02.11.2013 Views

Sobibor - Holocaust Propaganda And Reality - Unity of Nobility ...

Sobibor - Holocaust Propaganda And Reality - Unity of Nobility ...

Sobibor - Holocaust Propaganda And Reality - Unity of Nobility ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

180 J. GRAF, T. KUES, C. MATTOGNO, SOBIBÓR<br />

lying on the ground with broken limbs, were given the coup de<br />

grace.<br />

Witness Chaim Engel told the court that Gomerski had boasted <strong>of</strong><br />

having killed a detainee with twelve blows, and Mrs. Engel-<br />

Weinberg, the only Dutch Jewess to have survived Sobibór, confirmed<br />

that Gomerski always took part in the gassings and the shootings.”<br />

Obviously, this was nothing but black propaganda <strong>of</strong> the crudest<br />

kind, but there was one passage in the article which should have alerted<br />

a critical reader: it was Zelda Metz’ account <strong>of</strong> the detainees who “had<br />

to fetch water from a village” when “some detainees killed the Ukrainian<br />

guard” (not: a Ukrainian guard). If Sobibór had really been an inferno<br />

where the detainees had to suffer the most atrocious ordeals day<br />

after day and were facing death at any moment, the SS would hardly<br />

have taken the risk <strong>of</strong> sending out a platoon <strong>of</strong> detainees to fetch water,<br />

guarded by a single Ukrainian. It is obvious that, under the circumstances,<br />

desperate behavior had to be reckoned with at any time. That<br />

kind <strong>of</strong> operation was possible only if the camp command felt that there<br />

was little danger <strong>of</strong> an attempt at escaping – as the detainees did not<br />

have strong enough a motive to risk their lives doing so.<br />

The Frankfurt trial <strong>of</strong> Gomerski and Klier strictly followed the pattern<br />

laid out by the trial <strong>of</strong> Bauer in Berlin, and so we will limit our description<br />

and quote only a few significant passages from the reasoning<br />

<strong>of</strong> the sentence on the subject <strong>of</strong> Gomerski: 514<br />

“From the testimony furnished by the witness R. we may conclude<br />

that the defendant himself has shot a group <strong>of</strong> about 40 persons<br />

coming from another camp and destined to be killed. At the<br />

time, the witness was employed in the armory and asserted that on a<br />

certain day the defendant arrived to pick up a pistol and some ammunition.<br />

In doing so, he said that there were only 40 persons that<br />

day. Soon after, the witness heard shots.”<br />

So a Jewish inmate was working in the armory, and a SS-man had to<br />

pick up a pistol there, apparently because he did not own one?<br />

We see that Esther Raab did not claim to have seen Gomerski shooting<br />

40 people with his pistol. She merely stated that he had picked up a<br />

pistol with some ammunition and that shots rang out a little later. Nonetheless,<br />

the court sentenced Gomerski i.a. “because he has shot a con-<br />

514<br />

LG Frankfurt, op. cit. (note 503), p. 4.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!