This article was downloaded by: [Harvard College] On: 15 September 2011, At: 14:54 Publisher: Routledge Informa

Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/chjf20

Theresienstadt (19441945): The Nazi propaganda film depicting the concentration camp as paradise
Karel Margry
a a

University of Utrecht

Available online: 15 Sep 2006

To cite this article: Karel Margry (1992): Theresienstadt (19441945): The Nazi propaganda film depicting the concentration camp as paradise , Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television, 12:2, 145-162 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01439689200260091

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television, Vol. 12, No. 2, 1992

145

"Theresienstadt' (1944-1945): The Nazi Propaganda Film Depicting the Concentration Camp as Paradise
K A R E L M A R G R Y , University of Utrecht

Downloaded by [Harvard College] at 14:54 15 September 2011

In 1944-1945, the Nazis produced a propaganda film about Theresienstadt, the concentration camp for Jews in occupied Czechoslovakia [1]. The purpose of this film was to give a false image of life at the ghetto camp and to deceive the outer world as to what was truly happening to the Jews of Europe. The film was shot at Theresienstadt in August-September 1944. The Jewish inmates themselves had to make it. Hundreds were called up to act as extras or selected to play a specific part. The SS appointed the Berlin cabarettist, actor and film director Kurt Gerron, himself a prisoner of the ghetto, head of a Jewish production team for the film [2]. A camera crew from the Prague newsreel company Aktualita arrived to do the actual filming. The film was edited in Prague and completed in March 1945. At the end of the war the film disappeared and, although bits and fragments have re-surfaced since, no complete copy of the film exists today. This article discusses a number of misconceptions, or misunderstandings, surrounding the film. It also includes, based on all the available evidence, a reconstruction of the film as it looked in its final form in April 1945. First it is necessary to describe Theresienstadt itself, for its history as a ghetto camp is essential for a proper understanding of the film [3]. Theresienstadt (Terezin in Czech) is a small fortress town, 40 miles north of Prague. Built by Austrian emperor Joseph II in the late 18th century, its chief features were deep moats, fortress walls, concrete casemates and blocks of huge, grey barracks. It was laid out as a large square with all streets intersecting each other at right angles. In October 1941, the Nazis decided to convert Theresienstadt into a concentration camp for Jews living in the 'Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia', prior to their deportation to the killing centres in the east. As such, it did not differ from other transit camps in other Nazi-occupied countries. Emptied of its native population by a Nazi decree, the old garrison town quickly filled with Jews from all over the Protectorate. The Nazis declared Theresienstadt an 'autonomous ghetto',under Jewish 'self-government', which in practice meant that the Jewish prisoners themselves had to organise housing, food, medical care and care of children. In name, the ghetto was governed by a Council of Elders, led by a ffudentilteste (Chief Elder), but in reality everything was decided by the SS Camp Commander, who ruled with an iron fist. In January 1942, the Nazis changed the status of Theresienstadt. Planning the deportation of Jews from Germany and Austria at the notorious Wannsee Conference, they decided to use the Czech ghetto in a cunning plan to facilitate deportations. They announced that Jews over 65 years of age, disabled war veterans and veterans

146

K. Margry

decorated with the Iron Cross First Class would not be sent to 'labour camps' in the east, but instead would go to the 'model ghetto' of Theresienstadt. For them, officially, Theresienstadt would be an 'end station'; in reality, it was just a stop on the way to Auschwitz. Later, other categories of people were added: well-known Jews, whose disappearance in a killing centre might cause interventions from Germany or abroad; and rich Jews, who had to surrender their entire capital for a place in the 'Reich old people's home'. From June 1942, transports bringing thousands of aged and disabled Jews from all over Germany and Austria arrived in Theresienstadt, flooding the camp and confronting the Jewish administration with insurmountable problems. Built to house only some 7,000 people, the town suddenly had to accommodate over 50,000 persons. Housing and water facilities were totally inadequate; food was scarce; hospitals lacked medicine and equipment. For lack of space, people had to sleep in casemates and lofts. Overcrowding, lack of hygiene, starvation diets, hard labour and infectious diseases caused the mortality rate to soar. By September 1942, daily deaths averaged 131. Deportations to Auschwitz further decimated the camp population. In all, between 1941 and 1945, 141,000 Jews were sent to Theresienstadt; 33,430 died there; and 88,000 were shipped to death camps in the east (of which only 3,500 survived). In October 1943, Theresienstadt's history took a sudden and unexpected turn. That month the Nazis tried to round up the Jews of Denmark. Only some 450 were caught; all were sent to Theresienstadt. The Danish government immediately and relentlessly requested permission to visit them. Finally, SS-Obersturmbannfiihrer (SS LieutenantColonel) Adolf Eichmann, organiser of the deportation of the European Jews, agreed that representatives of the Danish and the International Red Cross could visit the camp, but not before the spring of 1944. To prepare the camp for the visit, the SS embarked on a major 'Town Beautification' programme. They ordered the Jewish prisoners to paint the housefronts, clean the streets, dig flower beds, erect a playground for children in the park and a music pavillion on the square, fill the store windows, refurbish the ghetto caf~ and the ghetto bank, and transform the former Sokolovna gymnasium into a community centre with a stage, prayer hall, library and verandas. The embellishment project went on for months. To make the ghetto look less crowded, 7,500 people were shipped off to Auschwitz. The Red Cross inspection visit finally took place on 23 June 1944. The delegates were completely fooled by the false facades and filed favourable reports. The largescale fraud was a total victory for Nazi propaganda. As a direct result of the visit, the International Red Cross declined to visit other camps to the east, notably the 'labour camp' at Auschwitz [4]. Between the Red Cross visit and the end of the war, another 18,000 Jews would be deported from Theresienstadt to Auschwitz [5]. Seven weeks after the visit, shooting started for the Theresienstadt film.
The O r d e r to M a k e the F i l m

Downloaded by [Harvard College] at 14:54 15 September 2011

Many historians, especially film historians, have claimed that the film was produced on orders of Nazi Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels [6]. To them, it is unthinkable that such an important propaganda film could be made without the Propaganda Ministry's approval. In fact, the Goebbels Ministry was never in any way involved in the film. Figure 1 shows the complicated bureaucratic apparatus and chains of command affecting the Theresienstadt film. It demonstrates the internal rivalries, the overlapping responsibilities, the struggles of competence, and the ambiguous chains of

'Theresienstadt' (1944-1945)

