When I initially began research into the life and death of Irma Grese, I had referred to the trial records and testimony of the witnesses themselves, from which I wrote a rather detailed and accurate essay on Ms. Grese’s case, ‘A German Girl’s Heroic Death’, which I thought to be a “cause celebre.” After that essay was picked up by a number of revisionist sites and posted, all hell seemed to break loose and I was immediately deluged with the usual clamouring hordes from the adversarial camp, all claiming that I falsely represented the case, which I did not. One person even posted a letter from someone who remarked how “dangerous” my essay was; a sure sign of both its truthfulness and accuracy.
During the course of the debate, a number of statements from my original essay and later comments were latched upon by the adversary and attacked in various forums. The usual incitements were in evidence: name calling and ridicule. The contested facts were the following:
- That Miss Grese’s case was trumped up, and that she was a victim of lies, smears, and fabrications.
- That Miss Grese was NOT a member of the SS.
- That the charges against her did not warrant the imposition of the death sentence.
Now, to deal with the purpose of this essay, which is a review of the book, “The Beautiful Beast.”
Upon thoroughly reading the slim book by Daniel Patrick Brown, I was immediately struck by the fact that any facts at all to be gleaned from this book merely confirmed what I had been written in my initial essay.
In fact, the author’s lame, grasping at straws attempts to prove Grese guilty of heinous crimes-fell flat on its face-the more so when we take into consideration the pertinent fact that Ms. Grese was not even an SS member!
Appropriately, the author prefaces his book by a reference to mythology, which is as close as he ever gets to the truth-as the entire case against Miss Grese rests upon a mythological foundation. The author indulges his fantasies on many occasions and refers to the statements of “Survivors” as if he is referring to Holy Writ. This is usual in cases of this sort. Does anyone dare to question a survivor? Yes, as a matter of fact, I DO! And why? Because I cannot keep silent in the face of lies and injustice.
Here a few examples from the book might be appropriate to illustrate the point:
In the preface to the book, on page xvii, the author gratuitously refers to Ms. Grese as an “SS-Member” when in fact she was NOT, as his later research incontestably proves. A point I will deal with later. The author continues:
“….a study of Irma Grese reveals the high degree of mobility in the Nazi “New Order” that allowed this Prussian peasant girl to attain a position in which she could literally determine the fate of thousands of unfortunate men, women, and children.”
Of course this is a totally irresponsible statement, for which the author provides no proof whatsoever. It hardly needs to be pointed out that Ms. Grese, who was only 20 years old, was NOT a member of the SS, had absolutely NO authority to make life and death decisions of any kind over inmates at Auschwitz or any other confinement center. She had NO contact or authority with or over the men or children at Auschwitz, and she was responsible to higher authorities for the women she was appointed to supervise. The author’s use of the term “New Order” merely indicates his preference for useful, tried and tested buzzwords in order to elicit the proper emotional response in the affected reader.
It is clear that the author approached his project with a closed mind in that it seems readily apparent that his mind was already made up before he even began writing the book, as the following comments indicate:
“The reader should be alerted to two important procedural points when delving into historical narrative. First, the historian is dedicated and obligated to search for causes. Second, owing to the first factor, the historian may very well be searching for causes that simply do not exist.”
I find it curious that the author did not write that the historian should be dedicated and obligated to searching for FACTS, but facts seem to play no significant part in the mainstream story of the Holocaust. Thus, if the facts in this instance are non-existent, this might prompt the pseudo-historian, in this case, a myth-maker, to search for semi-credible “causes” to non-existent “facts.”
On page xviii, the author, obviously recognizing a problem with the testimony of “survivors” seeks to rationalize their reluctance to have their tales subjected to critical analysis, by remarking:
“…some Holocaust survivors, individuals who have personally experienced starvation, torture, and so forth at the hands of the Nazis, have cautioned me on more than one occasion not to try and explain the behavior of camp murderers. In effect, they charge that these killers and sadists are simply EVIL and that is all we need to know. Furthermore, they contend that to attempt to “explain” such atrocious behavior only provides these beasts with the means to mitigate their actions on the basis of some suspect motivations (they were deprived as children, their adolescent needs weren’t met somehow, and so forth).”
Again, this is certainly revealing, as it is usually “survivors” whose motives have now become suspect, and the reluctance expressed by many of these individuals to have their accusations objectively considered says volumes about their motives, in my opinion. Even if we were referring to someone whose guilt was overwhelming and proven in a court of law, such as Geoffrey Dahmer, one would still want to discover what motivates such individuals. Understandably, victims of insane criminals such as Dahmer, usually express the opinion that the offender be executed as soon as possible, but in the case of Holocaust witnesses, where there is no convincing evidence to back up their accusations, the testimony needs to be examined critically and in depth.
In referring to Ms. Grese, the author writes:
“Irma Grese came to maturity in a milieu in which racism and murder were encouraged.”
Another irresponsible statement, as racism and murder were neither condoned nor encouraged in the Third Reich. Rather, love of one’s race and culture, along with their preservation, were the motivational factors involved. These same beliefs and determinations were not philosophically denied to those of other races and cultures, according to the data I have examined.
Finally, in his preface, the author acknowledges the difficulties which confronted him while preparing for the extensive research which this book would necessarily require. He states:
“…ACCESS TO DATA WAS SHARPLY LIMITED.”
“It was not possible to interview relatives or review old concentration camp files.”
Same old story. The relatives do not wish to be disturbed because they are tired of the lies and slanders, and the evidence is never available, as if they might have something to hide…..
The author continues:
“Finally, even in the relatively free West, many individuals who were willing to speak with me about their experiences with Grese, were UNWILLING TO GO ON RECORD AND PROVIDE DIRECT TESTIMONY. “
“A survivor whom I had the opportunity to work with at the Martyrs Memorial & Museum of the Holocaust in Los Angeles ,
COMMENT: [The Holocaust seems to become daily more and more of a religious event]
spoke to me about an experience that she and her sister had had with Grese in Bergen-Belsen. One day toward the end of the war, a rumor was being bandied about that there were potato peels near the kitchen area, and, for those daring enough, these little scraps of food were there just for the taking. Since everyone in the camp was driven almost to insanity for even one potato peel, this survivor and her sister decided to take the chance and go look for the prized potato scraps. Using the cover of darkness, the two young women came to the area and were seized from behind by Irma Grese. According to the survivor, Grese had set the entire ruse up and, true to form, the infamous SS-Aufseherin took the hungry sisters and banged their heads together so hard that the survivor said that she remained dizzy and nauseated even beyond liberation. I have asked this survivor on a couple occasions to allow me to credit her sadistic encounter with Grese. This victim of Nazi cruelty will not, and I believe personally cannot, let me acknowledge this traumatic incident in her life. (!!!??) Perhaps it is embarrassment or humiliation that haunts her.
COMMENT: Or perhaps it is fear of being caught in a lie!
“Whatever the rationale, I cannot dishonour her wishes, as much as I would like to include this pertinent episode in the Grese story.”
Well, he saw to it that the story was included with or without her credits. I also agree that it is pertinent if only to show AGAIN the fabrications of alleged “eyewitness survivors.” As if Ms Grese did not have anything better to do in this stench filled, garbage strewn camp, than lay little potato-peeling traps and then lurk about for hours into the night until a couple of suckers came along to snag a few….
Moving on to the Introduction of Brown’s book, I will address the most salient points: So that we may conclude this part of the argument once and for all, let us now approach the question of whether or not Ms. Grese was actually in the SS.
