In the course of the German invasion of the Soviet Union, more than five million Soviet soldiers fell into captivity, more than half of whom would not survive the war.1 In addition to the tens of thousands shot immediately after capture as so-called “unacceptable elements”,2 and those who remained in camps near the front or in the occupied territories, at least 1.4 million Soviet prisoners of war (POW) were transported into the German Reich between 1941 and 1945.3 The fate of these prisoners has been researched extensively in recent decades, albeit primarily with the help of Wehrmacht documents such as prisoner files, commands and official reports. Although these perpetrator sources are valuable historical material, they allow few conclusions about the behaviour and experiences of the prisoners themselves. Ego documents should therefore be used as an important supplement.
In my article, I would like to discuss a small number of such ego documents: These are letters in which former Soviet POWs recount their memories of war, capture, imprisonment, liberation and the post-war period. The documents come from the archive of the association Kontakte-KontaktbI – Verein für Kontakte zu Ländern der ehemaligen Sowjetunion. The association has been collecting donations since 2003, which it sends to former Soviet POWs. Many of them subsequently fulfilled the association’s appeal to testify and wrote down their memories in letters. While some of these letters were published in a book in 2007,4 and others are available on the association’s website, the following will highlight an unpublished letter written by former prisoner Nikolaj S. in 2005. The focus here lies on asking what (new) statements we can make based on such documents about the scope for action and behaviour of the prisoners themselves as well as the actors surrounding them.
Sub-lieutenant Nikolaj S. was captured in July 1941, shortly after the German invasion of the Soviet Union. At the time of his capture, he was 19 years old. After stops in several transit camps (Dulags), he was finally registered in the main camp (Stalag) IV B Mühlberg in what is now Brandenburg.5 In his letter S. describes numerous instances in which he encountered the German population during the time of his imprisonment. Already in the Mühlberg camp, he describes how local farmers selected prisoners as labourers: “A woman carefully checked whether I had horns. I said that I was not an animal, but a human being.“6 Elsewhere, Nikolaj S. details the purchase of ashes by farmers who apparently used these crematorium remains as fertilizer.7 In addition to these examples of (German) civilian involvement in the countless crimes surrounding captivity and forced labour, there are also passages in the letter that indicate that the categorization of Germans either as perpetrators or bystanders would be an oversimplification. In a work detachment in Dresden, where Nikolaj S. was deployed at an airfield, the prisoners apparently used to barter with local workers: “At the work site, I was able to procure paint and wood. In the camp, we made children’s toys. On Sundays, the Germans bought them or exchanged them for bread.“8 Although it is not possible to make any definitive statements about the underlying motives of those involved, it is clear that the workers sometimes disregarded the strict prohibitions on dealing with POWs and thereby increased the prisoners’ chances of survival through such barter transactions.10 The support provided in the form of gifts is an even clearer case. Nikolaj S., speaking about his time in Dresden, reports of several instances in which he was helped by Germans: “My master was good. His wife was always giving me butter and sausage.” And elsewhere: “A German woman, Irina, worked in [a] bar. She secretly threw some potato or fat into my kettle.” The additional remark that this action was carried out covertly indicates the risk involved in such practices.9
Numerous examples also illustrate the prisoners’ own scope for action. Nikolaj S. and his fellow prisoners tried to improve their predicament through several practices. One possibility was the aforementioned bartering. By secretly producing objects, such as the wooden toys mentioned above, the supply situation could be somewhat improved, at least in the short term. Such examples are remarkable because they show that the prisoners disregarded the German guard’s claim of total control. All this despite the fact that even such behaviour could quickly be interpreted as sabotage and was subject to draconian forms of punishment.10 Nikolaj S. himself was apparently involved in even more explicit forms of resistance. He recounts acts of sabotage at the company C.L.P. Fleck Söhne11: “We manufactured spare parts for submarines. We deliberately broke the parts. After the inspection, some prisoners were taken away.“12 Shortly before the end of the war, he used the temporary blockage of a bridge due to fighting and the resulting delay of his transport to escape: ”An officer did not allow our guard to move any further. There was a river below. I decided to escape. I had a knife with me. I punctured a tire and disabled our cart. I jumped down and ran fast. The guard shot me a few times but didn’t hit me.“13
Such escapes by Soviet POWs were not uncommon but can only be reconstructed in detail by taking into account such testimonies.14 The examples illustrated here make the value of sources such Nikolaj S.‘s letter clear. In addition to the practice of extermination, which has already been extensively researched, but above all reconstructed from the perspective of the perpetrators, it is possible to gain insight into the individual and collective experiences of the victims as well as the options available to them. In this way, not only the suffering but also the agency of the individual in history becomes visible.