147

command that more recent research has shown to be so characteristic of Nazi bureaucracy. Note in particular the following points: 1. The separate chains of command of the Propaganda Ministry (left column: from Goebbels down to Aktualita) and of the SS (right column: from Himmler down to Theresienstadt). 2. The division between the central Reich authorities in Berlin (upper half of diagram, above the dotted line) and the Protectorate authorities in Prague (below the dotted line). 3. The fact that, in order to make the film, the Prague newsreel company Aktualita (in the lower left) was ordered to go to Theresienstadt (lower right). This organisational diagram demonstrates that any orders from the Propaganda Ministry to Aktualita would always have to go via the Protectorate agancies, more particularly through Abteilung IV, the Reichsprotektor's own propaganda department, and, for film, through Referat IF-2, that department's film section. In the first years of the Protectorate, there had been a constant struggle between Goebbels' ministry and the Reichsprotektor as to who was responsible for propaganda activities in Bohemia-Moravia. This argument was finally settled in October 1941, when Goebbels and the then Reichsprotektor Reinhard Heydrich concluded an agreement which, first, asserted the Reichsprotektor's predominance in his own territory and, second, stipulated that no propaganda could take place without his knowledge and consent. He alone was responsible for all propaganda in his area. He could initiate his own propaganda projects, and any plans or initiatives by agencies of the Berlin Ministry would have to go through his office's own propaganda department, that is through Abteilung IV [7]. It would thus seem that after October 1941, an order to Aktualita could only come from the Reichsprotektor or through the Reichsprotektor, from the Propaganda Ministry. Actually there was one important exception: the Goebbels/Heydrich Agreement contained the same proviso as most other state contracts in the Third Reich. The Reichsprotektor alone was responsible for propaganda--except when it concerned matters of the Gestapo or other SS agencies [8]. And that is precisely what happened with the Theresienstadt film. The film did not originate from the bureaus of the Propaganda Ministry or of the Reichsprotektor. It was, from beginning to end, an SS project. In the surviving archives of the Propaganda Ministry there is no indication whatsoever of any involvement in the project--it did not order it, did not finance it, did not distribute it, and in all probability was never informed of its being made [9]. The film originated at the Zentralstelle zur Regelung der Judenfrage, the Gestapo Central Jewish Office in Prague. It was the brainchild of SS-Sturmbannfiihrer (SS Major) Hans G~inther, chief of that office [10]. G~inther ordered Aktualita to go to Theresienstadt. The proviso to the 1941 Agreement enabled him to bypass both the Propaganda Ministry and the Reichsprotektor and approach Aktualita directly. Gtinther personally visited Karel Peceny, managing director of Aktualita, and gave him the order for the film. He also compelled Peceny and his entire crew to sign a pledge of total secrecy [11]. What is more, if we are to believe camp commander Karl Rahm's testimony, G~inther embarked upon the film project without prior consultations with his direct superior Eichmann. This can be inferred from Rahm's statement that SS-Hauptsturmfiihrer (SS Captain) Ernst M6hs, Eichmann's liaison officer with Theresienstadt, was not informed of the film plans and was very angry with G~inther when he found out about it [12].

Downloaded by [Harvard College] at 14:54 15 September 2011

148

K. Margry
ReichMinistryfor Propaganda and PopularEnlightenment (JosephGoebbels) Reichsfbhrer-SS HeinrichHimmler)

FilmDivision (HansHinkel)

ReichFilm Intendant (HansHinkel)

tt.
LI

ReichDelegatefor the GermanFilmIndustry (MaxWinkler)

/
I

Reich SecurityMainOffice [RSHAI i (Ernst Kaltenbrunner) 9

l
CautioGnibH [trust company] (MaxWinklerl

Downloaded by [Harvard College] at 14:54 15 September 2011

I
I BERLIN

Ufa-FilmGmbH [holdingcompany]

(
\

DepartmentIV: Gestapo (HeinrichM011er)

SectionIV-B-4 [GestapoJewishSection] (AdolfEichmann)

Deutsche WochenschauGmbH [statenewsreelcompany] (HeinrichRoellenbleg) L

; ;~o-T~c-To~;T~. . . . .

!-~-,

.........................................
~otectorat--e [ ] Bohemia Moravia and I - ReichProtector I (Wilhelm Frick I StateMinister I ~ermann Frank) ]
-

I ~ I \ (part-ownership) \
I

i
i

I /Ma~,nWo./

DepartmentIV: Propaganda - 1 -

.J

HigherSS and [ HkliceLeaderl [ ] (K H. Frank) __]

t
I SectionIV-2:Film (AntonZankl) Commissioner for Newsreels iX. E. Lampl)

Commanderol I SecurityPoliceand SecurityService (Era'!nWeinmann)

Gestapo CentralJewish Ii | O f f i c e in Prague (HansGOnther) _

AKTUALITA (KaralPeceny)

1.

I"

(KaGHETrO THERESIENSTADT] rt Rahm) ]

FlG. l. Competing bureaucratic channels of authority

Perhaps the best proof that Gfinther commissioned the film is the fact that his

Zentralstelle was also to pay for it. From Aktualita's account books we know that the bills for the Theresienstadt film went to the Zentralstetle. We even know what it cost: 350,000 Czech crowns--35,000 Reichsmarks [13]. If one remembers that the Zentralstelle's financial resources consisted of confiscated Jewish captial, the final irony of the

"Theresienstadt" (1944-1945)

149

Theresienstadt film becomes clear: Jews not only were forced to help make a film that was to conceal their own Holocaust, but had to finance it as well. Most scholars have assumed that the decision to make the film was made sometime after the Red Cross inspection visit of June 23, that is between June 23 and August 16, the day filming started at the ghetto. Actually, Gfinther decided, it seems, to make the film, not in June or July 1944, but at the beginning of the great beautification campaign, as early as December 1943 [14]. This fact undermines all the ingenious theories offered to explain the making of the film, such as: 1. The Allied invasion of France and the threat to Germany's borders from East and West in the summer of 1944 [15]. 2. The very success--from the Nazi standpoint--of the Red Cross visit of 23 June [16]. 3. The so-called 'Affair of the Theresienstadt Painters', circa 17 July 1944 (when the SS discovered that realistic images of the miserable conditions in the ghetto had been smuggled out of the camp; images which they feared might upset the favourable image just created by the Beautification fraud) [17]. 4. The discovery of the horrors of the Maidanek death camp by the Red Army on 24 July 1944 [18]. 5. The Eichmann/Mayer negotiations f r o m April 1944 onwards (Eichmann's proposal to Joel Brand of the Hungarian-Jewish Rescue Committee to release one million Jews in exchange for 10,000 trucks was made on 25 April 1944; the talks with Saly Mayer began on 21 August [19]. It is often claimed that Heinrich Himmler was from the beginning closely involved in the film's production and that he personally approved the final version of the script [20]. Himmler, it is alleged, wanted to use the Theresienstadt film in secret negotiations with the Western allies. A film which denied the stories about the death camps would have made him a more acceptable partner for negotiations. Actually, there is little to document Himmler's involvement in the film, though it is not impossible. In the surviving records of Himmler's Personal Secretariat, kept at the Bundesarchiv, are several files devoted to plans for film productions in which Himmler took a personal interest and the development of which he followed closely [21]. But there is no such file for the Theresienstadt film. The only document linking Himmler to the Theresienstadt film is a letter from Himmler's personal secretary, Rudolf Brandt, to Himmler's personal masseur, Felix Kersten, in which Brandt makes a reference to the existence of the film. I f Brandt knew of the film, Himmler must have known as well. Unfortunately, no one has ever seen the original Brandt letter. We know of it only because it was reproduced in Kersten's book which--as Dr Louis de Jong has conclusively shown--is, not a reliable source [22]. Even this letter's reproduction raises doubts. For example, in the 1948 Dutch edition of Kersten's book the letter, which is purported to be a facsimile reproduction, is dated 8 April 1945. But in the 1950 German edition, this same letter suddenly carries another date: 21 March 1945 [23]. Whatever truth there is in the stories of Himmler's interest in the film, the little evidence available seems to indicate that, if at all, he learned of the film's existence only during the last weeks of the war. The Film's C o r r e c t Title Perhaps the most spectacular of all misconceptions about the film concerns its title. The film is known worldwide as Der Fiihrer schenkt den ffuden eine Stadt [The Fiihrer

Downloaded by [Harvard College] at 14:54 15 September 2011

150

K. Margry

Donates a Town to the Jews]. Many scholars have commented on the utter cynicism of
this title and made it the basis of more general observations as to Nazi propaganda. However, this title was not the real name of the film. No such title appears in the surviving film papers of Kurt Gerron, an invaluable source of information [24]. The existence of these papers needs some explanation. Although Gerron himself perished in Auschwitz, his film papers survived. They include a synopsis of the film as he planned it, two versions of a script, a shooting scheme, one (or two) daily reports for the SS for each of the 11 days of filming, with detailed shot-by-shot listings of what each camera had filmed, a proposal for a commentary text, a proposal for editing the film, notes and memoranda by Gerron, and orders from camp commander Karl Rahm to Gerron [25]. Nowhere in the Gerron papers is there mention of Der Fighter schenkt den Juden eine Stadt. There are however, other titles: Gerron's second draft script is headed Die