Referring to page 3, we read:
“Although women did serve in substantial numbers as functionaries in the camps, the actual structure of the SS has made it very difficult at times to create a clear record of their participation. However, while women were HIRED as EMPLOYEES of the SS, they were NOT actual members of the sacred order….Technically, the female guards were classified as SS-Gefolge (SS-Followers) and were thereby an auxiliary group. As employees of the Reich (Reichsangestellte), they were compensated for their service via a governmental wage agreement.”
“The SS did not train them to become administrators of the camps; in fact, FKL Ravensbrueck (Frauen Konzentrations Lager), the only major women’s camp in the Third Reich, was managed by male SS-Officers. In all cases, the women merely served within the SS ranks at the behest of their male superiors….The SS Aufseherinnen appear in significant numbers only toward the end of the war….”
And finally, on page 5:
“The SS, originally conceived as and bound by a form of mystic brotherhood as well as by the corresponding impulse that Germanic men must defend their women and children, were hardly disposed to integrating women fully into their Schwarze Korps (Black Corps).
In fact, the prospect of female SS-Supervisors dispensing orders seemed completely[ contrary to everything that the SS-men and their elite formation stood for……One can imagine that it would be difficult to find SS commanders who had acknowledged, much less valued, SS-Aufseherinnen assigned to their guard units.”
So now, let’s kill a few birds with one stone……
One; (A “survivor-witness” stated that Miss Grese ordered an SS-man to shoot a prisoner dead.) We may clearly see by the above that the witness was indeed LYING, and that no such incident ever occurred.
Two, I also maintained that, due to her position as a mere employee, and one who was paid by the State and NOT the SS-this 18 year old girl had absolutely NO authorization to perform “selections” for whatever reason on her own authority.
Again, I am proven justified and correct. In fact, when we consider that her other job duties consisted of working in the mail room and answering telephones, this charge appears beyond ludicrous–in fact, it is asinine.
Continuing in my examination of the book by Brown, let’s move on to chapter 1, which the author begins with a spurious Rauschning quote:
“My teaching will be hard. Weakness will be knocked out of them (children). A violently active, dominating, brutal youth-that is what I am after.”
Needless to repeat, the quote is spurious and Rauschning plagiarized from a French novelist.
Moving on, on page 9 the author refers to a number of books and authors who refer to Irma Grese, often mis-spelling her name. Of course the reason for this is that survivors, such as Olga Lengyal, Gisella Perl, et al, had merely read about Miss Grese during the trial and undoubtedly hit upon the idea that a book would be in order recounting their “experiences” with Miss Grese, much as we saw dozens of O.J. books appear before, during, and after his trial. Notoriety breeds sensationalism. Undoubtedly some of these individuals did happen to know Miss Grese, but it is also indisputable that they greatly exaggerated their alleged experiences for the purposes of selling books by the use of cheap sensationalism. Smut sells.
The rest of this chapter is hardly worth mentioning, as the author goes off on a tangent, attempting to psychoanalyze Miss Grese with his endless suppositions, imaginings, and creating spurious scenarios. His time would have been served to much better advantage if he tried to psychoanalyze “survivors” and their fantastic lies, tall tales , exaggerations, and fabrications.
Proceeding on to chapter II, a few sections are worth addressing. On page 19 the author quotes from a letter written by another “survivor” who states:
“I am a survivor of a concentration camp. My eyes saw what no man should witness. Gas chambers built by LEARNED engineers. Children poisoned by EDUCATED physicians. Infants killed by TRAINED nurses. Women and babies shot and burned by HIGH SCHOOL and COLLEGE graduates.”
And they say that a mind is a terrible thing to waste! Unsurprisingly, the author of the letter is not named, but he/she sure had a wide range of experiences! Who could this mystery person be, who saw gas chambers actually built by German engineers! Could he be thinking of those same alleged “gas chambers” at Auschwitz!?! Those great marvels of “engineering” where a can of pellets were supposedly cast down through holes in the roof? Naw, can’t be….was it Treblinka, where the “gassings” were even more primitive than at Auschwitz? Naw….oh, well, I give up. However that is not all.
He also claims to have seen doctors actually poisoning children…..Strange that no specifics are offered. And then, he refers to homicidal nurses, and women and children shot by high school and college graduates. I wonder if he went up to each of these alleged executioners and asked to see their degrees.
When it comes to the Holocaust, no accusation is considered too ridiculous; they all border on Holy Writ.
Finally, on page 22, we glean a factual item of interest: The author writes:
“Irma Grese was apprenticed as an assistant nurse’s aide in Hohenlychen from early 1939 until mid-1941 under the tutelage of the hospital director.”
Such contradictions! “Survivors” usually describe Miss Grese as a fiend, a sadist, or worse. Yet when we find one verifiable FACT about Miss Grese, it turns out that she was interesting in nursing and alleviating the suffering of those who were ill! Strangely, a survivor’s memoirs confirm this accurate image of Miss Grese. I refer to Fania Fenelon in her book, “Playing for Time” , where Miss Grese is referred to as an “angel.” Miss Fenelon honestly describes her as being solicitous of her health and urging her to overcome the typhus she was stricken with at Belsen.
This is the difference between a truthful person and a liar.
Let us now examine chapter 3 of Brown’s book on Irma Grese, where events will take an interesting turn. On page 26 Brown reproduces for us the recruitment advertisement distributed by the SS asking for female volunteers to serve at Ravensbrueck.:
Application for Aufseherin
“You have only to watch over prisoners; consequently, applicants, who should be between the ages of 21 and 45, don’t need professional training. The salary of Aufseherinnen, who become employees of the Reich, is determined by (Schedule) TOA IX and a step raise will be given after a three month probationary period. Community food allotment as well as a “well-furnished official residence” and service clothes (fabric and fatigue uniforms) are assured…..”
So, here we have an official communication listing the nature and qualifications required to fill the position of Aufseherin. Note that the requirements do not indicate:
“Sadists wanted” or “position will require participation in selections for murdering Jews and other undesirables in gas chambers.”
In fact, even to SUGGEST that the SS had this idea in mind when recruiting teens like Irma Grese is possibly one of the most ludicrous ideas I have ever heard in my life! Really! Remember that Miss Grese was still only a teen-ager when she was accepted into job placement. The duties required of the Aufseherin, as one may clearly read for oneself, was of such a benign nature that the applicants did not even require any special training! In effect, they were baby-sitters. Any suggestion beyond that is absurd.
As a matter of fact, the requirements of an Aufseherin were far less exacting than the requirements in the United States today for females who apply for positions in our Penal System-and yet the German Concentration Camps were full of hardened criminals.
Remarkably, Brown also states:
“Because service as an Aufseherin was now a wartime occupation, the supervisors were assigned as employees of the Waffen-SS. During the early recruitment period (prior to 1944), candidates could not have any criminal convictions and had to be able to pass a medical examination performed by a garrison physician.”
Well! How curious! We have heard over and over again from hate propagandists, what criminals the SS were, and in particular Irma Grese, yet the SS absolutely prohibited the employment of any person with a criminal record. How curious indeed….One might be tempted to think that if one is planning to commit heinous crimes, such as those of which the SS and Miss Grese have been accused, one would hire degenerate conscienceless CRIMINALS to do it, and then simply kill them after they had carried out the dirty work, thus eliminating ALL witnesses to the crimes…….
But we must not think such thoughts, as they are blasphemy and heresy in the world of the Holocaust Kingdom.
On page 27, we may note yet another pertinent observation. The author writes:
“The war itself may have had a great deal to do with Fraeulein Grese’s employment dilemma. After floundering between her unsuccessful efforts to become a nurse and her low-income position as an unskilled machinist, she ostensibly did attempt to reenter the nurse trainee program once more prior to entering the SS.”
