Inside Nuremberg Prison: Hitler's Henchmen Behind Bars

by Helen Fry

  During interviews the following month, he was still found to be frustrated by his imprisonment. By May, he continued to deny any knowledge of atrocities committed by the Third Reich, but did admit to an exception - he said he knew about Hitler’s order that captured Allied pilots should be killed. This was followed by an explanation of how the Jews were responsible for the war, but having made that admission, he was at pains to say that he was no anti-Semite like Streicher.

  Fritzsche did not think too highly of Streicher and abhorred his use of pornography in the Der Stürmer newspaper. He recounted how he and Goebbels had tried to ban the paper. A few days later, Fritzsche told them:

  ‘As far as the indictment is concerned, accusing me of murder and inhumanity, I do not feel guilty. I don’t feel guilty because I was betrayed. The only guilt I feel is in having trusted and believed Hitler and Goebbels and other people who did not warrant such trust.’

  ROSENBERG, VON PAPEN AND KALTENBRUNNER

  To a young Howard, fifty-year old defendant Alfred Rosenberg, one time racial philosopher of the Nazi party, looked anything but a mass murderer. And yet, as Reichsminister of the Eastern Occupied Territories, Rosenberg epitomized Nazi brutality and the extermination program. Kelley later wrote of him:

  ‘As an administrator, Rosenberg failed miserably; as an exterminator, he succeeded almost beyond belief. In captured documents, I found evidence that he had literally millions of the inhabitants of the area either deported or exterminated. There is little doubt that conquered Russian territories suffered more under Rosenberg than any other area under Nazi domination.’

  The observation by Howard himself that the accused looked like anyone’s kindly grandfather, and not men of evil, remained a challenge during his time in Nuremberg Prison.

  Ernst Kaltenbrunner, one-time head of the Reich Security office, had been responsible for the torture of enemies of the Nazi regime. An evil man, he claimed that he was not a war criminal because he had not personally killed anyone. That would not count for anything when he stood in the witness box in the courtroom. In his diary notes for 6 June 1946, Goldensohn wrote:

  ‘Kaltenbrunner was in his usual inhibited, frigid state. He was superficially polite and expressed pleasure at the visit of Mr Triest and myself. He remarked that I had not been in to see him for a few weeks and, “I wondered whether you had become disgusted with us war criminals – particularly me, the so-called arch criminal of them all”.’

  Franz von Papen, Hitler’s Vice Chancellor and a slick diplomat, was first visited only by Dr Kelley and Dr Gilbert. The reason for this is unclear. Dr Kelley wrote of von Papen: ‘his attitude is perfectly rational, and his basic personality must be considered as entirely normal, except for his inability to abide by the accepted code of honesty and loyalty, either in word or act.’

  Only months later, and accompanying Goldensohn, did Howard go into von Papen’s cell. He now has no vivid memories of these interviews, perhaps because von Papen did not cut much of a character. This was true also for interviews carried out with the other defendants Baldur von Schirach (former Gauleiter of Vienna), Albert Speer (Minister of Defence), Arthur Seyss-Inquart (Reichskommissor of the Netherlands and deputy to Hans Frank in Poland), Konstantin von Neurath (Hitler’s Foreign Minister in Czechoslovakia) and Fritz Sauckel (second-in-command to Albert Speer and Gauleiter of Thuringia. Sauckel was complicit in war crimes having supplied an estimated 10 million slave workers from 1942–1945 to industrial firms like Krupp. None of these defendants had the forceful, memorable character that Goering or Streicher exhibited in the cells.

  THIRTEEN

  THE BEASTS OF POLAND

  TWO MEN NICKNAMED the ‘beasts of Poland’ were brought into Nuremberg Prison approximately six months apart. They were Hans Frank and Rudolf Höss, both aged forty-six. Hans Frank was the first to be arrested in the summer of 1945 and was one of the twenty-two defendants being held in the prison. The second, Rudolf Höss, was the former Commandant of Auschwitz who was finally arrested by British forces in March 1946 and brought originally to Nuremberg as a witness in the trial. Contact with these two men was arguably amongst the most difficult and disturbing moments for Howard. Sitting next to them in their cells, not once did Howard let down his guard. He was to hear terrifying details of the inner daily workings of the Nazi killing machine.