Downloaded by [Harvard College] at 14:54 15 September 2011

fiidische Selbstverwaltung in Theresienstadt [The Jewish Self-Government in Theresienstadt]. Later, Gerron used a shorter title: the film is simply called Theresienstadt.
Conclusive proof could only come from the finished film itself. Fortunately, among the fragments of the film that re-surfaced at Yad Vashem in Jerusalem a few years ago, there are just enough bits of the title sequence to give the final answer [26]. Theresienstadt was the main title; but there was a subtitle too: Ein Dokumentarfilm aus

dem jiidischen Siedlungsgebiet [A Documentary Film from the Jewish Settlement Area].
The working title used by Gerron in his proposal for editing remained the main title, but to it was added a substitute cleverly designed to pre-condition the film's audience. By labelling it a Dokumentarfilm, the Nazis intended to give the film an aura of objectivity, of truthfulness. The word Dokumentarfilm was meant to indicate that this was not a fiction film, no staged propaganda, but a reliable authentic account, showing Theresienstadt 'as it really i s ' - - a film report. The words jiidische Siedlungsgebiet in the subtitle served exactly the same purpose as the cosmetic orthographic changes instigated in the ghetto for the Red Cross inspection visit of June 1944--the abolition of the word 'ghetto' and its replacement by the euphemism 'jiidische Siedlung'. By adding gebiet the film title suggests there were more jiidische Siedlungen than just Theresienstadt, that there were many towns in which Jews lived peacefully. As such, the film went even beyond the lie of the June 23 visit. In the ideological context of the Nazi persecution of the Jews, it was unthinkable that Adolf Hitler would ever 'donate' anything to the Jews. In fact, even if the notion of 'a gift' had been the theme of the propaganda message, it would not have been so personalised. A Nazi propagandist would never associate the Fiihrer himself with what might be construed as charity towards the Jews. I f Der Fiihrer schenkt den Juden eine Stadt is not the real title of the 1944 film, where then did it come from? Its first use occurs after the end of the war. On 7 July 1945, a Dutch Jewess just re-patriated from Theresienstadt, Reine Friedmann-van der Heide, published her eyewitness account of Theresienstadt in a Dutch weekly [27]. Her account is the very first in which the apocryphal title is mentioned. Many other references followed, in dozens of post-war survivor accounts. It seems likely that the title was coined--with a clear sense of irony--by the Jewish inmates themselves, during the time that the film was made. It is another example of the same black humour with which the prisoners treated many other aspects of ghetto life. The title quickly spread among the ghetto population and, eventually, after liberation, found its way into the survivor accounts. The assumption that the title was invented by the inmates is supported by the fact that the survivor accounts yield a great many variations of the same title, all with the same ironic, bitter undertone [28]. From the

'Theresienstadt" (1944-1945)

151

Downloaded by [Harvard College] at 14:54 15 September 2011

FIG. 2. Theresienstadt choir led by Karel Fischer singing Mendelssohn's Elijah

survivor accounts, the title found its way into the history books and even into the court room. At the 1947 trial o f Karl Rahm, the SS camp c o m m a n d e r under whose supervision the film was made, the film was initially referred to by its correct title 'Theresienstadt'. But at the end o f the trial, after Jewish witnesses had been heard and testimony has been read, the same film was suddenly referred to as 'Der Fiihrer schenkt den ffuden eine Stadt'. [29].

FIG. 3. Subtitle: 'A documentary film from the Jewish Settlement Area'

152

K. Margry

The Role o f Kurt Gerron Historians, both of film and Theresienstadt, term Kurt Gerron 'the director' of the 1944 film. Filmographies of Gerron name 'Der Fiihrer schenkt den Juden eine Stadt' as his very last film. In short, there appears to be no doubt that the film was, from beginning to end, a Gerron creation. At first glance, his activities would seem to support claims that he was the decisive creative force. He set up and led the ghetto's Film Department, wrote the script, planned the shooting, gave out orders for extras to be called up, notified officials of the ghetto self-government who were in charge of, for example, the post office, the agricultural farm, the central laundry or the ghetto library, that these places would be used as location for the film and told them to have everything ready. Survivor accounts describe how Gerron went about as director, exhorting extras to be more enthusiastic, cajoling youngsters into laughing in front of the camera and directing mass scenes. At the conclusion of the shooting, he wrote a proposal for cutting the film. Actually, the making of the film involves more than one talented prisoner. When Gerron wrote his script, in late July 1944, a great deal of groundwork had already been done. The decision to make the film took place in December 1943. The SS ordered a Czech inmate, Jindrich Weil (who before the war had worked as a scriptwriter in the Czech film industry), to write a script. Between December 1943 and March 1944, Weil in fact wrote a synopsis and two different scripts [30]. A start was even made with the filming: on 20 January 1944, a film crew from Aktualita filmed the arrival of transports from Holland in Theresienstadt and recorded a 'welcome speech' by Judeniilteste Dr Paul Eppstein. But that was all. The filming was discontinued. For the SS, the 'Beautification' of the town itself had greater priority than the film; also Gfinther and Rahm had realised that Theresienstadt would offer a far more convincing 'film set' if the film were made later: after the town's face-lift, and in summer. The film plan was temporarily shelved. All this happened before Gerron had even arrived in the ghetto on 26 February 1944. When the film plan was revived in July, Rahm, now camp commander, gave the task to Gerron. Weil seems to have had no part in the new attempt; there is no evidence that he was a member of Gerron's Film-Abteilung. However, it seems clear that Gerron not only knew Weil's work, but used it as the basis of his own scenario. Many ideas first formulated in Weil's scripts re-appeared in Gerron's scripts. The similarities can be noted in the selection of items to be included, in the story structure, in the construction of individual sequences, and even in the ways used to link one sequence to the next. How much of the film was actually directed by Gerron needs reappraisal too. Gerron worked under close and strict supervision of the SS. Eyewitnesses testify to the fact that Gerron was under continuous watch by SS guards, who followed him everywhere, looking over his shoulder and checking where and how he set up his cameras. On many occasions, Rahm himself, and sometimes even Gfinther, having come from Prague, was present on the set and personally supervised the scenes being filmed. From Gerron's daily reports and detailed shot lists, Rahm knew exactly what was going on. His particular concern was to include the ghetto's internationally renowned Prominente. Gerron's papers contain written orders telling Gerron to insert more shots of these people and reports by Gerron listing names of Prominente filmed so far [31]. There is convincing evidence that Gerron did not remain director to the end. F o r the August-September filming, a film team from Aktualita, led by the firm's managing

Downloaded by [Harvard College] at 14:54 15 September 2011

"Theresienstadt" (1944-1945)