Aside from the author’s error in remarking that she entered into the “SS,” (He should have written “entered into the SERVICE of the SS), one may see that Miss Grese obviously preferred to become a nurse, yet this option was not open to her. Coupled with the fact that her position as an unskilled laborer was a low-paying job with little chance of promotion or increase in wages, how enticing the advertisement must have been for service as a “baby-sitter” in a camp! AND a possibility for promotion with a wage increase AFTER the short probationary period. This being the case, is it any wonder why Miss Grese opted for an undoubted temporary position as a matron? And let us keep in mind that Miss Grese, who was only 18 years of age at the time, was still scarcely more than a child when she was accepted for the position of Aufseherin.
Moving along to page 30, the author digresses to recount another tale from a “survivor.” I thought it interesting and will include it here.
“Shortly after Irma Grese had completed the program, a young French political prisoner witnessed first hand what Ravensbrueck “basic training” was like:
The beginners usually appeared frightened upon first contact with the camp, and it took some time to attain the level of cruelty and debauchery of their seniors. Some of us made a rather grim little game of measuring the time it took for a new Aufseherin to win her stripes. One little Aufseherin, twenty years old, who was at first so ignorant of proper camp “manners” that she said “excuse me’ when walking in front of a prisoner, needed exactly four days to adopt the requisite manner, although it was totally new for her.”
Now, I do not know for certain whether the account by this prisoner is true, nor do we have any way of ever verifying yet more tales from the Holo-Hood, but assuming that there is truth to the account, I only ask:
Are there not standard procedures which ALL law enforcement officials are bound to obey in the exercise of their duties? And how is duty in the camps, which were teeming with hundreds of criminals, if not thousands, any different from conditions in similar penal institutions through out the world? Can anyone think of any Penal Institution which allows for fraternization between the guards and inmates? And would not women and young girls be considered more vulnerable in such situations? I think there is little more to add to this argument, but the “witness” has not yet finished her recital of horror tales. They begin to slip into the realm of the absurd in no time at all. Observe:
“It seemed that liaisons between SS of opposite sexes were encouraged…” Source? Proof? Alas, we are given none. And more:
“…and they lived in a kind of promiscuity some might call “primitive,” although their situation was anything but primitive. It appeared that all Aufseherinnen, married or unmarried, had one or more constant SS lovers…In addition to the lovers and shop talk, their diversions (especially around solstices and equinoxes) were monstrous eating and drinking bouts, after which they were so far gone that men and women were unable to recall with whom they had spent the rest of the night.”
Well, ladies and gentlemen, there we have the CLASSIC “witches-Sabbath” narrative, replete with lurid descriptions of orgies, coupled with occult references to the “solstice and equinoxes” from a sexually repressed prisoner! It is all so obvious one need not be a Freud or Jung to figure it all out.
Resuming my critique of the book “The Beautiful Beast,” by Daniel Patrick Brown, let us pick up on page 48, where we can dispose of his claims in rather rapid succession:
“In laying out its case, the prosecution gave the court eye-witness testimony that “this 100 pound German girl invented new methods of torture. One of them: she waited until a pregnant woman was ready to give birth, then tied her legs together and watched the agony.”
COMMENT: Well, it is certainly debatable as to whether behavior such as this can be described as a “novel” method of torture. At any rate, this is simply another lurid tale which has no basis whatsoever in reality and which this author has seen endless variations of the same tired theme, always applied to other accused. One really does not know whether to laugh or weep over the pathetic image this nonsense evokes.
On page 49, Brown appeals to yet another “eyewitness” for this curious tale:
“Amazingly, Grese did grant Lilika Salzer the chance to know that her sisters were still alive……Lilika and her twin sisters all survived the holocaust (What! You mean Mengele didn’t sew their humps together—as has been alleged by other “eyewitnesses?!?–jb) …and, from Lilika’s perspective, Grese was unquestionably instrumental in the salvation of the 3 Salzer girls. Nevertheless, Lilika was quick to remind me that in spite of this, “she (Grese) was a bitch!”
COMMENT: Well, there’s gratitude for you!
Next the author offers another description of Grese’s alleged pistol, courtesy of Isabella Leitner:
“Not only was Irma Grese always dressed in immaculately and impressively tailored SS uniforms, she also wore a silver-plated pistol that she frequently used.”
COMMENT: Naturally the author avoids the question of HOW frequently—and it is also noteworthy to mention that not ONE other witness was ever able to describe this miraculous pistol, though they surely would have noticed had this firearm really been silver-plated. Ergo — another lie. But this author has already addressed at least some of the claims of Leitner and was able to prove that this woman, like a number of other “eyewitnesses” such as Trieger and Kopper, appears to have suffered from mental instability.
On page 50, Brown irresponsibly repeats yet another canard when he writes: “Another “accessory” used by Irma Grese to torment prisoners was a “huge dog.” A Russian (read: Jewish) inmate named Luba Triszinska (who was also known as Charlotte Klein) provided the Luneberg court with a written deposition which stated that Grese “used to ride a bicycle accompanied by a big hound…….Grese ordered her dog to attack…unfortunate creatures. As one might suspect, many of the victims of Grese’s vicious attacks did not survive the ordeal.”
COMMENT: One might also suspect that this whole story is one pack of lies from beginning to end, for Grese never HAD a dog at Auschwitz or any other camp! Note that this allegation was simply submitted to the court as a written deposition which the court took judicial notice of. Also, one might wish to ask Mr. Brown exactly how many women Grese allegedly set her mythical dog upon in a feeding frenzy. One might also be tempted to say that Brown, like his witness, ain’t nothing but a hound dog, just cryin all the time….
Picking up on page 51, Brown next quotes 2 witnesses who claimed that Miss Grese beat them both unconscious and left them lying on the ground. This also sounds preposterous. Imagine this 100 lb woman terrorizing 30,000 women and beating others unconscious with her little cellophane whip. Well, we can leave all of this behind for now and proceed to an item of greater interest on page 52, where Brown repeats yet another canard concerning Miss Grese’s award for meritorious service. He writes:
“For her “splendid work” in exterminating inmates, the SS rewarded Grese with a medal for “meritorious war service.”
COMMENT: Of course Brown never actually reproduces this document for the reader, and one suspects that this document is no longer available or non existent. It is quite clear that Miss Grese NEVER received an award for “exterminating inmates.” This charge is not only ludicrous and offensive, but a gross slander. And as his list of alleged atrocities continues, the allegations become more and more outrageous to the point where Brown finally exclaims:
“The house servant also noted that Grese’s lovers were eventually disposed of in the gas chambers.”