  Within the confines of a tiny cell Howard faced the men who were ultimately responsible for his parents’ deaths. Höss was already the commandant of Auschwitz when Howard’s parents arrived there on the train from Camp Drancy in 1942. He was probably there to ‘greeted’ the train. How chilling this knowledge was for Howard as he listened to Höss’s detailed explanations of the killings and yet displayed no remorse.

  HANS FRANK

  Hans Frank was different from the other defendants in that he was the only one who showed some remorse during his time in prison. During the trial, he became very religious and, on 25 October 1945, underwent a Roman Catholic baptism in his cell. Howard observed that, in a strange way, Frank was removed from reality, aloof and withdrawn from everything around him. As a result of this change in his character, he reacted badly to the films of atrocities being shown in the courtroom. One day, Frank came close to being the only defendant to ask Howard about his background: ‘He asked me and Kelley one day if we were Catholic. We both said, no – which was true. So he never discovered my Jewish background.’

  How ironic too that Frank signed a copy of Rechtsgrundlegung des Nationalsozialistischen Fuehrer Staates to Howard and simply wrote inside the book: ‘In memoriam, Frank.’

  As Gauleiter of Poland, Frank was responsible for the deportation and deaths of millions of Jews. He had been captured on 3 May 1945 and immediately made a suicide attempt by slashing his throat, wrist and arm. The cut on his throat was quite superficial however damage to the left wrist and hand caused some paralysis. He made no further suicide attempts while in the jail. Although he showed penitence in his cell he denied any knowledge of the atrocities in Poland where Jewish ghettos were destroyed and the Auschwitz death camp was located.

  Dr Kelley commented that Frank developed an almost godlike martyrdom especially when he resigned himself to the fact that he would be found guilty by the court. He told Kelley through Howard: ‘Someone must be held responsible. The leaders must pay for the crimes of Hitler and Himmler who escaped.’ Frank followed this immediately with a denial of his own personal guilt. Howard knew at this time that Frank had had some hand in his parents’ fate because Auschwitz was on his patch. Howard reflects:

  ‘As I sat and chatted with him, this man who had murdered more Jews in Poland than anyone else, seemed anything but a mass murderer. When I studied this calm, sometimes philosophical man it was not possible to tell by looking at him how evil he was. That was true of all the defendants. When these men were taken out of their ordinary surroundings as leaders in Nazi Germany, you could not tell that they were mass murderers.’

  During the interviews, Howard had to exercise complete restraint and not display any emotion or desire for revenge. Sometimes it was difficult, but as he rationally and calmly explains: ‘there was so much feeling of superiority within me at that time. And gratitude. I was the victor and could give the orders. I couldn’t take a knife to Frank, Goering or any of the others and murder them. That would have made me a murderer like them. I had to let justice take its course.’

  For Hans Frank, being held in solitary confinement with no one except the occasional remark from a guard, or the visits from Kelley and Howard, or psychologist Dr Gilbert, he had time to reflect philosophically and religiously on life. He was also preoccupied with Hitler’s defeat. As Howard translated his remarks and soliloquies, Kelley frantically took notes. Frank declared to them, almost religiously: ‘I tell you the scornful laughter of God is more terrible than any vengeful laws of man. Here are the would-be rulers of Germany, each in a cell like this with four walls and a toilet, awaiting trials as ordinary criminals. Is that not a proof o
f God’s amusement at a mass, sacrilegious quest for power?’ That was certainly true of Frank himself who said with no shame, ‘We must not be squeamish when we hear the figure of 17,000 shot.’

  During 1946, Howard and Goldensohn found Frank’s moods could swing from great highs one moment to tearful deep depression the next. In his diary, Goldensohn recorded three entries about Frank’s pleasure at seeing him and his ‘translator’. When they entered his cell at six thirty on the evening of 12 February 1946, Frank had just finished his evening meal after another tedious day in court with the other defendants: ‘He was apparently happy to see me and Mr Triest the translator, whom he addressed as “Mr Translator.” Frank cleared his cot and chair of clothing, which was strewn about haphazardly, and invited us to be seated. He spoke some English, but I preferred speaking to him in German through the interpreter.’