153

Downloaded by [Harvard College] at 14:54 15 September 2011

director Karel Peceny, came to Theresienstadt to do the actual filming. About halfway-through the 11 days of shooting, Karel Peceny--a non-prisoner, a non-Jew, a Czech--virtually took over as director. Although Gerron was still present whenever the cameras rolled and continued to be responsible for organising the production, the set dressing, calling up actors and extras, and for reporting to the SS, he had in fact been relegated to the position of assistant director. Peceny admitted so at his post-war trial (and he had every reason to deny or remain silent about it, for the Theresienstadt film was part of the charges of collaboration made against him). [32]. Another fact must be kept in mind. Gerron could not have completed the Theresienstadt film. He was deported to Auschwitz on 28 October 1944 and killed long before the film was ready. Gerron never saw any rushes. The film was cut and edited by Ivan Fric, an employee of Aktualita who had also been one of the two cameramen at Theresienstadt. Fric did not use the 'Proposal for editing' that Gerron had written, nor any of his scripts. Instead, he cut the film as he cut the weekly newsreels or would cut any documentary short: improvising, using only rough notes made while viewing the rushes. In addition to that, Fric worked under close surveillance of the Gestapo who intervened in the cutting at will. Fric had to re-do the final sequence of the film three times before Gfinther was satisfied with it [33]. The film as finally edited had a structure very different from what Gerron had envisaged and bore little resemblance to Gerron's original script or editing proposal. The same is true for the sound track of the final film. Part of the music used in the film had been recorded live under Gerron's direction (or, at least, in his presence) in August-September 1944--for example, the orchestra conducted by Karel Ancerl, the 'Ghettoswingers' jazz band and the children's opera 'Brundibar' [34]. Gerron had planned to record other pieces for background music. But none of these had yet been recorded when Gerron was deported. The soundtrack was in fact not completed until March 1945, when a sound team from Aktualita returned to Theresienstadt especially for it. The music pieces then recorded--incidentally all by Jewish composers-had been selected, not by Gerron, but by another inmate, Peter Deutsch, the Danish composer who before the war had written many scores for film music. Deutsch also conducted the orchestra for the sound recordings [35]. In sum, although Gerron was by far the most important Jewish person involved in the film, other persons influenced it as well, so it is therefore only very partially true to call the film a Gerron creation.

Jo Spier's Film Sketches

During the film's shooting, the Dutch painter Jo Spier, an inmate of Theresienstadt and one of Gerron's collaborators on the film, drew hundreds of little sketches of film scenes. Scholars have presumed they were made to illustrate Kurt Gerron's film script; that they were a visual presentation made before the actual shooting, a 'storyboard' made in the pre-production stage to give those involved in the film some idea of what it would look like [36]. Actually, the Spier sketches were made during the shooting. Spier followed the camera teams around and, whenever the camera was set up for another shot, literally had a look through the viewfinder and made his drawings from that. The sketches show what the camera saw [37]. The sketches are a visual log of scenes actually filmed, and an accurate one too, because of Spier's detailed and precise style of drawing. They are an invaluable prime source for a reconstruction of the film,

154

K. Margry

Intended a u d i e n c e Many people believe the Theresienstadt film was to have been screened inside Germany [38]. That is not the case. Gfinther produced the film exclusively for foreign audiences. A public exposed to years of aggressive anti-Jewish propaganda including Der ewige ffude (1940) and ffud Siiss (1940), would have been confused by a film depicting Jews in a more positive way. The SS intended the film for distribution abroad to organisations such as the International Red Cross and the Vatican, or neutral countries such as Sweden or Switzerland. It was abroad, and there only, that the film would serve a comprehensible purpose and where it could hope to achieve an effect, if at all. Many scholars think that the Theresienstadt film was never shown in its entirety or never shown to any audience at all [39]. Actually, there are at least four documented screenings of the completed film. The first, in late March or early April 1945, took place at the Czernin Palace in Prague, the seat of German State Minister K. H. Frank, and was a private showing for Frank and a select group of high-ranking SS officers. Gfinther and Rahm were also present [40]. The other three screenings, in Theresienstadt itself, were for representatives of foreign organisations negotiating with the Nazis to rescue concentration camp inmates. On 6 April 1945, the film was shown to two delegates of the International Red Cross, Dr Otto Lehner and Paul Dunant, who had come to Theresienstadt to negotiate a plan to put the camp under Red Cross protection. With them was a Swiss diplomat, Mr Buchmfiller, who also watched the film; also present were SS-Standartenfiihrer Erwin Weinmann, Commander of the Security Police in the Protectorate; and two German Foreign Office officials, Eberhard yon Thadden and Erich von Luckwald [41]. On 16 April 1945, the film was shown to a Swiss citizen, Benoit Musy. Musy was the son of Jean-Marie Musy, a former Swiss president and leader of a group that had been negotiating with Himmler since the autumn of 1944 for the release of Jewish prisoners to Switzerland. The younger Musy had come to Theresienstadt as part of a Himmler-approved tour of several concentration camps--Buchenwald, Theresienstadt, RavensbrOck--to confirm Himmler's allegation that further deportations had stopped. Musy was escorted by SS-Obersturmfiihrer Franz G6ring, who saw the film with him [42]. Also on 16 April, but after Musy had left, the film was again shown, this time to Resz6 Kastner, a representative of the Hungarian-Jewish Rescue Committee, who had been accompanied to the ghetto by two officers of Eichmann's staff, SS-Obersturmbannfiihrer Hermann Krumey and SS-Hauptsturmfiihrer Otto Hunsche. Eichmann had sent Kasmer to Theresienstadt in a final effort to exploit the fraud of the model ghetto. Present at this showing were Hans Gfinther; his deputy, SS-Sturmbannflihrer Gerhard Gfinel; and Rahm. Also allowed to see the film on this occasion was the ghetto's ffudenMteste Benjamin Murmelstein [43]. These screenings for foreign visitors were the audience for which the SS had intended the film. What seems surprising is that they all took place at Theresienstadt. That is less strange than appears at first sight. There are strong indications that, when the SS first started the film project in December 1943, they hoped to have it finished in time for the upcoming Red Cross inspection and that they would have screened it to the Swiss and Danish delegates on 23 June 1944 if they had had it ready then [44]. As the SS saw it, the combination of seeing the film plus the real thing (provided it was sufficiently beautified) would reinforce the credibility of both.

Downloaded by [Harvard College] at 14:54 15 September 2011

'Theresienstadt" (1944-1945)

155

Downloaded by [Harvard College] at 14:54 15 September 2011

T h e SS also h o p e d to get the film distributed abroad, b u t n e v e r had a clear idea o f exactly h o w that w o u l d be accomplished. By the t i m e the film was finished, 28 M a r c h , 1945, the N a z i s no l o n g e r had the m e a n s to distribute the film to c o u n t r i e s abroad [45]. I f so, the screenings at T h e r e s i e n s t a d t were a l a s t - m i n u t e solution. T h e film had absolutely no effect on the t h i n k i n g o f the foreigners w h o saw it, nor on public o p i n i o n in the countries f r o m which t h e y came. At this late stage, the true fate o f the Jews o f E u r o p e was no longer a secret, especially not to i n f o r m e d p e o p l e like D u n a n t , M u s y and Kastner. A detailed r e p o r t o f the mass e x t e r m i n a t i o n and gas c h a m b e r s at A u s c h w i t z had already reached the outside w o r l d in J u n e 1944 [46]. A f t e r M a i d a n e k in July 1944, the Russians had u n c o v e r e d traces o f o t h e r e x t e r m i n a t i o n c a m p s in P o l a n d and in J a n u a r y 1945 t h e y had liberated A u s c h w i t z . M o r e o v e r , b o t h M u s y and K a s t n e r had seen o t h e r c a m p s and k n e w the m o d e l g h e t t o was not typical o f o t h e r c o n c e n t r a t i o n camps. F o r e i g n visitors t o o k it for what it w a s - - f r a u d u l e n t p r o p a g a n d a - - a n d simply discarded it. A final w o r d about the authenticity o f the T h e r e s i e n s t a d t film. I n general historians have o v e r e s t i m a t e d the staged c h a r a c t e r o f the film ( a n d , incidentally, that c a m p survivors h a v e d o n e little to correct that image). T h i s is not to say that the film is n o t mendacious. W i t h o u t a d o u b t , the film as a w h o l e - - t h e final m i x t u r e o f filmed images, m u s i c and c o m m e n t a r y - - i s a vicious piece o f propaganda. But the film's visual authenticity is m u c h greater than m o s t p e o p l e think. M a n y o f the things s h o w n in it actually existed in T h e r e s i e n s t a d t or f o r m e d part o f the p r i s o n e r s ' daily l i f e - - a n d not just in 1944, but before as well. A n u m b e r o f scenes w e r e filmed on locations that had not b e e n 'beautified'. E v e n the n a r r a t i o n - - t h e m a i n t r u t h - d i s t o r t i n g e l e m e n t in the f i l m - - c o n t a i n e d e l e m e n t s o f factual truth. In the final analysis, the film's blatant dishonesty t u r n s on w h a t it did not show: the hunger, the misery, the o v e r c r o w d i n g , the slave w o r k for the G e r m a n war e c o n o m y , the high death rate and, m o s t o f all, the transports leaving for the East.

