clearly seem to be in the minority. Of course there possibly is a big difference between the big fish and the "smaller" more ones who got away.