  On 5 March, they visited Frank again and found him engrossed in reading. He looked up as Howard and Goldensohn shuffled into the confines of the cell and sat down. Through Howard, Goldensohn proceeded to ask Frank about his family background and history. It became the subject of several interviews. On this occasion, Frank readily talked about his parents and the past. Goldensohn asked what had motivated him to become an anti-Semite. Frank replied, ‘It was because of Germany… I never had a single Jew put in a concentration camp or burned – that I can prove. The extermination of the Jews was a personal idea of Hitler’s.’ Frank then explained how Nazi Germany had no freedom of press or media and in that sense the only good thing to come out of the trial is that it proved the German people’s innocent.

  When Howard and Goldensohn visited Frank two weeks later on 16 March, they found him upbeat and preoccupied with explaining the development of National Socialism. Frank spoke to them about the ‘hypnotic personality’ of Hitler which drew in everyone around him. Goldensohn wrote of that interview: ‘Frank was in one of his cheerful, smiling, effusive moods. He greeted Mr. Triest, the interpreter, and myself warmly and said that he was delighted to have us visit him again.’ An entry appeared in the diary for 20 July 1946, in which Goldensohn wrote:

  ‘Frank was in his blue denim coveralls, reading a magazine, when Mr Triest and I entered his cell this morning. It was Saturday and there was no court session. The sun streamed in through the open cell window. Most of the other defendants were exercising in the yard. He was grandiosely courteous and eager for company. As usual he greeted us eloquently, and ceremoniously made place for me on his chair and for Mr Triest on the cot beside him. He filled his pipe with tobacco, an American brand, and praised it highly.’

  When Howard and Goldensohn entered Frank’s cell on 20 July, Frank was sat on his bed reading a magazine. It was Saturday so the court had recessed for the weekend. Most of the other defendants were out in the exercise yard, taking in some sunshine. Frank expressed his usual pleasure at seeing Howard and Goldensohn, and gestured for Goldensohn to sit at the desk and Howard beside him on the bed. Goldensohn asked Frank what he thought of the judges and the trial, to which Frank replied that they had political motives and were not true lawyers.

  That day, Frank was busy preparing his final speech for the court. In a surprising declaration, Frank told Howard and Goldensohn that, even though Hitler was dead, he [Frank] was taking the blame for what had gone wrong. Frank strongly believed that, even in absentia, Hitler should have had a defense lawyer to defend him. He argued with a sense of urgency that the other 21 defendants had lawyers, so why not Hitler too? This, he believed, would prevent the growth of a “Hitler legend”.

  Hans Frank’s ultimate denial of any knowledge of the horrendous crimes under his jurisdiction made Howard feel that Frank was covering his own trail. It seemed nonsensical that Frank could have been completely innocent of the millions of murders on Polish soil. ‘Hans Frank was the only one,’ says Howard, ‘who, while denying some of the crimes- - yes - showed genuine remorse but it could not change his fate.’

  RUDOLF HÖSS

  As if contact with Hans Frank wasn’t challenging enough, the new witness who was brought into the jail in March 1946 was more testing of Howard’s personal resolve. Rudolf Höss was not at this point being tried for war crimes, but being held as a key witness at Nuremberg. Justice in respect of his own war crimes would come the following year.

  Living in hiding at the end of the war, under the assumed identity of Fritz Lang, he had evaded capture by Allied teams of Nazi-hunters for eleven months. He was finally caught on a farm near Heide in Schleswig-Holstein, northern Germany by a group of German-speaking Jewish refugees serving in the British army. He was eventually brought to Nuremberg Prison and held in isolation in the C wing. Howard’s job was to interview him, sometimes on his own, sometimes with Goldensohn. That fateful day in March 1946 when Goldensohn informed Howard that Höss was their new charge, Howard knew the implications. It was known that Höss had committed crimes on a scale which equalled defendants like Hans Frank.

  As commandant of Auschwitz, Höss was responsible for the murder of at least three million people, mainly Jews, and had also sanctioned the most horrendous crimes within the camp. Mentally, Howard prepared himself as he approached C wing with Goldensohn, with a slight tremble in his step. The first face-to-face meeting would be the most testing emotionally. How could Howard prepare himself to face the man who had probably sealed the fate of his own parents?