Theresienstadt: A R e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f the F i l m
Misconceptions about the Theresienstadt film are understandable because the film disappeared after the war. Survivor accounts described what had been filmed, not what was in the final film. A full copy of the Theresienstadt film has never been found [47]. The basic story structure comes from a document prepared in the editing stage to select background music [48]. It lists all the film's sequences in the order in which they appeared in the final version, plus each sequence's length in metres and seconds--that is, all sequences except five. The exceptions are those sequences which had 'live' sound for which no music was needed. Though not named, each spot within the film is indicated by dotted lines. With this as a starting point, it has proved relatively easy to complete the list, for the surviving film fragments, the testimony of cutter Ivan Fric, and the Gerron papers gave enough additional information to determine the location of the 'live sound sequences'. For the visual image of the scenes and sequences, we have three kinds of picture material: film fragments, frame enlargements and Jo Spier's film sketches. First is the 15-minute fragment that re-surfaced in Czechoslovakia in 1964 which comes from the end of the film. It shows parts or all of 12 of the film's 38 sequences [49]. Also in this category are some 24 of the fragments found in 1987 at the Yad Vashem archives in Israel. It has proved possible to restore these 24 fragments into five parts, with scenes varying in length from a few seconds to over 2 minutes. These five fragments show all, or parts (sometimes just glimpses), of seven different sequences, all from the first half of the film. Together, they add up to some 7 t minutes of running footage [50]. The second category also consists of authentic pieces of footage, but footage for which too few frames survive to provide a moving image. The greater part of the several dozen fragments found at Yad Vashem are of this type. Most of them are only four or five frames long, some consist of just one frame. Although these fragments are unsuitable for projection, good frame enlargements can be made from them [51]. They

156

K. Margry

show scenes from 15 different sequences of the film, much of it new: in five cases they add new shots to sequences that are only partly preserved in the running footage; and for no less than 11 sequences they are the only film images that we have [52]. The third category are Jo Spier's film sketches. They can be used to fill the gaps left by the running footage and the frame enlargements. The Spier sketches provide us with 332 pictures from 32 of the film's 38 sequences. In 15 cases, the sketches add new images--sometimes a great m a n y - - t o sequences that are only partly preserved on film; in seven cases they cover sequences for which not a single frame has survived [53]. Taken together, the surviving film fragments and the Spier sketches allow us to get a very good idea of the visual image of virtually every scene in the film's 38 sequences. In fact, there remain only two scenes of which we have no image at all: the one showing the session of the ghetto court in sequence 11 and the scene inside the communal dining hall in sequence 21. For everything else, we have either running footage~ stills or Spier's sketches, or a combination of these, to show us what it looked like [54]. What follows is a reconstruction on paper of the film in its final form. It has been pieced together from all the available sources. The scenes and sequences are presented in the correct order, exactly as they were in the finished film. The names of the Prominenten are listed with the sequences in which they appear.

Downloaded by [Harvard College] at 14:54 15 September 2011

1. Title sequence: choir led by Karel Fischer sings Mendelssohn's Elijah (in audience: Jo Spier and Countess G6rtz from Holland). 2. Theresienstadt: early history as illustrated by Spier drawings; views of the town as it is today. 3. Town square with jazz band playing in bandstand, audience stands or sits on park benches. 4. Outdoor terrace with sunshades, lemonade being served by waitresses, people stroll through garden adjoining terrace (Prominenten: Judeni~Iteste and former Berlin university professor Paul Eppstein; former German Minister Alfred Meisner; Czech Minister Georg Gradnauer; French Minister Lgon Meyer; Austrian Feldmarshall Johann Friedl~inder and Major General Emil Sommer; Danish Rabbi Max Friediger and Frau Clara yon Schultz, the widow of a Danish admiral). 5. Kaffeehaus" evening cafg with music and dance. 6. Leisure time on the ramparts: people enjoying the view of the coutryside; girls sunbathing; old men playing chess. 7. Sports on one of the town bastions: mens athletics, womens handball. 8. Theatre: staging of scenes from Offenbach's Tales of Hoffmann and from the Yiddish play In mitt'n Weg (in the audience: Frau Julie Salinger, opera star from Hamburg). These first eight sequences set the tone for the whole film. All we have seen so far is leisure time, entertainment, amusement and non-productive activities. Theresienstadt is presented as a holiday resort, The film then shows how well-organised the town's facilities are:

FIG. 4. Jewish Self-Government. The Council of Elders listens to a speech by Juden~ilteste Paul Eppstein

"Theresienstadt' (1944-1945)

157

Downloaded by [Harvard College] at 14:54 15 September 2011

9. The town square at the beginning of the working day: groups of men and women, shouldering spades and rakes and singing, march to work. 10. The Jewish Self-Government: a session of the Council of Elders, the elders listen to a speech by Juden~ilteste Paul Eppstein [55]. 11. Court of Justice of the Jewish Self-Government: a trial in session. 12. Bank of the Jewish Self-Government: business at the counters, the bank's safe. 13. Shops: customers waiting for shops to open, shopping in a men's clothing-store. 14. Post office, with people coming to collect parcels sent from many countries; a parcel being unpacked in the home of a married couple. 15. Health care: scenes of ambulance clinics, the central hospital, a surgical operation in progress, a sick ward, patients enjoying the sun in the garden of the hospital, the children's recovery home with children eating white bread and fruit. 16. Children at the playground in the town park, in the nearby children's pavillion, in the nursery school building--playing, drinking lemonade and milk. 17. Theatre: staging of the children's opera Brundibar(closing scene). 18. Fire brigade of the Jewish Self-Government: the alarm sounds, the brigade's engine leaves the fire station, the firemen put out a fire. 19. Railway construction: railway workers repair section of track. 20. Agriculture: (a) fields outside the town: vegetables and potatoes, silk-worm breeding; (b) duck and poultry keeping; (c) harvesting; a threshing machine at work; (d) arable land.

FIG. 5. Agriculture. A threshing machine to harvest the grain

21. Nourishment: food being prepared in central kitchens, meals being given out at a counter on a ration card system, people eating in a communal dining hall. 22. Open-air variety show in meadow outside the ghetto: performances by a woman dancer, a duo on accordion and violin, a German cabaret trio, a female singer, and by Gerron himself. (Prominentein audience: Dr Rolf Grabower from Berlin; Phillip Kozower of the Berlin Jewish community; Frau Franzi Schneidhuber, widow of an SA General from Munich; Frau Elly yon Bleichr6der; Frau von Hennicke; Austrian Colonel Leon Neuberger). 23. Swimming in the Eger river bath. 24. Central laundry. 25. Woodworking factory in a former riding school: cutting of boards; production of bed planking and parts for prefabricated huts.

