At the behest of Polish officials, Rudolf
Hoess composed his autobiography in the weeks between his trial for the role he
played in the atrocities of the Holocaust and his eventual execution. Commandant of Auschwitz is Hoess’
account of his life growing up in rural Germany, his service in the Germany
military, and his various positions of authority in the Nazi government’s
administration of concentration camps. Although lacking in prose and form,
Hoess’ autobiography leaves readers with an intimate look at the mind of one of
the Holocaust’s most notorious criminals.
Rudolf Hoess had a seemingly idyllic childhood
in Germany. Hoess’ father, Franz Xavier Hoess, raised Hoess on rigid military
principles and in a deeply religious Catholic environment.[1] Hoess asserts that his
father taught that the highest duty was to help those in need. Given the
religious atmosphere and strong awareness of duty, Hoess was groomed to become
a member of the clergy upon his maturation. However, two events occurred that
would alter this plan: the death of Hoess’ father and the betrayal of a confessor.[2]
With the outbreak of World War I, Hoess’ life
in the German military began. He first joined the Red Cross, and, later served
in the same regiment that his father and grandfather had served.[3] While a member of a German
volunteer corps, Hoess was complicit in a murder. He was convicted and
sentenced to ten years of hard labor in a Prussian prison.[4] After serving six years in
prison, Hoess eventually answered Himmler’s call to join the active ranks of
the SS. Hoess was trained to become a member of the unit associated with guarding
concentration camps. [5]
Thus, Hoess’ fate as one of the Holocaust’s most infamous murderers was sealed.
Commandant of
Auschwitz
elucidates several scenes from Hoess’ life that help readers better understand
the inner-workings of the Commandant’s mind. The first involved a confessor’s
betrayal and a shattering of Hoess’ religious views. According to Hoess,
childhood horseplay in a stairway resulted in a classmate’s broken ankle. Hoess
made a full confession of the event to a priest and resolved to explain the
incident to his father later. However, the confessor related the event to Hoess’
father that very night. Hoess claims that this event alone destroyed his faith
in the sacred priesthood.[6] This event is the first
that demonstrates how Hoess places the blame on others for his own actions.
The next significant event of Hoess’ life is
the murder in which he played a part, the following trial, and his subsequent
prisoner experience. This event, too, shows how Hoess again refuses to accept
full responsibility for his decisions and actions. Hoess glosses over an
in-depth description of the brutal murder of a man who was a supposed Communist
spy. Hoess admits to being present, but denies being the ringleader nor the
person chiefly concerned. Admittedly, Hoess was dumbfounded at his conviction
and sentence to ten years of hard labor.[7] Hoess writes that as he
left the courtroom for the prison that he and his comrades were “in a
boisterous mood, shouting and singing our old songs of battle and defiance.”[8] What Hoess seems unable to
understand is that he was punished for this murder, when many murders of the
same sort were perpetrated but the murderers were not pursued or prosecuted.
Other murderers were able to get away with their crimes, but he is punished. Here, Hoess implies that
the rules should be different for him. He truly believes that he did not deserve
punishment.
Hoess’ propensity to blame others manifests
itself while he was serving as Commandant of Auschwitz. The fate of millions of
Jews, Polish prisoners of war, gypsies, and other prisoners of Auschwitz is
well-known and documented. Hoess shirks the blame for the horrid and inhumane
conditions of concentration camp life and the immediate extermination of countless
Jews by blaming his superiors and those working underneath him. He claims that
he was given too many duties to be able to adequately administer at Auschwitz. “I
could not keep step with the rapid expansion of the camp or the constant
increase in the numbers of prisoners.”[9] He states that he was
constantly being pulled away from Auschwitz on endeavors that did not involve the
administration of camp life at Auschwitz.[10] Hoess says that the guards
did not obey his wishes, that they were intellectually limited, obstinate, and
malicious. He admonishes other officials as being inefficient.[11] In all, Hoess attempts to
show that his hands were basically tied and that he did the very best he could
given his limited circumstances at Auschwitz.