  He followed Goldensohn into the cell, sat down and stared at the man who appeared to have no distinctive characteristics. Höss immediately launched into a series of complaints about the chilblains on his feet, stemming from the time he had been in British custody. Howard explains with justifiably no sympathy: ‘In the jail, he had no shoes because we had taken away his shoelaces so he couldn’t hang himself. Höss demanded his shoes back because his feet were permanently cold. It was all rather pathetic but it was not possible to feel any compassion for him.’

  ADMISSION OF GUILT

  As Howard interviewed Höss, deep down he knew the bitter truth about his parents’ fate and yet clung to the futile hope they somehow they might still be alive. He found Höss to be a man who showed not the slightest remorse for his crimes. In fact, Höss remained boastful of what he had done. On one occasion, Howard entered the cell alone, to obtain information for Colonel Andrus and found Höss in a mood quite ready to talk.

  Howard says: ‘That day he talked to me quite freely about his crimes. He corrected himself and said to me: “Ah no. I didn’t kill two and a half million. I did better than my quota. I killed three million.”

  There was nothing Howard could say except sit in silence. Howard believes today, as he did then, that it was best not to give the man the satisfaction of seeing his pain and disgust. Again, Howard says the same of Höss as the other defendants: ‘I was surprised by the fact that it was not possible to tell how evil Höss was just by looking at him. It was only by talking to him, and hearing in intricate detail how the extermination program was carried out, that I saw the extent of pure evil.’

  Sitting on the bed beside Höss, with Goldensohn scribbling notes at the desk, how did Howard exercise restraint? Where was his anger? His desire to grab Höss and confront him? Over the years, Howard has been asked these questions many times. Today, he is relaxed in his answer:

  ‘I maintained the same self-control towards Höss as I did towards Goering or Hans Frank and the others even though I had an extra reason to hate the man. Sitting so close to him and talking to him was surreal. Maybe that was why I coped with the situation. When I was conversing with him, or any of the other defendants, they seemed like ordinary men but of course they were anything but ordinary.’

  Howard harboured an almost numbing disbelief at the scale of the crimes for which Höss was personally responsible. In a moment of silence, while he waited for Höss to answer one of Goldensohn’s questions, he tried to come to terms with reality and said to himself, this man killed three million people! It did not quite register: ‘Höss looked like any decent human being
, much like anyone’s kind grandfather. That was the shocking and surprising thing about him.’

  With the first painful interview over, Goldensohn indicated to the guard through the tiny open window that they were ready to leave the cell. As the guard unlocked the door, Höss was still complaining about his cold feet. Howard followed Goldensohn out. The guard slammed the door behind them.

  Howard turned to Goldensohn and chipped: ‘His feet will be a lot colder when they hang him.’

  Howard entered Höss’s cell on several more occasions with Goldensohn, tasked with translating the most detailed responses about the precise workings of the Nazi death machine. Each time, Howard exercised the same constraint as before, being mature enough to realize that if he made one wrong move his job would be over and face disciplinary charges from Colonel Andrus. That would have meant being sent to the United States. Trying to rationalize may not be the full answer because nothing could change the fact that Howard was coping with multiple trauma at this time: the loss of his home and country of birth, the death of comrades on the battlefields of Europe, and the murder of his parents. In those days, there was no trauma counselling. Howard had to get on with life and hold it all together.

  AUSCHWITZ: THE TRUTH

  Amongst the most difficult interviews ever carried out with Höss were in April 1946. On 9th April, as the guard unlocked the door, Höss rose to his feet and stood to attention. Goldensohn asked Höss to be seated and he duly obeyed. Höss was still complaining about his cold feet.

  Goldensohn steered the conversation to the workings of Auschwitz. It was then that Howard learned the graphic details of what went on in the camp: how Poles were shot if they had been part of the resistance movement, and of hair being removed from the dead bodies of women and sent to factories to be made into fittings for gaskets. With Howard translating, Goldensohn pressed Höss on the question of who had been murdered at Auschwitz.