158

K. Margry

Downloaded by [Harvard College] at 14:54 15 September 2011

FIG. 6 Open air cabaret show 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. Wagon builder and blacksmith shops; a smith shoeing an ox. Metal-working shops: forgers, welders and engineer fitters at work. Ceramics workshops, a sculptor (Professor Rudolf Sandek from Leipzig) at work. Production and repair workshops in wooden barracks outside the town, producing 'for the benefit of the population': tailors, seamstresses and shoemakers at work, production of handbags and purses. Soccer match in courtyard of the Dresden Barracks. Central bath house. Central library (in the library: Judge Heinrich Klang and Dr Desider Friedmann from Vienna, Professor David Cohen from Amsterdam, Professor Ernst Kantorowicz from Frankfurt). Lecture by a university professor (Professor Emil Utitz from Vienna) (in the audience: Rabbi Leo Baeck, Professor Hermann Strauss, Dr Otto Stargardt and Dr. Jur. Alexander Cohn from Berlin; Professor Alfred Philippson from Bonn; Professor Alfred Klein from Jena, Professor Klang and Rabbi Benjamin Murmelstein from Vienna; Professors Artur Stein, Leo Taussig and Maximilian Adler from Prague; Franzi Schneidhuber and Elly von Bleichr6der). Orchestra concert conducted by Karel Ancerl (in the audience: Dr Ernst Rosenthal of the Berlin Jewish community, Dr Fritz Guttmann, Dr Julius Moritz, theatre director Karl Meinhard and banker Karl L6wenstein from Berlin; Dr Leo L6wenstein from Aachen; Professor Saudek from Leipzig; Dr Heinrich Gans and Dr Heinrich Dessauer from Vienna; industrialist Ove Meyer and Morits and Melanie Oppenhejm from Copenhagen; Dr Franz Kahn and Robert Mandler of the Prague Jewish community; chief surgeon Dr Erich Springer; Elisabeth Czech, widow of a former Czech minister; composers Hans Krasa from Prague and Pavel Haas from Brno). Family allotment gardens in the moat bed below the town ramparts. Evening leisure time: people relaxing around wooden living barracks, scenes inside the communal living quarters. Evening meal in a family home (around the table: Professor and Mrs Cohen from Amsterdam and Mr and Mrs Kozower and children from Berlin [56]). Closing montage.

34.

35. 36. 37. 38.

In its final form, the film had a total length of 2400-2500 metres (some 90 minutes running time) [57]. By order of the SS, the film's music score was made up exclusively of pieces by Jewish composers, including Mendelssohn, Sekunda, Bruch, Dauber, Offenbach, Krasa and Haas.

Correspondence: K. G. J. M a r g r y , P e r n a m b u c o d r e e f 9, 3563 C R U t r e c h t , T h e N e t h e r lands (Tel. 030-626152).

'Theresienstadt' (1944-1945)
NOTES

159

[ 1] In 1987, the author embarked on a long-term project to study this film. Carried out under the auspices of the University of Utrecht and sponsored by The Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research, its aim was to collect, analyse and publish all existing source material--both audiovisual and written-pertaining to this film, and to write a full account of the film's history. The present article is an overview of some of the project's findings and conclusions. The full history will be published in book form at a future date. [2] Kurt Gerron (1897-1944), born in Berlin, began his career as a stage actor and cabaret comedian in 1920. He appeared in numerous plays, cabarets and revues of the Weimar period and gained popularity as a Schlager singer. He starred in the first-ever staging of the Dreigroschenoper in 1928. Between 1925 and 1932, he appeared in no less than 74 films, his most famous role being that of impresario magician Kiepert with Marlene Dietrich in The Blue Angel (1930). In 1931, he switched to directing himself, enjoying several Ufa box-office hits. In exile from 1933, he settled in Holland where he directed four Dutch films. Caught by the Nazi invasion of Holland in 1940, he was deported to Westerbork camp in late 1943 and from there to Theresienstadt in February 1944. [3] The standard works on Theresienstadt are by ADLER, H. G. (1960; 1958) Theresienstadt 1941-1945. Das Antlitz einer Zwangsgemeinschafi, (Tfibingen) and Die verheimlichte Wahrheit: Theresiensttidter Dokumente (Tfibingen). The best history in English is LEDEI~R, Z. (1953) Ghetto Theresienstadt (London). [4] KARNY,M. (1983) Sinn und Polge des 23 Juni 1944 in Theresienstadt, Judaica Bohemiae, XIX, No. 2 (Prague) pp. 72-98. [5] Today, Terezin is again a garrison town. Still small and provincial, its outer appearance has hardly changed since 1945. There is a Ghetto Museum in the town, opened in 1991 and made possible only by the change of regime in Czechoslovakia of 1989. The official guide book is CHLADKOV~,,L. (1991) The Terezin Ghetto (Prague). Just outside the town, in the so-called 'small fortress' (during the occupation a Gestapo prison and not connected to the Jewish ghetto) is the state-run Terezin Memorial (mailing address; Pamatnik Terezin, Terezin 41155, CSFR) with an archive and museum. [6] For example: KRAUS, F. R. (1960) Das Drehbuch des Goebbels schen Ghetto-Dokumentarfilms gefunden, AuJbau und Frieden (Prague, 20 February 1960), p. 6; Ltrl~, H. G. (1960) Shadow of the swastika, Films and Filming, 7, No. 2 (November 1960) p. 10; GIIANIER, G. et al. (1977) Das Bundesarchiv und seine Besti~nde (Boppard am Rhein) pp. 748-749; REmtEgS, K. & FPdEDgaCH, H. (Eds) (1982) Zeitgeschichte in Film und Fernsehen (Munich) pp. 467-468; J^USERT, A. (1986) Le Commissariat aux Archives (Paris) p. 74. [7] Protokoll fiber die Abmachungen mit dem Reichspropagandaministerium fiber die beabsichtigte Massnahmen auf dem Sektor Kuhurpropaganda vom 14.10.1941; Statni Ustredni Archiv, Prague (SUA): URP-1223; letter Himmler to Heydrich, 23 October 1941. [8] Heydrich was also the head of the SS-Reichssicherheitshauptamt (RSHA, Reich Security Main Office), directly under Himmler in the SS chain of command; directing all secret police and security matters in the Reich; and charged with carrying out the 'Final Solution of the Jewish Question'. However, important as it was for the 1941 Heydrich/Goebbels Agreement, this personal union of two chief offices played no role in the production of the 1944 Theresienstadt film. On 27 May 1942, Heydrich was shot by Czech resistance agents, dying of his wounds on 4 June. Kaltenbrunner succeeded him as head of the RSHA and Kurt Daluege took over as Reichsprotektor, replaced by Frick in 1943. [9] Bundesarchiv, Koblenz (BA): R~ (Reichsministerium ffir Volksaufklgrung und Propaganda)/108, 486, 498, 504, 601,619, 655, 662, 663, 665, 676, 1040, 1285, 1337, 1394, 1473. [10] Hans Gfinther (1910-19457) from Erfurt, joined the SA in 1928, the NSDAP in 1929 and the SS in 1937. Originally a bookkeeper, he switched to a career in the Gestapo in 1937. One of Eichmann's early assistants in Austria 1937-1938, he was appointed head of the new Prague ZentralsteUe in July 1939, a post he held throughout the Protectorate period. In that capacity, he planned the anti-Jewish laws in the Protectorate and organised the deportation of Czech Jews to Theresienstadt and, from there, to the death camps. Tall, handsome and courteous, he was known in the ghetto as 'the smiling executioner'. It is presumed that he was killed in a skirmish while resisting arrest near Prague in May 1945, His younger brother, Roll Gfinther, was Eichmann's right-hand man at IV-B-4. [11] Statni Oblastni Archly, Litomerice (SOAL): MLS 441/47:1-76 (Rahm interrogation, 25-28 March 1947), p. 43; Stami Oblastni Archiv, Prague (SOAP): MLS 521/48 (Trial against Karel Peceny): 1-62 (Peceny account, 25 June 1945), pp. 41-43; MUR~LSTEIN, B. (1961) Terezin. 11 Ghetto Modello di Eichmann (Bologna) pp. 214 and 216.