COMMENT: House servants??? In Auschwitz? And does Brown provide a NAME for this “house servant? For even ONE of these alleged lovers? No, the idea was and is to portray Miss Grese as a ruthless and perverted female termagant —the proverbial Black Widow, who devours her mates after draining them of their love fluids. In the often insane, surreal and psychotic world of the holocaust “survivor” no tale is too preposterous, extravagant or lurid to serve up as fare to the gullible, uninformed public. These types of behavioral disturbances are usually precipitated by women suffering from hysteria, as Freud astutely noted in his essay “Dora.” And most of these women, according to Freud, happened to be Jewish. Take these tales for what they are worth—grist for the loony bin. They might even have had some entertainment value were it not for the sad fact that a young woman’s life was terminated as a result of these fantastic lies and absurd stories. This being duly addressed, we have only 2 more allegations to discuss within this chapter. The first being the allegations of one Edith Trieger. Trieger claimed that in August 1944, she saw Miss Grese ride by the barracks on her bicycle during a camp lock-down. For those unfamiliar with a lock-down, which is common in most any penal institution throughout the world, this descirbes locking the inmates in their cells or barracks, usually for some infraction or for a completed or attempted escape. Violation of lock-down—especially in war-time-is an offense which is severely punishable. At any rate, Trieger swore under oath that Miss Grese happened to catch a woman in violation of the lock-down and ordered her back to her barracks. According to Trieger, and ONLY Trieger, the woman apparently did not move fast enough to suit Miss Grese, who then pulled out her pistol and shot her. Then, she remounted her bicycle and rode off like Margaret Hamilton in the Wizard of Oz, leaving her alleged victim lying in a pool of blood on the ground. Trieger testified that she had been secretly observing all of this action from inside her barracks, but, alas, there is a problem with this. Trieger’s barracks were more than 150 feet away, and the camp was in lock-down, which meant that all windows were closed and SHUTTERED. Did Miss Trieger have x-ray vision? Perhaps she could also leap tall buildings at a single bound….Proving that she was “faster than a speeding bullet and more powerful than a locomotive”, Miss Superwoman claimed to have rushed out of her barracks immediately after the alleged shooting while the camp was still in lock-down, and then applied the tried and true “mirror test” to conclusively determine that the shot woman was dead. How she happened to have a mirror in her possession, which was contraband, was never explained at the trial, nor did anyone have the presence of mind to inquire. Neither did anyone have the presence of mind to ask how it was that Miss Grese was able to shoot this woman, since she did not even carry a firearm until TWO MONTHS before the Auschwitz camp was vacated!!! This would place the date when she received her pistol in NOVEMBER 1944—NOT August! The court which tried Miss Grese was apparently undisturbed that Trieger could offer no date for this alleged shooting, nor could she even provide an identity of the alleged victim! Clearly the real victim here was Miss Grese, who had to endure sitting through this pack of lies day after day after day. The author of this essay is of the opinion that at least one element of Miss Trieger’s testimony was true—namely, that she had been confined to her barracks and was allowed to peer out of windows. The barracks in question would have been Auschwitz’s Mental Ward Barracks, where the psychologically disturbed were allowed to peer out of the window 24 hours a day, if it suited them. This Mental Ward at Auschwitz is indeed a fact, and is it not odd that the Mentally Ill were not immediately “gassed” as we have often read so many times in the literature, but instead were housed, fed, and treated with decency in the psychotic ward?
Brown next refers to the notorious snoop, sneak, and informer, the Nuremberg “officia”l Psychiatrist G. M. Gilbert, a Jew, as he struggles to find an explanation for these “horrible crimes.”
Certainly he appealed to the right source, for he quotes from one of Gilbert’s essays sporting the revealing title, “The Mentality of SS Murderous Robots.” Now THERE is an impartial source for you!
Thankfully, our final quote closing this sorry chapter shall be taken from the former statement of the Prosecutor at the Luneberg Trial, who, when seeking a scapegoat for the deplorable conditions which existed at the Belsen Camp at the time of liberation actually had the audacity to assign blame to Miss Grese for this state of affairs, remarking that she claimed these conditions “were caused by everybody other than herself!!!” Was this man seriously suggesting that Miss Grese was to blame for conditions in Belsen? Miss Grese? A 20 year old young woman who was nothing more than a lowly Aufseherin, whose primary duties were opening mail and answering telephones?! Yes, he was. Take it for what it is worth.
Continuing with our examination of the material presented in Daniel Patrick Brown’s book, The Beautiful Beast,” we read the following on page 32, where the author digresses from Irma Grese to another SS matron, Theodora Binz. He writes:
“….when Irma Grese started her training at FKL-Ravensbrueck, Theodora Binz, one of the more depraved and cruel creatures to serve in the camps, was the chief training instructor for the women as well as the chief wardress of the women’s cell block building (Zellenbau). Even by SS Standards, Binz’s behavior was atrocious. During Fruehappell, Binz would ‘Sport mache’ with those unfortunate enough to be in her presence. At the same time, Binz would instruct her trainees in the finer points of Schadenfreude. ‘Thea’ Binz would beat, kick, and slap, and whip the prisoners ruthlessly. She seemed to take great pride in the fact that her mere presence caused the inmates to tremble with fear. She gleefully followed the policy of ‘controlled and disciplined terror’ laid down by Eicke in the early days of SS-guard training. In effect, this barbarous woman could conduct her cruel beatings with a nonchalant and cavalier attitude. A case in point was an occasion when Binz came upon an Arbeitskommando (work detail) in a woods outside the camp.”
And let us pause here before we examine this claim. Unfortunately this author has not been able to locate any other references to this Matron in other books, so we will simply have to accept what is written about her in Brown’s book at face value. Brown employs a number of buzzwords and appropriate adjectives to focus attention on his latest offering. Binz is dehumanized by the use of such words and phrases as, “Even by SS standards”. Binz’s behavior was atrocious. This implies that she was far more harsh in her application of SS rules and guidelines than was required, and, furthermore, that she personally enjoyed it, as the author guides us to believe by his use of the word “Schadenfreude” which implies an inherent sadistic streak. His only proof for this is that this woman allegedly required inmates to perform calisthenics at the early morning roll call.
In fact, this has nothing to do with Schadenfreude, but inmates were often required to perform such calisthenics in the morning before being dispatched to work. SS training was much more rigid in this regard, and apparently it was felt among the administration that calisthenics were beneficial to the health of all concerned. Exercise is usually undertaken to promote health and well being. We can find such programs in countless penal systems throughout the world, as well as in public schools and universities.
Thus, early morning Sport was not out of the ordinary in the camps nor should it have been anything to criticize, save when “Sport” was reserved as a mild form of punishment for petty infractions. In this sense, “Sport” is also undertaken in most boot camps through out the world as a form of discipline and punishment.
The inmates in these camps, it should be remembered, were usually not sent there for a rest cure, nor were the camps resort areas, where people could lounge about all day. Consequently discipline and order were prerequisites to running an orderly camp where everyone was expected to conform to the rules and regulations-staff and inmates alike. Malingering was not tolerated, and thus it is most likely that people deemed to be slackers were duly punished in some manner. However, it should be noted that the author provides no actual proof for his claims. The closest he comes to this attempt is when he quotes again from a “survivor.” He writes:
“A case in point was an occasion when Binz came upon an Arbeitskommando (work detail) in a woods outside the camp. Binz observed a woman that the Aufseherin felt was not working hard enough (which, in camp parlance, was referred to as being “Arbeitscheu,” or “work shy”). Theodora Binz walked over to the woman, knocked her to the ground, and then took a pickaxe and proceeded to chop the prisoner with it until the lifeless body was little more than a bloody lump. (!) Once this matter was finished, Binz cleaned her shiny boots with the dry portion of the corpses’ skirt. She then mounted her bicycle and leisurely peddled her way back to Ravensbrueck – all as if nothing happened.
And Brown’s source for this fairy tale?— ‘Lord’ Russell of Liverpool! One of the most notorious German-haters of our century! And is it revealed to the reader where Russell obtained HIS information?–No.
Not only is this par for the course, but the imagery employed is one which instills in the subconscious mind of the reader all those inciteful buzz-words which we revisionists are unfortunately all too familiar with when examining the literature of the period. Thus, Binz is transformed into the wicked witch of the west, riding about on her bicycle seeking out new victims to hack to pieces with a pickaxe, as if she had no other authority to answer to save God. No incident reports. No death reports. No dates, and no names save for the alleged perpetrator, and this will not and cannot suffice for those sincerely interested in affriming that the interests of justice were served in this case, and that the civil and human rights of the accused were not violated.