Perhaps the
most ironic aspect of Commandant of
Auschwitz and Hoess’ life is his personal experience of prison life. Hoess
devotes quite a bit of space to the description of his time served in the
Prussian prison. He describes prison guards who did not care for the physical
and emotional well-being of prisoners. He admits to countless occasions where
prisoners complained of the lack of administrative support over prisoners’
worries and anxieties.[12] Hoess’ description of
being bullied by three guards seems petty and frivolous, especially in light of
the atrocities committed at Auschwitz. Hoess seems to have a complete
disconnect between his experiences of prison life and of that of the prisoners
at Auschwitz under his command. He is able to distance himself perfectly from
the plight and sufferings of millions, but shows disdain that prison guards in
Prussia did not show him more humanity.
Hoess is an
avid proponent of work in concentration camp life. He argues that work can
serve to make the existence of prison life more bearable. He portrays his own
experience with work in prison as a cathartic exercise that spared him hours of
useless and enervating self-pity. It is here that readers get close to
observing Hoess appreciating an understanding of the inhumane working
conditions at Auschwitz. He maintains that work is essential for imprisonment,
encourages discipline in prisoners, and makes them better able to withstand the
demoralizing effect of confinement. He admits that this work philosophy “only
applies where the conditions are normal.” [13] Hoess justifies his
administration at Auschwitz by arguing that he made decisions with the prisoner
in mind.
Hoess is able
to reconcile his actions by maintaining that he merely followed orders, and generally,
those were the orders of Theodor Eicke, a high-ranking SS official. Hoess states
that at times he felt that camp life was too severe, but that Eicke demanded
even greater harshness.[14] Hoess also blames Eicke
for giving form to concentration camps and serving as a model for the
construction and administration of the extermination camps. Hoess criticizes
Eicke for being narrow-minded and unable to see sufficiently far ahead to
better construct and administrate the concentration camps.[15]
Commandant of Auschwitz is beautifully juxtaposed
with the introduction by Primo Levi. Levi humbly states that had Hoess grown up
in a different age the his life and the lives of millions of Holocaust victims
would have been different. Levi quickly asserts that Hoess’ autobiography is
filled with white and black lies, and language that attempts to paint Hoess as
the greatest victim. It is easy to imagine the heartbreak Levi experienced as
he read Commandant of Auschwitz. Despite
the horror, Levi finds Hoess’ account a necessary part of History, calling the
work “complete and explicit.”[16] Hoess mirthlessly
describes the manner in which so many victims were gassed, and provides at
least a baseline for totaling the amount of victims. Levi’s notes and comments
throughout Commandant of Auschwitz point
out Hoess’ clear biases, distortions, and omissions. While Levi finds Hoess’
account necessary, I find Levi’s short introduction and notes indispensably invaluable.
Part of what
makes Commandant of Auschwitz so
horrifying is the believability of the author’s testimony. While not under
strict duress during the writing, Hoess expressed appreciation for the task. He
admits to enjoying the work that writing provided. While any event of his life
or the descriptions of his fellow perpetrators have to be taken at face value,
the perpetration Hoess describes is accurate. I believe he honestly recounts
the machinations of concentration camp life from the viewpoint of the Commandant.
Bibliography
Hoess, Rudolf. The
Commandant of Auschwitz. Intro. Primo Levi. London: Phoenix Press, 1995.
[1] Rudolf
Hoess, The Commandant of Auschwitz Intro.
By Primo Levi (London: Phoenix Press, 1995), 31.
[2]
Ibid., 32.
[3] Ibid.,
36.
[4] Ibid.,
46.
[5] Ibid.,
64.
[6] Ibid.,
34.
[7] Ibid.,
45.
[8] Ibid.,
46.
[9] Ibid.,
205.
[10] Ibid.,
111.
[11] Ibid.,
108.
[12] Ibid.,
52.
[13]
Ibid., 77.
[14] Ibid.,
86.
[15] Ibid.,
240.
[16] Ibid.,
25.
No comments:
Post a Comment