Downloaded by [Harvard College] at 14:54 15 September 2011

160
[12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]

K. Margry
SOAL: MLS 441/47:II-94 (Rahm testimony, 24 April 1947). SOAP: MLS 521/48: II-139: Aktualita book accounts for 1944-1945, p. 3t. SOAP: MLS 521/48:1-62 (Peceny account, 25 June 1945), p. 41. BAKER,L. (1978) Days of Sorrow and Pain. Leo Baeck and the Berlin Jews (New York) p. 308. ADLER,H. G. (1960) op. cit., p. 181. GREEN,G. (1978) The Artists of Theresienstadt (New York) p. 95. KRAUS,O. & KULKA,E. (1963) Massenmord und Profit (Berlin) p. 176. See: BERr, LEu G. manuscript of a forthcoming book on Theresienstadt. For details: BAUER,Y. (1977) The negotiations between Saly Mayer and the representatives of the SS in 1944-1945 , GlYrMAIq,Y. & ZUROFF, E. (Eds) Rescue Attempts during the Holocaust (Jerusalem) p. 5-45; PENKOWER,M. S. (1972) The Jews were Expendable (Urbana) pp. 185-212; WYMAN,D. S. (1985) The Abandonment of the Jews (New York) pp. 243-251. See for example: LEDERER,Z. (1953) op. cir., p. 121; L^GUS, K. & POLAK,J. (1964) Mesto za Mrizemi [Town behind bars] (Prague) p. 184; HOLLSTEIN,D. (1971) Antisemitische Filmpropaganda (Munich) p. 172; NORGART, P. Theresienstadt-Filmen. En kommentar, SKYUM-NIELSEN,N. & NORGART, P. (Eds) (1972) Film og Kildekritik (Copenhagen) p. 97. For example: BA: NS-19 (RF-SS Pers6nlicher Stab)/393 and 1364. DE JONG, L. Heeft Felix Kersten het Nederlandse volk gered? PAAPE,A. H. (Ed.) (1972) Studies over Nederland in Oorlogstijd (The Hague) pp. 301-369. KERSTEN,F. (1948) Klerke en Beul (Amsterdam) p. 175; KERSTEN, F. (1952) Totenkopf und Treue (Hamburg) p. 357. The Gerron papers are in the Rijksinstituut voor Oorlogsdocumentatie, Amsterdam (RIOD): Adler Collection, folder 12F. Karl Rahm (1907-1947), from Klosterneuburg in Austria, came from a Social-Democrat background. A fitter and toolmaker by trade, but unemployed, he joined the illegal Austrian branch of the NSDAP in 1934 and, alter the German annexation of Austria in 1938, the SS. Employed by Eichmann's Zentralstelle in Vienna in 1939, he transferred to the Prague Zentralstelle in October 1940, becoming Hans Gtinther's right-hand man. Eichmann appointed him Kommandant of Theresienstadt in February 1944 especially to direct and supervise the Town Beautification. A good organiser and shrewd enough to appear less brutal than his predecessors, he was nevertheless excitable and prone to fits of blind anger. Condemned to death by a Czech tribunal, he was hanged in 1947. Yad Vashem, Jerusalem (YV): Film and Photo Archive, collection No. 2977. FRIEDMANN-VAN DER HEIDE, R. (1945) Theresienstadt, Paraat, 27 June 1945. Actually, she gives the title as 'Hitler schenkt den Juden eine Stadt' instead of 'Der Fiihrer schenkt den Juden eine Stadt'. STARKE,K. (1975) Der Fi~hrer schenkt den ffuden eine Stadt (Berlin) p. 132. Most of the early survivor accounts concur with Friedmann-van der Heide and use 'Hitler' rather than 'Der Ftihrer'. See e.g. RIOD: CGC: F. Rothgiesser: Eiu gefilmte L6ge (ms, Summer 1945); first published in Aufoau und Frieden XI/38 (New York, 21 September 1945), pp. 1 and 6; RIOD CGC: E. Dormitzer: Leben in Theresienstadt (ms, September 1945), p. 4; YV: O-2/241: H. Eros: Theresienstadt (ms, n.d.), p. 16; and YV: 0-33/986: E. Noack-Mosse: Bericht ans Theresienstadt (ms, n.d.), p. 31. YV: 0-2/707: C. Friedman (ms, 1958). GESCltKE, O. (1945) 'Wit Klagen An' (Berlin, December 1945), p. 31. See FRIEDMAN, R. M. (1988) Theresienstadt. The film about 'the town which the Ftihrer donated to the Jews', Remembering for the future. The impact of the holocaust on the contemporary world. Proceedings of the International Scholars' Conference held at Oxford, 10-13 July 1988, 3 vols. (Oxford) p. 1698. SOAL: MLS 441/47 (Trial of Karl Rahm): 1-174 (prosecutor's charges against Rahm, 30 April 1947), p. 5; II-260 (court's verdict, 30 April 1947), p. 5. The Well papers were discovered in Prague in 1960. Microfilm copies of them are in YV: JM-2695. RIOD: Adler Collection: 12F/23. SOAP: MLS 521/48:1-62 (Peceny account, 25 June, 1945), p. 42; 1-21 (Cechura affidavit, 27 June 1945): 11-120 and 128 (Peceny and Cechura testimony, 28 February 1947). Author's interview with Ivan Fric, 13 November 1989. See also: E. KOLKA:Herci dohrali v Osvitimi [The actors played their last role in Auschwitz], Vestnik XXlI/4 (Prague, 1 April 1960), pp. 5-6. For more information on musical activities in Theresienstadt, see: KARAS,J. (1985) Music in Terezin 1941-1945 (New York). Letter from Else Deutsch (Peter Deutsch's widow) to author, 13 January 1991. Peter Deutsch (1901-1965) was born in Berlin. An opera conductor and show orchestra leader since 1924, he took up writing music for German films in 1929. Moving to Denmark in 1933, he composed music for many Danish films, theatre and radio, as well as several solo and orchestra works. Deported with his family,

[20]

Downloaded by [Harvard College] at 14:54 15 September 2011

[21] [22] [23] [24] [25]

[26] [27] [28]

[29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35]

'Theresienstadt' ( 1 9 4 4 - 1 9 4 5 )

161

[36]

[37]

[38]

[39]

[40] [41J

[42] [43] [44] [45]

[46] [47]

[48] [49]

[50]