Soon the author degenerates into the following proclamations, which is not to be surprised under the circumstances. He writes:
It is difficult to say how much Irma Grese would take from Binz in the way of perversity and cruelty, but both were remembered by survivors for their “special treatments.” In both cases, the Aufseherinnen seemed to enjoy using sex coupled with bizarre sadistic behavior in torturing their charges. Binz, who formerly had been a maid, walked about the compound with a whip and a dog, often accompanied by her boyfriend. P. 34.
Now, if some of this is starting to sound familiar to observant readers, it is—this description could very well apply to Grese, Juana Bormann, and heaven only knows how many other accused women upon whom the ire of former inmates was focused. This process of mythologizing their experiences and projecting the images produced by their own feverish and tortured imaginations on to their former overseers is certianly not inexplicable in psychological terms, nor should it even be regarded as unique, but is certainly solid evidence attesting to their own hysteria, which Freud described in his book Dora, as a manifestation to be found among Jewish women in particular.
As the following excerpt shall prove, it is merely one short step from Brown’s rather flippant disregard for investigative reporting to the following: “Binz, who formerly had been a maid, walked about the compound with a whip and a dog, ofen accompanied by her boyfriend, SS-Schutzhaftlagerfuehrer Edmund Brauening. In fact, the real attention was especially focused on the two Nazi lovers as they stood arm-in-arm enjoying the spectacle of public floggings. After the pain had been inflicted, the two would then passionately embrace.”
As should be expected by now, the author provides no sources for these ridiculous accusations, which seem to have been taken directly from the pages of those sordid 60’s “Men’s Magazine” with the lascivious sexploitation covers. How can the dead defend themselves against such scurrilous accusations? The accused were accorded no basic rights at the time which we view as taken for granted in our society. They were railroaded by professional witnesses and people who had an axe to grind and who in many cases seem to have been suffering from hysteria. sexual frustration, and a burning desire to wreak vengeance upon their former guards. The accused were rushed through the pretenses of a “fair trial” and then executed forthwith. However, Brown’s book certainly demonstrates how easy it is to succomb to the temptation to smear upon the flimsiest of pretexts.
Paradoxically, the author astounds the reader with the following observation:
“Despite the racial stereotyping and rigorously brutal SS training, all of which was designed to maximize cruelty and murder in the camps, a common belief that the camps were supervised by sadists like Binz and Grese is fallacious.”
Here of course we see traces of the struggle which the author had been undergoing between his REASON and his WILL to BELIEVE, a spiritual and mental crisis which was undoubtedly provoked by years of holocaust propaganda and indoctrination, thus becoming simply another contradiction among many to be found in the pages of this book. Furthermore, if one reads the guidelines for concentration camp staff, one will immediately be struck by the actual fact that the author’s contentions above are untrue, for nowhere in the guidelines can it be shown that camp personnel were encouraged to either murder or mistreat prisoners. In fact, the existing documentation proves the exact opposite-those who misused their authority as guards were severely punished by the camp authorities.
Compounding the confusion generated by the author’s own “Dark Night of the Soul” on this issue, Brown writes: Sadistic excesses, defined in terms of sexual aberration and brutal beatings, were rare. Ella Lingens-Reiner, a ex-inmate of Auschwitz, believes that “no more than 5 or 10% of the Ss guards were criminals by nature.” P.35.
Of course, one is prompted to ask by what basis Lingens Reiner made this observation, based upon her limited experiences at Auschwitz. However, it should be noted that Reiner rarely succombs to that hysteria referred to by Freud. It should also be noted that Reiner was a Gentile. Brown next comments:
Consequently, despite the fact that violence and cruelty were integral parts of SS training, one cannot claim that Grese’s behavior resulted from Nazi indoctrination per se. In fact it is significant that she is cited in various sources as the example of the atypical female behaviour in the Third Reich. P. 35.
Puzzling though this apparant volte face appears on the surface, the author leaves the reader hanging in the lurch trying to sort out the numerous contradictions and claims presented in this book. However, this simple and unabashed claim of the author’s bings him to his real subject of interest: the actual charges proffered against Ms Grese. He writes:
Although Grese participated in inmate beatings as well as other atrocities during her SS apprenticeship at Ravensbrueck (after all, maltreatment of prisoners mostly comprised the so-called “training”), little remains in the way of direct evidence during the initial period. P 35.
So finally we have a direct admission in the midst of yet another contradictory statement which acknowledges that there is little in the way of direct evidence to support the charges the author just made above. So why does the author repeat the claims? We will leave that answer for the reader to sort out, but my only comment to this is: Why does he repeat the unproven charges to begin with? If the author was sincerely interested in getting to the truth, he would at least have made the attempt to introduce written documentation in support of the claims he irresponsibly reiterates over and over again in his book. For instance, does the author ever supply a written order authroizing guards to use indiscriminate force against the inmates? Does he offer any proof that camp overseers, not even in the SS proper, were authorized to use lethal force against malingering inmates?
Let us see what the author DOES offer. Beginning on page 35, the author refers to a letter he received from Director E. Litschke, 31 August 1987. He writes:
Although the letter informed me that the SS administration at Ravensbruecke had succeeded in removing and destroying all the camp documents, when I went to Ravensbrueck in July 1995, I was told that this simply was not the case.
Director Litschke’s letter did correctly document the testimony of one former inmate who stated that Grese had severely beaten her when she had been imprisoned at the camp.
Aside from the author’s claim that the story of the survivor was “documented,” he produces no actual documentation! He does not cite the letter directly, nor does he even indicate what form this alleged documentation assumed..
My own interpetation is that the director, who had already disseminated untrue information as to the records of the camp, simply informed the author that the alleged survivor and witness had authored a complaint against Grese after the war, most likely during her trial. On the other hand, if what she says is true and she WAS beaten, we are certainly not provided with any particulars as to why the beating allegedly occurred and under what circumstances. It need not be emphasised how little probative value should be attached to such unconfirmed accusations. In effect, neither the author of the book nor the director of Ravensbrueck gives us any reason to believe the accusations presented by this witness.
In fact, on page 36, the author concedes the following point:
“According to her own testimony, Grese received 54 Reichsmarks a month while at Ravensbrueck, which was less than the wages that SS-matrons of age received. In effect, she was penalized financially for being so young, and, as a result, no one could ever charge that she received DIRECT monetary incentive to mistreat inmates.”
While this is true in a limited sense, it should be noted that the Matrons simply received more money due to their times of service rather than their age. Clearly they had senority over the 19 year old Ms Grese, and the author is apparently undistrubed by yet another contradiction in his thesis; namely, that guards received no monetary incentive to mistreat inmates–yet, this same author misrepresented the guidelines issued to the SS stationed at camps, implying that the training was geared to incouraging mistreatment and individual acts of violence and murder. Perhaps desperate over the fact that the author was unable to find convincing factual documentation for his claims, the author descends to the level of the typical “eyewitness” on page 36, where he writes:
Although Irma Grese was one of the youngest SS-women, she quickly demonstarted that she was more than eager to become a mass murderess for the cause. And the proof of this is? Unfortunately, the author provides none. Obviously, this is a most serious charge, and one should expect to be feted with an abudance of convincing documentation in support of the grave accusations, but none is forthcoming save more of the usual and predictable “eyewitness” testimony.