Translation: Nils Bergmann
References
- The exact number of captured and deceased Soviet POWs cannot be precisely determined to this day due to fragmentary sources. The most popular figure is Christian Streit’s 1978 estimate of 5.7 million prisoners and 3.3 million deceased. Cf. Christian Streit, Keine Kameraden. Die Wehrmacht und die sowjetischen Kriegsgefangenen 1941–1945, Stuttgart 1978. On the state of research, see Reinhardt Otto/ Rolf Keller/ Jens Nagel, Sowjetische Kriegsgefangene in deutschem Gewahrsam 1941–1945, in: Vierteljahresheft für Zeitgeschichte, 56 (2008), Issue 4.
- On this, see Reinhardt Otto, Wehrmacht, Gestapo und sowjetische Kriegsgefangene im sowjetisch-deutschen Reichsgebiet 1941⁄42, Munich 2010 and Felix Römer, Der Kommissarbefehl. Wehrmacht and Nazi Crimes on the Eastern Front 1941⁄42, Paderborn 2008.
- Otto/ Keller/ Nagel, Sowjetische Kriegsgefangene, p. 589.
- KONTAKTE-KOHTAKTbI e.V. (ed.): “Ich werde es nie vergessen”. Briefe sowjetischer Kriegsgefangener 2004–2006, Berlin 2007.
- Letter from Nikolaj S., 01.09.2005, Archive KONTAKTE-KOHTAKTbI e.V. Berlin.
- Ibid.
- Cf. ibid.
- Cf. ibid.
- Such assistance fell under the offense of “forbidden contact”. In order to maintain the racial segregation of German society, this had been punishable by decree in the Reichsgesetzblatt since 1939. Paragraph 4 regulated the “Prohibited contact with prisoners of war”. It stated that anyone who “interacts with a prisoner of war in a way that grossly offends the common sense of the people will be punished with imprisonment, in serious cases with imprisonment.” In May 1940, an “Ordinance on contact with prisoners of war” specified that contact was only permitted to the extent absolutely necessary in the context of a “service or professional duty” or an “employment relationship” and thus made any further contact punishable. The population therefore risked at least a prison sentence. The extent to which such offenses were actually prosecuted also depended on the companies. See: Reichsgesetzblatt Teil I Nr. 238 vom 30. November 1939 Seite 2319: Verordnung zur Ergänzung der Strafvorschriften zum Schutz der Wehrkraft des Deutschen Volkes vom 25. November 1939, BArch-MA, RW 41,12, p. 769 and Verordnung über den Umgang mit Kriegsgefangenen vom 11. Mai 1940, BArch-MA, RW 48⁄12, p. 4.
- The AEG factories in Berlin, for example, handed over Soviet POWs to the Gestapo when such acts were discovered. Cf. letter from the personnel department 23.5.44, concerning thefts of factory property, LAB, A Rep. 227–05 AEG, No. 137.
- Nikolaj S. refers to the company in his letter as “Flecksohn Company”. This is most probably the company C.L.P. Fleck Söhne from Berlin Reinickendorf.
- Letter from Nikolaj S.
- Ibid.
- It is estimated that tens of thousands fled. Cf. Daria Koslova, Sowjetischer Kriegsgefangene in den Konzentrationslagern, in: Margot Blank/ Babette Quinkert (eds.), Dimensionen eines Verbrechens. Sowjetische Kriegsgefangene im Zweiten Weltkrieg, p. 221. Rolf Keller and Reinhard Otto cite a list from the High Command of the Wehrmacht, according to which 66,694 Soviet soldiers were considered to have successfully escaped as of May 1944. See Reinhardt Otto/Rolf Keller: Sowjetische Kriegsgefangene im System der Konzentrationslager, Göttingen 2019, p. 176.