[51]

he arrived in Theresienstadt on 6 October 1943. He survived the camp, returning to Denmark after liberation. See for example: ADLER,H. G. (1960) op. cir., p. 817; MtrLDER, H. (I978) Kunst in Crisis en Bezetting (Amsterdam) p. 202; VANLEER, W. The ultimate illusion. How a Nazi concentration camp was made to look like a health spa, Jerusalem Post Magazine, 2 February 1985, p. 8; FRIEDMAN,R. M. (1988) op. cit., p. 1698. The spier sketches are in the RIOD collection of drawings and art works. RIOD: Doc. 1-1624a: letter Spier to M. Schreyer, 28 December 1973; Joods Historisch Museum, Amsterdam: Documentation file 670: letter Spier to B. de Groot/J. Belinfante, 15 February 1978; letter Peter Spier (Jo Spier's son) to D. Willemsen, 14 May 1985; letter P. Spier to M. Schmidt, 26 February 1988 (both in author's possession); letter P. Spier to author, 27 January 1989. Jo and Peter Spier's assertions are corroborated by the fact that the drawings follow more the order in which the film was shot than the order prescribed by the script. See for example: KtmKa, E. op. cit., Vertnik XXlI/4 (Prague, 1 April 1960), p. 5; DIETRICH, H. P. (1974) Die Schleuse. Die Erlebnisse der Judin Alice Randt im Ghetto Theresienstadt (Hann. Miinden) p. 126; BERGER,S. (1985) Die unvergesslichen Sechseinhalb Jahre meines Lebens 1939-1945 (Frankfurt am Main), p. 90. See for example: SCrlOENBERNER,G. (1972) Beihefi zum Film "Der Fiihrer schenkt den Juden eine Stadt" (Grtinwald) p. 13; NIETI-mMMER,L. Widerstand des Gesichts. Beobachtungen an dem Filmfragment 'Der Ftihrer schenkt den Juden eine Stadt', Journal Geschichte, No. 2 April 1989), p. 47; BRANSON, J. (Ed.) (1991) Seeing Through Paradise. Artists and the Terezin Concentration Camp (Boston) pp. 30 and 44. SOAL: MLS 441/47:1-76 (Rahm interrogation, 25-28 March 1947), p. 43. International Red Cross (IRC) Archives: report by O. Lehner: Theresienstadt. Besucht am 6. April 1945 durch Dr Lehner und P. Dunant (undated, but 18 April 1945); see also: ADLER,H. G. (1958) op. cit., pp. 355-357. Nuremburg Documents: Case XI (Schellenberg), Dokumentenbuch II, Document No. 51 (B. Musy affidavit, 8 May 1948); SOAP: MLS 521/48:11-122 (Murmelstein testimony, 28 February 1947). KASTNER,R. (1961) Der Kasmer-Bericht iiber Eichmanns Menschenhandel in Ungarn (Munich) pp. 323-327; MURMELSTEIN,B. (1961) op. cit., p. 214-216. YV: JM-2695 (Well papers): document headed 'Errichtung eines Kinos' (undated, but c. December 1943-January 1944). After showing it to Lehner and Dunant on 6 April, the SS informed them that copies of the film could be had and sent to Geneva if the Red Cross so requested (IRC Archives: Lehner report (see note 41) p. 4). There is no evidence in the IRC archives that such a request was ever made (letters F. Truninger (IRC) to author, 26 September 1990 and 23 January 1991). See: PENKOWER, M.N. (1972) op. cit., pp. 185-209; WYMAN,D.S. op. cit., pp. 288-289; GILBERT, M. (1981) Auschwitz and the Allies (London). At the war's end, all copies of the film were either in Prague or in Theresienstadt. As both of these places were liberated by the Red Army, it is not unthinkable that one of these copies was found by the Russians and taken back to the Soviet Union as 'captured enemy propaganda'. It is possible that a complete copy of 'Theresienstadt' exists in Russian archives. Inquiries made with the Soviet central state film archives at Bielye Stolby (Gosfilm'ofond) and Krasnogorsk (the documentary film archive) in 1991 (before the dissolution of the USSR) have proved unsuccessful. Lokalhistoriske Arkiv, Randers, Denmark: Hartogsohn collection: document tided 'Musikaufstellung'. The master copy of this fragment is in Filmovy Archiv (Czech State Film Archive) in Prague. A good first-generation copy is in the Bundesarchiv (BA: Film No. 3372). Beginning and breaking off abruptly, this fragment has 215 shots, encompassing the end of sequence 26, sequences 27-36 in full, and the first seconds of sequence 37. YV: Film and Photo Archive: collection No. 2977. The five fragments show scenes from sequences 1-2 (39 and 50 seconds respectively), 6 (87 seconds), 7 (31 seconds), 15-16 (98 and 64 seconds respectively) and 17 (75 seconds). Altogether, the fragments contain 120 different shots. A 89 VHS NTSC copy of the surviving 2289 minutes of the original film, in the order of the original film, may be purchased by educational groups from the National Center for Jewish Films, Lown Bldg 102, Brandeis University, Waltham MA 02254-9110, USA (phone 617-899-7044; fax 617-736-2070) for $100. YV: Film and Photo Archive: collection No. 2977. Additional frame enlargements or stills from the film have been located at the following archives: Statui Zidovske Muzeum (State Jewish Museum) in Prague; Pamatnik Terezin (Terezin Memorial) at Terezin; Beit Theresienstadt at Kibbutz Chivat

Downloaded by [Harvard College] at 14:54 15 September 2011

162

K. Margry
Chaim; Lohamei Haghettaot (Ghetto Fighters House) at Kibbutz Lohamei Haghettaot; YIVO Institute for Jewish Research in New York; RIOD in Amsterdam. Sequences partly preserved in running footage, and with additional shots preserved in frame enlargements: 1, 2, 6, 7, 16; sequences only preserved in frame enlargements, not in running footage; 3, 4, 5, 8) 9, 10, 13, 20, 22, 24, 25. Total number of shots only preserved in frame enlargements: 149. Sequences already partly preserved on celluloid, for which the sketches provide additional images: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 13, 15, 16, 20, 22, 24, 25, 26; sequences only preserved in sketches: 11, 12, 14, 18, 19, 21, 23. In number of drawings: 103 sketches repeat images already preserved on film; 167 add new shots to incomplete sequences; and 62 represent shots from sequences not preserved in any celluloid form. Altogether we now know the image of 712 different camera shots: 215 from the Filmovy Archiv/ Bundesarchiv fragment, 120 from the five running Yad Vashem fragments, another 149 from the frame enlargements, and 229 from the Spier drawings. These 712 shots represent approximately 75-85% of the whole film. One of the people--and the only Jew--who ever saw the finished film, in April 1945, was Benjamin Murmelstein, Eppstein's successor as ffuden?ilteste of Theresienstadt after the latter had been executed by the Nazis. In his unpublished 1945 account of Theresienstadt, Murmelstein claimed that the scenes of the Council of Elders had been left out of the final film (YV: 0-2/77; B. Murmelstein: Geschichtlicher f3berlick (Theresienstadt) (ms, 1945), p. 45; see also ADLER, H.G. (1960) op. cit., p. 183). However, cutter Ivan Fric has clear memories of incorporating them, even to the extent that he remembers editing a soundtrack crossover from Eppstein's speech to the narrator's voice (author's interview with I. Fric, 4 December 1991). The scene purports to show a family of father, mother, two children and two grandparents. None of the film makers, or at least none of the SS supervisors, seem to have noted the paradox in using Cohen and Kozower, well-known personalities from two different countries, to make up what had to look like a real family! SOAP: MLS 521/48:1-62 (Peceny account, 25 June 1945), p. 43; author's interview with Ivan Fric, 13 November 1989. Historians have made wildly diverging guesses as to the film's length, such as 30, 40 or 80 minutes running time. For respective claims see for example: ILTIS, R. (1964) Nacisticky filmovy dokumeut nalezen [A nazi film document discovered], Vestnik, XXVI/7 (Prague, 1 July 1964), p. 3; SCttOENI~ERI~ER,G. (1972) op. cit., p. 13; VAN LEER, W. (1985) op cir., fferusalem Post Magazine, 2 February 1985, p. 8.

[52]

[53]

[54]

[55]

Downloaded by [Harvard College] at 14:54 15 September 2011

[56]

[57]

Karel Margry (1957) studied history at the University of Utrecht. He has written two books on the liberation of Holland 1944-1945 and made a T V documentary on the same subject. He was the historian responsible for creating the Dutch Resistance Museum in Amsterdam. Since 1987, he has worked as a research fellow at Utrecht University writing his doctoral dissertation on the Theresiemtadt propaganda film. He is European Editor of the After the Battle, a quarterly magazine covering World War II, published by Plaistow Press, London.