However, this glaring absence of evidence does not prevent the author from concluding the chapter by charging the following:
Irma Grese’s primary assignments at Ravensbrueck had been to oversee Arbeitskommandos (work details). Now, in March, 1943, Grese headed east provided with orders to report to KL Auschwitz.
Grese would continue to carry out her “mission”–to oppress and murder unerwuenschte Gruppen for the Reich. Embarrassingly, Brown fails to provide documentation for this alleged “mission” to exterminate.
Chapter four of Brown’s book deals with Miss Grese’s service at Auschwitz and in theory should form the core of solid evidence relating to her alleged crimes while serving at this camp. Let us proceed to examine what the author has to offer to the reader in this regard, sifting fact from fiction and specualation as we go along.
In March 1943, Miss Grese was assigned to the Birkenau women’s camp at Auschwitz II, which was situated some 3 miles from the main camp. Sortly after arrival, Miss Grese, whether through ignorance or design, breached certain camp regualtions and was punished by being detailed to supervise a so-called “Strafkommando” which was charged with carrying stones from an area outside the camp back into Birkenau. As the author notes, Miss Grese testified at her trial that she had served a total of two days overseeing the work of the Strafkommando. Not surprisingly, an “eyewitness” and “survivor”, one Helen Kopper, offered swore under oath that Grese was in charge of this kind of detail for 7 months. P. 41.
The author apparently accepts this testimony over Grese’s for the following reason: It was given “under oath.” Needless to say, people lie under oath all the time and simply accepting this witness’s accusation on the basis of her testimony seems to me to be a bit naive on the part of the author. If the author had troubled himself to offer additional independent evidence to support these claims, the charges might be looked upon more seriously, but the fact remains that we only have his personal belief in the correctness of the witness’s statement to refer to in this context. The author thoroughly ignores the fact that Miss Grese’s testimony was also given under oath. In fact, one is tempted to remark that 7 months service in a punishment battalion would not have gone unmentioned or unnoticed in the camp, and any number of witnesses at the Belsen Trial could have clarified this matter if anyone had seen fit to inquire at the time.. Another serious omission of the author’s was to fail to find the written report concerning Grese’s violation, which also would have verified the nature and length of her punishment, along with her offense. Seeing that no such document was ever uncovered, the only possible way to approach this testimony is by applying common sense to ask:
Does it seem likely that the SS would have punished a newly arrived 19 year old recruit with 7 months service as a guard in a punishment battalion, over an unnamed and relatively minor offense? Since neither Kramer, who was commandant at the time, or any of Miss Grese’s colleagues at the camp ever mentioned this type of service, and as it conflicts with the tenure of Grese’s own stay at the camp and other duties to which she was assigned, Miss Kopper’s statement given under oath appears to be less credible than ever. Taking into consideration the fact that Miss Grese was promoted rather rapidly in the ranks and that her duties and reponsibilities were expamnded over a relatively brief period of time, it appears extremely unlikely that Miss Kopper was telling the turth when she testified under oath and the best that can be said of her is that she was most likely mistaken.
In fact, even the author notes: Kopper was detested by camp prisoners and guards alike because of her proclivity to latch onto whatever cause that could give her the best opportunity for advancement and/or safety. Ar one time or another she had been “part prisoner, part Kapo and part informer.” While a prisoner at Bergen belsen, Kopper worked for the Gestapo. During the trial, she occasionally seemed to be insane and “at all events, her evidence is to be considered with more than the usual reserve.” P. 41.
And this begs the obvious question: WHY does the author of this book bother to use her at all?
Moving along, the author correctly notes that it was at Auschwitz and Auschwitz alone, the camp of 1,001 rumours, where Miss Grese earned her allegedly notorious reputation. This concedes the point prima facie that she had no “notoious reputation” either before or after she left Auschwitz, and prompts one to ask:
Was Auschwitz in itself and on it’s own capable of effecting such lurid transformations in individuals assigned to work there? Or was Miss Grese’s “notorious reputation” simply part and parcel of all other similar rumours permeating throughout the camp by gossiping inmates and communist propagandists?
Leaving this question aside, I will return to Brown’s account where he next notes that Miss Grese was eventually assigned to be an overseer in Camp BII/C in Birkenau. Unfortunately, Brown fails (again) to provide an actual date which may be independently confirmed for this promotion. He simply notes that from June 1944 on, the camp was occupied primarily by Hungarian jews working in textile production at the camp.
Along with these supervising tasks and functions, Miss Grese was also assigned to rather mundane tasks like working in the mail-room, answering telephones, and working in the commandants gardening squad. She was assigned to the mail room in December 1943 and the gardening squad in autumn of 1943, consequently she could not have been commanding an outside punishment squad for 7 months as Kopper previously testified, as this duty consumed the entire day and no additional time would have been left to attend to these other duties.
As a result of satisfactory performance in these tasks and assignments, Miss Grese was promoted. Note that she was NOT promoted for mistreating or otherwise bullying inmates. In fact, a simple examination of her SS file would reveal everything there is to know concerning her service, as well as her infractions, but, naturally, this document is nowhere to be found today, or has not been offered by the author, even if available, for rather obvious reasons.
Upon promotion, Miss Grese was informed that she would now be in charge of some 30,000 women in Bairkenau’s C Lager, and, according to Brown, now “had the power to exterminate literally thousands of human beings on a whim.” Curiously, the author has absolutely NO independent evidence to offer in support of this rather horrifying claim save an appeal to another “survivor” and “eyewitness.” The author refers in apparent desperation to the testimony of a Jew named Abraham Glinowieski, who testified that he witnessed Grese send “thousands and thousands of people, ill and in quite good health, to the gas chambers.”
The author of this essay has written prior articles on this same witness, who was proven to be lying through his teeth, and even now it can be pointed out with surety that no Aufseherin was ever authorized in the entire history of the camp to supervise so-called selections, which was the exclusive domain of the camp physicians.
On page 40, the author contradicts himself once again by finally admitting that SS Aufseherinen were NOT members of the SS, but merely “helpers,” which proves that these women had no authority whatsoever to either issue orders within the camp to the SS, nor could they ever have been authroized to use force upon inmates, much less shoot them out of hand or hack them to pieces with pick-axes,, which the author previously alleged. Here is what he writes on page 43:
Since Grese had become somewhat of a VIP in her own domain of Birkenau, it was inevitable that she would have a few “run-ins” of her own with other SS officials (it should also be remembered that the women were employees, not members, of the SS). Untersturmfuehrer Maximillian Grabner, the chief of the political division at Auschwitz, was one of the men who would give Grese trouble. Grabner, a man so corrupt that he would eventually be relieved of his duties and sentenced to 12 years imprisionment by an SS court, monitored the activities of Grese through a “Bibelforsherin.” [A female adherent of the Jehovah’s Witnesses sect]
…Another example of departmental antagonism occurred when Grese crossed the path of SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Eduard Wirths when she indiscriminately whipped a Polish inmate named Teddy Pietrrzykowski…..this particular prisoner was an orderly in good standing with Wirths, (and) Grese had whipped the wrong inmate. Wirths was just passing by when he witnessed the last of the thrashing. Wirths ran in between Grese and the prisoner and shouted at Grese….”Schlagen Sie nicht meine Leute.” [Don’t hit my people.]
As a source for this alleged incident, Brown refers to Robert Lifton’s book, “The Nazi Doctors.” However, there are problems with this alleged incident. For instance, what was Miss Grese doing around male inmates when she was in charge of the female compound? Second, this incident was never verified by Wirths, so it must be confined to the mythological waste-basket along with so many other unconfirmed reports.
On this same page, Brown irresponsibly repeats his slander that Miss Grese used selections to MURDER people– a task which she was never authorized to undertake, and neither the author of Beautiful Beast nor the entire prosecution team at the Belsen Trial, nor any researcher since, has ever presented convincing evidence in support of this perverse allegation.
However, the author persists in his folly by writing: “Despite claiming that she never did any of the actual “selecting,” Grese would admit in the second of her three pre-trial statements that she knew about the gas chambers at Auschwitz and that she did not protest the gassing of prisoners there.” P. 46
Though these are finely considered words and reflections of the author’s thinking processes, there is little of evidentiary value to be gathered from his comments. In the first place, even if there were gassings and she knew of them, would a protest by a 19 year old girl, a simple SS Aufseherin, have halted selections or gassings or had any effect upon the daily administration and routine within the camp? The entire suggestion is utterly preposterous.
Secondly, the author’s attempt to show a contradiction between Miss Grese’s initial statement and later “admissions” flagrantly ignores the fact that practically ALL of the accused denied any knowledge of any homicidal gas chambers in their initial statements, and that the 2nd and later versions were obtained as a result of strong arm methods, beatings, threats, and other unorthodox methods of persuasion, including the indiscriminate use of the rubber truncheon, a specialty of Allied interrogators. A further complication arising from this interpretation of Miss Grese’s alleged participation in homicidal gassings is best addressed by asking:
To whom should Miss Grese or anyone else have protested at the time? To Hoess? To her enemy, Grabner? To Kramer-her superior? Or to the person who punished her for a minor infraction soon after her arrival at the camp? To whom should this 19 year old have directed her protest? That question shall go unanswered, as the entire scenario which prompted the question is absurd, and rests upon an unproven accusation that homicidal gassings were occurring at the camp and that Grese could have had any effect upon the policy by her “protest.” What good could have come out of a suicidal protest by a 19 year old girl, still wet under the ears? It is so easy for people to talk and offer foolish suggestions after the war is long since over, but which hardly deals with the grim realities which would have confronted Miss Grese and others at the time in circumstances far different from those in which we live today. Miss Grese has been unjustly described by detractors as a coward, but who among these critics would have displayed the courage they advise to a 19 year old girl? I will leave that for the reader to reflect upon.
On page 47, the author, in an apparent attempt to fill up space and add further slanders to his treatise, conjurs up images of a sordid affair between Miss Grese and Josef Mengele, one of the Chief Physicians at Auschwitz. As is customary and completely predictable by now, he offers no convincing evidence for these charges. What he does is simply to pander once again to the purient interests of the masses. Mengele is referred to as the “Angel of Death.,” and so on. It has always struck me how effective these buzz-words are, and I have even discovered a crude form of imagery which I refer to as the ‘terrible B’s” complex, where Germans accused of heinous crimes are dehumanized by writers in an attempt to poison the minds of the public. For instance we have the following:
- Ilse Koch-The Bitch of Buchenwald
- Karl Hermann Frank-The “Butcher” of Prague.
- Irma Grese-the Beautiful “Beast.”
- Klau Barbie, the “Butcher” of Lyon, and so on and so forth ad infinitum.
- Josef Kramer, the “Beast” of Belsen
In effect, this type oif insidious methodology completely dehumanizes the ‘enemy” and stifles any pangs of conscience which normal people might feel for them under different circumstances. Thus, human beings are reduced to “Butchers, Beasts, and Bitches.”
The author appeals to survivors for confirmation of his claims. Most notably he quotes Kitty Hart, who claimed without proof that Grese was Mengele’s mistress. Brown also appeals to another survivor named Edith Trieger to support his slander, equally without effect.
In an almost comical vein, the author provides what he believes is justification for a “match made in hell”—he writes:
Although the two had obvious educational differences, both Mengele and Grese shared common interests. Both were loyal to the Nazi cause and clearly both kept their uniforms smartly tailored and boots highly shined. (!) Perhaps emulating the exalted SS doctor, Irma Grese deleved into all sorts of sadistic and sexually perverted activities.”
Brown’s source for this defamation? Two of the most notorious liars among many in the genre: The infamous duo of Gisella Perl and Olga Lengyel, whom this authored has debunked with complete finality in an essay entitled “The Mystery of the Jewish Trinity”.
Here is what Brown writes on the subject:
“Survivors” Isabella Leitner and Olga Lengyel have documented Grese’s bisexual escapades, the latter noting that “Grese” often had homosexual affairs with prisoners – which was a major violation of the race and Resettlement Act (A matter of Rassenschande) – and then had the potential incriminating participants killed. P. 48.
And the author;’s proof for thiese contentions? None, save for an appeal to unsubstantiated “survivor” testimony.
He continues, warming up to his subject: Dr. Gisella Perl observed that “Greze” relished whipping well-developed young women on the breasts, which eventually became infected. Once this occurred, Perl, the inmate doctor, would be ordered to operate and Grese would become sexually aroused just watching the woman’s suffering. No anesthetic was used and the victim would scream in aginy throughout the procedure. p. 46.
Without replying to these absurd claims in detail, this author will simply note that this testimony has been thoroughly refuted, and that Perl is one of the most notorious fabricatiors and liars to ever have soiled the pages of a book with trash. In fact, Perl was to appear at the Auschwitz Frankfurt trial with an imposter swearing under oath that she was Perl’s daughter who had likewise been deported to Auschwitz. Needless to say, there is no evidence to support these claims, and Perl herself lived in high style while at the camp, devoting her energies to performing abortions on women who became pregnant after sordid trysts in the latrine, a service for which the abortioness was paid rather handsomely in food and goods.
Thankfully, the author concludes this segment in his book with the following: Equally sickening testimony was also presented at the Luneburg Trial. In laying out its case, the prosecution gave the court eye-witness testimony that this “100 pound German girl invented new methods of torture. One of them: she waited until a pregnant woman was ready to give birth, then tied her legs together and watched the agony.” (!)
The source for this absurd claim? Newsweek and Time magazine, 1945, October Issues. Now, if anyone seriously believes the above, I suggest that they go for psychiatric counseling immediately. In fact, these sci-fi Tales from the Crypt are quite representative of the tripe which was bandied about during the immediate post-war years. Mengele was accused of sewing two hunchback twins together at the hump, and two others at the wrist! He was also accused of taping a pregnant woman’s breasts together so she could not give suck to her infant so that Mengele, by ALL non-biased accounts a respectable and qualified physician, could see how long it took the infant to die of starvation! And so on and so forth, ad absurdam and ad infinitum.
On page 49, the author depicts Miss Grese as carrying a silver plated pistol about with her, and accuses her of using it “frequently.” His source?
Olga Lengyel, another notorious liar and fabricator. In point of fact, women SS Aufseherinnen were not authorized to carry pistols, and in any event, SS officials were equipped with automatics and not pistols. Miss Grese admitted to carrying a gun around with her for a short period, but the firearm was never described as anything even remotely resembling an exotic silver plated pistol, which would not have gone unnoticed or unmentioned in either official reports nor among her comrades at the camp. This “silver-plated” pistol is as bogus as her “jewel-studded” whip, which was testified to by other survivors like Gisella Perl.
In reality, the truth was far more prosaic. Grese’s “whip” turned out to be made of cellophane, which even Brown notes later on in the same paragraph we have been examining here. One thing he studiously avoids mentioning, and with apparent good reason, is Perl’s description of the whip as jewel encrusted. For those interested, Grese did admit to owning and applying this whip when inmates had stolen from or otherwise preyed upon other inmates or were generally refractory–and who can blame her? Miss Grese only weighed 100 pounds and was expected to exercise control over 30,000 inmates-many among them with surly temperaments and far more powerful than she physically. It should be noted that female guards in prisons all over the world are much better equipped to enforce order and defend themselves from possible attacks than Miss Grese was in 1943-1944.
Brown, thinking he is scoring a major point, writes: While Grese at her trial that the whip was not used to hurt anyone, she admitted that its light weight was useful for her line of work. Grese also denied ever carrying a rubber truncheon in the camps…”
And rightfully so, I might add, as I have already pointed out that rubber truncheons were not issued to German personnel in either the camps or the police, but was a British instrument of coercion, as another German accused, Juana Borman, wryly noted at her show trial. Miss Bormann, who was not only much older than Miss Grese but also considerably more petite, commented that she had occasion to feel the force of these truncheons on numerous occasions.
As the author frantically attempts to call upon greater and more “damning” evidence of Miss Grese’s alleged misdeeds, he paints himself into a corner from which there is no way out. He repeats the disproven falsehood by yet another surivior that Miss Grese was accompanied by a huge dog which she set upon prisoners. Needless to say, there is not one iota of evidence to show that Miss Grese ever had a dog at Auschwitz or any other camp. This allegation was either the result of outright fabrication or confusion, as it was Juana Boirmann who was accompanied by a rather toothless old german Shepherd whenever she walked about the prisoner compounds. Bear in mind that Miss Bormann was in her fifties and was not quite five feet tall, nor did she weigh much more than 88 pounds!
Unwittingly, the author provides a reason for many of these hateful and fabricated allegations. Most likely the author was completely unaware of this fact while composing the material. He writes in effect that Miss Grese took great pride in her appearance and reeked of perfumes and so on. It is only understandable that the poor wretches who were confined to the camp should loathe her for her ill concealed meticulous appearance. With her coiffured hair, perfumes, a sparkling wardrobe and attractive, feminine appearance, Miss Grese reminded the unfortunate women that they, too, once looked like this, and this had to have been the cause of undeniable hostility, frustration, and envy. As the adage goes: There is no hell like a woman scorned–and unadorned-I might add.
As Brown digs himself a hole from which he ultimately will find it difficult to extricate himself, he appeals to yet more survivors and their bogus testimonies to bolster a sagging case where no other evidence is nor ever was available.
One particularly lame attempt was his interview with survivor Klara Lebowitz, who testified that:
She observed Dr. Mengele and Overseer Grese making selections together for slave labor shipments to the West and when Grese saw a mother and daughter, or a sister with another sister, attempting to stay together for such transports, she would “beat them until they were unconscious and leave them lying on the ground.” Note once again the absence of any independent reports to verify these alleged incidents. Reports which were REQUIRED by the SS administration itself. No names, other than those of the alleged perpetraters. In fact, this is simply one group of people accusing another group and never required to provide evidence of their claims. In a regular court of law, such cases would be unceremoniously tossed out of the window, and the “witnesses” along with them. But we are not dealing with “normal” cases here; we are dealing with accused Germans in the hate infested atmosphere which was endemic after the end of the second world war.
Brown next quotes from an incident where Grese was ordered by Commandant Hoess to inflict two lashes on a refractory SS matron on the bare buttocks, in view of the entire staff. The Aufseherin had been charged with being too lenient with the inmates. Now, where are those apostles of righteousness who advised us that Grese should have “protested” alleged gassings of inmates? The offense of this accused Aufseherin was was quite innocuous in itself, and she received 25 lashes for her succor of camp inmates. Now, imagine the consequences to Miss Grese if she ever tried to protest camp policies to her superiors! Curiously, the author also accuses Miss Grese of obtaining an abortion from Gisella Perl, an accusation which he culled from Perl’s own book. Needless to say, this was a crime which would have been punishable by death in the camp. Nor does the author ever explain why Grese allowed the doctor to live after participating in a crime which would have resulted in the death sentence for Miss Grese had it become known to the camp authorities.
If Miss Grese was given a carte blanche to “exterminate” millions, or even shoot people down without cause or having to submit incident reports of deaths by shooting, why did she allow this inciriminating witness to continue living? Simply another unexplainable paradox which contradicts and suspends all human understanding. Unsurprisingly, the author does not recall his previous suggestion when he reports this incident but merely notes that Grese was later commended for her “splendid work” in “exterminating” people. Of course the author can produce no actual document where this expression of reward for allegedly exterminating people was actually used. In fact, there is no such document to be found anywhere on this earth.
For Brown, Grese’s “guilt” is beyond question, as he digs deeper and deeper into the sordid and distorted world of Holocaustmania for ever more revolting stories to rehash and appeal to the lurid sensations of the jaded reader. He resorts to worthless second hand “testimony”: to claim that Grese, like the black widow, despatched her numerous “lovers” to the “gas chambers” after her physical lusts had been satiated. Curiously, she never thought of dispatching Perl to the “gas chambers” as well. Needless to say, Grese had absolutely no authority to order the execution of any inmate kept under detention in Auschwitz. This is simply another lie in a list of long and progressively more offensive lies which the author liberally sprinkles onto the pages of his book like mouse droppings in a clean cupboard. He even repeats yet another mythological tale which he had previously relegated to Theodora Binz, who, it may be remembered was accused of hacking a woman to death with a pick-axe, ala, some twisted Joan Crawford B movie. His source is the already discredited Edith Teiger, who repeats substantially the identical story with a few innovations upon the theme. In this case, Teiger randomly chooses the date August 1944. She claims Grese shot an inmate in cold blood because she refused to return to her barracks when ordered to. We have already examined this bogus account and need not rehash the incident yet again.
The point to be made is that these fabrications followed a definite pattern, and that they are all one and the same process of mythologizing one’s alleged experiences in the camps. While accusations abound, proof is never to be found. A fine example of the ultimate issue wrought from this obscene spawn of convoluted testimony may be seen in a book published by Yad Vashem, which bears the title “The Mentality of Murderous SS Robots.”
Again, fine fair for sci-fi and the horror-fiction genre, but hardly the evidence required to justify the imposition of multiple death sentences upon accused individuals.
And thus we reach the end of the chapter where one might have entertained vague hopes that the most powerful evidence available in regard to Miss Grese’s “guilt” would have been offered by the author, who instead of living up to his obligations as an unbiased researcher, apparently saw no other option available to him other than dipping his pen into the seamy holocaust cauldron of lies, defamation, and slander.
“The SS women were made to cook and carry heavy loads. One of them tried to commit suicide. The inmates said that they were more cruel and brutal than the men. They are all young, in their twenties. One SS woman tried to hide, disguised as a prisoner. She was denounced and arrested.”
–Reporter Patrick Gordon Walker, describing his impressions of the liberation of Bergen-Belsen (17 April 1945) (1)
The above quote serves as the introduction to chapter five of Brown’s book, which purports to examine the alleged role played by Irma Grese at Bergen-Belsen, following her transfer from Auschwitz in 1944.
As is typical in pro-holocaust books of this nature, the attempt is first undertaken to describe the horrible conditions existent in the camp at the time of liberation. This object is pursued with vigour and purpose, the latter being to stigmatize the accused as being personally guilty for the conditions in which the camp was found upon liberation.
Needless to say, any mitigating factors are blatantly ignored in pursuit of a more practical goal: assigning personal and collective guilt in a far deeper context. As to whether this is ethical or a morally valid tactic is a point which seems to be studiously and conscientiously avoided by the author.
This essay is the work of Joseph Bellinger, with minor edits by k0nsl.
Archived for posterity.